A flood of fake news and misinformation. Expensive spin doctors who shape public opinion. Captive states and captives Media. Quality journalism that barely manages to keep its head above water. Ubiquitous (self) censorship. This is what the media landscape looks like in many countries today.
With Anja Shifrin, lecturer of international and public affairs and co-director of the Technology Policy and Innovation Program at Columbia University, we talk about the protection of quality and true information, information chaos, events at American universities under Trump, but also different forms of resistance, the engagement of journalists and self-censorship, the reasons why many professors and congressmen in the USA are silent and should speak up, and the consequences for universities of everything that is happening to them.
Ana Shifrin was in Serbia, where she gave a lecture at the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory on the topic "Entrapment and freedom of the media in the era of Trump", and attended the awarding of the "Miladin Životić" award to her husband, American economist and Nobel laureate Jozef Stiglic. Anja Šifrin received her doctorate on the topic of online disinformation and strategies to combat it.
"In my doctoral dissertation, I started from the so-called solutions on the demand side (demand-side solutions), a concept that was once very popular in the United States," Anja Shifrin tells Vreme. "The basic assumption is that the responsibility lies primarily with the individual: if you see a fake tweet, don't share it. Proponents of that approach believe in media literacy, education, fact-checking and the idea that journalists should build a relationship of trust with their audience. However, during my dissertation work, it became clear to me that this kind of solution suits the platforms to a great extent - because it allows them to avoid regulation. As in many other areas in American society, responsibility is individualized to the extreme: if you get cancer, the problem is not the chemicals and the polluted environment, but the fact that you smoked; if you gain weight, the fault is not in ultra-processed food, but in the fact that you ate a cake. It's all your fault. That's why I turned further to the spectrum of solutions on the supply side (supply-side solutions). They have a "softer" version - in which companies are required to take greater responsibility, risk assessment, clear mechanisms for checking content and strategic planning - but also a "harder" version, as we see in countries like China or Singapore, where the main thing is suppression.
The second part of the solution on the supply side, which I deal with the most today, is the production of good content. At first it was about YouTube and trying to find trusted influencers or promote certain types of videos. However, the key to everything remains quality journalism. Without it, there is no long-term survival of society. Today in the United States it has become unpopular to talk about misinformation on the Internet. Republicans attack those who speak out, accusing them of attempted censorship. As in the thirties of the last century, these people are under investigation. In this context, even saying that you are concerned about fake news and misinformation becomes a highly political act - one that can be monitored and even punished.
"WEATHER" How then to protect quality information? What specifically to do??
ANJA SHIFRIN: We've seen the Trump administration cut off a significant portion of foreign financial aid, leading to huge problems for nonprofit media around the world. Many have been shut down. In the United States, institutions such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and PBS are also under attack. Donors are scared and pulling back. Because of this, energy is increasingly being redirected to local news. After 2020 and the killing of George Floyd, there has been a strong shift toward supporting local media, especially those owned by black, indigenous, and other marginalized groups. There is great energy there today, and one of the reasons for their survival is volunteer work, the willingness of many people to work for free.
There is also some local funding. In the USA, there are groups like American Journalism Project, which are trying to raise funds from local philanthropists. Rodney Benson and his collaborators have just completed a ten-year study in which they compared Sweden, France and the United States, that is, different media models in those three countries. He claims that American donors are almost completely focused on "influence" and that this is a serious problem. When you're obsessed with influence, you turn to people who already have it or can produce it, which in practice means you turn to elites. Another thing Benson points out is that American donors strongly insist that the media become "sustainable". And that, very often, means that they turn to rich people. Public services keep saying "viewers like you", but what they really mean is viewers who can pay. That is why he believes that the European model of public broadcasters, who have the capacity to reach a huge number of people, is much more focused on that access to everyone and that is why they are so important.
But then what about the countries where the public services are also under strong political influence of the authorities?
I understand that in countries like Serbia, public services are also captured, that is, under the control of the authorities. But if there is a strong public service, like the BBC, the Australian Public Service or Deutsche Welle, you have to defend them first before you get into the fight for the small media. Small media are great, but they alone will not save democracy. They are too focused on narrow, fragmented audiences. The reason our societies are in a state of information collapse today is that everyone believes in different versions of reality, everyone gets their own piece of news.
