Thatcher misconstrued the role of public interest media, but the underlying question is legitimate. How to report “problematic content” and contentious happenings while retaining a measure of objectivity, balance, and fairness?

An immediate example – among many worldwide – is the current Ukraine crisis. Where do we put our trust? Of course, the answer lies in a close reading of as many sides as possible, coupled with an intelligent assessment of history, contemporary realities, and a pinch of cynicism.

In the UK, BBC Two is currently airing Louis Theroux’s “Forbidden America”, which falls squarely into the category of “problematic” content. Theroux raises Thatcher’s issue of “platforming”: the idea that it is irresponsible to amplify hateful voices and that doing so is to contribute to their power and their harm. The argument goes that news editors and the public should ignore the toxic and the dangerously misinformed: exclude them from the conversation. Before the Internet and social media, that might have been possible.

In “‘They had their own cameras trained on me’ – Louis Theroux on his showdowns with US extremists” (The Guardian, 10 February 2022), Theroux writes:

“Broadcasters have always had an obligation to think about ways in which they reflect opinions that may be misinformed or hateful. Making it even more pressing nowadays is the demonstrable harm caused by the spread of false information online and the way this has empowered formerly marginal figures such as conspiracy theorists and nativists.”

Theroux asks why it is necessary to hear from these people? “Well, you might not need to. But the reason you might choose to is because of what their existence says about the world we are living in, and because of the very real power they represent… So the choice we are faced with is whether to be curious about that phenomenon, try to figure out why it’s growing, what it’s feeding on, how it can be challenged, or whether to ignore it and hope it goes away.”

The impact of digital technologies on societies and communities – indeed, on individuals – is being debated and explored in depth at a time when it is still possible to regulate and demand accountability of digital platforms. But there is more. As Yuval Noah Harari writes in “21 Lessons for the 21st Century”: “It is the responsibility of all of us to invest time and effort in uncovering our biases and in verifying our sources of information… to avoid brainwashing and to distinguish reality from fiction.”

The oxygen of publicity is a vital component of democratic debate. But so is the oxygen of wisdom.

Image: Metamorworks/Shutterstock

To tackle these limitations, a coalition of civil society organisations, communication scholars and practitioners recently launched the Public Service Media and Public Service Internet Manifesto. It calls for safeguarding the existence, funding, and independence of Public Service Media as well as the creation of a Public Service Internet (PSI).

Many are familiar with threats to public service media worldwide and attacks on the kind of investigative journalism that spotlights government corruption and corporate malfeasance. Less well known is the role Big Tech has played in subverting democracy and the Internet – once held up as the great equalizer in terms of communication freedoms. As the Manifesto makes clear, the PSI would:

• Be led by democratic principles – while the contemporary Internet is dominated by monopolies and commerce.
• Be privacy-friendly and transparent – while the contemporary Internet is corrupted by surveillance.
• Engages, informs and supports the public – while the contemporary Internet misinforms and divides the public.
• Puts social needs first – while the contemporary Internet is driven by profit.

Data privacy would be a mantra of the PSI, which would provide role-model practices for fair data processing. PSI software and its contents would also be a common good, reusable for non-commercial purposes.

PSI platforms would be spaces where critical, independent journalists could post high-quality news and where creative professionals could post high-quality programmes that educate, inform, and entertain in formats appropriate to the digital age. In addition, PSI algorithms would be open source and transparent: algorithms “of the public, by the public, and for the public”.

A PSI will require sustainable funding based on several mechanisms such as licence fees, the Nordic model of tax-financed public services, and transnational agreements. This will be crucial to its long-term viability and independence.

Will we need a global body capable of overseeing a Public Service Internet? Most likely, but one that is independent of supranational political obstruction and that consults openly and regularly with civil society.

Ultimately, this is a matter of “design justice”. This is a concept that rethinks design processes to focus on people often marginalized by design, and uses collaborative, creative practices to address the deepest challenges that communities face. A PSI based on design justice would also reflect key principles of communication rights in the digital age: accessibility, affordability, and accountability. Bring it on!

Why is trust eroding, how does it play out across different contexts and different groups, what are the implications, and what might be done about it? These are the organising questions behind the Trust in News Project being led by the Reuters Institute. In “What we think we know and what we want to know: perspectives on trust in news in a changing world” (3 December 2020), four key takeaways (so far) have been identified:

There is no single “trust in news” problem, but rather multiple challenges involving both the supply of news and demand for information. Different segments of the public, as well as journalists and researchers, hold different beliefs about how journalism works and sometimes conflicting views about what they expect from it.

Many scholars and practitioners have diagnosed problems in the production of news that may contribute to distrust. The effects of changing distribution practices, especially the important role played by platforms, are less well understood but are likely to be important.

