Infowars: How information complicates democracy

It was a Friday night. My friends and I had just finished a hike and decided to reward ourselves with a bucket of chicken nuggets at McDonalds. Fully aware that we were going to undo everything we had gained through those 15,000 steps, we marched on, talking about a whole bunch of unconnected, random stuff. The conversation for some reason moved to the protestors in America fighting the coronavirus restrictions in their states. Laughing at the absurdity of their cause, we started shouting “My body, my rights” and “USA!” with an American twang. I can’t speak for my friends but the picture I had in mind was that of a middle-aged bulky white man with tatted arms sitting on a bike with an American flag and a MAGA hat. Woefully ignorant of the scale and nature of the crisis. Deeply suspicious of liberal policies, politics and press, the contrived creations of the Democratic deep state hell-bent on making America a country with open borders. Seeking security in Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, the only people who can tell it like it is.

I consider myself decently informed about world affairs, and reasonably scientific in formulating my opinions. The four years in my undergraduate program were an exercise in intellectual scrutiny (I studied sociology and public policy, and a lot of my professors employed the Socratic method, often extensively). I read The New York Times, The Guardian, The Atlantic, BBC, The Quint and The Telegraph (in India). On some days I get my news from CNN, BBC and MSNBC, and on others, I just watch Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah and John Oliver.

And yet, the next day when I reflected on this image in my head, I felt strange. Why would I assume what these protestors in America look like, believe in, or practice? I haven’t met them, spoken to them or read any profiles on their lives. I am aware that a lot of the news and media I consume tends to align with left-leaning or liberal ideologies. But why should that frame my perceptions? Perceptions can be dangerous, because perceptions shape the way we interact with people and situations. Perceptions inform policies (the reverse is true as well). And policies have real and often lasting effects on people’s lives.

As is often the case, these thoughts started interacting with each other in the crucible of my mind, and led to other thoughts. The following is an account of all the questions I’ve encountered and have tried to grapple with. I don’t intend to build an argument through this piece. I don’t guarantee that my insights will be brilliant either; others might have expressed these thoughts more compellingly or articulately. But everyone’s experience of navigating these thoughts and making sense of them is different. And so I thought it’s worth encapsulating my ideas, lending them some structure, and putting them out there. NEITHER A DEFAULT NOR AN INEVITABLE OUTCOME

Democracy is a messy business. For hundreds of years, scholars and political scientists have investigated – and tried to find solutions to – the tensions inherent in maintaining a true democracy, whatever that is supposed to look like. Key to this is the idea that democracy is a system that needs to be upheld. It is neither a default state nor an inevitable outcome. All you need to do is look at the trend in Freedom House freedom and democracy rankings to understand that a country’s political reality is (and is likely to always be) in a state of flux.

The definition of a democracy is itself subject to debate and interpretation, coloured by the social, cultural, economic and geopolitical context of a country or region. What is a democracy? Which country has achieved it the best? Is the United States – often the poster-image of freedom and liberty – an ideal democracy? Cue: the 2016 election and everything that has happened since. Freedom House has commented on the unsteady beacon of freedom in the United States, citing attacks on the press, judicial freedom, electoral integrity, international democracy efforts, and democratic norms and pillars. Is India, the world’s largest democracy, an ideal one? Cue: the rise of Hindu nationalism and attacks on the media through the Modi years. The Nordic nations (Sweden, Denmark, Finland) tend to consistently rank high in the Freedom House indices, but even in these countries the last few years have seen traits of populism and authoritarianism creeping onto the national political stage.

In fact globally democracy is on the decline. This doesn’t mean that every country in the world is deteriorating on democratic indicators. It means that there are more countries losing points on the democracy scoreboard than those gaining points. Is this concerning? It depends on who you are, where you live, what your socio-economic experience has been like, the historical trajectory of your country, and perhaps how your country has responded to certain events. We can dissect the question morally at another time. Let’s just consider the fact that democracy is not looking too good on the global playing field right now.

Across all continents, we see leaders taking on more populist, nationalist and “strongman” type tones in their policies and politics. Vote for me, and I will protect you, the majority that has long been neglected. I won’t hand out jobs in our country to “those” immigrants. You don’t need to be scared of “those” religious minorities anymore – I’ll give you a voice. Our country is great, we don’t need foreign goods or foreign people in our land. Let’s be proud of who we are. From now on, it’s <insert country> first.

