Information Disorder and International Communication: Issues and Solutions

Screen Shot 2018-06-04 at 3.46.03 PMThis commentary has been co-authored by a number of participants in the course ICM835 – Media Governance as a response to Minna Horowitz’s article in the Journal of Vincentian Social Action titled: Disinformation as Warfare in the Digital Age: Dimensions, Dilemmas, and Solutions. 

The authors develop Horowitz’s arguments further by clarifying the dimensions of fake news, offering examples, and suggesting policy solutions. 

By: Angel, Axecap, Catherine, Carrigan, Destineep, Holmes Like Sherlock, Katherine, kcazack, Lauren, Matthew, Nat, Oscar, poached eggs, Prime, talia, Tiyana, Viatrix, Xinwei94, Yige, ziva8, Ziying [The ICM835 online platform was public but contributions are anonymous, hence the screen names for all authors.]

Nature of Today’s Information Disorder: Politics, Business, Us

We can see the confrontation between different interest groups in the new media era behind the emergence of fake news. Disinformation is not just about the money for the big corporations, but also about politics, representations, race and all the other elements that abound in our human society as power players struggle and fight for control over ideologies and meanings.

We are living in a rather unapologetic era where distrust for those of elite status is evident and the norm; it seems as though it will swell to no end, yet it also seems as though it will at some foreseeable point.

Countries find themselves struggling to choose between not only who, but what is true and is not. This leads political followers, or the parties themselves to create “Fake News” to ruin the impression of their opponent. It is, in essence, a means of setting the agenda and directing attention to what the government sees fit. How do we even begin to eradicate something that could have so many elites involved?

But also non-state actors like Al Qaeda and Isis have used the digital space to grow its numbers and mobilize its actions. Our societies are increasingly interlinked with new digital technologies that will not take radical actions as demonstrated by the aforementioned but a simple computer hack of our banking or medical systems could cripple our nation.

It is no wonder that cyberspace is being labeled the new battlefield. In the early years of social media celebrities were the victim of fake news hoaxes being proclaimed as dead, now these platforms are being used to influence and manipulate elections and policy relations and decisions. These platforms, designed for user-generated content, underestimated their own potential in going beyond the recreational sharing of information amongst family and friends to becoming such a centralized source and influencer of global news. But the battlefield is also right on our fingertips. We see it all day long scrolling down our feeds. We are just liking or commenting on something that we find funny – only to find that we are spreading false information. 

If we take a step back and observe the amount of “Fake News” that generates throughout our social platforms, it’s interesting to understand where it was developed and how it used to promote some agenda, whether it is good or bad. The fabricated information that is hidden so well amongst facts and practices makes it hard for the public to determine what they are reading is actually completely true or false. But that also begs the question of what is considered completely true. Unfortunately we, as a society, have so much information at our fingertips, that we have become distrustful in the information that is being offered to us.

Examples

Concrete examples illustrate the multiple facets of “Fake news”.

Viral fake news is already so common that they happen to, and impact, everyone. Last December, a minor explosion happened in Queens. The news and social media hyped this harmless event to the extent that people who had relatives in elsewhere would receive worried messages about their health and well-being.

When a human tragedy is in question, the effects can be much more severe.  A case in point a few years back is the death of Kendrick Johnson, a boy who died at a school in Valdosta, Georgia. The official determination of death was later found false; there was malpractice on the part of the original coroner. Throughout this whole process, massive amounts of misinformation were being spread on Twitter and Facebook, and the whole city was polarized about the case. The case became national news but was never solved. To this day, no one knows what truly happened, and the fake news spread by people on both sides only worsened the case for everyone.

Fake news can shift and skew public opinions and divide an entire country. The advent of mobile phone technology in Nigeria was a much-needed boost in the life of the country. Like other developing nations, they struggled with the challenges of the digitalized world. During the last elections, this became abundantly clear. From the moment the political campaigning began, fake news of all sorts flooded the internet space. All parties were trying to outdo and outsmart one another. Unfortunately, a great number of citizens were unable to verify the authenticity of the information. Credit though must be given to a group of journalists working under the aegis of Crosscheck Nigeria, a coalition with the international center for investigative reporting, who tried to verify the authenticity of the information on the net.

Policy Solutions

Fake news is something perpetrated by people across different sectors, by political operatives but also for economic gain. The result of this is that it is becoming more and more difficult for policymakers to formulate proper policies that would positively affect the lives of people, owing to the fact that everything is shrouded in propaganda, no thanks to the preponderance of fake news.

At the same time, freedom of speech and censorship are variables that slightly complicate the policy-making decisions in situations such as these. “Soft policy” solutions, as opposed to new national laws and regulations, are perhaps the most probable option.

  • A more responsible way of managing user content falls squarely on the shoulders of these technology companies. 
  • It is interesting that a governmental body to focus on “Fake News”, however small, has yet to be established given the severity of the fake news phenomena in the U.S, like in the EU. The inability for citizens to distinguish what is the truth and what is false only continues to get worse, as do the consequences. Although responsibility greatly rests on the platforms themselves, after a certain point their needs to be government action taken. We must first protect our internet infrastructure by placing greater emphasis on cybersecurity and surveillance without using systems rooted in implicit bias to certain populations.
  • However, the cyber world will never realize that every net citizen obeys the basic social norm of not commenting and sharing. When you click the news and read it, your behavior is a response to the news which will concentrate the spreading speed. The best way to protect ourselves from being influenced by fake news is to improve our media literacy, our ability to tell right from wrong, and not to believe what the news report easily.

 

20 thoughts on “Information Disorder and International Communication: Issues and Solutions

  1. From Digital news reports, the way of news consumption in various countries tends to shift to social media. The devices for people getting news are also more from mobile phones. However, I found a problem through the data: the larger the proportion of people who use social media to get news, the more likely they are to doubt the authenticity of the news. For example, in Brazil, compared with the United States, 54% of Brazilians get news through Facebook, while only 39% of Americans use Facebook for news; 58% of Brazilians join groups with people they don’t know, and only 12% of people in the UK do that. 85% of Brazilians are concerned about what’s real and what’s fake, while 67%of Americans are concerned, 70% for British. This is the transition from platform to social network and then to social media (Knight, p46), which is also the result that people need to face. On the one hand, social media meets audiences’ fragmented time requirement, meets the need for interactive expression anytime and anywhere; There are more ways for people to get more news in a faster speed, but the voice of doubt has appeared.

    According to Knight, we can even get an immersive news experience through VR, but I think this is a manifestation of the news becoming less serious in the new media environment. If there is news about natural disasters, do we also want to experience the feeling of “being there” through VR? With the increase of people’s interactions, there may be funny comments under serious news, and even some popular words will be spread by the public unconsciously. This is not the meaning of news appearing in social media, nor create a benign environment.
    for News discussions.

