Is it just another Big Tech tool for collecting our personal data? Will it just magnify misinformation in a volatile political climate? Will it perpetuate racist, sexist and cultural stereotypes? Will it seem “smarter” only because we will cease to research, analyze, and create ourselves? My steps into exploring what AI tools can do have been reluctant.

So, I was challenged at a recent workshop for academic publishers, where I expected a similar level of scepticism. However, multiple speakers bluntly told participants to really learn and engage with AI tools – “because AI is here to stay and will only become more pervasive.”

This next generation of the digital transformation makes being a digital avoider or passive observer impossible – and unethical for those of us who aspire to achieving communication rights for all. 

This means we all need to make sure we are critically, digitally, literate, which makes the Global Media and Information Literacy Week, happening now from 24 to 31 October, all the more critical. 

The importance of being informed advocates is highlighted by the theme of the week’s feature conference: “The new digital frontiers of information: Media and Information Literacy for public interest journalism”. In the midst of a digital communication avalanche that mixes eyewitness truth-telling and misinformed or falsified reports, the role of public interest journalism is ever more vital – and challenging.

One glimpse of this comes from a recent report from Jeremy Bowen, International Editor, for the BBC. Writing about an Israeli strike on Jabalia in northern Gaza, he describes what he sees in a video filmed by a paramedic with a smartphone minutes after the strike, the details augmented by interviews he requested of a Palestinian journalist in Gaza as he himself is not allowed in. He seems to have to explain why he is not reporting directly:  

I am forced to use conditional tenses because I am writing this in Jerusalem, not after interviewing eyewitnesses at the scene of the attack in Jabalia in Gaza. Reporters will always struggle to get to the best possible version of the truth they can find when they are stopped from getting to the place where the story happened.

Israel allowed reporters into their border communities along the border with Gaza in the days after the Hamas attacks last year. I was in Kfar Azza kibbutz when they were still recovering the bodies of dead Israelis, as soldiers checked buildings with bursts of gunfire. They wanted us to see where Hamas had killed around 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, and dragged more than 250 into captivity in Gaza.

The evidence is piling up that Israel has done things in Gaza that it does not want journalists to see, which is why they will not let us cross into the territory, except on rare and highly controlled visits with the army. I have been in only once, in the first month of the war, when Israeli firepower had already turned the areas of northern Gaza that I saw into a wasteland.

As a result, journalists rely on videos and statements that emerge from Palestinians inside Gaza, including some very brave journalists, and from international diplomats, medics and aid workers who are allowed into Gaza, and witnesses like Nevine with smartphones.

The evolving generations of digital communication make us sceptical not only of their quality but of what is true. Our antidote is not avoidance, but an ever more critical, literate society with more robust public interest journalism that sifts fact from fiction and uncovers what authorities may want to hide.

This is why WACC has developed engaging, online courses that not only aim to demystify digital developments but to give us tools and regional perspectives that will equip us to assess the implications – positive and negative – of new technologies.

The webinar series “AI, You and Your Organization” helps us understand and work ethically with generative AI, while the self-directed online “Just Digital” course explains the key issues involved in our digital lives, and how to take control in our own use – from protecting personal data to recognizing fake news and preserving freedom of expression. A further series of Just Digital is also being developed to equip us as more informed advocates of rights online. 

Some scepticism about out digital transformation is healthy. But critical media and information literacy is even more vital. Each of us, and our organizations, must commit to continuing to learn, to assess, to analyze impact – and to advocate for open, honest and accessible information.

Photo: ccrvoices.org

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

As reported by another public broadcaster, BBC (“The immigrants telling stories history missed” 10 February 2020, two young radio producers, one with Iranian and the other with Palestinian backgrounds, are leading a new podcast series that highlight stories that most people have missed in their history lessons.

As the article explains, “In their show, Rund and Ramtin try to talk about people who are underrepresented in American society. Their stories, related to current news, feature forgotten people, events, trends and policies.” These have included their own stories, the conflicts that forced their families to move to the US, as well as stories of people who moved out of the US because of slavery – and because of its abolition.

The program is not without controversy – even over how the presenters say their names. Most of the time, names on air are “anglicised” to appeal to the audience, but NPR “supports their on-air staff who want to pronounce their names as they would in their native language.”

In their program, “Throughline”, Ramtin Arablouei and Rund Abdelfatah aim to draw “a line from the past to the present”, not to identify victims and scoundrels, but to widen knowledge about how past actions affect current societies.

The program “helps minorities see themselves along with their contributions and struggles in that show.”

“And for others it is an opportunity to see things differently.”

According to its web site, NPR is an independent, nonprofit media organization that was founded on a mission to create a more informed public. Its network of local member stations collaborates to deliver “an increasingly rare and vital mix of rigorously reported local and national stories.”

A large portion (currently 68%) of NPR’s revenue comes from dues and fees paid by its member stations and underwriting from corporate sponsors that do not influence NPR’s coverage. Nor do NPR journalists have a role in selecting corporate sponsors.

