Public Service Media and Information Disorder

"The challenge of 'fake news' and propaganda serves as a poignant case study to discuss strategies and tactics of PSM at a crossroads..."

The Center for Media, Data and Society (CMDS), Central European University, in cooperation with Re-Visionary Interpretations of the Public Enterprise, or RIPE@GLOBAL's Global PSM Experts Network Project, launched a series of lectures in March 2017 to address the challenges and the future of public service media (PSM). An extended reflection on the theme of the speaker series, this white paper focuses on a specific challenge for PSM: "fake news" and disinformation, or more broadly, "information disorder". The aim is to highlight some core activities and "best practices" by European PSM organisations in providing quality content and countering different forms of disinformation by informing and educating audiences.

First, author Minna Horowitz defines and operationalises the core elements of "fake news" and the institutional contexts of public service (Section 1). The consensus from several recent policy reports and from the experts interviewed for this paper is that "fake news" as a term should not be used, in part because the term has been far too politicised to be useful in analytical and policy work. Thus, this paper uses the term "disinformation" when referring to content, and "information disorder" when addressing the media ecosystem and context more broadly. Horowitz notes that public service broadcasting (PSB) and its multi-platform variant PSM often get mentioned as a part of the toolkit for solutions. For instance, the March 2017 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and 'Fake News' Disinformation and Propaganda of March 2017 notes that independent and resourced PSM with a clear public mandate for high quality journalism is essential for freedom of expression.

In terms of definitions and practices, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which is the global advocacy organisation for public media, the Public Media Alliance (PMA), the Council of Europe (CoE) and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) describe PSB and PSM as broadcasting and related services made, financed, and controlled by the public, for the public.

• They are nonpartisan, independent, and run for the benefit of society as a whole.
• They are neither commercial nor state-owned and free from political interference and pressure from commercial forces;
• Their output is designed to inform, educate, and entertain all audiences.
• They have universality in terms of content and access.
• They strive to maintain accuracy and high standards of journalism.
• They enhance social, political, and cultural citizenship and promote diversity and social cohesion and, ultimately, support an informed democracy.
• In addition, the EBU lists as one of its core PSM values innovation, including creativity in terms of formats and technologies and connectivity with audiences.

As outlined here, European institutional guidelines for PSM are broad, and European realisations of public service media are varied, in terms of the reach, resources, and political and commercial pressures, as well as the extent of digital content and services. In particular, challenges posed by political interests seem to be on the rise.

The Introductory Memorandum for CoE efforts to examine and support the role of PSM points out these areas for good practice and potential collaboration for PSM:

• Attracting audience through quality and innovative communication practices;
• Developing specialised/targeted programmes containing analysis and comments regarding "fake news" and propaganda (counter discourse);
• Stimulating critical thinking among audiences; and
• Developing targeted online communication with young people.

The paper takes its cue from the above categories of strategies and tactics that PSM may employ in combating information disorder. Section 2 of the paper highlights a variety of examples, based on the above types of activities, on the ways in which PSM can act as an antidote to disinformation. For instance, collaborations with other news providers and/or independent fact-checkers are a strategy for several public broadcasters. Some PSM organisations that focus on the nature of quality journalism, fact-finding, and trust have developed an approach to media and information literacy that incorporates several platforms. An example is that of the BBC, which has offered 1,000 United Kingdom (UK) schools mentoring from BBC journalists in person, online, or at group events. The schools have free access to online materials including classroom activities, video tutorials, and an interactive game. The BBC iReporter game gives the player the chance to take on the role of a journalist in the BBC newsroom and addresses the issues around quality reporting and disinformation. In addition, as part of a Reality Check Roadshow that toured the UK during the Spring of 2018, local schools were invited to nominate their own students to attend one of a dozen regional events.

Horowitz offers a case study of a situation where she considers PSM to be a significant, well-funded player in the media ecosystem, trusted by audiences, aand technologically forward looking: Sweden provides an outlook on different strategies and tactics for PSM to combat disinformation and systemic information disorder.

Finally, the paper reflects on some broader challenges of PSM and the information disorder in the European, and global media ecosystems (Section 3). For example, given the roles of audiences, global-local contexts, and a multitude of pressure on PSM (several of which Horowitz describes), "today's situation is seen by many as a watershed for media and communication policies and regulation: Can policies reframe media audiences and communication technology users as citizens, with rights? Can they help to restore citizens' trust in media and potential of free speech?" With regard to those questions, policymakers "would have to be interested in preserving a mixed ecosystem that is unique and that has allowed a plurality of media to exist, in the impact of the various efforts by PSM, and in the possible kinds of support PSM might need to, in its part, remedy information disorder."

Horowitz concludes with some key takeaways of the lecture series as they apply in this case study of PSM and information disorder. For instance, reflecting on PSM's role as a harbinger of democracy: "In today's Europe, a vicious cycle harms media freedom - and public service media organizations are particularly vulnerable. The cycle begins with state interference, resulting in the critical role of the media to diminish. This, in turn, reduces free information and debate necessary for decision-making and that development hampers free elections....It may seem like a mission impossible: To combat disinformation and to overcome turbulent times that, in part, have created the current state of information disorder and so many more challenges for public service media. But, unless we want to let go of institutions that are mandated to create solutions such as those discussed in this paper, we have to admit to yet another paradox: PSM, in some form, and in all kinds of variations, is needed more than ever..."