Nalaka Gunawardene (extreme right) moderates FoME 2017 session on “Fake News: Tackling the phenomenon while respecting freedom of expression”, Berlin, 17 Nov 2017
The German “Forum on Media and Development” (Forum Medien und Entwicklung, FOME) is a network of institutions and individuals active in the field of media development cooperation. I was invited to participate in, and moderate a panel at FoME Symposium 2017 held in Berlin on 16 – 17 November 2017.
This year’s symposium theme was Power Shifts – Media Freedom and the Internet. It explored how Internet governance issues are becoming more and more important for those who want to develop media (both mainstream media and social media) as democratic platforms.
On 17 November 2017, I moderated an international panel on Fake News: Tackling the phenomena respecting freedom of expression. It brought together representatives from government, civil society and a global media platform to discuss their roles and how they can interact to tackle the issue – all within the framework of Freedom of Expression (FOE).
Miriam Estrin, Public Policy Manager for Europe, Middle East and Africa, Google
Nalaka Gunawardene speaks on Fake News and Freedom of Expression at FoME 2017 Symposium in Berlin, 17 Nov 2017 – Photo courtesy Helani Galpaya
Here are my opening remarks that set the context for our discussion:
Just as there are many definitions of Fake News, there can also be many perspectives on the topic. We all recognise Fake News as a problem, so let’s focus on how it can be countered. What are the local, national and global level strategies? What alliances, tools and resources are needed for such countering? What cautions and alarms can we raise?
To respond to any problem, we need to understand its contours.
Fake News is not new. The phenomenon has been around, in one form or another, for decades! Many of us in the global South have grown up amidst intentionally fake news stories in our media, some of it coming from governments, no less. And the developing world governments don’t have a monopoly over Fake News either: for over half a century, the erstwhile Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries manufactured a vast amount of disinformation (i.e. deliberately wrong information) that was fed to their own citizens and spread overseas in sustained propaganda efforts.
Sitting here, within a few kilometres from where the Berlin Wall once stood, we need to acknowledge that veritable factory of lies that operated on the other side!
So what’s new? During the past decade, as broadband Internet spread worldwide, fake news peddlers found an easy and fast medium online. From websites to social media accounts (many hiding behind pseudonyms), the web has provided a globalised playing field where dubious content could go ‘viral’.
Yesterday at this Symposium, Mark Nelson from CIMA said “We live in a world where lies are very cheap, and much easier to disseminate than the truth.”
Which reminded me of one of my favourite quotes: ““A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes!”
Variations of this quote have been attributed to several persons including Jonathan Swift and Mark Twain. Whoever said it first, these words neatly sum up a long standing challenge to modern societies: how to cope with the spread of deliberate falsehoods.
As Mark Nelson asked us yesterday, how can we “make the Internet a place where truth is valued and spread – instead of disinformation?” This is the crux of our challenge.
So what is to be done? Among the options available, which ones are most desirable?
In searching for solutions to the Fake News crisis, we must recognise it is a nuanced, complex and variable phenomenon. There cannot be one global solution or quick fix.
Indeed, any ‘medicine’ prescribed for the malady of Fake News should not be worse than the ailment itself! We must proceed with caution, safeguarding the principles of Freedom of Expression and applying its reasonable limitations.
As human rights defenders caution, there is a danger that governments in their zeal to counter fake news could impose direct or indirect censorships, suppress critical thinking, or take other steps that violate international human rights law. This is NOT the way to deal with Fake News.
In my view, Fake News is a symptom of a wider and deeper crisis. It is a crisis of public trust in journalism and the media that has been building up over the years in many countries. Some call this a ‘Journalism Deficit’, or a gulf between what journalism ought be, and what it has (mostly) become today.
In my view, a free press is not an automatic guarantee against Fake News. In other words, media freedom is necessary — but not sufficient — to ensure that media content is trusted by the public. We need to better measure public trust in media and what the current trust levels mean for those producing media content professionally.
I would argue that the medium to long term response to Fake News is to narrow and bridge the Journalism Deficit by nurturing quality journalism and critical consumption of media. If you agree with this premise, what specific measures can we recommend and advocate?