One of the things these leaders tend to attack, criticize or question – apart from judicial independence and electoral integrity – is the press. The free press in general, and journalism in particular, are facing increasing and more vitriolic threats. Countries – in Europe (Hungary), Asia (India, Philippines), the Middle East (Israel), and Americas (Venezuela, USA) – are taking subtle pointers from China’s playbook to curb the power of the media and journalists and sow distrust of the media (side note: political regimes are not the only reason for a general deterioration in press freedom standards; the onslaught of digitization and media business models are also adding pressures to the critical function of investigative reporting).

The relationship between the media and the functioning of a democracy is significant and unquestionable. We need the news media to disseminate information amongst the citizenry, to throw light on issues and communities that are often brushed under the carpet, to hold power to account, to find the truth and make us a better informed society. The countries that perform best on press freedom are also the most democratic (see the Nordic countries).

Getting accurate and reliable information is critical to our ability to elect our representatives. And given that the people we vote into power shape our realities, the information we receive does shape our personal and political futures. It’s easy to understand why in a dictatorial regime or a 1984-esque context, information is likely to be filtered, falsified or fabricated. But why are we seeing countries with vibrant and active media landscapes (the United States, UK, India, for example) not being pushed further in the direction of democracy? As we explore this question, we’ll see that the answer is multi-faceted and complex. Information – while a key component of democracy – is also complicating it.

WHAT COLOUR IS THE BOX?

There is a trust deficit when it comes to the media. An IPSOS survey conducted across 27 countries in 2019 found that trust in the media has reduced over the last 5 years (I’d recommend you to have a look at how different countries have responded to the questions). One of the worst performing countries (on many of the counts) is Hungary. I was surprised, mainly because I have never found much of a reason to tune into Hungarian news or politics. And then I came across an article published by the European Federation of Journalists, which highlights the findings of a report compiled by a bunch of different organizations.

“Since 2010, the Hungarian government has systematically dismantled media independence, freedom and pluralism, distorted the media market and divided the journalistic community in the country, achieving a degree of media control unprecedented in an EU member state.

While avoiding the physical violence or the jailing of journalists common in autocratic regimes elsewhere, the Hungarian government has pursued a clear strategy to silence the critical press through deliberate manipulation of the media market – engineering the forcible closure or effective government takeover of once-independent media – and through the delegitimization of journalists. The construction of a pro-government media empire serves as a vast propaganda machine for the government of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, insulating large parts of the public from access to critical news and information so as to maintain the Fidesz party’s hold on power.”

(It’s no surprise then that Hungary – while certainly not one of the worst performing democracies – has received a “partly free” ranking by Freedom House and doesn’t score too well on its political rights.)

But this is not the story of Hungary alone. Over the last few years, many governments have tried – sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly – to raise the volume of pro-government voices in the media, while lowering that of more critical media outlets (and independent journalists), often by berating them or starving them of political access and resources. It’s not just the government. Newspapers and TV channels owned, run, and influenced by their corporate masters might amplify certain voices over others. I will visit the point on private and public ownership of media from time to time, but only briefly; I won’t dwell on that now as I’m trying my best to keep some structure to this piece.

So what’s the big deal here? Millennials today have probably grown up hearing their grandparents and parents tell them “you can’t trust the media”. Or they might reflect on journalists and reporters of a bygone era (“they don’t make reporters like them anymore”). But they are few and far between. (Side note: isn’t it strange that the media – which is supposed to provide a check and balance on the government, and keep society informed and aware – seems to be a largely barren land with only a few notable oases?)

This trust deficit becomes a big deal as the problems we are faced with grow increasingly complex. Although we have dealt with pandemics in the past, COVID-19 for example seems unprecedented in scale and impact. In a time of uncertainty, frustration and restlessness, the worst thing you can add is lack of trust in the media. Imagine briefings from the CDC and Dr. Fauci on CNN or MSNBC being turned off and ignored because the “fake news” networks are not to be trusted. That might lead to people believing that injecting Lysol and demanding to return to work are acceptable. Imagine if in 2016, a balanced conversation being aired on BBC on the immigration issues surrounding a potential Brexit was muted because the “liberal media networks” just want foreigners streaming into the country. Imagine if a moral debate on the death penalty (in relation to the rapists in the Nirbhaya case in India) was shouted down because the “Lutyens’ Delhi” networks are meek liberals. The point is not about where I stand on any of these issues (well I do stand emphatically against Lysol consumption). The point is that the level of trust you have in the media can shape the decisions you make as a country.