    Consumers of information are also producers of information, considering instantaneity, distinguishing fake news has become a factor that brings challenges. The spread of fake news will bring different degrees of negative effects. For individuals, fake news will bring an image, reputation, psychological, and economic damage to the parties concerned. For media organizers, it will seriously damage the credibility of the media and also bring adverse global effects. If fake news prevails, the value of real news and good news will surely decline. As the value of news declines, so will the value and social status of journalists and news media.

  2. According to Knight, “Everyone connected to the internet has, at least in theory, the ability to act as a producer as well as a consumer of content, and social media platforms are designed specifically to encourage and facilitate free expression.” This has directly affected our interaction with news, in terms of the individual creating news (e.g. citizen journalism), sharing news and commenting on news. In analyzing South Africa, it was seen that 49% of the population used WhatsApp for news, and 59% shared news, while 39% commented on news. This is different from the U.S., where there was significantly lower news sharing (37%) and commenting (29%).

    The lack of trust in the news (especially in the U.S.) could account for this. According to Minna Aslama Horowitz, “Disinformation as warfare in the digital age may not be so different than any other type of warfare; wars are fought for power, and some benefit economically while the vulnerable suffer the most.” This warfare brings about high levels of confusion among locals. Reuters Digital News Report 2019 found that more than half (55%) of their sample across 38 countries remains concerned about their ability to separate what is real and fake on the internet. South Africa had some of the highest concern at 70% of their population. In the U.S., only 14% of the population said they trusted social media news, and 25% trusted news in search.

    “The power of community is the power of communication.”, according to Delante. Hence, if communication channels such as digital news is compromised, then the community itself is weakened. Delante also states that “Community exists in the medium of its expression.” In South Africa for example, we could see community in WhatsApp. The Reuters Digital News Report 2019 revealed that people in countries of the East, are more than likely “to be part of large WhatsApp groups with people they don’t know – a trend that reflects how messaging applications can be used to easily share information at scale, potentially encouraging the spread of misinformation.”

    Referring again to the ‘vulnerable suffer the most’ (Horowitz), we see a close link to education/ literacy. Reuters Digital News Report 2019 shared that one’s level of education impacted how they evaluated the media. Similarly, Horowitz identified that those with higher news literacy are more selective with their news platforms, and are more cautious about interventions by governments to deal with misinformation. A threat to South Africa is that an average of 5% of their adult population is illiterate (Statista, 2015). With a population of 57 million, this makes up a chunk of their population.

    As shared in this blog, “The best way to protect ourselves from being influenced by fake news is to improve our media literacy, our ability to tell right from wrong, and not to believe what the news report easily.” My hope for South Africa in the media warfare is that traditional education assists in strengthening news literacy and stir insightful discussions among already existing social news platforms.

  3. When reading the blog post, the first thing that really stuck with me is the mistrust of the elite and almost posing the question of whether it is always growing phenomenon or is it an attitude that cycles as time goes on. In my opinion, it is a little bit of both. In recent history, the mistrust of the elite is something that goes through phases. For example, the mistrust of the 1930’s during the Great Depression was soon replaced by complete trust in the 1950s and the post war boom. On the flip side however, that mistrust has been growing steadily in the last 10 years and especially within the last 5. That mistrust spreads across party lines and politics, and spreads to anything that the elite is seeing has being apart of.

    A strong example of this mistrust is currently housed within the media. This can be seen in many countries, but especially within the United States as reported by the Reuters Report. Within the United States, trust is at almost an all time low with around 30% of people trusting the news. This is due to the culture of Fake News that has completely engulfed American society. There is no one party or group of people at fault entirely, but for many Americans, both sides-Democratic or Republican-see has this all being caused by the elite. For Democrats, it is the WASP-elite and previous generations like baby boomers and their parents. For Republicans, it is the liberal, Hollywood elite, who through media are causing our country to be in a moral down-ward spiral. But, the common entity is both are mad at some form of the elite, because they believe the elite have caused a divide in the nation, which they have due to the creation of the Fake News and “everyone has an agenda” culture. This is also the result of the attention based and attention-need economy from the article on “Disinformation as Warfare”. This to me is what lead to the creation of sensational news and click-bait headlines to grab people’s attention, not caring necessarily if the news is true. Companies need to grab people’s attention because their revenue from ADs is derived solely from how many clicks they get and the traffic on their sites. This has caused the watering down of journalism that Knight talks about in Chapter 3, where the journals and journalist are now focused just on the title and traffic rather than the story because there is such a saturation of media for people to go to.

    Switzerland is another country that has struggled with identifying whether or not the media can be trusted. The Reuters reported that Switzerland was having an issue with consolidation and cutbacks causing many news outlets to either close down or combine. Due to this, there is now a shortage of outlets and opinions–which had created a distrust in the country, but like the US is experiencing. However, the US is experiencing almost due too many outlets and opinions being out there. However, in the last two years, trust in the media is now at its highest in Switzerland. That is because the country decided to do something about it and oppose the prohibition of licence fees for outlets to be created. The more outlets that can be created will allow for more diverse views and opinions–hopefully allowing people to get the information on all sides.

  4. The cyber world and the vast amounts of information that comes with it has become an extension of man. Not only is information now emotionally charged, easily accessible and advanced, but people can influence minds all over the world. Information (fake media content-writings, altered images/ videos etc.) can be posted to the internet with “the touch of our fingers” and can instantly have a global impact, with little to no consequences for the individual. The Netherlands is one country that is truly trying to combat this. Their media statics are extremely fascinating, in terms of their view on digital news consumption and their efforts to combat the spread of misinformation because although they fear the spread of misinformation, they continue to maintain national unity through the means of the internet. Knight suggests that citizens of a country with a prominent internet presence are more likely to be distrustful of information found on the internet. However, this country has an internet penetration rate of 96% and their citizens are very trustful of the internet and news sources. Where the Netherlands differs from other countries is the government’s initiative to financially support investigative journalism and to regulate digital political campaigns. People usually fear regulation, but this effort actually benefits the public because it discourages citizens from posting false news, especially regarding local and international issues. The government not only reassures the public that journalist can be trusted, but they encourage the audience to be more informed and cautious of misinformed or misleading sites on the internet. The article above makes it apparent that government entities are rarely trusted among the public, in fact they are seen as the true enemy. However, the Netherlands efforts to promote media awareness (literacy) and support the modernization of professional news sources, makes the public more inclined to verify the media they consume. Professional news channels remain credible because the government is a trusted entity that tries to have the best interest of the community, when creating these media policies. By being more mindful of media they are less likely to be influenced by deceptive news aggregators intending to mislead the public or sway them to supporting a specific agenda.

