Very few people can make sense of the
current “fake news” hysteria and almost nobody is willing to look at it in a
historical context and to understand why the problem arose now.
The reason why the hysteria has
spread, and especially so in the United States, is because this is (to some
extend understandable) reaction to the loss of global monopoly power exercised
by the Anglo-American media especially since 1989, but practically from 1945
onwards.
The reasons for the Western quasi-monopoly between
1949 and 1989 (call it Phase1) were manifold: much greater amount of information
provided by outlets like BBC, and later CNN, than national outlets in many
countries; much broader reach of large English-language media services: they
were covering all countries when national media could barely pay correspondents
to be located in two or three top world
capitals; spread of English as the second language; and last but not least, better
quality of the news (say, greater truthfulness) than found in national sources.
These advantage of Western media were
especially obvious for the citizens of the Second World where governments
maintained tight censorship and thus the USSR had even to go to the extremes of
jamming Western radio-stations. But even in the rest of the world the Western
media was often better than local media
for the reasons I mentioned.
A careful reader will have noticed
that so far I contrasted global Anglo-American media to national or local media
only. This is because only the former had a global reach and the rest of the
media (due to lack of finances or ambition,
government control or small languages) were purely national. So the US and
English media fought a rather one-sided battle with small national newspapers
or TVs. It is no surprise that the global Anglo-American media was then able to
control, in many cases fully, political narratives. Not only were Western media
totally able to influence what (say) people
in Zambia thought of Argentina or the reverse (because there was probably next
to zero local coverage available to somebody living in Zambia regarding what is
happening in Argentina; and the reverse); more importantly, because of Western
media's greater openness and better quality, they were able to influence even the
narrative within Zambia or within Argentina.
The global competitors that the West
faced in that period were laughable. Chinese, Soviet and Albanian short-wave radios
had programs in multiple languages but their stories were so stultifying, boring
and unrealistic that people who, from time to time, listened to them did it mostly
for amusement purposes.
The Western media monopoly then expanded
even further with the fall of Communism (call it Phase 2). All the formerly Communist
countries where citizens used clandestinely
to listen to Radio Free Europe were now more than willing to believe in the
truth of everything being uttered by London and Washington. Many of these
outlets installed themselves in the former Eastern Bloc (RFE is headquartered
now in Prague).
But that honeymoon of global Western monopoly
began to change when the “others” realized that they too could try to become global
in a single media space that was created thanks to globalization and internet. Spread
of the internet insured that you could produce Spanish- or Arabic-language shows
and news and be watched anywhere in the world. Al Jazeera was the first to
significantly dent, and then destroy, the western monopoly on the Middle Eastern narrative
in the Middle East. And now we enter
Phase 3. Turkish, Russian and Chinese channels then did the same. What happened
in the news was paralleled in another area
where Anglo-American monopoly was also total but then got eroded. Global
TV series that were exported used to be only US- or UK-produced; but soon they
got very successful competitors in Latin American telenovelas, Indian and Turkish
series, and more recently Russian. Actually, these newcomers practically pushed
US and UK series almost altogether from their “domestic” markets (which, for example,
for Turkey includes most of the Middle East and the Balkans).
Then came the Phase 4 when other
non-Western media realized that they could try to challenge Western news monopoly not only outside but on the Western media home-turf. This is when
Al Jazeera-US, Russia Today, CCTV and others entered with their English-language (and
then French, Spanish etc.) shows and news directed toward global, including American, audience.
This was indeed an enormous change. And
this is why we are now going through a phase of hysterical reaction to the “fake
news”: because it is the first time that non-Western media are not only
creating their own global narratives but are also trying to create narratives of America.
For people from small countries (like
myself) this is just something totally normal: we are used to foreigners not only
appointing our ministers but being present throughout the media space, and even
influencing, often because the quality of their news and scholarship is better,
the narrative about country's own history or politics. But for many people
in the US and the UK this comes as a total shock: how dare foreigners tell them
what is the narrative of their own countries?
There are two possible outcomes. One is
that the US public will have to realize that, with globalization on, even the most
important country like the US is not immune from the influences of others; even
the US becomes, compared to the world as a whole, “small”. Another possibility
is that the hysteria will lead to the fragmentation of the Internet space as China, Saudi Arabia
and others are already doing. Then instead of a nice global platform for all opinions,
we shall be back to the pre-1945 situation with national “radio stations”,
local internets, bans of foreign languages (and perhaps even foreigners) on national
NatNets—basically we shall have ended globalization of free thinking and gone
back to unadulterated nationalism.
PS. You will not find pieces like that in your local news. And
that’s why internet (and not NatNet) is great.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.