The media researcher and educational coordinator of Journalism and Digital Content material of the ORT Uruguay College, Daniel Mazzone, participated in the Tech Camp Argentina. Through the second day, he made a presentation on the conceptualization of the phenomenon of misinformation and the methods that the means for preventing it ought to assume.
The Uruguayan specialist, writer of the e-book “Lying Machines,” stated in his presentation that the post-truth apocalyptic analysis places the problem in “the order of fact,” when it isn’t. “That’s because the state of affairs is analyzed from previous models that don’t apply at this time,” he warned.
“In the West there were never absolute and permanent truths in areas reminiscent of judicial or journalistic. They have been all the time appealable truths, ”he added. For Mazzone, the fact that there’s multiple vision concerning the fact is just not “a weak spot” of the system, but “a power of the open society.”
“I feel we’ve an issue that we solved badly, which was the of accepting the 'Pretend News' headband, ”stated Mazzone. For him, this term makes the audience consider that there could also be false information, undermining the credibility of the media. He also sees that journalists are slowly refolding that time period from the headlines, but it’s a mistake that may value rather a lot to return as a result of it is rather put in. “We hold capturing ourselves within the foot,” he exclaimed on the conference.
Then again, he noted that since journalism emerged as we all know it in the present day, a “communication contract” was shaped with the audiences where it was understood that the media have been the ones that circulated info. Nevertheless, with the technological advances, that contract was spent they usually went to a secondary place once they lost the guarantee of circulation in the palms of the platforms. “What we now have is a disaster within the discursive circulation of content material, not the reality,” he stated.
Mazzone sees that it’s a good time for the media to think about the way to remedy this crisis and its place within the new communication ecosystem. “If we lose the battle, it is going to be a terrific defeat for open societies,” he concluded.
After his lecture, Daniel Mazzone spoke with Adepa concerning the subjects he introduced at the Tech Camp:
What place do the media occupy in the aftermath ?
I consider that the place that the media will occupy within the new ecosystem isn’t clear. There are media that enter the platforms and depart the platforms. The relationship with the platforms can’t be distributed with, however one way or the other the platforms have to date operated in such a method that they’ve tried to dispute the place of the media. Within the last time the audiences have been taken out. They generated a pact of reading with the customers with which the media did very badly from that initial second.
Positive, we all saw him stunned. No one understood what was occurring. And now there’s a Facebook initiative a special tab with 200 media, of which I might pay 30 million dollars to 50 of them. The objective clearly to make a unique strategy to the elections of 2020 [en Estados Unidos] in order that the identical does not occur once more of the elections of 2016. That is, it is a matter that’s being outlined and that I feel will rely rather a lot on what Let the media do.
A couple of years in the past there was a dispute over the audience between the platforms and the media. Now, this dispute is because of the media's demand for the platforms to pay for using its contents. How do you analyze that state of affairs?
The difficulty is that I disagree with those who say that platforms and media are the same. They are the identical to us. Platforms do not create their very own content. They do not generate it, in order that they use the contents generated by users and try to applicable the contents of the media. How the media defend the contents they produce and the angle they assume in this new ecosystem will depend in the future on the position they play at present.
More than an issue with the contents, probably the most significant issue is with the circulation of these contents.
Sure yes. It is printing and distribution. Immediately the distribution is completed by means of platforms.
Do you assume the pretend information … Nicely, that label that was placed on them, is it flawed?
Yes. Everyone understands it, nevertheless it's like throwing themselves on the bottom for journalism.
Do you assume they turned an issue of the digital age?
Very significant issue. It’s a very significant issue that places into play the credibility of a Western communication system, which is millenary. It comes from antiquity and we now have worked cumulatively on that. We went from orality to writing, from writing to printing, from printing to the totally different media where journalism, radio, television and cinema emerged. All that was producing a complexity that is distinctive to the West.
There isn’t any different area, one other attainable cultural area on the earth that behaves and works in the identical approach the truth. That’s, it doesn’t set up definitive or absolute truths. The truths are all the time substitutable, controversial, appealable. That’s our way of life. And this concern, if we don't remedy it properly, will affect our way of life.
You wrote that the problem of pretend information is just not an issue for journalists themselves.
Obviously. It was not generated by journalism.
I don't wish to say that journalists are the custodians of the truth. The custodian of the reality needs to be the society as an entire. His position is rather more widespread. What journalists do is propose real proposals for successive issues that society is considering. And there’s a position of the reader, the consumer, the listener, the viewer that’s elementary in the validation of that proposal. That's why there are multiple voices. That is western life. There are a number of voices. The truth that there are two or three or extra versions of the same occasion shouldn’t be a weak spot of the system. It is a power, because there’s the position of the public. That civil fact, which ought to be studied properly, determines what most consider. It does not belong to anyone particularly, nevertheless it represents the majority.
So, would journalists be another voice in that majority?
Yes … They are entitled to propose. They make real proposals, and it is their viewers that determines whether or not or not. They usually have some ways for the media to develop or diminish their influence.
Might you say that the problem of misinformation and faux information just isn’t of journalism, but of society as an entire?
Totally. What happens is that we who’re in communication are the ones who can higher perceive this situation. Simply spoke with a colleague and advised him that there’s a drawback with the dollar, they name economists; issues in politics, they call the political scientist. Nicely, right here there are issues in communication, which generated a really multidimensional disaster that goes past communication, which we will understand higher than anybody. However we don't speak and we don't expose or clarify this. We do not explain why we don’t perceive it. We aren’t even understanding what our position is in this difficult second of society and communication.
Does it need to do with how we don't perceive the platforms and our place in them?
Properly, in the presentation I made, one of the statements I made was that we aren’t Understanding the which means of the modifications. McLuhan already stated in 64 that the beginning of the change was electricity. In different words, issues have been altering actually for more than 100 years and generating instability that we’ve got not grow to be accustomed to. But we now have to get used to it. Things are unstable. We can’t analyze it when it comes to stability when it isn’t and by no means might be.
Positive, however now it's troublesome as a result of the media is experiencing financial instability that they didn't have before.
Yes, yes. The circumstances usually are not going to vary. The media should define their inner crises, the crisis of the enterprise model, the path they adopt in these ecosystem circumstances.
What can the media do to rethink their place in this ecosystem?
Nicely, I feel that on the media degree there’s a elementary challenge that is to imagine conversational journalism, which They need to assume once and for all. That’s, they need to perceive the viewers higher. They may perceive the viewers as long as they keep a dialogue. And it's not just if I maintain the comments or not. No, it’s a permanent dialogue to see what varieties to imagine.
From an institutional, journalism or media perspective, they have to know that they are referred to as to play a gravitational position in the design of the brand new system. . They’ll have the ability to do it as they determine.
Finally, if in society we’re going in the direction of a new communication contract, what must be taken under consideration in that contract?
Hopefully we’ll go to a new contract. I consider that a new contract should be established. And there we should see the position that the platforms are going to play, the politics, the legislative scope, the position that the media play.
Ideas have to be put forward urgently. Urgently. Right here time performs towards us. The extra time passes during which things are all the identical, society will develop into accustomed to all the things giving the identical, then they may say “I can’t consider in anything” that leads to the debacle. And there, in that state of affairs, a whole lot of means are worn.
(perform (d, s, id)
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName (s) ;
if (d.getElementById (id)) return;
js = d.createElement (s); js.id = id;
js.src = “//connect.fb.internet/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=136911316406581”;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore (js, fjs);
(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));