    The Minister really embodies Delanty’s “governing idea of modern social democracy as a community,” because he is transparent with his vision for The Netherlands communicative and transnational dealings on the internet. Minna states that “misinformation is not about the money for big corporations, it’s also about politics, representations, race … elements that abound in our human society as power players struggle and fight for control over ideologies and meanings.” The Netherlands combats this by regulating digital and political information/ disinformation. In forcing platforms to indicate clearly when advertisements are financed by political parties, the Minister makes it apparent that citizen’s need to be aware of potential biases of politicians and corporations. He also entrusts citizens with determining if the information is reliable. The Netherlands want the public to make informed decisions about the nation on a local and global level. Through media policy the Minister sets a precedent by attempting to control all the forces at work within and beyond the local sector. If there are regulations exposing and preventing the spread of false information online, it can prevent the epidemic of fake news and distrust in the government. If media is controlled at the local level, it does not reach the global arena, thus limiting the influence of deceitful media (a powerful force in the world).

    The Minister demonstrates “capacity for compassion as a force” by combining the power of community with justice. (Delanty) According to the report the Minister wants enable citizens to self-regulate media, before imposing legislation to monitor the internet and media content. This is not only what is best for the community, but it also allows for a less stressful environment for online communities. This type of policy allows for more community-based values to emerge and demonstrates the expectation of mutual respect among conflicting internet communities. The Netherlands is trying to build a rapport with their citizens by creating a sense of unity and trust within their community. The government respects their citizen’s decision to post content and be expressive on the internet, but they set a precedent of acceptable behavior. Thus, creating a morally valued community of people who are informed and respectful of one another. Media regulation for the well-being of society, which is very rare for a government, because it is usually not their first priority. While they fear the mass production of misinformation and fake news sources, the government encourages citizens to seek the truth and make more educated decisions when faced with the challenges of the World Wide Web.

  5. The quote that stood out to me the most from this blog post was “We are living in a rather unapologetic era where distrust for those of elite status is evident and the norm”. The elite are gatekeepers and they hold the power and have their own agendas. It seems that the current American landscape is lacking in Delanty’s “governing idea of modern social democracy as a community” because the parties are at war. I don’t believe that either side really has the country’s best interest at heart but instead want to push their own agendas. As a skeptic, this really resonated with me and the first election that I participated, which was the 2016 Presidential election and it was rampant with “fake news”, privacy issues, Facebook bot hacks and etc. Also, major distrust comes from the landscape being so information dense and there is a lack of persistent and educated filtering to seek the truth. The Knight report stated it well, “In an environment rich in information, attention becomes scarce and valuable. In the face of the increasingly vast amount of information that an individual confronts every day, voices need to shout or be extreme to attract attention. A business model that is based on maximizing advertising revenues by maximizing the number of users encourages emotionally charged content, whether true or false. This can encourage sensationalism at the expense of the truth.” (Knight Foundation Report).

    Moreover, there is and increase for disinformation as the landscape continues to grow, enabling it to be used as warfare. Dr. Horowitz stated “While “conventional” cyberwars seek infrastructural weaknesses, information wars benefit from social, economic, and cultural vulnerabilities. Cyberwars and information disorder are being manifested in many frontiers and for numerous reasons, including monetary gain and political power.” (Horowitz) But does this over-saturation cause more chaos than fix?

    The United States Reuter’s Report stated the market is saturated and the newest form of news is digital/startups. I believe that this is a tactic to not only diversify the market but also target the large gatekeeping organizations such as the already established CNN, MSNBC,ABC and Fox News. The United States reported claimed, “Some digital-born organizations aimed to diversify revenue streams by introducing membership models, including Buzzfeed and Quartz…platforms continue to invest in new initiatives to bolster the news industry.” (US Reuter Report).
    This initiative could also be in response to Trump’s attack on the gatekeepers news cycle as “fake news” but also an approach to attract Millennial and Gen z audience as their consumption of media is app based and digital. Interestingly our neighbor, Canada is also increasing their digital platform for news coverage but not necessarily to compete or provide the media landscape with diverse option but because of the overall decline in print media consumption. The Canadian Reuter Report stated, “ In it’s 2019 budget, the Canadian federal government outlined criteria for qualifying journalism organizations that will benefit from non-profit status and refundable tax credits on labour costs. Canadians with digital subscriptions to qualifying Canadian news outlets will also be eligible for an annual tax credit until 2025.” (CA Reuter Report) There hasn’t been an overall major distrust in the media but initiatives have been taken by Canadian government to improve literacy, combat disinformation and improve digital citizenship.

    Overall, I think that we as media consumers need to do our part in making sure we check, double check and triple check to see if the news and other media we are consuming is legitimate.

  6. The average level of trust in the news is getting down compared with the data for last year. According to the Digital News Report 2019, less than half (49%) of the participants agree that they trust the news media themselves use. Knight expressed the same finding that citizen trust in media and other democratic institutions is being destabilizing. The main reason is that there are too many fake news and disinformation surrounding our daily life. Media is a tool that different parties want to use. In Italy, the media environment reflects the new balance of power within Italian politics. The issues that are discussed heat on line are related to immigration, government formation, and the relationship between different parties.

    Political struggles and disinformation lead to the result that more and more audiences would love to avoid news actively. They prefer to spend money and time on entertainment rather than the news by the official reports. In Italy, 9% of audiences pay for online news, and 30% of audiences choose to listen to podcasts. The situation of the subscription is much better in the U.S., with 16% audience pay for online news, and 35% listen to podcasts. In both Italy and the U.S., Facebook is the most popular used social media (77% in Italy, 66% in the U.S.). The other popular media platforms are quite similar such as YouTube, Instagram, and WhatsApp. The data of commenting on the news between these two countries are close to each other, with 27% compared to 29%. Although the consumption structure is different, it does not affect the audience’s feedback on the news.

    Due to the process of the cosmopolitan community, the impacts of fake news cans spread from the region to the world. I totally agree with the idea that “Fake news can shift and skew public opinions and divide an entire country” by Horowitz. When a piece of fake news breaks out in a certain place, it may affect the balance of political power and influence the political development trend of the country. No matter what happens to politics in any part of the world, the global political landscape will adjust accordingly, even in the world’s smallest state.

    Personally, I don’t think there’s any fundamental change in the role of the media. The media has always spoken for the interests behind it. In the past, audiences had a high degree of a favorable impression on the media because the network was not so developed before. Audiences have access to less information, and they get opinions usually from one media. Therefore what they know was what they heard. Now there are more voices on the Internet, so people are more skeptical of the press. I think this is generally a good thing. On the one hand, it stimulates the progress of the media. On the other hand, it promotes the audience’s critical thinking.

