First of all: We studied @TheQuint in India, @rapplerdotcom in the Philippines, and @dailymaverick in South Africa – digital-born outlets in challenging media, political, and press freedom environments in the Global South.
The main challenges for them: desolate state of press freedom, problems of disinformation, & attacks on them, with social media leveraged by some political actors, orchestrated ‘troll networks’, and members of the public to direct abuse and threats at the organisations & staff.
How did they respond? Through a combination of:
- doubling down on their mission (journalism as a public service)
- focus on journalistic values
- multi-layered approaches to fact-checking
- the use of data journalism/ network analysis
- collaboration with audiences
They do this work by:
- placing their audiences first, with an emphasis on building trust
- they ‘pivot to defending truth’ – the strategic defence against disinformation as a chance to build new revenue streams (membership models, acquiring expertise that can be monetised)
In total, we distilled 9 key lessons from our field research and interviews…#newsinnovate
Here are some of my favourite quotes from the report which highlight some of the aspects outlined above. From the @rapplerdotcom’s @mariaressa…
1️⃣ People perceived news labeled as AI-generated as less trustworthy, even though they did not evaluated these articles as less accurate/more biased.
2️⃣ Those who already trust news a lot & know more about how journalism works are more affected by the AI labels.
3️⃣ People who don't trust news much or aren't very knowledgeable about journalism don't seem to change their trustworthiness perception much, even with AI labels.
4️⃣ Where sources are provided alongside the text, AI-labels do not seem to reduce trust in the content
Knowing the Guardian (and looking at the size of the investigation with many news organisations involved) we will likely get more information in the coming days.
But whenever a company claims "We can flip" elections, I get immediately skeptical.
Reminds me of this piece I wrote in the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica scandal which looked at the rhetoric of these companies and the US political consultancies @CasMudde mentions: Lots of grand claims, very little evidence of big effects.
Disinformation is now firmly entrenched in various academic disciplines & well-funded by various actors. Journalists continue to display a keen interest not least given a multitude of crises which regularly bring the topic back into focus.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. Disinformation studies—the loose assortment of researchers, activists, journalists, & policymakers devoted to the study of the creation, distribution & reception of misleading information—has had positive & negative effects.
⁉️Does the ‘Infodemic’ make much sense? Did we really live through one?
📝In our new paper for New Media & Society, @evoluchico and I take these ideas to court.
💥 Our answers: No & No
In early 2020, the term ‘infodemic’ was suddenly everywhere after a WHO situation report stated the following…
Two weeks later, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said “We are not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an infodemic. Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus, and is just as dangerous”.
A flurry of papers, reports & news articles followed.
I see Cambridge Analytica is trending again because of this Channel 4 documentary exposing the Trump campaign’s attempted deterrence of Black voters in 2016.
Unpopular opinion: This documentary has some big structural flaws.
Had they bothered to ask, @davekarpf would have told them that this is “just” negative advertising (which is still despicable), but not structural voter suppression (eg closing polling stations, etc.). More in this short thread here:
What makes this such a great piece of scholarship is not only the great effort behind it (rivalling some investigative journalism) but that it allows us to see RT through the eyes of those who work(ed) for it & puts an emphasis on the internal, organizational dynamics.
🔑-bits:
- RT is seen as an instrument of state policy to meddle in other country’s politics
- RT is a ‘counterpunch to the West’s anti-Russian narratives and political positions’
- RT shaped by the practices of Soviet media controls of old