But this begs another question. You can be distrustful of certain media outlets. But surely you’re getting your information from somewhere. You must trust someone. In the US for example, if you’re not a fan of CNN, you might be a fan of Fox or Breitbart (and vice versa). I get my world news from The New York Times, BBC, Vox and The Guardian but if I come across an article on Washington Examiner (it’s happened so rarely that I’m actually laughing while writing this), I will doubt it on the first read, and fact-check it on the second. Why do we trust information from some sources, and not from others? Am I – as a news consumer – being shaped by what I read and see, or am I shaping what the media channels offer to me?

Which makes me wonder – are we all trapped in a loop of living and exercising our confirmation biases through the news? I experienced it myself when in 2016, I would search for news on Facebook on the US Presidential election. My searches contained a fixed bunch of keywords – Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Democratic National Convention. And so, all the articles I read were pro-Clinton, and it gave me a sense of security and happiness that the country was ready and energized to elect its first female president. I had no idea of how well Trump was doing or who his supporters were. I could probably search for pro-Trump articles but I didn’t want to because that would make me feel unsettled, uncomfortable. Were the pro-Clinton articles coming to me, or was I reaching out to them? Both. I look for what I want to believe in, and that’s what I get. Similarly, if I want to believe that all supporters of the second amendment in America are against gun safety regulations, I will find articles that affirm my view. If I want to believe that it is the Hindus that don’t have a voice in India and the Muslim minorities are the ones that are favoured, I will find articles that confirm this view. If I want to believe that anyone sceptical of international climate accords is a climate change denier and wants to watch the world burn, I will find thousands of people who agree with me. We are retreating into our ideological echo chambers, where we feel secure and happy in our views, and don’t want to be (and choose not to be) troubled by opposing opinions or facts.

But why are we so scared of being challenged by contradictory information? The reasons are many and complex. We’re facing greater levels of anxiety and uncertainty because of an increasing number of social, economic and environmental threats. This leads people to look for comfort. That’s why they develop comforting narratives. And subscribe to news that is comforting. If I’ve lost my job, the idea that I lack the skills or competencies for that role is uncomfortable. The idea that economic structures are shifting because of global forces is overwhelming. But the idea that immigrants are taking away jobs is more palatable. It absolves me of my responsibility, and gives me an enemy to pin the blame onto. Another reason why we want to lock ourselves in our beliefs lies in the Marxist theory of class struggle. Certain groups want to uphold power structures so that they can maintain their positions of privilege. One way to do this is to generate buttressing narratives. Narratives about the supremacy of Caucasians relative to people of colour and that of men relative to women, are created and propagandized. People who subscribe to the notion of these power structures don’t want to be confronted with stories of women being qualified to become political leaders, and people of colour being equal in all respects to their white counterparts. They don’t want to be confronted with the ugly story of how white people and men are responsible for the historical subjugation of blacks and women. And that’s why they prefer to stay safe in their narrative bubbles.

How does all of this affect the strength of a democracy? A democracy – simplistically speaking – is strong when people with divergent views debate, discuss and deliberate, and then come to a compromise (which is hopefully the best solution or path forward). Even if democratically elected governments have a majority of the voices in the legislature (and don’t really need to care about the minority voices), the robustness of a democracy ideally depends on the exchange and improvement of ideas, and determining an optimal answer to a problem. To come to a compromise or find common ground, you need to agree on a baseline of facts.

Let’s take a box as an example. The box is turquoise in colour. However without looking at the box, I tell myself that it’s teal in colour (as I like teal). I find some sources of news that confirm to me it’s teal. My friend might similarly be fed the idea that the box is azure. Now if the two of us are asked to collaborate and come up with coloured designs to paint on the box, we may not be able to arrive at an agreeable outcome because we are starting from very different places. And so we get into a disagreement about what to do with the box, and might not be able to resolve it. Keep in mind that neither of us has actually seen the box. We have convinced ourselves of what colour it is.