  7. The average level of trust in the news is getting down compared with the data for last year. According to the Digital News Report 2019, less than half (49%) of the participants agree that they trust the news media themselves use. Knight expressed the same finding that citizen trust in media and other democratic institutions is being destabilizing. The main reason is that there are too many fake news and disinformation surrounding our daily life. Media is a tool that different parties want to use. In Italy, the media environment reflects the new balance of power within Italian politics. The issues that are discussed heat on line are related to immigration, government formation, and the relationship between different parties.

    Political struggles and disinformation lead to the result that more and more audiences would love to avoid news actively. They prefer to spend money and time on entertainment rather than the news by the official reports. In Italy, 9% of audiences pay for online news, and 30% of audiences choose to listen to podcasts. The situation of the subscription is much better in the U.S., with 16% audience pay for online news, and 35% listen to podcasts. In both Italy and the U.S., Facebook is the most popular used social media (77% in Italy, 66% in the U.S.). The other popular media platforms are quite similar such as YouTube, Instagram, and WhatsApp. The data of commenting on the news between these two countries are close to each other, with 27% compared to 29%. Although the consumption structure is different, it does not affect the audience’s feedback on the news.

    Due to the process of the cosmopolitan community, the impacts of fake news cans spread from the region to the world. I totally agree with the idea that “Fake news can shift and skew public opinions and divide an entire country” by Horowitz. When a piece of fake news breaks out in a certain place, it may affect the balance of political power and influence the political development trend of the country. No matter what happens to politics in any part of the world, the global political landscape will adjust accordingly, even in the world’s smallest state.

    Personally, I don’t think there’s any fundamental change in the role of the media. The media has always spoken for the interests behind it. In the past, audiences had a high degree of a favorable impression on the media because the network was not so developed before. Audiences have access to less information, and they get opinions usually from one media. Therefore what they know was what they heard. Now there are more voices on the Internet, so people are more skeptical of the press. I think this is generally a good thing. On the one hand, it stimulates the progress of the media. On the other hand, it promotes the audience’s critical thinking.

  8. What first struck me about the Reuters study was what was not included. Reuters explained that due to the topic of the study, news consumption, they focused on countries that consumed news during the past month. When you observe the list of countries, you begin to wonder why at any point in time would news NOT be consumed by a society. This is the first instance of realizing the differing in importance of news in various societies. It is interesting to see how similar Italy is to the United States in the sense of news consumption and how it is consumed. The two countries are almost exactly alike except for the fact that in Italy they us 52% social media or messaging apps while in the US it is 43%. That is a whopping 9% more, and it was actually shocking as I felt Americans used social media the most in the world. Although this study is based on a month-long observation, it is still an accurate indication of the major role social media now plays in relaying news. People are rarely picking up physical newspaper and even when this news is placed on a news app, they would much rather get that information from Facebook or Twitter. Italians find the way of journalism to be partial because of the influence of major businesses and political organizations on news stations. This is a big part of why they distrust the news. News consumption from print declined massively over the years 2013-2019, from 59% to 25%. Online platforms, including social media have become the go-to places for news. While reading the study, I also found that society/community now has a variety of definitions when we are looking at it in this context. It is not only based on location but also age-groups, as this creates its own community that view news in a different way. Whether Baby Boomer, Millennial or Generation Z, how we view news changes for each and we associate with media based on that. All in all, the percentage show that the attraction to social media is increasing and although news outlets try to use digital media application their best bet to reach individuals is to capitalize on the traction Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and Instagram has.

    When we look at how news consumption has expanded or changed, we have to look at its influence on democracy. Knight expressed that, “In some important ways, the internet represents the ultimate realization of the democratic ideal of free speech…”. This is believable as society moved from an environment where they could only receive information like the news to a place where they become a part of it. They can create it, and in worst case scenarios, modify it. This is where the idea of “fake news” begins. The freedom that this new media environment has provided results in both good and bad engagement. It creates an immediate shift in how news is delivered, distributed and even received. Individuals would much rather use a news application than pick up a newspaper, while before the internet they did not have that option. In my opinion, we could say the shift in news or media is actually a byproduct of the success of the Internet. People no longer have to wait until the next day, or late that night to hear the news, it is instantaneous with the Internet. As such, trust in the media declines. The speed of digital media is just one of eight factors that Knight describes as the, “challenges to Americans’ trust in their media and their democracy”. Due to the speed that news can be produced and disseminated in this new media environment, it makes it even more likely for “fake news” to be in the mix. The blog post indicated that due to this, it makes it hard for people to even identify what is real from what is fake. With so much information available, it is becoming harder to know what to trust. An example was given, “Last December, a minor explosion happened in Queens”. Although very minor, people on social media added their own dimensions to the event and created so many different scenarios that caused panic. This is nothing new, although digital media has made it easier to make fake news possible, it has been happening for decades. On a more global scale, we can look at Operation Infektion. This was a disinformation campaign run by the KGB to create newspaper articles claiming that the US created the AIDS virus. This threatened the trust and credibility of the United States both locally and globally, as well as created mass hysteria. Today, with things being so much more accessible and modifiable, imagine a story like this being spread. Disinformation as Warfare in the Digital Age analyzes how disinformation is seen at the macro-level as a weapon. It not only creates panic but is seen as a way to spread hate, abuse others or even recruit terrorists. Every member of society sees the effects of the Internet in a different way and then have to find ways to protect one’s safety while not infringing their freedom of expression. Delanty in a sense identifies a part of the solution for tackling “fake news” and other byproducts of this new media environment. We must look at these new type of communities/societies individually and tackle them in new ways. Delanty uses the military as an example by stating that “the state must redefine military power”. According to Delanty, “new kinds of security which go far beyond the traditional concerns” is necessary. This is what is also essential for the proper control of new media.

    Overall, to answer the initial question of this week’s assignment, yes, location matters. Location influences one’s accessibility and thus, their freedom to consume and distribute news online. We see this with countries like India, and North Korea that are not even included in the study. Their news consumption is directly related to what they are allowed to access. In other countries, it becomes more of a case of what the overall population uses or are more inclined to use for news. In the case of Italy, it was social media. In my home country, Jamaica, it is a mixture of social media and physical newspapers for the older population. Regardless of the way of consumption, the possibility of fake news being distributed is still high and daily it becomes more integral for key players to find better ways of monitoring and regulating this new media environment.

  9. The article above sheds light on this phenomenon known as fake news. As Knight believed, the Internet gives everyone the ability to act as a producer. This is unique to America because of the rights we have here. Freedom of speech and other such freedoms allow us to even have the ability to broadcast what ever we want. That isn’t available in other countries. This is not the situation in other places. Last semester in Dr. Monteiro’s class, we watched a documentary concerning North Korea and how their media functions over there. In the documentary, a journalist from America went to get a first-hand view of typical life in North Korea. What she was greeted with was children in school behaving like actors in situations that were clearly practiced and normal Korean people who didn’t even want to speak to her without remaining anonymous. The Reuters study mentioned Hong Kong and the rejection of a Financial Times journalist’s visa renewal application highlighting continued concerns over press freedom in Hong Kong. Delante would believe that the media ecosystem in countries like North Korea and China is damaged because there is no power in expression or communication. If they were exposed to American media the way it really is, I believe it would be such a foreign concept to them. Their idea of fake news is the government only telling them what they choose to, censoring what is going on in other countries, and only exposing other countries to deliberate aspects of society.