Let us explore how media development can counter Fake News by exposing it, undermining it, and equipping media consumers with the knowledge and skills to spot it – and not spread it inadvertently.
For this, we need everyone’s cooperation.
We need global social media platforms and digital gatekeepers like Google to join with all their might (and what might!).
We need governments to be thoughtfully, carefully evaluate the optimum responses.
We need civil society to go beyond mere hand waving and finger pointing to help enhance media and information literacy.
We need researchers to keep studying and discerning trends that can influence policy and regulation (where appropriate).
We are not going to solve the problem in an hour. But we can at least ask the right questions, and clarify the issues in our minds. Onward!
Besides being a political leader and social reformer, Mahatma Gandhi was also a prolific writer, journalist and editor for much of his life. He was the editor of three English weeklies, namely Indian Opinion (in South Africa during 1903-1915), Young India (1919- 1931), and Harijan (1933-1942 and 1946-January 1948).
These journals, which he described as “viewspapers”, were means of political and social movements. But they were also printed, distributed and sold in the open market just like other journalistic products.
What can today’s journalists and publishers learn from Gandhi? I revisit this again in this week’s Ravaya column (published on 21 June 2015), continuing an exploration started last week.
In this week’s Ravaya column (in Sinhala, published in issue of 3 May 2015), I talk about the Magna Carta, one of the most famous documents in the world. This years marks the 800th anniversary of its adoption in medieval England in 1215.
It was the first formal document stating that a King had to follow the laws of the land (‘Rule of Law’). It guaranteed the rights of individuals against the wishes of the King. This laid the way for trial by jury which means people are tried by their peers and guaranteed the civil rights of the individual.
The Magna Carta established the principle that the people of England, at this stage represented by the Barons, could limit the power of a King, if he was doing things that were not good for the country. It had far-reaching influence on both sides of the Atlantic over the centuries.
However, the Lankan monarchy always remained absolute until it ended in 1815. There were no formal limits to the monarch’s powers, even though Dasa-Raja-Dhamma or the ‘Ten Royal Virtues’ in Buddhism were meant to moderate that power. In practice, many monarchs ignored it.
Those who clamour for the restoration of monarchy in Sri Lanka don’t know — or overlook — just how feudal, unrestrained and unaccountable the monarchy was.
King John seals the Magna Carta on 15 June 1215. Photo by Universal History
The Magna Carta of 1215, written in iron gall ink on parchment in medieval Latin, using standard abbreviations of the period, authenticated with the Great Seal of King John (image courtesy Wikipedia)
An impressive 81.52% of registered voters turned up, and their majority choice changed the regime. A well-oiled system that has been holding elections since 1931 proved its efficacy again. And if its integrity came under threat, the formidable Commissioner of Elections stood up for the due process.
As we pat ourselves on the back, however, let us remember: an election is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a vibrant democracy. There is much more to democracy than holding free and fair elections.
The ‘sufficient conditions’ include having public institutions that allow citizens the chance to participate in political process on an on-going basis; a guarantee that all people are equal before the law (independent and apolitical judiciary); respect for cultural, ethnic and religious diversity; and freedom of opinion without fearing any repercussions. Sri Lanka has much work to do on all these fronts.
Democracy itself, as practised for centuries, can do with some ‘upgrading’ to catch up with modern information societies.
Historically, people have responded to bad governance by changing governments at elections, or by occasionally overthrowing corrupt or despotic regimes through mass agitation.
Yet such ‘people power’ has its own limits: in country after country where one political party – or the entire political system — was replaced with another through popular vote (or revolt), people have been disappointed at how quickly the new brooms lose their bristles.
The solution must, therefore, lie in not just participating in elections (or revolutions), but in constantly engaging governments and keeping the pressure on them to govern well.
In practice, we citizens must juggle it along with our personal and professional lives. As information society advances, however, new tools and methods are becoming available to make it easier.