The teal vs. azure conflict plays out on a more significant scale on issues of immigration (immigrants are invading our country vs. immigration is good for the economy and society), climate change (a hoax vs. an existential threat), globalization (a threat to our national identity vs. a boost to our economic standing), and others. Either we seek pieces of news that validate our preconceived notions, or they seek us (because of algorithms inbuilt in a plethora of platforms). But the outcome is the same – we enclose ourselves in a bubble that makes us feel safe in our views.

You might have seen the word “polarization” being bandied about. The Pew Research Center conducted a survey of 12,000 American adults to study US media polarization, and found that “CNN is trusted by 70% of self-described liberal Democrats, but only 16% of conservative Republicans – a gap of 54 percentage points. Conversely, Fox News is trusted by 75% of conservative Republicans but only 12% of liberal Democrats – a 63-point gap.” I’ve often wondered how people in a country with a shared history can be so divergent in their views. It’s probably because the socio-economic, religious and cultural realities of different groups of people are different. And these differences are amplified and given credence through the information that we consume. If I am a redundant factory worker in Michigan who’s struggling to find a job, I might believe in the comforting narrative that the multiracial and multinational elite in New York and San Francisco are responsible for my plight (and I’ll find plenty of news channels to reinforce this view). Similarly, if I am an investment banker in New York, and I read about mass layoffs in an automobile plant in Michigan, I might subscribe to the idea that the working class in the American midwest are bound to lose out economically if they don’t learn diverse and high-skill specializations (and there will be plenty of scholars that affirm my thinking). The issues of anti-elite or anti-immigrant sentiment and economic globalization in the US (and everywhere else) are multi-pronged and complex. But one of the reasons these narratives are sustained (and I would argue, encouraged) is because people do not want to come out of their shells where their worldview is supported and shared by others.

How then can we come to a common ground or a compromise and make democracy work? For you the box is azure, and for me it is teal, and we’ll probably never agree.

But isn’t there a solution to this? Instead of being told what colour the box is, let’s take a look at the box ourselves. Unfortunately it’s slightly more complicated than that. Firstly, the comfort I find in believing the box is of a certain colour is too great for me to want to possibly have that belief challenged. Secondly, the news authorities telling me the box is of that colour also have an incentive for me to believe in that.

Now let's assume that we overcome these forces, and decide to look at the box ourselves. Who’s showing us the box? Are they presenting it in a certain light or at a certain angle so that we can form certain impressions of it? Do we really trust the box that we see? Take for example data on immigration, incarceration, pollution levels, and losses in international engagements. This data can potentially make a government or company look embarrassing. But it is the government or company that owns this data. Can you really trust that the data they’re showing you is presented in its unvarnished, unadulterated form? I’m not making a claim either way – all I’m saying is that there is always room and reason to be sceptical. (Some democratic jurisdictions allow freedom-of-information type requests, which is obviously great, but they’re not always the bastions of transparency one believes them to be.)

Media based polarization is on the rise around the world (from the US to India, from France to Hungary, from Sweden to Israel). It is starker in some countries. In some places, the polarization is not as sharp, and might vary based on the issues. In India for example, many groups of people might be united in their belief that the economy needs to modernize and digitally transform, while they might be more divided on issues of caste-based or religion-based affirmative action. What if this becomes so much a part of our news consumption habits that the business models of news companies in the future adapt to cater to and fuel our desires? To preserve their audience base, media companies might only sell content that meets their consumers’ ideologies and interests. As a consumer, I would love to be fed my worldview – what a joy it is to be told you’re right about something – that is now lent legitimacy because it’s being presented by a popular and fairly respected news brand. The corporate boardrooms of many of these institutions might already be engaged in conversations on how to make this happen. It might not be a stretch to say that in the future media houses won’t focus on the truth as much as they will on ratings and eyeballs (I’ve only alluded to corporate pressures here, but the pressures can be political as well).

It’s not just that we might be trapped in our ideological worlds. The problem is that these worlds are warring. We judge each other based on the channels we watch, the newspapers we read and the radio hosts we listen to. We see each other in a certain light, and apply labels. You get your news from Fox? You must be a xenophobic conservative scared that America is being taken over by black and brown people. You get your news from The New York Times? You’re a part of the liberal elite. It doesn’t matter whether we actually demonstrate these attributes or not. The point is that we assume things about others without getting to know them – and this threatens any hopes of reasonable, rational exchanges between people (which is crucial to coexistence and co-functioning in a democracy). The implications of this are graver than you might think. We don’t just reject news that is uncomfortable. We reject the people that consume that news. In believing that only the information that we consume is valid, we automatically arrange our co-citizens in a hierarchy.