    I believe the impact of the new media environment has changed routes since Trump gained presidency. Not only has he popularized the term “fake news” but also he has turned Twitter into one of the main political news outlets used right now. Many people in my life have created Twitter accounts, that they previously had no interest in, only because it’s basically necessary to see what everyone in politics is broadcasting. These tools make it even easier to spread fake news because people can publicize anything they want to without any approving from an authoritative figure. Nothing is stopping anyone from writing anything that is false or fake. The reach of this news, especially politically, is also growing larger and larger. Again, a country like China, where everything is censored, does not have this type of political atmosphere going on.

  10. The internet has created a space in which people are now more easily able to ingest and produce news. As a result, this culture of fake news has emerged and our ability to trust what we are seeing has decreased significantly. As stated by the Knight Foundation Report, the internet is now accessible by the vast majority of the 7 billion people who populate the world. The Reuters Digital News Report 2019 findings support this statement as it shows that about 90% of the countries surveyed have seen internet penetration of 70% and over (of their population) with 50% of this number having internet penetration at 90% and above. With such high numbers, it was very strange to see that amongst the most dominant points in all readings, was the shared perception of a strong sense of distrust for news in any form.

    The Reuters 2019 report which surveyed 40 countries over the region of 6 continents stated that the overall average of trust in news, that is, with all the countries listed, was a mere 42%. This then brought forth the notion of not just how important it is to have news you can trust but media that you can trust as well. After all, one does have a direct effect on the other as how can you trust the news reported if you do not trust those who report it. This is reflected heavily in the United States (U.S) Reuters Report. With such deliberate use of the media to broadcast political affairs push certain agendas, there has not been a very positive outlook on the media nor the news. The US reports show the media and news in a more negative light with aspects ranging from coverups and payoff by news broadcasters and their president respectively to the pursuit of “…the press as ‘the enemy of the people’” narrative. It is then not surprising to see that the level of trust, an already drastically low number, has fallen “from 17% to 9% in the last year alone” and that the overall trust in news is only 32%. In direct contrast to the US, Finland has been shown to be the most trusted in news media amongst all countries in this survey. Not only do they have a different culture of trust in the social institutions in general but they also have a significantly higher level of trust in news overall. Their percentage is almost twice that of the US at 59%. With that said, it was surprising to see that the United states had higher averages for podcasts, news sharing and comments; all of which were higher by almost double those of Finland. This showed me that though Americans have a strong distrust of their news and news sources, they consumed it to a larger extent.

    Knight stated that “Today’s new media environment is so recent that the world is just beginning to understand how it works and identify the issues that it raises.” This theory is one that very true and we see it manifested in the emergence of fake news. Our ability to so freely produce and manipulate news is solely based on our current new media climate. With the creation of social media platforms, everyone can produce content not to mention share information instantly. As a result, it becomes incredibly difficult to not just regulate news but to discern what is fake news and disinformation from what is actual news. Horowitz (2019) explains that “As societies, and individuals, we have witnessed a shift in our relationship with knowledge; that is, common ideas of objectivity and “truth” are not prominent in public debates. This is coupled with a cultural shift that is marked by distrust…” This statement in itself says a lot about us. We ourselves are perpetuators of the cycle of fake news and disinformation. Our own lack of interest in questioning whether something is true has made for an environment marked by false information. We have led to our own inability to trust. What’s more is this is an issue that is prevalent on an international scale but which seemingly only occurs more in larger or first world country. Take note of the Reuters Digital News Report 2019. It completed excluded a whole region of people; the Caribbean. Is it that fake news isn’t experienced in this region or is it just that we largely associate it with first world countries and therefore only care about how they are affected? It is important remember that news is meant to be a means by which we are able to see what is happening both in our respective countries and others around the globe. As such, the creation of new media as a means of distributing this news and the subsequent rise of fake news affects us all. Delanty stated that a virtual community is one that exists “within the communicative and information-based structures of cyberspace” and for every country, continent and region whose population utilizes this space, comes the opportunity to spread and experience fake news.

  11. The line that struck me the most in this blog post was “These platforms, designed for user-generated content, underestimated their own potential in going beyond the recreational sharing of information amongst family and friends to becoming such a centralized source and influencer of global news.” According to the Knight Foundation Report, electronic media have become the “public square” for the U.S. since they are the primary means by which people learn about what is happening around the world. According to the Reuters Digital News Report (2019), 72% of Americans go online, including on social media, to find news. However, the internet is not the most popular source for news all over the world. In Japan, print newspapers used to be the main source of news in the country, but that has declined rapidly in the last 6 years. They have been one of the slowest countries to shift towards digital news, because there was so much print revenue to protect. Now, television is the most popular source of news for the Japanese.
    There are a growing number of news sources online in Japan, with Yahoo! News being the most popular. The Line platform is one of Japan’s top social platforms, which also aggregates news. The interesting thing about that platform is that it has been used by investigative journalists to source important news stories. The Knight Foundation Report noted that the multiplicity of voices has allowed the voices & opinions from anyone and anywhere to be heard. This is both good and bad, as everyone has the ability to produce their own content, but this also increases the potential for the distribution of misinformation or disinformation. In order to combat this, fact-checking has also become more prominent in Japan. This is something that the U.S. needs to pick up on.
    As stated in “Disinformation as Warfare,” the spread of “fake news” and disinformation have become the biggest weapons online, especially as a political propaganda tool. This has been made even more prominent due to the past 2016 Presidential election and overall current state of politics in the United States. Horowitz points out that “the more volatile and divided a society in political and society aspects, the more vulnerable it is to disinformation.” I don’t think Americans realized how divided the nation actually was until the last presidential election. Now it is clear that each political party has their own communities online, which creates filter bubbles and echo chambers. These only reinforce these user’s pre-existing views, adding to the belief that only their view is “correct.” The shift to social media for news and the continuous spread of “fake news” has completely changed the field of journalism towards an “attention economy”, and I fear that there is no going turning back now. It is up to the reader to do their due diligence and fact check before sharing a news article online.