Social Accountability
This relatively new approach involves citizens gathering data, systematically analysing it and then engaging (or confronting, when necessary) elected and other officials in government. Citizens across the developing world are using information to improve the use of common property resources (e.g. water, state land and electromagnetic spectrum, etc.), and management of funds collected through taxation or borrowed from international sources.
Such engagement enables citizens as well as civil society organisations (CSOs) to engage with policymakers and citizen service providers. Some call it social accountability (or SAcc), and others refer to it as participatory democracy. Whatever the label, the idea is to ensure greater accountability in how the public sector manages public funds and responds to citizens’ needs.
For this to work, citizens need to access public sector information – about budgets, expenditures, problems and performance. Over 100 countries now have laws guaranteeing people’s right to information (RTI). Sadly, Sri Lanka is lagging behind all other SAARC countries, five of which have already enacted RTI laws and two (Afghanistan and Bhutan) have draft bills under consideration. Attempts to introduce RTI in Sri Lanka were repeatedly thwarted by the previous government.
Economist Hernando de Soto (image from Wikipedia)
An early champion of social accountability was the Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto who has been researching on poverty, development and governance issues. He says: “Supposedly in a democracy, if the majority of people are poor, then they set the criteria of what is right. Yet all those mechanisms that allow [society] to decide where the money goes — and that it is appropriately allocated — are not in place throughout the Third World.”
The result? “We take turns electing authoritarian governments. The country, therefore, is left to the [whims] of big-time interests, and whoever funded the elections or parties. We have no right of review or oversight. We have no way for the people’s voice to be heard — except for eight hours on election day!”
It is this important right of review and oversight in between elections that SAcc promotes. Call it an ‘insurance’ against democracy being subverted by big money, corrupt officials or special interest groups…
A dozen years ago, concerned by development investments being undermined by pervasive corruption and excessive bureaucracy, the World Bank started advocating SAcc. Their research shows how, even in the most hopeless situations, ordinary people often come together to collect their voice and exert pressure on governments to be responsive.
“Social accountability is about affirming and operationalising direct accountability relationships between citizens and the state. It refers to the broad range of actions and mechanisms beyond voting that citizens can use to hold the state to account,” says a World Bank sourcebook on the subject. (See: http://go.worldbank.org/Y0UDF953D0)
What does that mean in plain language? Seeking to go beyond theory and jargon, the Bank funded a global documentary in 2003, which I co-produced. Titled ‘Earth Report: People Power’ and first broadcast on BBC in February 2004, it featured four inspiring SAcc examples drawn from Brazil, India, Ireland and Malawi (online: http://goo.gl/xQnr9v).
These case studies, among the best at the time, showed how SAcc concepts could be adapted in different societies and economic systems
In Porto Alegre, Brazil, community members participate annually in a series of meetings to decide on the City Budget. This material is presented to Parliament which finds it difficult to refuse the recommendations — because over 20,000 have contribute to its preparation. As many or more watch how the budget is spent.
In Rajasthan, India, an advocacy group named MKSS holds a public meeting where the affidavits of local candidates standing for the state elections are available to the people. This ‘right to information’ extends all the way down to villages where people can find out about public spending.
In Ireland, the government has partnered with trade unions, employers, training institutions and community groups on a strategy to deal with problems affecting youth (such as school drop-outs and high unemployment). Citizens set priorities for social spending.
In Malawi, villagers participate in assessing local health clinics by scoring various elements of the service. A Health Village Committee then meets the service providers who also assess themselves. Together, they work out ways to improve the service.
During the last decade, many more examples have emerged – some driven by public intellectuals, others by civil society groups or socially responsible companies. Their issues, challenges and responses vary but everyone is looking for practical ways to sustain civic engagement in between elections.
The development community has long held romanticized views on grassroots empowerment. While SAcc builds on that, it is no castle in the air: the rise of digital technologies, web and social media allows better monitoring, analysis and dissemination. And government monopolies over public information have been breached — not just by progressive policies and RTI laws but also by efforts such as WikiLeaks.
Confronted by the growing flood of often technical information, citizens need to be well organised and skilled to use in the public interest. Evidence-based advocacy is harder than rhetorical protests.
