Democracy will be safer when we can apply brakes to ‘fake’ news
– COMMENT p24
SINCE January, 39 stakeholders have been advising the EU on disinformation and actions to be undertaken. I was rapporteur of the subgroup representing the press, the other constituencies were broadcasters, civil society, academics, and – last but not least – the platforms. Also known as ‘the giants’, or ‘the GAFA’, notably Google and Facebook.
Given differing interests, it is amazing we arrived at a near consensus.
Why did we? Because what is at stake is more than business: it is the health of our democracies. In Europe, and in the US.
I would claim that – with less disinformation – Trump’s election and Brexit could have been avoided.
‘Fake news’ is not any false or illegal information.
First, some definition. We were not handling “illegal” news (such as defamation or racist content), which is already handled by numerous laws.
Also not satire or mere journalist mistakes, for which there are correction policies. No, our group was about intentional disinformation for a political or commercial motive.
These days, the most talkedabout is destabilisation funded from Russia, but there is other home-grown fake news.
Here is a way to illustrate the challenge. A judge cannot forbid fake news, first because of speed; second, because this would amount to censorship; third, how do you define “the truth” anyway?
How would we dilute disinformation with better content? Picking from the report, I highlight six measures: four on substance, and two regarding implementation.
First, media training. There is a consensus on the need for media literacy – developing critical minds of citizens.
Journalists and other media professionals also need better skills: fact-checking and innovation, notably with data.
Second, transparency. We need to harness the speed of platforms while not leaving them editorial choices. It is indispensable for users and advertisers to know where content comes from. This applies to ads and sponsored content so doubtful funders can be unprioritised.
Third, quality. To feed and influence the platforms’ algorithms, we need Source Transparency Indicators (aggregated from media
A judge cannot forbid ‘fake’ news, first because of speed; second, because this would amount to censorship; third, how do you define ‘the truth’ anyway?
organisations like press councils and NGOs). This will dilute and slow disinformation instead of trying to kill it. There is broad support for this “positive” approach.
Fourth, funding, both private and public. Indeed, to provide quality information, we need journalists to survive!
The EU will develop a sustainability strategy for the media sector for its mandate 2019-2024. Money is available, under R&D funding, training programmes and social funds.
The EU could also facilitate national help or simple tax breaks.
Not all policy reports lead to impact… So, we also spent time on creating review points and defining co-regulation.
So, we are working on a coalition of stakeholders, leading to a code of practices. This could provide short-term impact before the EU elections in 2019.
Complementing this selfregulation, we will have more co-regulation where needed.
This is combining voluntary measures and policy actions if goals are not met. This could explicitly include competition policy, the EU’s main power…
Google received a huge fine last year under such rules, Apple is meant to reimburse Irish tax breaks: platforms do pay attention.
Finally, let’s step back. Yesterday, I attended a press conference about our report. Let me summarise four typical questions I heard, and answer them clearly.
Did we fulfil our mandate as High-Level Group?
Yes. Every stakeholder engaged constructively.
Will this have a real impact? Certainly. Because the follow-up is based co-regulation, meaning “carrots and sticks”. Notably “encouraging” platforms.
WOULD this impact be timely?
Probably. To put positive pressure on all, there are two review points before the EU elections of May 2019: in November and next spring. Based on an independent report, the EU Commission will issue its next steps in March 2019.
Will there still be fake news after 2019?
Of course. They are fast-moving targets. Even their formats will keep changing.
We just wish to reduce their number and their reach. It’s like vaccinating people against viruses and reducing exposure to contaminated areas.
Moving on, most of the fake news group members feel energised.
For the media in particular, this challenge is an opportunity to leverage journalists’ work better.
Christophe Leclerq is a member of the High-Level Expert Group that produced yesterday’s report for the EU on fake news and online disinformation