Who is watching us and for what purposes? Who is infringing private spaces and closing down public spaces? When it comes to communication infrastructures and technologies, accessibility and affordability are no longer enough, simply because neither governments nor corporate entities can be trusted to play fair.

In “Will we just accept our loss of privacy, or has the techlash already begun?” (The Guardian, 2 February 2020), Alan Rusbridger identifies the naivety with which people accept technological intrusion in the guise of progress:

“Probably too late to ask, but was the past year the moment we lost our technological innocence? The Alexa in the corner of the kitchen monitoring your every word? The location-betraying device in your pocket? The dozen trackers on that web page you just opened? The thought that a 5G network could, in some hazily understood way, be hardwired back to Beijing? The spooky use of live facial recognition on CCTV cameras across London.”

It’s probably true that few saw this coming. The law of unintended consequences has meant that people’s craving for and willing acceptance of technological benefits (ease of use, instantaneity, connectivity) far outweigh any caution. Many even argue that if you’ve got nothing to hide…

The deregulation of communication infrastructures and the lack of oversight of “big tech” has also upset the apple cart of public service journalism. News sources that were once sacrosanct are now suspect and social media reports gain unwarranted credence.

So the announcement in December 2019 by Civitates, a philanthropic initiative for democracy and solidarity in Europe, of a new fund to support independent, public interest journalism is a step in the right direction if civil society is going to regain the high ground.

The goal is to establish a strong cohort of independent, public interest journalism organisations that defend democracy in Europe by exposing abuses of power and drivers of polarisation, and by providing spaces in which all voices can be heard.

According to Civitates, “The fund will provide multiyear commitments for general operating support and the institutional strengthening of its grantee partners to build more durable, more resilient, more networked, and more impactful public interest journalism organisations in Europe.”

Let’s hope that this is the start of a more widespread rebellion against undemocratic forces intent on suppressing genuinely alternative voices and dissent.

Photo above: STEKLO/Shutterstock

At this time of global anxiety, it is important for journalists everywhere to remember the lessons of the poor and often biased coverage of the Iraq War 16 years ago, and to reflect on the ways in which media coverage can either fan the flames of conflict or help highlight cool-headed and balanced responses. In this sense, the theory and practice of peace journalism, a radical alternative to what was traditionally perceived as conflict reporting, can offer valuable insights.

Peace journalism argues that the existing media environment, which stresses sensationalism and immediacy, can in some cases help to exacerbate conflict rather than contribute to its resolution. It also advances that journalists, who play a crucial role in shaping public understanding by providing information about conflict, bear a heavy responsibility for what they write and broadcast. Peace journalism is characterized by balanced reporting at an emotional distance, presenting a broad and multifaceted view of a conflict, and rejecting entertainment and partisan interests. In this light, peace journalism calls for coverage that:

• Illuminates structural and cultural violence as it bears upon the lives of people in a conflict arena as part of the explanation for violence;
• Frames conflicts as consisting of many parties, pursuing many goals;
• Makes peace initiatives and potential solutions more visible, whoever suggests them; and
• Equip people to distinguish between stated positions and real goals, especially when judging whether particular forms of intervention are necessary or desirable.

While it is still  too early to draw conclusions about whether media coverage and commentary related to the ongoing Iran-US tensions have been conflict-sensitive or not, some media outlets have published content that moves in the right direction.

A notable example is an article entitled “Yes, Iranians can protest against both US intervention and their government” written by Reza H. Akbari and published by The Guardian on January 14. In it, the author argues against the “binary view of Iran” that sees the Iranian people as either “easily coerced into participating in pro-regime rallies or as brave souls willing to risk their lives for justice.” t This view has dominated US rhetoric around Iranians’ responses to the events of the past two weeks, which have included public mourning and demonstrations against their government. He reminds readers that Iran is not a monolith, and that in a country of 80 million people, people from different backgrounds are bound to hold a range of  political opinions. He strongly warns against superficial readings of Iranian society that can be used to justify an escalation of the conflict.

From a peace journalism perspective, this type of reporting and commentary, which seeks to bring nuance and balanced into a seemingly “black and white” situation, is precisely the kind of coverage that can help transform the context in which parties to a conflict present and formulate their responses. For the sake of peace, let us hope that this approach is adopted by journalists and editors everywhere.

