In the face of the threat of misinformation, a little placebo

Truth and lies. Facts and falsehoods. Journalism and disinformation. On Wednesday, Congress had to deal with issues that have been linked to democracy for at least a century, in a low-level way, although suddenly people in Europe are talking about them as if they were a new problem. If anyone thinks that the debate on the future of democracy has taken on philosophical overtones, they can relax. It was the typical plenary session in which the two main parties shook off countless low blows, while the other groups wondered why they had been called together with these proposals on the table. They were not worth launching rockets about.

Pedro Sánchez appeared in the House of Commons with a plan that seems unlikely to be up to the task of dealing with the crisis caused by the misinformation he described. He said that we are in a period of “democratic erosion” throughout Europe, in which many people, especially young people, are losing faith in democracy. Why does the prosperity that each generation promises to the next now seem like a pipe dream? Why do the rights recognised by the Constitution in housing and healthcare not become reality? No, because many lies are told, as if people had acquired a taste for lying when they were given a mobile phone in their hands.

The president had promised a package of measures for democratic regeneration with which to cut off the flow of hoaxes circulating in society. The right has been shouting furiously for weeks, claiming that what the government intends is to threaten to close critical media outlets. To put it another way, this is what Miguel Ángel Rodríguez has done every time he has been in the offices of power. Sánchez promised to increase transparency in the Administration and impose measures in this regard in the private media in relation to the identification of their owners and their financing (which is something that the readers of this newspaper already know about their medium).

He had previously given alarming figures. “90% of Spaniards are exposed to fake news that they cannot discern,” he said. “Hoaxes have made 34% of citizens fear that someone will occupy their home, when this problem affects less than 0.06% of homes in our country.” “The repeated consumption of fake news is linked to the rise of the extreme right.”

He could have given more examples, especially those linked to extremist websites, but the question was different. If the problem is so serious and the risks so high, how can he believe that such inconspicuous measures are going to clean up the media landscape of so much manipulation? Sánchez had presented the disinformation as a grizzly bear more than two metres tall with terrifying jaws and then proposed to face it with a racket in hand. It is unlikely that the bear would feel intimidated.

The measures are taken from an action plan for democracy approved by the European Commission and ratified by everyone in the European Parliament, except the far right. It is not a directive that needs to be adapted in Spain. It can be applied right away without any vote. And that was all. That is why Gabriel Rufián asked himself: “He has not announced anything that is an initiative of his Government. So, what has he come here to do after three months and five days of reflection?”

Aitor Esteban played the role of the wise old man (actually, he is not that old) who tells the young padawan to be careful what he wishes for so fervently. On any issue related to freedom of expression, “you have to be very careful or better not to be very careful at all.”

It has always been said that the best press law is the one that does not exist. It is a commonplace, but it also comes from a very real idea. If you let governments and parliaments start to legislate on journalism and freedom of expression, you can find yourself in for some negative surprises. Even in liberal democracies.

It’s a good suggestion to ask people what they would think if new laws or regulations against disinformation were applied by a government on the other side of their ideological spectrum. If they start to get nervous, it might not have been a good idea.

Speaking of transparency, Esteban had a proposal. “I’ll leave it to you, pardon the pun. The Official Secrets Act.” This same law has not been approved for several legislative periods due to the lack of interest of the PSOE and the PP.

The Popular Party did not care about having voted in favour of these proposals in Strasbourg. Alberto Núñez Feijóo called it “a farce”. Nor did he propose anything different. His aim was to continue the strategy of the last few months, centred on Begoña Gómez. “The only reason this debate is taking place is because the president’s wife is being investigated and because her brother is in court for five alleged crimes,” he said.

The leader of the PP is very creative in his judicial terminology. He already said that Gómez was “in the dock” only because Judge Peinado had called her to testify as a defendant. Now he invented that Sánchez’s brother is “in court”, as if he lived in a court. At the moment, there are only a few proceedings open against him due to a complaint from Manos Limpias, one of those that are made with a cut and paste.

A photo revealed that Feijóo had prepared a paper reply headed by the words in capital letters: “START REPLY: HARSH TONE”. Just in case he missed it. In reality, it was the same as always. Begoña for starters, main course and dessert. The PP does not change the daily menu in Parliament.

Sánchez responded with Feijóo’s record as president of the Xunta and his absolute control of the media. As an example: “320 Black Fridays with the staff of Galician radio and television denouncing the manipulation.” At first, the PP benches remained silent. The only thing heard was Rafael Hernando saying out loud: “And what about Begoña?” Then he slipped up by saying that the PP had ordered the seizure of the book ‘Fariña’, which revealed her contacts with drug trafficking. The seizure of the book was ordered by a judge at the request of a former PP mayor and lasted five months.

Feijóo had his moment of glory when he showed a pendrive that contained, or so he said, 300,000 articles with everything published about the Government, and he wondered why he had not filed a complaint. Of course, if he had, the PP would have jumped on him. And they don’t need much to make that leap. A ministerial order in 2020 to create a commission dedicated to fighting disinformation coming from abroad, following the orders of the European Commission, was converted by Pablo Casado’s PP into an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” to control the media. El Mundo, ABC and La Razón happily joined the party.

It was pure delirium, but it became clear that you don’t need “pseudo-digital media” from the far-right corner to generate disinformation or manipulate reality.

It did not look very good when Sánchez took advantage of the plenary session to announce a 100 million euro aid from European funds to the media to promote their “digitalisation”. As an example of its use, he gave the creation of databases and cybersecurity measures. It was a gigantic pill that one might suspect will serve to sweeten his relations with the media. A bad day for this million-dollar detail.

Disinformation is a real problem. So is the cynicism or anger it provokes in public opinion. The legal tools to combat it are scarce. It is difficult to make lying illegal in the media when it cannot be made illegal in society either. Some will say that it is part of human nature. This is best explained by Aitor Esteban: “Democracy is so because it allows freedom of expression even for those who attack it.”

We must not forget that these hoaxes have a favorable audience because many people like to be told that they are right. In a cartoon by the Argentine Daniel Paz, when a girl tells her father that the news he is reading is false, he responds: “But how can it be false if it says just what I think?”. It has not been explained better.

We want to hear the truth and for the truth to prove us right. Few people accept that everything cannot happen at once.