Nathan Heller wrote about it a few years ago: the problem is no longer in one isolated piece of disinformation, but in the fact that bizarre ideas have appeared everywhere that are starting to live a life of their own. It is enough to "plant" them, they continue to spread on their own and no one knows what the truth is anymore. Small, local media are valuable, but they alone cannot solve the problem.
You mention that society cannot function without quality media, but regimes that rely on spin and disinformation actually like this situation because it makes it easier for them to rule. What would be the possible way - what was tried and where was there even some success?
As I said, in the United States everyone is now turning to small, local solutions, because the federal funding just won't be there. Almost everything is tried. I've written a lot about Australia's News Media Bargaining Code, the idea of forcing tech companies to pay for news, or at least some of it. We tried that at the federal level and failed, and then at the state level - in California, Seattle, Washington state - and it failed miserably there. There has been talk in both Washington State and Washington City about introducing vouchers: if a newsroom hires a journalist, they could get a tax credit. But it doesn't work if the media doesn't generate revenue at all. There was also the idea of placing state advertisements in the media, which I strongly opposed because we all know very well where such a practice leads.
In Hungary, there is a system according to which you can circle on the tax return to whom part of the money goes. Scandinavian countries have a whole set of rules and used to try to support the second largest media in each market, so that there would always be plurality. Now, because of the "news deserts", they are worried that at least one medium survives in each market. So there are many small, local measures that can be taken. But what you have to understand is that nothing is perfect: whatever you do, some bad guys are going to get some of that money. We have to be pragmatic, because a perfect solution simply does not exist. I go to big conferences and everyone talks about how to build your own technology and get away from the big tech companies, but that doesn't solve the big democratic problem - how to rebuild public trust. We all do what we can, each in his own corner.
You have written two books on investigative journalism - Global Muckraking i African Muckraking, Where are you?, among other things, also dealt with the relationship of activism (advocating) and journalism. In countries where injustice is widespread, and journalists often do work that should be done by prosecutors or the police, What is the role of journalists in this?? Should and can they remain objective observers? How that border should be defined?
In the 19th century, there was a great intertwining of advocacy and journalism. In many environments it was almost indistinguishable. You had one man who sees something terrible happening - say abuse on a plantation or a colony - and then he starts a newsletter and starts writing about it. It was the 19th century. Historians of journalism, like Michael Shadson, will tell you that the era of objectivity was very short. Basically, from the twenties to say the seventies of the 20th century, or even shorter. There are many reasons why it came about, but one of them was that credibility was realized to be a market advantage. Back then, the media were, I won't say biased, but owned by political parties, governments, and various agencies. So if you could say, "I don't belong to anyone" and if you could get ads, people wanted to read you.
I think that extreme ideal of objectivity was short-lived. I also believe that people who were involved in activism, like many journalists in the 19th century, reported accurately and reliably. Today, a lot of great investigative reporting comes from organizations like ICIJ (International Consortium of Investigative Journalists), OCCRP (Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project). They are very thorough.
There were, for example, many discussions in the "New York Times" when Trump was first elected, whether we should call him a liar. I think - yes, it should. And this is not about activism, but about facts. Honestly, in the US I'm much more concerned about capitulation. I don't see the media owners being too radical. On the contrary, they are frightened and capitulate. Look at what the "Washington Post" is doing. They gave money to Trump to renovate the ballroom and then ran an editorial about how great it is that we have a new ballroom without mentioning that they actually paid for it. The Los Angeles Times refuses to endorse a presidential candidate. Capitulation also happens in political satirical shows. For me, that's where the real problem lies.
Are you surprised by such a capitulation?, not only the media, but also parts of the university?
Everyone in America is completely shocked. People always ask me: "Did you ever think that Colombia would act like this?". And I say - no, I would never have thought that one of the best universities in the country would behave like this. All those years, the United States went around the world teaching others about democracy. And now… look at us.
Joe (Stiglitz) and I are very loud. One reason is that Joe believes that with full-time employment comes responsibilities, it's not just protection. Many of our colleagues do not have permanent employment. I don't have one either, I work under five-year contracts. Many of our international colleagues are too scared. And Joe and I talk constantly, which is very exhausting. During this year we learned a lot. One of the things we didn't realize before was that we had our own fifth column of people who wanted to cooperate with the Trump administration. I am sure that you also have that fifth column in Serbia.
We have. And why do they want to cooperate with the Trump administration and what are the consequences of what is happening now in American universities?