  12. Fake News is harmful on every level of society. Whether its micro, mezzo, or macro, everyone is enduring the aftermath of the negative impact from the disinformation released. The long term affect associated with disinformation can impact an individual socially, mentally and behaviorally. These occasions can eventually trickle to an individuals behavior patterns as they maneuver in society. Fake News helps those website receive clicks and numbers but does not help or benefit anyones knowledge. In the article, “Information Disorder and International Communication: Issues and Solutions”, by Minna, it mentions that we are treating fake news as a norm. We have now adjusted to the lies that we are surrounded by and no longer can trust the internet as a once loved and promised information platform. After reading, “Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2019”, I began to realize I have forgotten that there are so many accessible sources and tools on the internet that carry true information. Majority of the negative facts and misinformation are coming from social media platforms and messaging apps. A statistic made me realize that we do not invest in the news subscriptions or memberships. We only have 16% in the United States who actually pay for more trusted sites. This information can contribute to how we evaluate the source of the misinformation.

    Social media platforms are used to create fake news often to destroy another person and their image. With these motives in society, it creates such a tension and destructive environment online and in real life. Just as stated in the commentary, cyberspace is becoming the new battlefield. The true battle with disinformation is between society and ourselves. The harm is only cycling from the fake news put out.
    There is more harm being done than good. The internet is such a powerful force and platform and we are taking advantage of it. Reviewing the several fake news occasions mentioned in the commentary article, the impact is so extreme for these situations much more negative than it does beneficial.

    The fear of misinformation has been emerging in countries around the world. Recently I found a survey from Pew Research Center, labeled, “Exposure to Incorrect Information is Widespread In Most Emerging Economies”. In this survey I was very surprised to see the high numbers coming from countries such as Tunisia, Lebanon, Vietnam, and South Africa. Focusing in on, Tunisia with the highest percentage of 29% of social media and messaging app users who saw false information frequently and 49% saw false information occasionally. This data proves that countries all over the world are being impacted and being fed false information from these digital platforms. It is interesting to see that in a world where we want freedom of speech, most people believe that we need to be censored by a higher party i.e. technology companies or platform creators. It is truly the responsibility of each member in society to choose to use the platform for good. Unfortunately in the world we live in and now the cyber world we live in, people are using their hidden identities to allow them to get away with things they would not do or say in the real world. In order to move to a positive place, we do need to improving our media literacy and maybe in the future middle schools and high schools will begin to have classes about the Media and our duties as online users.

  13. The current state of information distribution in the United States will probably be referred to as the ‘Fake News Era’ when referred to 80 years from now. As discussed in Knight’s Crisis in Democracy: Renewing Trust in America, Tom Friedman pointed out that the rise of social media has made it so that “more individuals could compete, connect, collaborate and create with more other people. . . with greater ease than ever before “ (Knight 41). Unfortunately there is a direct correlation in the rise in connectivity of social media to the distribution of misinformation and it being mistaken for what is true and credible.

    If you asked citizens in the United States, of various ages how they received their news, the answer would most likely be via the pre-smartphone methods of spreading information including newspapers, Radio or via television. These sources were known to be credible and had a long established job of sharing current events that their demographics were either directly effected by, take interest in or should’ve be aware of. If you asked the same question—to a diverse sample—today, I do not doubt that you would still hear some or all of these as primary news sources from respondents. However, I can practically guarantee that more respondents will say that they receive their news from social media oppose to any other outlet. This shift not only has resulted in the spread of misinformation but also has resulted in large corporations exploiting this surge of misinformation to market to consumers cheaper and more frequently than ever before. It wasn’t until recently that profiles have denoted whether or not they are posting content for their own personal gain or whether or not it is an advertisement.
    In discussion to regulate the spread of Misinformation the only solutions that can be encouraged are “soft policy solutions, rather than new national laws” (Horowitz 13). These soft policies are far more effective because they avoid possible problems with attempting to restrict a citizen’s rights, as grated by the first amendment.

    The shift that technology has caused in Norway is very different from that of the United States. Norwegians have fully embraced all the internet has to offer as a nation, thus giving them the highest percentage (99%) of any nation in the 38 analyzed in the Reuters Institute Digital News Report.
    The citizens of Norway have taken matters to ensure the information they recieve is not “fake news” and this solution is to pay for their online news. This method is even growing in popularity as there has been an “up 4 percentage points since last year” ultimately resulting in 34%, the highest number of consumers paying for reliable news. (Reuters 98). I would say the Norway is also less likely to share news without being informed. In comparing their social media usage as well as their sharing practices, it is clear that American, although they don’t trust half of the news they use, share news via social media 12 percent more than Norwegians.

  14. “The power of the community is the power of communication.” Just like Delanty stated in his book that globalization has brought the locally based communities together, in this case, in the digital virtual form. Professor Minna and Knight both pointed out in their articles that globalization in virtual communities has reconstitute the society in a new dimension but also providing a public circle for spreading disinformation and fake news for various purposes.

    During the period of the President Trump’s elections, many fake news were generated on the social network regarding other candidates, especially Hillary Clinton. Utilizing fake news was a powerful political tool for Trump and his supporters to manipulate his voters against Hillary during the campaign. According to the theory of Circuits of power, disinformation and information disorder are in the circulation of macro-level, meso-level and micro-level. In the macro-level circuit problem of fabricated information in cyberspace, the government of power and media policy are the lack. United States is still struggling finding a balance between democrat and conservative. Figuring out the boundary between maintaining free expression on digital platforms and also tracing specious activities is still a challenge for many countries. A meso-level of fake news is the social media platform. But like Knight explained in the chapter, the large scale of users and instantaneity of messages in the hyperconnected environment are challenging the ability of platforms and government to monitor and regulate. For the micro-level circuit of fake news and related phenomena, users may or may not aware of their production of disinformation by posting or retweeting news that are not accurate. Individuals are not conscious of being used to misrepresent.

    Meanwhile, in the past two decades, news consumption has been shifted from traditional outlets to digital Steaming service in the process of time. In the event of president Trump election in 2016, their surprising victory outran multiple news channels, such as CNN, MSNBC, BuzzFeed. These news channels have been accused for misleading the public because of their inaccurate predictions. It raises a question regarding public trust into media in the United States. In the meantime, digital subscription has become a larger part of revenues, such as digital newspaper and magazines. For now, news on television is still ahead of online news website. Local television news, for instance, Channel 12 for Long Island, is still ahead of local television news site online by 15%. The change is happening, but it is still in the process.

    On the other hand, Hong Kong news is experiencing through the process of translocation and transplantation just like Delanty discussed in his book. The instability of political status in Hong Kong and the censorship of live-streaming speech pushed the Hong Kong citizens seeking press freedom. As a result, it became even more difficult for the media to generate appropriate media content without provoking more conflicts between the mainland government and the people. The rapid decline audience viewing in TVB and raising usage in foreign news channel indicate the users changing consumption habits.