Photo above: Presslab/Shutterstock

In “No debate, no democracy: journalists in Nepal fight new threat to press freedom” (The Guardian, 13 January 2020), Rojita Adhikari writes from the Nepalese capital Kathmandu:

“Jail terms of up to five years could be imposed on people in Nepal who post ‘offensive’ comment on social media sites, including Facebook and Instagram in the latest move by the government to crack down on dissent. The information technology bill, introduced at the end of December [2019], imposes fines of up to 1.5m rupees (about $13,000) for anyone posting content deemed to promote hate crime or ridicule. It would apply to all social networking sites.”

The article reports Freedom Forum Nepal’s executive chief Taranath Dahal as saying, “The situation is sinister. If the proposed bill becomes law, the media and journalist[s] will be the most targeted.”

Freedom Forum Nepal is a collective initiative of policy researchers, advocates and academicians committed to democracy, human rights, press freedom and the equitable development of society and the nation.

In 2018, Dahal was given the “Shashtika Basnet Right to Information National Award” for his work to promote, practice and protect the right to information in Nepal. As reported in The Guardian, Dahal said:

“We are living in the digital era and we will not be allowed to give our opinions, or speak and express our feelings, due to fear of a heavy fine and jail punishment, which will promote self-censorship. That means there will be no public debate. If we don’t debate, there is no democracy.”

Small wonder that marginalised groups in Nepal are turning to alternative means of communication to tackle issues that impact their lives. For example, Indigenous peoples are adversely affected by hydropower generation projects taking place across the country, so community radio station Kalinchowk FM 106.4 Mhz has created a space for them to be heard and to communicate their environmental concerns in their own language.

The community radio sector in Nepal demonstrates the right to communicate in practice. Kalinchowk FM broadcasts live as well as through online channels, meaning that it too may fall foul of the new legislation. Another blow to the country’s communication rights.

Photo above: Kristin F. Ruhs/Shutterstock

The “European Parliament resolution on foreign electoral interference and disinformation in national and European democratic processes” stressed that “freedom of speech and expression, the protection of privacy and personal data and media pluralism, are at the core of resilient democratic societies, and provide the best safeguards against disinformation campaigns and hostile propaganda.”

As reported in “Brexit party MEPs vote against plans to tackle Russian propaganda” (The Guardian, 10 October 2019):

“While the resolution is non-binding, it heightens pressure on the incoming leaders of the European commission and European council to keep a focus on countries seeking to meddle in elections and the operations of social media companies.”

The resolution underlined the role of public service media in keeping people and communities informed about current affairs. In particular, it included mention of fake news and misinformation, the value of investigative journalism, and the need to protect journalists.

Four paragraphs stand out:

17. [The European Parliament] Stresses the need to continue supporting and fostering responsible journalism and editorial responsibility in both the traditional and the new media in facing the challenge of non-verified or one-sided tendentious information undermining citizens’ trust in independent media;

18. [The European Parliament] Emphasises that it is essential to support public service media which do not rely financially on private financing sources and can therefore provide high-quality and impartial information to the general public, while at the same time ensuring and maintaining their independence from political interference;

31. [The European Parliament] Recalls that the EU is making EUR 4 175 million available for actions aimed at supporting media freedom and investigative journalism, including a response mechanism for violations of press and media freedom and the tangible protection of journalists;

32. [The European Parliament] Considers that only by thinking holistically about foreign, authoritarian interference, and tackling the vulnerabilities in all aspects of democratic governance and institutions, including European political parties, can the EU safeguard its democratic processes.

Not for the first time the EU has underlined communication rights as the lynchpin of democratic processes but also of good governance and good citizenship. Yet, with far-right politics gaining ground in many European countries, and with cold war-era destabilisation gaining traction, far more may need to be done to polish the tarnished image of post-1989 western democracy.

Photo above: Greenburd/Shutterstock

He pointed out that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn “has not been interviewed on this programme for nearly three years. Boris Johnson hasn’t done a single interview with us since he became prime minister.”

He added: “Increasingly, politicians are talking directly to the people via social media so they can choose the questions they answer without being challenged.” (The Guardian)

This is, of course, the forte of US President Donald Trump, who casts his flurry of tweets as a kind of victory for free speech and direct accountability that bypasses the “fake news media”.

