Laziness and desperation: the disinformation drivers we don’t talk about
There is one disinformation aspect that is less lauded outside newsrooms, but can be just as harmful. With the obliteration of the traditional media business model, journalism in most places had to adapt in a way that the battle for accurate information is lost from the start. By trimming newsrooms, lowering the average journalist age to the early twenties, and necessarily having to publish information with zero deadline, the information machine has been broken for good. Even when journalists are trying honestly to do their jobs, they are aiming the impossible and making more mistakes than ever. Technology has addicted audiences to speed, exaggeration and controversy in levels that have no precedent. The audiences will understand how disastrous this problem is at some point, but only when it will be too late.
In the newsrooms, the subject is no longer discussed because the destruction of the news media business model is old stuff. The journalist generation that hasn’t reached their 30s probably don’t even know how things worked before the zeroes and ones have replaced ink and paper, and the only “tubes” available were those inside a TV set. In a nutshell, journalism has exchanged print dollars for digital pennies (if you are optimistic). Google and Facebook have drained the media blood up to the last drop, and zero of the digital media revenue growth goes to news companies and not technological ones.
Another reason for the lack of concern about this informational distortion (business models destroyed by digital) is social-network-driven ideology (of sorts). There is no left against right, liberal versus conservatives dispute, and when social media clout is the most important thing in the lives of public individuals (like journalists are — or were), if it does not resound in social, it’s no good. Having no scapegoats, addressing the subject brings a weak engagement. That’s how society decides its priorities right now — “likes” and retweets are the only currency to measure what lives or die in the public sphere.
In Italy, last April, journalism fell prey to this involuntary, but reckless behaviour just once more. When the ubiquitously hated football agent Mino Raiola was at the hospital in critical state, an Italian local TV channel broke the news that he had died. And soon, just like dominoes in a long, fragile line, scores of news companies followed through, including one of the most important sports newspaper in Europe, La Gazzetta Dello Sport. Less than an hour later, the Mino Raiola’s Twitter account itself posted that he was in critical condition, but still alive. Embarrassment took over, a score of apologies rained over Italy, but, disgracefully, other than the apologies, many publishers tried to blame somebody else, as if it was an excuse for the most lethal journalism mistake — crappy verification and reporting.
The result of this episode, which had little consequences other than the agents’ friends and family, is not to advocate for good traditional journalism or sing the songs about an age that won’t return. What becomes clear here is unreliable information comes not only from bad actors. For many reasons, societies as a whole don’t feel that financing professional journalism is a good investment. Social media took over the channels and opinion is more important that accurate reporting (at least this is what offer and demand show). Lopsided versions of the truth are a symptom of the information disease that is corroding the fabric of society — and getting much more serious because of the polarization that has been growing in history for at least two decades.
What is needed? We need to establish a new way to manage trust. This element won’t come from news companies (which have reached a historical low of 25% — Gallup numbers), which means that, on average, Americans trust more in Qanon or Donald Trump than in companies paying people supposedly to get the facts accurately.
There are two feasible options to build this new regime. The first is to promote via tax cuts, for example, the creation of hybrid enterprises with tech and news DNA. Good journalism is expensive and needs resources that won’t come from subscriptions, patronage from bigger-than-life zillionaires aiming for extra exposition, let alone revenue generated by the Google, Meta and other kinds of ad exchanges. These platforms pay fees that are so low that you need whole pages full of ads that stalk you as rabid dogs after you are unlucky enough to visit one of them.
The second possible solution is to transform reliability into a commodity and make a market around it. With the backing and support of public actors, companies can find ways to provide a service that compensate the sinking of the trust in the news media. And trust is not the only thing that needs to be “commodified”. Privacy is also in a very dire situation that could be addressed the same way. The bottom line is to end the existing digital media incentives that make bad actors create profitable businesses by spreading lies, creating information bubbles and handling audiences like cattle on a farm.
Good regulation can help, but the only major actor that shows some disposition to do it is the European Union, which other than dealing with pandemic consequences, a war in its backyard, and the assaults coming from wannabe authoritarians in many of its members, has an obnoxious amount of red tape that make initiatives to drag down for years before any meaningful results.
Although very difficult, dealing with the subject is not impossible. The capital needed is not the same to send wealthy people to have space trips, the technology resources (i.e. AI) evolves at light speed, and the public concern with the subject is widespread (between 65% and 90%, depending on the country).
A pertinent question is: if the tech giants made all this mess, why should we trust private companies to find the solution? The answer is: we shouldn’t. What we need to build is a parallel ecosystem to manage privacy, freedom of speech and accountability as commodities, in a way that the tech giants will have an option to make their money and submit themselves to checks and balances. Naive? No, not at all. Tougher regulation in Europe has been delayed thanks to the pandemics and the Putin war in Ukraine, but sooner or later, it will arrive. And once they — the tech giants — cannot ignore the second richest market in the world, it will make their lives easier.
Still regarding journalism, there is a Gordian Knot to be untied that matters. News companies need to prove to their audiences they are worthy of their money, and that’s a task that is harder than ever. If we pick up the latest Gallup poll mentioned above, only one in four Americans trust the media. And tell me: how can you convince someone who doesn’t even trust you to give you money? The answer is uncertain, but you can start by treating all politicians in the same way, instead of selling yourself to audiences that simply want to listen to the most convenient truth. It is hard as hell, but there is no other way.
