Who does the public debate need?
2021-09-27
The note a few long weeks ago by Laura Zommer about the official spot that asks us to "talk" about the "infodemic" (sic) is very pertinent, due to the warning it makes regarding the communicational ecosystem that a democratic society needs to function and for the context in which it was published — in the context of highly problematic pandemic management. The note is short and I recommend reading it. In summary, Laura argues that public media is not enough to deal with the phenomenon of disinformation— “the democratic system also needs good private media. Not only because citizens must have all possible sources and information resources, but also because plurality of voices is essential in this fight against disinformation. Official sources must be weighed against alternative sources, in certain cases even more specialized ”. I very much agree with Laura's note, and with highlighting that the public media in our country have long been unreliable due to their lack of pluralism. (The catchphrase is that they are government media, not public, a difference that is based on distinguishing between gobierno y state based on the hypothetical existence of something like a civil service, a somewhat imaginary extrapolation but with a long journey).
I did not have much to say about Laura's invitation that she launched on Twitter until relatively recently, but during all this time I had a certain discomfort that I think I can now put into words: in addition to good private media, and without giving up public media, no partisan nor subject to the traditional logic of "capture" of Latin American media systemsI would say: this is not enough either. In the horizontal communicational scenario that the Internet brought, we also need individuals committed to the role of critical citizens, with the time and the desire to look (critically) at the public thing and with the ability to do so in an intelligent and informed way. They can be an antidote — I don't know if necessary or sufficient — against evils that professional journalism has dragged on for many years, in many places but especially in our country, such as excessive dependence on public funds to exist or on official sources to report. The first problem is structural, it concerns the political economy of the media and journalism, and it is a political tool that no politician wants to give up. The second problem is more long-standing: journalists prefer official sources, build and feed them, and that generates editorial and professional decisions that serve more to the relationship itself than to the public. (On this, see the classic Herbert J. Gans study). Individuals on Twitter and other social networks are an essential antidote to these "imperfections" in the system.
I think the last year and a half has shown good evidence that what I say is true. On the one hand, the best visualizations of the necessarily complex information were presented by Mauro Infantino on Twitter, creator of the site covidstats. Not only was it ahead of other media that use similar tools, but it also made a transparent, public effort that evolved and grew in part as a result of the somewhat chaotic conversation that occurs on social networks. We saw some of the best analyzes there too, from — for example — young academics like Federico Tiberti. And these looks sometimes snatched functions traditionally reserved for professional journalism: for example, some of the most notorious scandals of the last months were first identified by curious people looking at what was there to be seen, if professional journalism was not so affected by its economic policy and its personal relationships with power (and other endemic problems, such as scarce and poor training, very low salaries, etc.).
In this horizontal ecosystem, everyone will find their most reliable sources: we can follow all kinds of people on social media, including — for example — the president's main advisers in decision-making processes about the pandemic, which offered something from transparency to an otherwise obscure process. And it is surely the duty of ordinary citizens to periodically review that trust. But these people seem to be essential to navigate an increasingly complex world, in part because professional journalism — with notable exceptions — has very serious problems in fulfilling the functions expected of it in a democratic society.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137409058_3