Trump has blazed the trail for British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to launch a “people’s prime minister’s questions” in which he answers selected questions on Facebook. His team seem confident that with media not getting direct access to top politicians, they’ll have to use the official quotes and images.

It doesn’t always work that way. Social media backfired on Boris Johnson when he was lambasted about the government’s health system support by an anxious father on a hospital walkabout. Press and social media accounts could play the video on a loop not just showing Johnson’s discomfort but his claim that there “was no press here” when the media pack was standing 20 feet away.

But the dearth of direct news from politicians has led media to have to analyse tweets and Facebook posts, official photos and broadcasts.

We need to ensure political accountability and transparency, central to democracy. But in the age of social media, this may not depend on politicians or media. It depends on us. Social media also gives us the tools to highlight, debate, question, expose, challenge, defend. We are in fact, challenged as never before, to be active, savvy, rights-based communicators.

This doesn’t replace professional journalistic scrutiny by any means, and indeed, we need to continue to advocate strongly for independent and diverse media and press access to politicians. But we also need to use the communication tools we have, within the full framework of communication rights, to be active members of democratic societies.

Photo above: London UK. 24th July 2019. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, delivers a speech outside 10 Downing Street. Photo: Michael Tubi, Shutterstock

An Associated Press piece in The Guardian newspaper (“YouTube fined $170m for collecting children’s personal data”, 4 September 2019) notes a serious violation of children’s right to privacy:

“Google’s video site YouTube has been fined $170m to settle allegations it collected children’s personal data without their parents’ consent. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) fined Google $136m and the company will pay an additional $34m to New York state to resolve similar allegations. The fine is the largest the agency has yet levied against Google, although it is tiny compared with the $5bn fine the FTC imposed against Facebook this year for privacy violations.”

With all the furore around personal privacy and the sale of data to third parties, Google should have known better. FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra noted that this is the third time since 2011 that the agency had sanctioned Google for privacy violations. He went on to say, “This latest violation is extremely serious.”

According to UNICEF, “The rights of children… include a variety of communication rights: the right to be heard and to be taken seriously; to free speech and to information; to maintain privacy; to develop cultural identity; and to be proud of one’s heritage and beliefs… Communication efforts need to respect children’s privacy and dignity and foster their self-esteem and confidence.”

In the digital era, children’s communication rights are particularly difficult to protect. Access to digital platforms is not without its safeguards, but there are always loopholes as well as devious people seeking to take advantage of unsuspecting children. In addition, iPhones are ubiquitous and are increasingly a vital part of education systems and practices.

Children need protection when personal data is being collected and processed because they may be less aware of the risks involved. Companies making use of children’s personal data need to set in place procedures that safeguard children from the outset, and design systems and processes with this in mind.

Children have the same rights as adults over their personal data. These include the right to access their personal data; to request rectification; to object to processing; and to have their personal data erased. Even if children do not know or understand their rights, others do.

Google has signally failed in its duty and clearly deserves the penalty imposed by the Federal Trade Commission – even though the fine was not heavy enough.

This quote comes from a report by English PEN, “Turkey: Freedom of Expression in Jeopardy”, published just over a year ago. It noted:

“Turkey is going through a period in which anyone thought to be in opposition… can be investigated, arrested and prosecuted for disseminating terrorist propaganda or for being a member of a terrorist organisation.”

Now, books are in the firing line. In The Guardian, 6 August 2019, Alison Flood writes, “More than 300,000 books have been removed from Turkish schools and libraries and destroyed since the attempted coup of 2016, according to Turkey’s ministry of education.” Such actions are part of a sustained campaign against Fethullah Gülen, the US-based dissident Muslim cleric accused by Turkey of instigating the failed coup. Gülen has denied involvement.

In addition, the number of investigations and charges against Turkish citizens for crimes such as “insulting the president” and “terrorist propaganda” has shot up. Accusations are being made against politicians, journalists, and activists, but also academics, artists and other creative professionals.