Dr Bela Bhatia, then an associate fellow at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies in India, says on the film: “Ultimately the responsibility in a democracy is ours…and if today we have corrupt politicians, it is because we have allowed corruption to happen, to take root.”
Rather than debating endlessly on how things became so bad, SAcc promoters show a way forward – with emphasis on collaboration, not confrontation.
“It’s up to the governments to make up their mind whether they want to respect the more participatory model or invite more confrontation, to invite violence and perhaps ultimately the dismantling of the very democratic system,” says Bhatia.
How can we deepen our democracy with SAcc? Start with RTI, and see what happens.
Which road to take, ponders Mahinda Rajapaksa after war victory – Cartoon by Gihan de Chickera, published in Daily Mirror, 4 June 2009 (2 weeks after Sri Lanka’s civil war ended)
Anti-government demonstrators crowd Cairo’s Tahrir Square in February 2011
In this week’s Ravaya column (in Sinhala), published in the issue dated 4 January 2015, I pose a topical question: are there necessary and sufficient conditions for a spontaneous people’s uprising in Sri Lanka similar to what happened in the collective phenomenon known as the Arab Spring?
I address this because both the ruling party and opposition politicians in Sri Lanka have been loosely referring to Arab Spring during their current campaigns running up to the Presidential Election scheduled for 8 January 2015.
In this column, I briefly chronicle what happened in the Middle East and North Africa during 2010-11, and then explore the many factors that triggered or sustained the complex series of events. I discern three key factors: demographics (especially a low median age with large youthful populations); democracy deficit; and proliferation of information and communications technologies ranging from easy access to trans-boundary satellite television broadcasts, mobile phones and Internet.
I argue that while Sri Lanka of today has achieved the ICT factor in good measure, the other two factors fall short. With a median age of 31 years (in 2012), ours is no longer a youthful population and the demographic impetus for uprisings has passed. And while there are serious concerns about governance, the country’s democratic deficit is only partially present.
Thus, it is very unlikely that an Arab Spring style uprising could happen in Sri Lanka. So both the ruling coalition and opposition parties relax — and should let go of this much-hyped prospect.
Replace autocracy with democracy or theocracy? Changing the top isn’t that easy! Cartoon by Clay Bennett on 1 February 2011. Cartoon courtesy timesfreepress.com
Although it has been discussed for centuries, there is no universally accepted definition of basic human needs. During the 1970s, basic needs emerged as a key topic in development debates. Various studies – catalysed by UN agencies and the Club of Rome – tried to define it.
In 1976, the International Labour Organization (ILO) prepared a report that identified basic needs as food, clothing, housing, education and public transportation. It partially drew on ILO’s country reports on Columbia, Kenya and Sri Lanka. Since then, different development agencies have adopted variations of the original ILO list. National planners have used the concept to benchmark economic growth.
The ground reality has changed drastically since those heady days. In view of the rapid evolution of information society, communication should be considered a basic human need. This is the basic thrust in my latest Ravaya column (in Sinhala).
See also my related writing on revisiting basic needs:
In this week’s Ravaya column (in Sinhala), I pay tribute to South African writer and social activist Nadine Gordimer (1923-2014). I focus on how she never hesitated to speak out for justice, fairness and equality even when that elicited ridicule and harassment from her own government that quickly labeled her a ‘traitor’.
I also recall how I once listened to her speak, during the recording of a TV debate in Johannesburg in mid 2002, and how she later marched the streets with activists from all over the world demanding land rights for the poor.
In this Ravaya column, I look back at Sri Lanka’s support for the anti-Apartheid struggle, extended in various ways — both officially and personally. Three times Prime Minister Mrs Sirimavo Bandaranaike was vocal in international forums, and also wrote personal letters to Nelson Mandela when he was in prison.
This week’s Ravaya column (in Sinhala) looks at the widespread practice of toxic waste dumping in Italy (and overseas) by mafia groups contracted for the task by polluting industries. In the 1990s, this gave rise to what is now called Ecomafia.
Open Minds! (formerly: Moving Images blog) 