  15. Although we have already looked at the differences between society and community, I had an interesting (albeit too obvious) revelation today during the readings: it’s social media, not communal media. Perhaps purposeful, most likely not – the point stands – society can be extremely corrosive of the spirit of community (Delanty 121). Through using these hyper-connected / intimate platforms for purposes rarely caring or personal, we have bred a culture of distrust. The cultures I will be directly comparing today are the United States and Italy, which both carry a deep distrust for media; yet, news is important in both societies, as that is the only way people learn about their goings-on in a world constantly on the move. The distrust is for a variety of reasons, especially in today’s digital age: old forms of propaganda are now mixed with human influencers and opinion makers, search engines collect and sell personal data, and political elections are swayed by fake news/outside influences (Horowitz 7-8). I was actually surprised to see that the U.S. has more distrust for media than Italy; according to an ISTAT study (statistics for Italy), trust in others remains fairly low – only one in five people believe that most people are trustworthy (https://www.istat.it/it/files//2018/03/BES2017-summary.pdf). This distrust among nationals goes even further when the multiplicity of voices now on the Web are considered (Knight 44). Yet, their trust ratings are around 10% higher in all categories in the United States – this is extremely telling as to how far the influence of the fake news epidemic has gone here. Both countries use television more than anything for their news, and have seen the smartphone overtake other technologies in recent years for the top consumption spot. They are similar in almost all ways, all the way down to the opposing nationalist movements that have sprung up in response to rapid technological advancement and the accompanying distrust for information. What is different, though, is the use of social media sites for information. 16% more Italians use Facebook for news than the US, which is quite a large amount. This goes along with the Knight report findings, as only about 10 percent of Facebook’s current user base (214 million people) is comprised of Americans, despite it being invented in the US. For many people around the world, Facebook is the internet” (Knight 44). For better or worse, many Italians do get their news from social media sites; at this point, though, it’s difficult to define where to get ‘real’ news from.

    One effect of this on a local level, I believe, has been a global retaliation of false nationalism, due in large part to fake news. This leads to Professor Horowitz’s statement in her reading: “Those who are the most deprived and vulnerable — whether in terms of social standing, access, and/or media literacy — may suffer the most from disinformation and information disorder.” (Horowitz 11). Countries globalize in ways that benefit them from a societal standpoint, while nixing certain ideals and progressions for the sake of “nationalism” and “culture.” For example, Delanty states in Cosmopolitan Community: “It is possible to speak of a slowing down of globalization, which is being checked by the resurgent state, nationalism and indeed also community,” which he supports by naming the Slow food movement in Europe, among others (Slow food denotes festivals in which local, “slow,” time-consuming dishes are offered) (Delanty 122). However, I must disagree, as I believe these movements are a last-ditch grasp for tradition in light of the convenience of globalization; for example, in Italy, Cinque Stelle (Five Star Movement) is a hyper-nationalist organization that has gained major traction in the current decade, also using fake news as a springboard. They promote anti-establishment dialogue, and also advocate strongly against migrants – two issues related directly with globalization. Yet, they globalize when economically beneficial; for example, I have noticed not even just within myself, but from the comments of people who recently have traveled to Italy, that the quality of food has gone down all across Italy. This includes my small town (population approx. 20k), which has recently added many fast food chains, and over the years caused the new generation to not be able to cook for themselves (a traditional skill). If one thinks about Italy and tradition, food is probably the first thing that comes to mind – yet, in light of fake news and globalization causing a push for more “tradition,” countries often sway that to their economic benefit – and often a vulnerable group’s detriment.

    It is wonderful that everyone can have a platform to speak now, but great freedom comes with its consequences: there is now a much larger scale possibility for manipulation and distrust.

  16. Technological changing has brought the renewal of the Times. According to The Knight Commission on Trust, Media and Democracy, it argues that The Media environment is changing. The use of mobile has led to new media platforms. People get information more easily and quickly. And users with common characteristics form communities. Delanty points out in his book that local and global community, he said ‘In essence, the power of community is the power of communication.’ Meanwhile, he also points out that both world community and transnational community exist in different forms. The power of community is strong.
    Moreover, according to Minna (2019) Disinformation as warfare in the digital age: Dimensions, Dilemmas. We can learn of the emergence of a new type of weapon. It’s an information weapon, fake news. The power of words can be used to disrupt communities. She mentioned that news is no longer neutral and objective in the community. Fake news is a political tool, a money-making tool. Real news in the community is the statement of facts, people through the real news to learn about what happened in the same community and different communities. On the contrary, fake news is a distortion of the truth in the community, meaning of few people to gain benefits, and meaning of few people disrupt the social order. In addition, Minna analyzed the impact of fake news on micro, macro and mezzo levels. The impact of fake news on countries, organizations, and audiences. I agree that fake news have negative impact on the community. The panic and anger it causes can break all peace and create a series of misunderstandings. Maybe our community system will be disrupted by fake news. What are the consequences of these fake news? People will trust the news less.
    In Digital News Report 2019, I compared the data of the United States and Denmark. News credibility in the United States is declining, and the news is mostly political. The news in Denmark is mainly about people’s public services. U.S has the highest utilization rate of TV media and Internet news, while Denmark is very interesting because its mainstream media is public broadcaster. What the United States and Denmark have in common is that more people in their communities use smartphones than Internet computers. The most important statistic, however, is that the United States has a very low level of trust in news, only about 30 percent, while Denmark has a high level of trust in news, 57 percent. To conclude, first of all, the mobile media community has now surpassed radio, television, Internet computers and become a mainstream platform. Secondly, the news that people in the community focus on is mainly related to their own lives. They prefer news about their own interests to those about politicians’ exaggerated political speeches. Finally, in the era of information inflation, true and fake news has brought controversy. People in the community should know how to identify fake news. Information brings progress in the community, and we should also avoid the negative effects of fake information. If we are blinded by fake news and hurt others, then humanity will return to the ancient barbaric era and no longer have civilization.

  17. In a day and age in which the digital landscape continues to expand, news platforms expand accordingly as well. While some theorists think technology, including digital communications, is, inherently neutral, it can be used to spread disinformation. “Disinformation as Warfare” highlights a few of the reasons behind the rise of “fake news” in the media. First, disinformation is used for modern agenda-setting and political propaganda. In addition to this, fake news draws attention, which leads to more earning potential for the media. With the increase of disinformation, there is a growing level of distrust in the media, particularly in the United States.

    As this blog post suggests, there is an ongoing struggle to “choose between not only who, but what is true and is not.” The Reuters report suggests that American news consumers have become deeply polarized and confused, especially when compared with news consumers in other countries. Similarly, with local, national, and European elections, Portugal has been plagued with a similar rise of disinformation. The country has taken several initiatives to solve the issue, including a conference hosted by a Portuguese news agency, the launch of a news website against the spread of disinformation, and finally, an in-depth investigation for a leading newspaper on the issue of fake news. In both countries, the level of trust in the media has decreased in the past few years.