There’s another pernicious piece to this. These ideological bubbles become the perfect echo rooms for powered interests (governments or corporations) to create narratives and try to embed them into our consciousness and worldview. If a government knows it has a captive audience of a tens (or hundreds) of millions of people that are hooked onto one source of news, it has a fertile market to sow its own agendas and philosophies. A caravan of immigrants is coming for your country. Rejecting immigrants is an immoral choice. Homosexual parents cannot raise children properly. Muslims, with their own beliefs and practices, don’t belong to this land. Pro-lifers are opposed to women’s rights. Socialism will make everyone poorer. Capitalism in every form is antithetical to equity. As a woman has more to lose in talking about sexual assault, she should be believed regardless of whether her claims have been investigated. Men are the real victims of the #MeToo movement. Assertions like these, buttressed on misleading, cherry-picked or sometimes inaccurate information and examples, play to the gallery, and cement support for authorities that uphold these claims.

The reality isn’t that distressing, you might be thinking. Sure, these ideological chambers with bias-enforcing narratives might attract people on the fringes of a spectrum, but most people are somewhere in between, curious to understand the truth, open to challenge and criticism, and analytical in the way they deal with and consume information. I do believe that that’s true. I don’t think that everyone in a society is part of bubble A or bubble B. But let’s flesh this out a bit. Firstly, the choice is not binary. Many different narratives might exist about a topic, and people might choose to subscribe to the one narrative that makes most sense to them. The point is that people may not have much of an incentive to step out of their narrative-world and step into another. Ideally, democracy works best if people come to the same table with their perspectives and interests, and negotiate for the most optimal solution to a problem. What hope is there if people don’t want to meet at the same table? Secondly, we can’t be dismissive of “the fringes”. It was assumed that Donald Trump is popular only amongst “the fringes”, Brexit as a concept exists only amongst “the fringes”, Hindu nationalism festers only amongst people on “the fringes”, supporters of Marine Le Pen belonged only to “the fringes”, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party is only of “the fringes”, and so on. The fringes can shake power structures and sometimes alter the course of history.

A FERTILE BREEDING GROUND

Let’s talk about the mammoth in the room – social media platforms. A growing number of people in countries across Asia, Europe and the Americas are getting their news from social media platforms (still not as high as TV though) – Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, Instagram and YouTube. Social media platforms were designed to help people and communities build stronger connections. They all evolved along the way, adding new features, getting on new looks, and serving more purposes. A social media platform today has the power of spreading any piece of news amongst a vast sea of people instantaneously. People don’t have to wait for their 9 pm news show to come on, their favourite radio newscaster to appear, or their newspaper to be delivered the next day. Governments, companies, celebrities and people in general have realized the advantage of having millions of eyes and ears ready and captive on a platform.

All of this sounds great.

However, the danger of ideological bubbles is manifested and often exacerbated on social media platforms. You want to find a group or page sympathizing with pro-life voices? You’ll find one. Pro-choice voices? You’ll find one. Anti-immigration views? It’s there. Open border supporters? Yup, you’re covered. Race-based supremacist opinions? Can’t find one? No worries – you can create one, and you might get thousands of followers and sympathizers within a week’s time. Not just that – the algorithm built into the program will try its best to make sure that you don’t get exposed to any material that might threaten your moral worldview. You’ve searched for one flat-earther page. Here are ten more. This is why social media amplifies the problems we’ve talked about previously. When it comes to TV, radio or print, only a few voices can make their way there to control the narratives. When it comes to the internet, practically anyone can upload a video or publish a post. You’ll probably have billions of ways on the internet to get information on a topic.

Because the internet is an unending sea, to keep your followers hooked, you need to make the news more attractive to them. Give them a reason to stay on your page. Focus less on facts and more on opinions that affirm their moral inclinations. Add some sauce and spice to make the information interesting. Throw in some numbers to don a cape of credibility. Get a USP. Again, not everyone who attempts to spread information on social media does this, but the dynamics of the relationship between a consumer and information provider (be it a person, news corporation, government, etc.) give enough incentive for people to deprioritize the truth in favour of more eyeballs, follows and likes.