First, some people in Colombia are strongly pro-Israel. They believe that Columbia is deeply anti-Semitic and extremely dangerous for Jewish students and that it must be "fixed". For them, this is an opportunity to do what they would like to do anyway. I don't think there were no problems, there were some at the level of individual cases, but the situation was not that bad. Second, even if it is, you should never cooperate with the authorities in that way, but solve problems "in-house". Third, this can cause a terrible counter-effect, which I already see with students.
There is now a large fund of state money for students who have "suffered damage". Once you say: we give money to some and not to others, it is extremely dangerous. My father escaped from the Nazis. My grandparents escaped from the Nazis. I am always terribly afraid of such reactions and patterns. For me, it is extremely dangerous when you say - we need special Israeli professors or special funding for Jewish students. So, the first layer of the problem is that "fifth column" that I didn't understand before. I also did not realize how conservative many members of our Board of Directors are, nor how our Office of Legal Counsel functions. We had an article in the student newspaper today (December 13) about how three Palestinian events have been canceled this semester. I'm sure they thought they were doing the right thing. They are very afraid of violence and security issues. Everything is locked, everything is under control.
Another thing is the talk about how universities are terrible. I see myself as that nice woman who teaches young people - I bring them sandwiches, help them find a job, read and edit their texts, not some crazy person, Woke person. The other day I was sitting at dinner in New York next to a man who told me that Colombia was worse than the Third Reich. I told him I didn't agree. And he answered me: "Do you know who the capos were?" I was in style - what are you talking about? I've been here for over 20 years and don't lecture me about the place I work at.
So - the consequences. Some people have already been kicked out. For those who wanted to "reform" the university anyway, this is the perfect excuse. Layoffs, budget cuts - no one knows why, no one has seen the numbers, but this gives them an opportunity to get rid of the undesirables. Then, before we were bureaucratically sluggish, now it's horrible: no one answers the phone, bill refunds take forever, no one is allowed to refund anything anymore, the fear is constant. Everyday life becomes unbearable. No one wants to advertise. The financial uncertainty is constant whether Trump will do this or that. University is becoming a much more unpleasant place. I also think that the number of applications from international students will decrease. Or the curriculum is changed because the students are scared. Parents call them and say: "Don't study gender studies. Study business".
There is also the narrative of the governing boards: social sciences are "impractical", everyone should study engineering or information technology. We are trying to provide some form of resistance - we organized a series of talks on academic freedom, I worked with my doctoral student on a small study on self-censorship in journalism...
How much self-censorship is present and how much it shapes the atmosphere?
Completely! Remember the rule "Don't listen in advance". I think it was written by Jason Stanley, one of the scientists who recently went to Canada, the author of a book about life under fascism ("How Fascism Works"). And that's exactly what everyone does, they listen in advance thinking: "I don't know where the border is. I'd better keep quiet."
Why is self-censorship so effective?? Just because of fear?
......
We have a lot of people who are not American citizens, a lot of people without permanent employment. I spoke to a right-wing journalist at a conference. He told me: "Many congressmen and senators hate Donald Trump, they think that what he is doing is not legal and that he violates the Constitution." I asked him: "Then why don't they speak?" And he told me: "They are afraid that they will not be re-elected". We are facing fascism, and the rich senator is taking care of his job! I understand that if you're 25 or have six kids or don't want to go back to China because you might end up in jail. But for the rest of us, if you don't go out in public and speak every day, then it's lame, to say the least. Of course it's not easy. But I think that all of us who teach and work with young people have an obligation to show some backbone.
You mentioned that your father and grandfather escaped from the Nazis. Where and how??
My grandfather was originally from Russia, from Baku. He moved to Paris in 1917 and married a French woman. He then founded the publishing house Pléiade, which is extremely prestigious in France. Later, he needed money, so he sold her to Gallimar, but continued to manage her. And then, after the passing of the anti-Jewish laws, he was immediately fired. The entire family, grandmother, grandfather and father were helped by the American journalist Varian Fry, whose task was to save people from the world of culture and intellectuals. After a long and scary story, not really horrible, but very tense, they escaped to Marseilles, got papers, boarded a ship, the ship broke down... Everyone has some escape story.
They eventually ended up in New York. My grandfather's name was Jacques Shiffrin. There is a book about him, and the author of that book is called Amos Reichman, and he is a French cultural attache, now on duty in Belgrade.
Big holiday discount on "Vreme" - subscriptions 25 percent cheaper until mid-January. Give it away subscription to yourself or to someone else, read what matters.