In a television show broadcast at the end of 2018, 76-year-old Müjdat Gezen and 78-year-old Metin Akpinar, two prominent comedians, criticized Turkish president Erdogan and anti-democratic developments in Turkey, warning against fascism. Erdogan threatened them with legal proceedings and both were subsequently detained and interrogated by police.

Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany, China under Mao Zedong and Cambodia under Pol Pot, are sinister benchmarks for the repression and murder of critical thinkers, academics, and journalists who challenged the regime. On a smaller scale but with the same intent, the 2018 report released by the Paris-based media watchdog Reporters Without Borders recorded at least 80 journalists killed that year, 348 imprisoned and 60 held hostage around the world.

Unfortunately, the war on media and journalists in the USA, Russia, and Turkey, whose presidents face mounting criticism of their policies and actions, tends to give impunity to repressive leaders elsewhere and truth-telling pays a high price.

We should recall the famous lines about media in Heinrich Heine’s play Almansor, engraved on a bronze plaque in Berlin’s Bebelplatz: “This was a prelude only; wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings.”

Democratic participation and accountable government rest on informed and balanced opinion that is transparent about its motivations and sources. Independent journalism – print, broadcast or online – has traditionally been a valued source of information and debate about political, social and cultural life.

It is worrying, therefore, that a recent report by the United Kingdom’s media regulator Ofcom indicates that young people in Britain have almost entirely abandoned television news broadcasts, while half of the country now gets its news from social media.

According to a story (24 July 2019) in The Guardian newspaper – itself one of the bastions of democratic accountability – “While the average person aged 65 and over watches 33 minutes of TV news a day, this falls to just two minutes among people aged 16-24, according the media regulator’s annual news consumption report.”

The decline has been driven by audiences moving away from traditional live broadcast channels, where they might watch a popular drama and leave the channel on during the evening news bulletin, towards watching content from streaming services. This also supposes that people no longer intentionally watch or listen to the news to find out what is happening in the world.

Ofcom says “The most popular news source in Britain remains BBC One – consulted by 58% of the public – followed by ITV on 40% and Facebook on 35%. The increase in people turning to social media for news is being driven by the growing popularity of WhatsApp and Instagram as information sources.”

Social media avoid in depth reporting. In addition, the information and news carried by social media have been shown to be suspect, requiring careful thought. If young people are turning to social media in place of more reliable sources – presumably under the influence of pernicious campaigns by political leaders accusing the media of bias or of lying – it may compromise their ability to understand and participate in political change.

Genuine social progress depends on accessible, affordable and inclusive media infrastructures – including traditional media, digital platforms, social media and the Internet. It also depends on trustworthy information and knowledge. In this case, media literacy, being able to sift and assess sources, is vital if society is not to sink into a morass of lies and suspicion.

That one of the world’s most respected media outlets is struggling to pay for its journalism, is telling. It is not supported by a billionaire owner, but forms part of a British media company, The Scott Trust, “whose core purpose is to ensure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity”.

But certainly, the financial challenge is not won. As Viner states:

“Three years ago we faced a very different situation, when a broken business model for news was threatening to destroy media organisations around the world: print advertising was collapsing, newspaper sales were declining, and the promise of digital advertising growth was going almost entirely to Google and Facebook. These threats still exist, and while we’ve found a way to counter them, the situation remains fragile.”

When digital media came on the scene, some thought it would “solve” the problem of media monopolies, would ensure diversity of information, and even a diversity of funding for each media outlet. The potential is still there, but the reality is that the lower cost of setting up digital communications led to more media outlets which meant advertising prices fell. Many media outlets became desperate to attract readership.

Compounding the pressures, as Viner mentions, the revenue traditional media gained particularly from advertising has been massively diverted to a few tech companies.

For the first nine months of 2018, Google businesses (including, for example, Chrome, Android OS, YouTube, Google Maps) generated USD 97.1 billion in revenue. Advertising revenue made up 85% of that. For Facebook (which also owns Whatsapp and Instagram), of the USD 40.65 billion in revenue in 2017, advertisements contributed 98%.

Many struggling media outlets have in turn been susceptible to “media capture” – taken over by powerful corporate and political interests that then control the information and tone of the news.

Many are involved directly in community media, which in this context are even more essential. But we also need to be savvy media consumers and be willing to support, in whatever way we can, media organisations that stand for high quality, independent journalism.