PAGBABAGO
Dr. Florangel Rosario-Braid
In this age of disinformation and misinformation, I am sure many share my yearning for answers to questions about how to survive in the decades ahead. Should we merely accept the consequences – growing distrust, hopelessness, and gradual dehumanization? Or accept the reality that as UN Special Rapporteur Irene Khan notes, disinformation is a modern way in the digital area, of making money by purposefully spreading lies.
Khan further observes that modern technology has made it easy for disinformation to spread. But, we can address this problem by “calling our legislators to phase out behavioral advertising, provide greater control and transparency to people on matters of content moderation and algorithmic decision-making, as well as strengthen control of public funds that are currently misused to fund state propaganda online.”
Another scholar, ethnographer Jonathan Ong, raises the question: “How can we successfully navigate an environment where “everyone is profiting from disinformation shadow economies?” Researchers, Ong suggests, have a responsibility to lead global debates on digital advertising and political consultancies, among other concerns.
According to the International Forum for Democratic Studies, “the disinformation challenge is about more than authoritarian propaganda or PR techniques. Long standing vulnerabilities in human cognition, combined with new and emerging technology’s impact on the information environment, allow for bad actors to pursue political gains.”
Another view comes from reformist Newton Minow, who, 60 years ago, chaired the US Federal Communications Commission. His was the voice that altered the direction of American television which he described has become “a vast wasteland,” by multiplying choices. This of course, he regrets later as today, the wasteland had grown “vaster.” Because of the proliferation of voices and outlets seeking for attention, the tendency was to go to the extremes. This is what we are witnessing today — more violence, more misinformation, and disinformation.
But his earlier reforms — mandating UHF reception capability for all TV receivers — sparked an increase in the number of television stations and had helped launch non-profit educational TV stations (now the PBS or public broadcasting system) throughout the country. By expanding the number of available channels, and liberalizing the rules, he managed to democratize ownership of the media. Educational TV, he says later, was a good idea.
Introducing this specific legislation to enable opening up of educational broadcasting in our own country today could help address disinformation. As findings from the recent Digital News report, there is today a low trust in news coming from social media and television, and that there was an expressed preference for independently owned media channels.
Perhaps it is about time to introduce some reform like the “fairness doctrine” in broadcasting. It was passed in the United States in 1940 but was abolished after 40 years because of resistance to regulation. It is not a statute but a set of rules that ensures balance and the right to reply. It is still practiced in some European countries, Australia, and other countries. The “fairness doctrine” requires all radio and television stations to give equal time for controversial topics and opposing views.
My email, [email protected]