Group discussion w/ @risj_oxford journalist fellows on which discussions are contentious in their newsrooms around 🌍, kicking off from some US journalists feeling dominant viewpoint limits their ability to speak up
Partial list (deep breath) of issues people identify as hard...
..including things that are hard to cover & write about such as
* Religion, esp dominant religious group or historically maligned religious groups
* Migration and refugees, esp in face of majoritarian backlash
* National security, esp in countries where military is very powerful
* Women's rights, esp in very patriarchal societies (and often patriarchal newsrooms)
* Sexuality, esp LGBT
* Tribalism, esp when interconnected with electoral politics and/or political violence
* Civil war (well yes that and the legacy it leaves is hard)
* Regionalism/separatism
* Reporting, writings that leads to charges of being "anti-national" or unpatriotic
* Politics of language in multi-lingual countries
* Natural preservation vs econ. development
* Populists that many people, but few journalists, vote for
* Proposed criminalization of marital rape
In different countries these and more issues hard bcs they are (1) divisive in newsrooms and society, (2) there is consensus in some newsrooms but not in society or (3) majoritarian view in society but different dominant view in some newsrooms
Navigating all this is super tricky
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There is (a) no conceptual clarity and (b) no substantial agreement on what exactly constitutes disinfo. This is not a philosophical point but defining feature of problems we face. It underlines inherently political nature of determining what does and does not constitute disinfo.
From the point of view of the public disinformation is to a large extent a problem associated with the behaviour of politicians and other domestic actors, especially on social media, and not more narrowly a problem of false information or actors with more unambiguously ill intent
First, 71% in Australia say they've used FB in the past week, 39% say they've engaged with news on FB digitalnewsreport.org
1/9
The 39% who have engaged with news on FB tend to be younger, women, more on the political left
Most access online news in many ways (direct,search,social,etc), but @dragz have run the numbers, and in 2020, 8% of 🇦🇺 internet news users say they ONLY get online news via social 2/9
That's maybe a million+ people? They can go elsewhere for news, but some won't. That's a big blow right there. As
we've shown, the effect of incidental exposure on e.g. Facebook is stronger for younger people and those with low interest in news. journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14… 3/9
Major win for #metoo and speaking truth to power: Court finds "journalist Priya Ramani not guilty of criminal defamation in a case filed by former Union minister M.J. Akbar [noting] “right of reputation can’t be protected at the cost of right to dignity.”" m.thewire.in/article/law/de…
Here Priya Ramani's 2017 Vogue article (doesn't name Akbar) "To the Harvey Weinsteins of the world: “We’ll get you all one day.”" vogue.in/content/harvey…
Keep getting calls from journalists and others about the draft Australian News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code so some points to add to the thread I posted last year. I'm glad there is political focus on future of news, but sceptical of draft code as is 1/23
Can policy help sustain independent news media? We know for a fact it can. Is it justified? That’s a political question. I personally believe it is in many cases. Journalism and news, with its many imperfections, is a public good and important for our democracy and societies 2/23
If one recognize that fact, and embrace the idea of policy intervention, are there then options we have reason to believe work? Nothing is perfect, and all this is political, but I think there on balance are, have written about them for years e.g here reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/what-can-be-do… 3/23
On Trump & platforms: A decision can be welcome and still illustrate problematic situation
3 Qs. 1) Consistent enforcement? Companies are often wildly inconsistent in when, where, who they enforce against. Decisions+timing come off as at best arbitrary at worst opportunistic 1/N
E.g. Why now, and not before (outgoing and not sitting president)? Why in the US and not elsewhere (India, Philippines)? Why jihadists but not white domestic terrorists (I have a guess)? Why do they almost all do it at the same time (that’s PR, not rules)?
2) Protection of fundamental rights? In absence of real oversight, the companies are making these decisions unilaterally. Often they do too little. Sometimes they do too much. There is no meaningful due process, and no way to ensure companies practice e.g. Santa Clara Principles.
The @EU_Commission published its proposed European Democracy Action Plan yesterday.
One observation: disinformation parts are very focused on foreign interference and largely avoids recognizing domestic actors, in particular fact that misinformation often comes from the top 1/4
Foreign interference is one important form of disinformation. But it is not the most widespread or necessarily most consequential.
HLG report stressed domestic actors, including politicians, in several places ec.europa.eu/digital-single…
It is clear few will touch this problem
2/4
We can dance arounds this all we will, but problem remain real, in EU too. Some things are clearly false, harmful, and malign. But often, what one person sees as destructive lies, others will see as political speech. Powerful actors like to avoid recognizing this complication 3/4