For now it’s a model that seems to be working. In 2018, five NPR programmes won National Edward R. Murrow Awards, which are among the most respected journalism awards in the world.

Photo above: Rund Abdelfatah (left) and Ramtin Arablouei (right) cohost NPR podcast called “Throughline.”

The report notes that, “2019 was characterised by waves of public uprisings of remarkable magnitude in each of the world regions, demanding changes to how people were governed. The role human rights defenders (HRDs) played in these protests ranged from organising and mobilising to monitoring and documenting human rights violations, and to assisting those who were injured or arrested.”

In 2019, the number of human rights defenders killed working to protect the environment, free speech, LGBTQ rights and indigenous lands numbered 304. The report names them. Two thirds of the killings took place in Latin America, where impunity from prosecution has long been the norm.

In 2019 in Colombia, targeted violence against community leaders opposing environmentally destructive mega-projects led to 103 murders. The Philippines was the second deadliest country with 43 killings, followed by Honduras, Brazil, and Mexico.

The report details some of the digital security risks facing human rights defenders (HRDs), who faced defamation, trolling and harassment campaigns, and unauthorised access to social media accounts, information from which was then used to jeopardize the reputations and safety of defenders.

Authorities also led coordinated campaigns of complaint to social media companies which targeted HRDs’ accounts in order to get them suspended or shut down, and thereby limit their reach and possibly lose their follower bases.

In addition, “Internet shutdown, restricting access or blocking certain communication tools such as social media and instant messaging during protests, social upheavals or crises were commonplace in 2019. This impacted the work and security of HRDs in numerous ways; most obviously, with a communications blackout it was far more difficult for HRDs to report on human rights violations, communicate securely, organise and mobilise themselves.”

The report cites evidence that governments are colluding with private companies that manufacture spyware in order to target human rights activists, noting that “it is jarring that so little is being done to prevent the export of this surveillance and spying technology to repressive regimes.”

Digital technology has its upside and its downside. Human rights defenders are made vulnerable by its use, yet depend on it to record and publicise violations. It’s a double-edged sword.

Photo: frontlinedefenders.org

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

Unofficially known as the “Nobel Prize for human rights”, the Martin Ennals Award was created in 1993 to honour and defend human rights activists around the world. The winner will be announced on 19 February 2020.

The three women are Yemeni lawyer Huda Al-Sarari, Mexican anti-feminicide activist Norma Ledezma, and South African women’s and indigenous rights activist Sizani Ngubane.

According to UN Women there are more than nine feminicide-related murders every day in Mexico. Feminicide is the killing of a woman because she is a woman, while femicide is the equivalent of homicide.

Ledezma is director and one of the founders of Justicia para Nuestras Hijas (Justice for Our Daughters), an organisation that provides legal counsel and support for ongoing cases. She is credited with the creation of the post of Special Prosecutor for Women Victims of Violence in her state.

In a country with one of the highest number of feminicides in Latin America, Ledezma began her fight for justice after her daughter, Paloma, disappeared on her way home from school in the state of Chihuahua, in north-western Mexico.

In post-apartheid South Africa in 1998, Sizani Ngubane and a group of 250 indigenous/rural women and youth launched the Rural Women’s Movement to fight against gender-based violence and to advocate for women’s rights to land, education, property and inheritance.

In 2018, Ngubane accepted the Commission on the Status of Women’s “Woman of Distinction Award” on behalf of RWM’s work with community-based organizations to challenge undemocratic practices and discriminatory laws through campaigns and test cases brought before the South African Court.

Huda Al-Sarari is a lawyer who has worked with several human rights organizations to expose Yemen’s network of secret detention centres operated by foreign governments since 2015. Her fight for transparency began when neighbouring Saudi Arabia intervened in Yemen with a military coalition targeting Iran-backed Houthi rebels, who had taken control of the country’s capital Sanaa. Tens of thousands have died in the conflict.

These three women embody the spirit and values of democratic communication that challenges injustice and brings to the world’s attention the iniquities and inequities of discrimination, racism, and misogyny. All three deserve the Martin Ennals Award for their tenacity and courage.

Photos above: Nominees for the Martin Ennals Award, from left, Norma Ledezma, Sizani Ngubane and Huda Al-Sarari.  —from MartinEnnalsAwards.org

Internet freedom includes digital rights, freedom of information, the right to Internet access, freedom from censorship, and net neutrality.

In Russia, a new law enabling the government to disconnect users from the Internet went into effect at the end of October 2019. Press freedom advocacy group Reporters without Borders (RSF) – which ranks Russia 149th out of 180 countries in terms of press freedom – says the law allows authorities to block content without telling the public what has been blocked and why.

Under the new law, the Russian authorities can isolate the country from parts of the global Internet. The aim, according to the government, is to keep the Russian network functioning smoothly in the event of a crisis or an undefined “security threat”.

The law also creates an independent Russian Domain Name System (DNS). When it comes into effect in January 2021, Russian users will not be able to determine what website they are sent to when they enter an address. The system can direct them to a fake web site or to none at all.