A key problem lies in the design of a social media platform. Social media is put to its most effective use when we connect with more people, communities and pages. There’s no point in having just 5 friends on Facebook (you don’t need a platform to maintain those friendships). In fact if you do, Facebook will flood your newsfeed with people you should connect with or pages you should follow. It’s no surprise that our feed (on Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter) is usually overcrowded with pictures and posts. How many times have you found yourself mindlessly scrolling through a page without really paying attention to anything in particular? And therein lies an issue – because we have too much information, and very little time, information has to be concise, snappy and interesting. News pages on Facebook have to engage in clickbait. People reporting on a piece of news or expressing an opinion may need to dial down the complexity. Instagram accounts are pressured to upload the most captivating images to ensure a reader goes through the whole text in the caption, and clicks on the link. Twitter makes it even harder – you only have 280 characters to make your point. We may not get the kind of nuance and complexity that I would argue is necessary to inspire critical thinking and rational debate. Is absolutely everyone on the internet engaging in hyperbolic or groundless assertions catering to specific groups of people? No. But there are more than a healthy number of people and groups doing it. And more importantly, the design of a social media app allows and sometimes encourages it.

Social media also brings with it many delights. Want to see strangers feuding with each other? The platforms have got you covered. Just read through the comments section on any post. The content and point of the post become irrelevant. All you need is for one person to comment something that is morally or politically charged. And the label wars begin. You must be a socialist. You must be a blood sucking capitalist. You must be a Trump supporter. You’re part of the Democratic establishment. You must be a Muslim sympathizer. Your opinion can be dismissed because of the box you’re perceived to belong in. If these exchanges took place in an abstract world, it would be less concerning. However these comment chains show exactly how people deal with and process information. This information shapes people’s political choices. Political choices shape the landscape of elected representatives. Elected representatives shape the country’s democracy.

Social media also offers a fertile breeding ground for conspiracy theories. There’s no better way to spread your unfounded yet wildly fascinating theories than to have it shared on a social media platform. Previously conspiracy theorists were relegated to the extreme fringes of the news landscape, limited in reach and scope. But if you feel the spread of such theories is on the rise today, that’s because it is. Conspiracies help allay the anxieties and uncertainties of people by sheltering them from the truth, and pinning the blame on some other force. Climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese, for example. Al Qaeda and terrorist groups are sending their operatives to the United States and other countries disguised as refugees. Don’t worry about there being no vaccine – ingesting disinfectant can also help kill the coronavirus. Sometimes they also serve to magnify or glorify the image of a person or community. The Aryan race is superior and hence has a legitimate claim over power (and the Jews, conversely do not). India is the land of the Hindus. If these theories were consumed for entertainment and fantasy, it wouldn’t be a big deal. The problem is that they are read, propagated, and even more dangerously, legitimized, by figures in authority. Conspiracy theories are a powerful tool to reorient a narrative to suit your ends. By lowering the quality of information in a society, they impair democracy.

The future of information does not look comforting either. The phenomenon of deepfakes – fake videos, photos and audio created using artificial intelligence – is already here. You’ve probably already come across a few deepfakes – Obama calling Trump a complete dipshit or Zuckerberg talking about controlling billions of people’s data. Today you might be able to spot certain subtle differences between a real video and a deepfake (you can take a test put out by CNN here), but the technology is improving. In the future you might not be able to do so. Also, recognizing the difference requires you to pay close attention to the picture or video, which many might not do. Imagine a world in the future where people traffic in deepfakes, and the pace at which credible institutions try to take them down or counter them cannot match the pace at which these altered images and videos spread. It also gives people the opportunity to dismiss any evidence as fabricated content (Trump has already hinted that the Access Hollywood tapes in which he was caught speaking about women’s genitalia was created). The possibilities of fake content creation are limitless. What if we can eliminate or edit the narrative around historical events by saying the images in our history textbooks are fake? The Holocaust deniers will be only too happy. Worse still, what if we create events in the past to build a certain narrative? We can literally rewrite history. And by rewriting history, we can overwrite all our worldviews and beliefs, which can in turn, change the shape of democracy.

Continuing the box analogy, conspiracy theories and deepfakes don’t try to tell you that the box is turquoise, teal or azure. They tell you that the box is red. Or that the box does not exist.

