‘Politicians pushing propaganda are shooting themselves in the foot’ – Media Literacy Board Chairman

Politicians who use propaganda would be ‘ shooting themselves in the foot’ if they continue to use such a strategy to try and earn political points, the newly elected chairman of the Media Literacy Development Board, Alexander Farrugia, told The Malta Independent.

Alexander Farrugia was appointed chairman of the Media Literacy Development Board a few days ago. Farrugia had a fifteen-year long stint in journalism. He is a former editor of the GWU’s It-Torċa newspaper, and is now a visiting lecturer in Critical Theory at the University of Malta.

Farrugia was asked about propaganda which political parties push through various mediums. “If I want to send a political message, the more openly political and partisan I am, the less I am going to influence people with my message,” he said.

He noted that not everyone is simply passive when it comes to watching the media, as everyone “makes their own choices.” Younger generations are becoming increasingly aware of propoganda and therefore, he said, if political parties don’t change their strategies, they risk becoming “irrelevant” in the future. This is especially the case in the changing media landscape with the shift from television to more internet- based forms of media, he added.

From the consumers’ part, he said that certain people are generally inclined to be attracted towards statements and news which concur with their current beliefs, resulting in a biased way of digesting news. In turn, when one views biased news, “they are not looking for information, but to find comfort in listening to the propaganda they want to hear. What probably happens is that the more difficult the times are, the more people will turn to that channel to find comfort,” he said.

On another note, Farrugia remarked that he is “more worried” that a lot of people simply read the headlines or first few paragraphs of an article or interview, “which could sometimes be misleading.”

“You start noticing from the comments that the people would not have read the whole article,” he observed.

“In reality, I think people know what they want and they consume what they want. Our role has to be to tell them that what they are consuming can actually be damaging... at the same time we really need to preserve the democratic environment,” he said. “The biggest enemy of democracy, as history shows us, is when people lose discernment of what they are consuming.”

He spoke of the need to improve people’s critical awareness in order to verify sources and challenge notions in a factual manner, as opposed to having misleading opinions.

Turning to the Media Literacy Development Board, he said that the board is formed through a relatively new law. “The role of the board is essentially educational,” he said.

This board was formed in order to educate people about how the media works and how to search for facts, especially as we live in a society where “communication is more open and more complex.”

“If we go back 50 years, the meditative discussions were very limited. For example, you had a newspaper… the newspaper would have its own editor, and the participation of the public would have generally been through letters sent to the newspaper,” Farrugia said. “This means that an editor would receive the letters, sift through them, and decide whether one is printed and the other is not. To a certain extent, it’s an indirect way of censorship.”

This would not be done out of spite for a particular person, Farrugia remarked, but because it would not be deemed as being newspaper worthy or of quality.

“For me personally, my policy was that I would admit anything except that which would have incited hatred. For example, when it comes to immigration, there could be a case where you wouldn’t agree, and that’s fine, we live in a democracy, so they should have the forum to air their point of view. However, at the same time, I could not publish something which incites hatred,” he said.

Farrugia remarked that this landscape is changing, and things have become rather more complex since social media became mainstream. “People no longer need the newspapers, in fact, newspaper sales are going down. This is because you either have the comment boards beneath an article, or can through social media simply publish a status, write a tweet and so forth. There is little or no way of how to limit or curate what appears,” he noted.

This raises very pertinent questions, such as whether one should allow someone to publish statements in which a person is stating unfactual things, especially when that person has a certain degree of power and influence over people.

“Today’s dilemma is: What can you do when you are faced with such issues? I, for one, do not agree with the cancel culture. We live in a democracy and there should be a democratic spirit. We need to fight ideas with ideas, not by silencing someone,” he remarked.

“But the difficulty arises when someone guides people to conclusions which are illogical or lead to hatred and violence. So the role of this board is essentially to educate, especially about these things,” he said.

The media literacy chairman also said that people should understand how the media works, especially when they are using it themselves. “A lot of people think that they can go on Facebook and write whatever they want. Certain people are not even aware that comments they make are public. But there are also cases where certain comments are libellous. We already saw cases taken to court over posts made on Facebook.”

“There are also cases of bullying and trolling. Not everyone knows how to face these trolls. I believe we are still learning what a troll is, how to face them, and how to cope with them psychologically.”

Farrugia highlighted another pertinent issue which is “very complex to deal with”; people need to learn how to evaluate and discern between reliable and unreliable sources.

He spoke of the need to launch an educational campaign regarding sources.

A major challenge, he said, is that people are more inclined to believe certain statements which concur with their own prior beliefs and are said by people who they trust, who might not be saying something factually true.

“This is a major challenge: How are we going to separate facts from propaganda? One of the biggest challenges we have is that we want to listen to voices that conform with our points of view, and that we would not want to hear voices which contrast with our beliefs.”

“How are we going to lead a population which is so divided in its points of view, even though at times they agree on many points, at a subliminal level?” he questioned.

Farrugia believes that this needs to be worked on, as people should “start getting used to the fact that issues or ideas which one doesn’t necessarily want to hear or doesn’t conform with one’s own perspective, may actually be factual or good.”

“The reality can be the complete opposite of what someone believes.”

“Not everything is black and white, but there are different shades,” he said. “So, in order to be informed, people must search for the facts. What someone does with the facts is the liberty of democracy, but a fact stays a fact.”

He also spoke about social media and how anything can be found on there, with everyone sounding their own opinions, but said that so many points of views can result in facts being hidden. While there are negatives to social media, there are also many positives, he said.

“You have things such as citizen journalism, where someone would see something and report it at that time; even though it can be good and bad. Furthermore, whereas in the past a small number of editors would decide what to publish, that is no longer the case.”

“With social media, you can be both a consumer and also a producer, so that makes a big difference.”

He explained that the board’s job “is not to create counter narratives,” but rather to “foster an environment in which sensible counter narratives grow.”

“A certain degree of critical thinking needs to be involved, where people ask: ‘What is the message behind the information provided? What data is being presented, and is it correct?’” he said.

The more people are aware as to how the PR and media works, the more they can start to understand that the information they are receiving and consuming is not neutral, he said. “But people have to be aware that facts remain facts.”

He also suggested that journalists should perhaps own up to their mistakes as well, which would “give them more credibility”.

“There are certain cases where journalists would have wanted to share a story, it wasn’t verified with enough people, and then still decided to publish it. And maybe we, as journalists, should apologise more in this sense, which might give us more credibility.”

This sphere is also changing, he said, as since more media houses shifted online, there could be a race-against-time as to who is going to publish a story first.

He said that every journalist has their bias as well, even a personal one. “The more we try to picture ourselves as neutral, the more it works against us.”

Finally, he did note that in terms of the political sphere, a society which has more political parties would “definitely have more points of views”.

“I would like to see a situation where there are 3 or 4 parties challenging for power. However, I don’t think the main problem is bipartisanship, but rather the lack of critical thinking. You can be the biggest associate of a party, but you can also be critical. It is essential because it keeps those who are leading on their toes,” he said.