The move to increase government control over the Internet is reminiscent of old-style Soviet censorship and is part of a long-term national policy trend. Since 2016, a law has required social networks to store data about Russian users on servers within the country. It was presented as an anti-terrorism measure, but many criticized it as an attempt to control online platforms that can be used to organize anti-government demonstrations. And in 2017, officials put forward a proposal to route 95% of Internet traffic locally by 2020.

The state already has a monopoly over federal broadcasting channels, which interferes with people’s right to freedom of information. While there are independent media, they are small and publish only on the Internet. The new law can be used to silence them.

For a while, Internet blogs became the samizdat (self-publishing intended to avoid censorship) of the digital era. In his autobiography To Build a Castle: My Life as a Dissenter, the Russian-born British human rights activist Vladimir Bokovsky, who died 27 October 2019, wrote, “Samizdat: I write it myself, edit it myself, censor it myself, publish it myself, distribute it myself, and spend jail time for it myself.”

Russians today undoubtedly face similar penalties under a law obviously aimed at curbing freedom of expression and opinion.

Photo above: Rally demanding internet freedom. Photo: Alexey Mironov/Shutterstock

Imagine the abode of the future – house, apartment, hotel room, log cabin, prison cell – equipped with a “plasma wall” incorporating all the telecommunications interfaces that enable social and cultural activity. Each wall would integrate computer screen, television, telephone, surveillance system (security and emergency), art and photo gallery, digital concert hall, memory and other personal devices.

M. Forster’s futuristic short story, The Machine Stops (1909) begins:

“Imagine, if you can, a small room, hexagonal in shape, like the cell of a bee. It is lighted neither by window nor by lamp, yet it is filled with a soft radiance. There are no apertures for ventilation, yet the air is fresh. There are no musical instruments, and yet, at the moment that my meditation opens, this room is throbbing with melodious sounds. An armchair is in the centre, by its side a reading-desk – that is all the furniture. And in the armchair there sits a swaddled lump of flesh – a woman, about five feet high, with a face as white as a fungus. It is to her that the little room belongs.”

George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) features “telescreens” – television and security cameras used by the ruling Party in Oceania to keep its subjects under constant surveillance in order to forestall conspiracies. Telescreens regularly broadcast fake news about Oceania’s military victories, economic production figures, and bulletins from the Ministry of Truth.

In The Republic (380 BCE), the Greek philosopher Plato describes a large cave inhabited by prisoners chained up since childhood. Not only are their arms and legs bound, but their heads are held in place so that they are compelled to gaze at a wall in front of them.

Behind the prisoners is an enormous fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway along which people carry “figures of men and animals made of wood, stone, and other materials”. On the wall in front of them, the prisoners see shadows cast and they hear distorted echoes of noises from the walkway. The prisoners take the shadows and the echoes for real since these are all they have ever seen or heard.

Is this an image of society today? Chained to screens from childhood and linked to “friends” through social media, today’s prisoners take digital images and sounds for real, digital acquaintance for live encounters, digital gossip for genuine exchanges of meaning. The will to be in communication is being sapped, enfeebled, enslaved. What will become of us?

Photo above:  Willyam Bradberry/Shutterstock

As the Alliance for Affordable Internet (A4AI) points out, not only is the Internet a pathway to information, communication, and economic opportunity, it is increasingly necessary to access basic commercial and public services. As more of the world becomes digital, those unable to connect will inevitably be left behind.

The United Nations has put forward 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDG 17 aims to “Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development”. It calls for enhancing “the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology”, whose measure is “Proportion of individuals using the Internet”.

As A4AI’s Affordability Report 2019 summarises:

“For the 50% of the world unable to connect, the greatest barrier remains affordability. Across Africa, the average cost for just 1GB data is 7.12% of the average monthly salary. In some countries, 1GB costs as much as 20% of the average salary – too expensive for all but the wealthiest few. If the average US earner paid 7.12% of their income for access, 1GB data would cost USD $373 per month! This gulf underlines the challenge we have to bridge the global affordability gap and ensure that everyone has affordable Internet access.”

The Report calls on Governments to use their policy and regulatory powers to build competitive broadband markets that provide users with lower costs and high quality services. In doing so, they should focus on three core areas necessary to support healthy, competitive markets:

• Policymakers should support robust operating rules, and regulators should provide regulatory certainty for service providers to help their long-term planning and to encourage network investments.
• Regulators and policymakers should play a key role in facilitating infrastructure sharing among operators, investing in high-capacity intermediate links between the core network and the small subnetworks at the edge of the network, and allocating spectrum in a fair and transparent way.
• Governments should use their regulatory powers to support a competitive market environment as well as invest in opening up markets to new providers and end users.

Civil society is a crucial actor in the struggle for more open, inclusive, and democratic media systems. As such, civil society actors need strategies to implement concrete changes to communication and information legislation and policy, related to issues such as equitable access to information and knowledge and to the Internet.

Photo by Robo Wunderkind on Unsplash