The Global Village

“A half-truth is a full lie.” …. Yiddish proverb

The term “Global Village” was first coined by Canadian thinker Marshall McLuhan in 1964. He expressed the idea that people throughout the world are interconnected by new media technologies.

Rumour mongering in networks, the proliferation of “reality” shows and the curiosity to see what others are doing, are some of the aspects and consequences of these new behaviors.

News and social media have become inexorably linked, and not in a good way.

When I was growing up, we had two television networks in Canada and three in the U.S. News came on at 6pm and 11pm in most markets, as well as on radio every hour.

Newspapers came out every morning or afternoon, and newsmagazines, with their commentaries, came out once a week.

Journalists and leaders had time to think events through and produce news that informed and was checked or filtered for truth. Remember the Washington Post’s guideline that every statement had to have been confirmed by two independent sources before it was ever published?

Today the news cycle is 24/7. It caters to the new normal – instant gratification and a degree of attention deficit disorder, fueled by the overwhelming onslaught of real-time information that demands immediate response.

Instant news dissemination takes place on social and traditional media with no filters and little analysis for veracity. Journalists are forced to compete with the instantaneous speed of social media to remain marketable and most media are associated with a political party or point of view.

Agatha Christie once wrote that to rush into explanations is always a sign of weakness.

Objectivity and accuracy are sacrificed for immediacy, and truth is the prime victim.

According to Gallup, 29% of U.S. adults don’t have “much” faith in mainstream media while 39% have “no faith at all”. This level of distrust in media comes at a time when trust in government is also low.

As politics becomes more divided and divisive, political leaders bandy around such phrases as “fake news” to delegitimize news sources and serious journalists who contradict their views to the point where there is no one in whom to believe.

News programs are now “show and tells” in which pundits tell their followers what to think and believe rather than follow the old school model of the post-war world, when journalists presented the facts and audiences were encouraged to come to their own conclusions.

Autocratic governments excel in this type of media.

China, for example, blocks all internet contact with the outside world. Rather, the government has created its own internet that it controls completely.

Other autocratic governments control television and print media and allow only those media that promote the government’s interests.

One should always bear in mind the words of Aldous Huxley: the purpose of propaganda is to make one set of people forget that other sets of people are human.

Rather than respect the right of others to differ (the concept of the “loyal opposition” in British parliamentary terms), many governments today view their opponents as “enemies” rather than as simple adversaries and demonize them to the point to which they are ostracized or even murdered by those in power.

Democracies have a harder task.

Control of the media took the form of limited censorship (sex, violence) and an agreed form of self-censorship among the few available media outlets that played by certain rules of fair play and fair reporting. Freedom of speech was accompanied by a sense of responsibility on the part of the media.

Today, everyone has access to social media, everyone can have their own website or blog, and anyone can say whatever they want with little fear of control.

The sacrosanct concept of freedom of speech severely limits what governments can do to enforce honesty in reporting and in the management of personal social media accounts. In addition, cable networks that must fill time, amplify, and even create issues, sometimes where none exist, to sell advertising are also contributing to the same trends in many democracies.

Audiences are naturally intrigued by the sensationalistic, and providers are eager to cash in. Conspiracy theories gain traction and are transmitted globally in a matter of seconds. Audiences are subject to believe them because they appeared “online” or because they cater to and legitimize their feelings or opinions.

In this context, truth can be viewed as no longer an absolute: rather, facts are relative, truth is relative, and everyone appears entitled not only to believe their own “truth” but also to propagate it. This is not new. History has always been written by the victors and as two sides can view events differently. In the past however, there was a degree of stability provided by one view of the truth. Now, it’s more difficult.

How can we reverse the trend?

I don’t think that we can change audiences’ consumption patterns. Newspapers today are too expensive to maintain.

Most young audiences don’t watch television news, preferring their social media platforms.

Media corporations are owned by relatively few people whose objective is to make money. In most cases, journalists gravitate towards those media that either reflect their own personal views or pay well.

Consequently, many say that we must change legislation to make it less profitable to publish outright lies. Fines or prison time could be made mandatory for those who publish mendacity or hatred.

This is easier said than done.

We would require a huge bureaucracy to monitor the global digital ecosystem and pursue delinquents. It would also be against the right to free speech.

Also, we would have to come to a societal consensus as to what comprises “truth” and who defines it.

This would be complicated since most legislators have no technical knowledge or experience where both are essential to formulate effective legislation.

So, what do we do? Here are some thoughts.

Leaders must be fit for purpose and ready to handle the challenges of 21^st century technology and its impact on society. To start with, a return to pragmatism, values, common sense and putting the country ahead of party.

This coupled with intelligence and wisdom is the start needed to formulate strategies and legislation that address the challenges of the communications and technological revolution while striking a balance between freedom of speech and regulation of content.

Universities and schools must also adapt. I would urge a return to core values to better contextualize DEI (diversity, equity, and integration) programs and focus on reinforcing students on values such as meritocracy, hard work, and problem solving to learn how to process information and make sound decisions. It’s this approach that breeds critical thinking to discern between the truth and manipulation and navigate through the shoals of this technological era.

The current focus on making everyone’s opinion valid is self-defeating and diminishing society’s ability to arrive on a consensus based on facts rather than feelings.

Finally, we all must make a change as to how we manage our use of social media as a source of truthful information. We must learn to follow the immortal words of Ronald Reagan – trust but verify.

We must develop our own ability and that of our children to think critically, to listen more to other points of view and weigh their positives, not just seek to refute them and impose ours. Progress is made by challenging conventional thinking and by seeking the truth, not just accepting the news that our algorithm sends us. This is how to and use the digital tools we have wisely.

Absent this, we could well wind up living in an Orwellian world of our own making, one in which truth has no place and all are easily manipulated by the loudest voices on-line.