[ad_1]
Professor Jason Reifler of the Exeter University in the UK and author of fake news and fact-finding studies, was a keynote speaker at the 13th International Congress of Journalism & Research. # 39; investigation organized by Abraji, 28, and ends on Saturday 30 in São Paulo. In the O Estado de S. Paulo newspaper, he said that perhaps there was some exaggeration on the false news, and that we should be more concerned about the dissemination of misinformation by politicians in the election season. Below are the main excerpts of the interview:
In Brazil, many bills have been proposed to Congress to fight against false news. Do you think it's effective?
I think whenever the government starts regulating or restricting political speech, it triggers warnings. Although false news is a problem, the ability of the government to abuse the power to regulate false news is important enough that I do not automatically endorse this type of initiative. In the wrong hands, it is a power that can be used to restrict legitimate speech, rather than simply preventing illegitimate speech. In addition, some purists of freedom of expression may say that even an incorrect speech must be protected.
Recently, the president of the TSE said that he could cancel the election if the result was influenced by false news. Are we creating panic by giving too much importance to false news?
In some ways, we probably are. First, it would be very difficult to show that the false news had a direct impact on the outcome of the elections. It would not be impossible, but difficult. And if we plan to maintain democracy and institutions, the threat of canceling elections is inherently problematic, especially in a country that does not have a long democratic tradition.
Why do we overreact?
I've been working with fake news since the 2016 elections with my partners Andy Glbad and Brendan Nyhan. Initially, we had the same level of panic and worry as many others. But looking more closely, we could see that the fake news is a relatively small part of the general information consumption of most people. They are very concentrated in a segment of the electorate, with voting intentions probably well established. I do not mean that disinformation is not a problem. But what will be much more problematic are the inaccuracies, exaggerations and lies that politicians who compete for national offices can say without great consequences.
My research with Brendan Nyhan showed that fact checking can be a tool. very powerful, but does not make all lies and politicians disappear. It only works on banks, but it's about the banks that we lose or win an election. If the voting intentions are 51% to 49% in a bipartisan system, it can have a very profound effect even if, by the percentages, the effect seems weak. People exposed to fact-checking, according to our research, are more knowledgeable and have more specific factual beliefs. We also have a study that shows that when politicians are aware that we are verifying them, we remind them that they are perceived as someone who does not tell the truth. This can be a threat to reputation.
Brazilian fact checkers were attacked by conservatives. How does this influence the perception of false news?
It's a problem, it's the same thing in the United States. This is a clear attempt to discredit the source to discredit the message. It's just one of the problems that the audit will face. It is up to Scouts to make sure that they are sufficiently grounded and aware of their own prejudices to make sure that they evaluate the veracity of politicians' statements across the ideological spectrum. This is the best defense: checking the facts of high quality.
[ad_2]
Source link