    “Cosmopolitan Communities” discusses the role of globalization in transforming, destabilizing, and reinventing different communities all at one time. Cosmopolitan communities include communicative and transnational process with democracy as a common example of world communities and transnational communities. However, the Knight Foundation Report maintains the belief that people are losing trust in the media. Although the Knight Foundation Report discusses the advancements of digital communications in a somewhat positive light, it points out that social networks are business models looking to gain revenue. Digital content, therefore, may threaten modern-day democracy. According to the “Crisis of Democracy” chapter, the growth of social media allows not only for positive political engagement, but also for the “weaponization of information in ways that promote conflict and confusion.”

  18. In a day and age in which the digital landscape continues to expand, news platforms expand accordingly as well. While some theorists think technology, including digital communications, is, inherently neutral, it can be used to spread disinformation. “Disinformation as Warfare” highlights a few of the reasons behind the rise of “fake news” in the media. First, disinformation is used for modern agenda-setting and political propaganda. In addition to this, fake news draws attention, which leads to more earning potential for the media. With the increase of disinformation, there is a growing level of distrust in the media, particularly in the United States.

    As this blog post suggests, there is an ongoing struggle to “choose between not only who, but what is true and is not.” The Reuters report suggests that American news consumers have become deeply polarized and confused, especially when compared with news consumers in other countries. Similarly, with local, national, and European elections, Portugal has been plagued with a similar rise of disinformation. The country has taken several initiatives to solve the issue, including a conference hosted by a Portuguese news agency, the launch of a news website against the spread of disinformation, and finally, an in-depth investigation for a leading newspaper on the issue of fake news. In both countries, the level of trust in the media has decreased in the past few years.

    “Cosmopolitan Communities” discusses the role of globalization in transforming, destabilizing, and reinventing different communities all at one time. Cosmopolitan communities include communicative and transnational process with democracy as a common example of world communities and transnational communities. However, the Knight Foundation Report maintains the belief that people are losing trust in the media. Although the Knight Foundation Report discusses the advancements of digital communications in a somewhat positive light, it points out that social networks are business models looking to gain revenue. Digital content, therefore, may threaten modern-day democracy. According to the “Crisis of Democracy” chapter, the growth of social media allows not only for positive political engagement, but also for the “weaponization of information in ways that promote conflict and confusion.”

  19. Sociologist Delanty, G. (2009), rouses and dives into the realm cosmopolitan communication communities which have formed in response to globalization. He also argues that all variating forms of communities share the same basic principle of what defines a community whether it is in the traditional sense, transnational, or any other form of community in between the two. Furthermore, Delanty refers to Blair, T. (2001), who recognizes that globalization is connecting all nation states in more critical ways. He continues by shedding light on the issue of combing the power of community with justice.

    In regard to globalization and the emerging forms of community, the epidemic of fake news is increasingly problematic. Horowitz, M. A. (2019), states that disinformation and propaganda is nothing new and the phenomena can be traced back as far as Sun Tzu’s Art of War. The 2019 Knight Foundation Report is comprised of data on fake news and the trend of public distrust towards digital news sources and the characteristics of the challenges they pose. This is further affirmed by the 2019 Digital News report where US data on media consumption and distrust is strikingly similar, statistically, in relation to developed countries in the east such as South Korea. One characterization is highlighted as instantaneity where messages today can reach any part of the globe at lightning speed. The Knight Foundation Report then quotes, “a lie gets halfway around the world before truth puts on its boots.”

    The global hyperconnectivity, which Delanty expresses, allows and enables disinformation to be become viral and more effective than ever before. But will the war on disinformation ever be won? Will disinformation gain too much power and shift the roles of media and community? Or will we one day become so seamlessly connected that disinformation will be forgotten and new unpredictable challenges will emerge? Horowitz explores the complexity of this form of disinformation warfare and offers several crucial topics for additional discourse. While solutions may not be defined in the present, one thing that is clear is the need for critical analysis on the relationship between community, digital media, and disinformation.

  20. Fake news is inevitable in the era of media, which is misinformation deliberately spread by traditional news media or social media in order to mislead the public and bring about political and economic benefits. As Horowitz mentioned,” It is telling that the very term “fake news” is being used both as a description of a phenomenon and as a political propaganda tool. According to Reuters Digital News Report 2019, the average trust in news declined by 2 percentage points across all countries, to 42 percent, with less than 49 percent claiming that they trusted the news media they used. The result is extreme polarisation, leading to the concept of “fake news” and widespread scepticism. Compare to Norway, Norwegians trust in news is low, although social and political polarization is minimal the research have shown that trust in journalists’ professionalism and bias depends on political preferences, such as far-right and politically inclined voters and strong immigrant views express the most distrust. Nevertheless, there are 34 percent consumers in Norway willing to pay for online news. Because of Norwegians have tradition with reading in print newspapers, facilitating the transition to digital subscriptions through a hybrid solution that often bundles paper newspapers and digital content. Back to U.S., ” The US continues to lead the world in podcast listening and has seen a wave of daily news-focused offerings.” From the report, I believe that Whether in economic strength or influence, digital media is getting stronger and stronger than traditional media. What it needs to improve most is its authority, and it should constantly cultivate credibility in the public’s mind. There is no doubt that the new digital media will become the dominant force in the future, while the traditional media will only continue to serve the society as an auxiliary means of media.

    Television has not replaced newspapers, nor can the Internet. With the advent of the digital media, the market share of various media will inevitably be redistributed, but the digital media cannot rule the world. This is not only because the digital media has its own difficult to overcome weaknesses, but also because the audience has a choice of traditional media, no matter how good, no matter how advanced the media can not meet the different reading needs and reading habits of the majority of readers. And traditional media is learning from the advantages of the network, through internal integration and external expansion and other effective means to complete the survival of the fittest, media compatibility. If the digital media, mobile phone can quickly and quickly provide information for readers, it can only be regarded as the fast food of news, to be detailed, accurate, authoritative, in-depth understanding of the whole picture and depth of news, but also cannot leave the newspaper this thought-provoking spiritual feast.

    As Knight stated” The impact of the exponential improvement of digital computers has been magnified by two related trends: the growth of the internet and the rise of mobile communications that have connected billions more people. The most recent shift has been the emergence of social media platforms that have transformed the way people communicate with one another.” People understanding and thinking media will change because of TV and other new media tech. It is kinds of subconscious change, which is imperceptible.

    In order to cope with the impact of network technology, newspapers and networks cooperate in competition and compete in cooperation, showing a trend of continuous integration. The interaction between newspaper and network makes the news in the newspaper reappear in time on the network, which makes the traditional newspaper more vigorous and further strengthens the influence of the newspaper. Practice has proved that the compatibility of traditional media and network media, the realization of complementary advantages, formed a competitive force, shows great vitality, the realization of economic and social benefits of win-win.

Leave a Reply