Internal and external initiatives focused around transparency, engagement, and media literacy have shown promise, but empirical evidence about what works, with whom, and under what circumstances, remains murky.

Efforts to improve trust, as important as they may be, involve trade-offs in divided and polarised societies and can also be at odds with other important priorities, such as holding power to account.

Meanwhile, in a submission to the UN Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression (March 2021), the Centre for Law and Democracy has argued that governments should focus on measures that: build trust with citizens and enhance the flow of reliable, accurate information from official sources to citizens; ensure the adoption and implementation of strong right to information laws; promote a strong, independent and diverse media sector, including through supporting media sustainability initiatives and independent public service broadcasters.

But it’s not all down to governments. There is also the question of civil society’s role – learning how to read information sources for balance and bias – a skill that young and old need in order to survive in a world overloaded by fake news and infotainment. Trust is a two-way street.

Image above: WACC’s annual report

They can all learn from PEN America which has put forward An Agenda for the Biden-Harris Administration called “Free Expression and the First 100 Days” (19 January 2021). In a plea to defend and promote press freedom in the U.S., PEN calls for affirmative steps to undo the damage to Americans’ attitudes toward the press and to shore up press freedom and respect for the role of professional media in the U.S.

PEN invites the Biden-Harris administration to support a free press as a pillar of democracy, to require cabinet secretaries to identify ways to increase press access and public accountability within their agencies, and to suspend and avoid prosecutions that could criminalize the work of journalists.

In addition, “The health of the American news and information ecosystem is threatened by a serious crisis affecting the local news sector… The primary cause of this trauma is the migration of advertising dollars from local news outlets to online platforms. While philanthropic assistance and innovative business models are helping keep some vibrant outlets alive, the fate of the sector as a whole will depend upon more sweeping policy solutions, including a re-examination of the decades-old model for public funding of news.”

In relation to the thorny issue of social media platforms, especially free speech, the Biden-Harris administration is asked to ensure that any reforms of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act – or additional legislation or regulation related to it – are tailored to specific objectives and subject to transparency requirements and reviews to enable policymakers and analysts to assess their efficacy and impact over time.

A key issue is content creation and the role of algorithms – and algorithmic bias – in elevating and suppressing content. PEN sees a role for a National Task Force on Online Harassment and Abuse, one that explicitly acknowledges online abuse as a threat to free speech, and prioritizes solutions that do not themselves infringe on freedom of expression.

These claims are fully justified. Unfortunately, a deep-rooted and malign distrust of government and the rule of law has set in worldwide. Bolstering independent media and tackling freedom of expression on digital platforms are only part of the battle. Ordinary people need to regain their trust in democratic ideals and principles – including the notion that while there is freedom to disagree and to debate, there is no freedom to incite hatred or violence. It’s called fair play.

Photo: Bogdan Khmelnytskyi/Shutterstock—Kraków, Poland 

The 2020 edition of the Index, which evaluates the situation for journalists in 180 countries and territories, identifies five converging crises: geopolitical (due to the aggressiveness of authoritarian regimes); technological (due to a lack of democratic guarantees); democratic (due to polarisation and repressive policies); trust (due to aggravated suspicion of the media); and economic (impoverishing quality journalism). These are currently compounded by the Covid-19 pandemic.

RSF’s “global indicator” – a measure of the level of media freedom worldwide – went up by 0.9% in the 2020 Index. However, in the years since 2013, it had gone down by 12%. The proportion of countries where the press freedom situation is “good”, remains unchanged at 8%, but those where the situation is “very bad”, has increased to 13%.

Mistrust of media outlets accused of broadcasting or publishing news containing unreliable information continues to grow. The antics of political leaders seeking to bolster their own image or to be re-elected have made the situation worse.

In the US, the 2020 Edelman Trust Barometer produced by the public relations and marketing consultancy firm reveals that despite a strong global economy and near full employment, none of the four societal institutions that the study measures – government, business, NGOs and media – is trusted.

According to Edelman, “The cause of this paradox can be found in people’s fears about the future and their role in it, which are a wake-up call for our institutions to embrace a new way of effectively building trust: balancing competence with ethical behaviour.”

In addition, in many countries global digital transformations have weakened the media. Falling sales, less advertising revenue and increased production and distribution costs have forced news organisations to restructure and lay off journalists.

The economic downturn has also accentuated issues of media ownership and control, threatening journalistic pluralism, diversity and independence. Local, community-led media have been particularly impacted.

Trust in governments, public institutions, and the media is vital if global crises such as health, climate, and forced displacement are to be properly understood and policies crafted to address them swiftly and efficiently.

Access to independent, diverse and reliable information underlies decision-making that can save lives and livelihoods. Rebuilding trust must be a priority for the next decade.

Photo above: Metamorworks/Shutterstock