THE BOX IS TURQUOISE

We can keep going down the rabbit hole of how information can be abused, misused, fabricated, politicized and weaponized to threaten the foundations of democracy. There’s a lot more we can explore when it comes to the relationship between the state and the media, the business models of media organizations, political allegiances of media houses, the politics of journalistic access, and the philosophy of journalism. All of these have an indelible effect on how we receive information. But I won’t dip into that ocean for now.

I don’t think we are completely helpless here. We should support news organizations that we trust. If you can afford it, subscribe to your trusted newspaper and listen to your trusted podcast. If you have the time, watch the broadcast of a credible news host, and don’t just watch snippets on YouTube. Financially supporting the organizations you trust helps them thrive and continue the good work of journalism. There is an inherent contradiction here – what if the journalism I trust is that which affirms my views? Some conspiracy theorists on the internet are quite handsomely paid. There’s nothing one can do about that. But the majority of people living in democracies do want facts and transparency (the coronavirus pandemic has made that amply clear). So we should support organizations that give us that.

There is an argument to be made for the public funding of news. Let’s take governments and companies out of the whole equation. Members of a community raise funds or contribute financially to support newspapers and reporters. The idea sounds appealing, but in practice it might give rise to a few fundamental questions – what if people still band together ideologically and support news sources that align with their moralities (although I don’t believe any society is at that level of polarization yet)? Will public funding be sufficient to support the large and complex infrastructure required for a news organization? Will such reporters still have access to politicians and business houses? Will the wealthier contributors have more of a say in what is reported on, and what isn’t? I guess there are more questions than answers at this point, and so we need to play out and study more examples of community funded models.

Let’s also remember that while most members of the boardrooms of news organizations might have a bunch of different motivations, most members of the journalistic fraternity have just one – to discover the truth. They ask the tough questions, go to places where people wouldn’t dare (I just finished reading In Extremis – an inspiring account of the life and story of the Sunday Times foreign correspondent Marie Colvin – and I would encourage everyone to read it), and give a voice to the vulnerable and marginalized. They peel off the veneer of half-truths, misleading statements and fabrications, to bring to light what we need to see. They are the valiant souls putting their lives at risk to keep injustices in check. We need to support organizations like the Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters without Borders, Freedom House, and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists to make sure reporters and investigative journalists are protected around the world.

Since we are talking about the relationship between information and democracy, we need to make sure that our democratically elected representatives do their part in promoting information transparency. Granted, some countries will find it harder to do this. But even if one small pocket of the world achieves a slightly greater degree of transparency and accuracy in information reporting, it’s a win. Citizens have to push for enhanced freedom-of-information laws, so that they achieve the spirit of what they are designed to achieve. They need to push for legislation that firstly, penalizes companies for publishing untruths and misleading information, and secondly, if not mandates, at least incentivizes them to fact-check incorrect information in real time lest it thrives in the internet and takes on an unfettered life of its own.

We can focus on how we can improve the quality of news all we want, but the key piece in all of this is us. We as citizens (and hopefully future guardians of democracy) need to take more responsibility for how we process information. We need to reason critically, question what we read and see, and push for more. And this needs to start from a young age. We need to start teaching our kids analytical thinking, political science (well science at the very least), history and sociology. Will schools and education boards have an incentive to change their curriculum? Probably not. But there’s no greater incentive than voting. Electing representatives who believe in the importance of a critical-thinking citizenry can inspire incremental change. It’s clear. We need to encourage students to think about the world outside of their home and town, empathize with different people and perspectives, be comfortable with nuance, and adopt different lenses to study things. That’s how the information they get and the opinions they formulate will be richer.

You might be wondering – why all the fuss about information? There are many other forces that threaten the true functioning of a democracy – attacks on minorities, gerrymandering, voter suppression, electoral rigging, etc. Yes there are, and we need to address these issues as well. But we won’t be able to tackle these challenges effectively if we don’t have information about them. You might also wonder – even if we have accurate and verified information, our worldviews won’t necessarily change. Morality and information are two distinct things. Yes they are, but ideally information about the world – truthful information – should inform your moral positions. I’m not claiming that after we cleanse the world and straighten out the facts and get pure, unadulterated, unbiased information about people and things around us, our worldviews will converge and we will agree on everything. No we won’t, and I hope we don’t because that would preclude us from realizing the essence of a democracy. Disagreements will (and should) continue, but they should be premised on a baseline of facts. We can disagree on how to decorate the box and what to do with it, but we both need to agree that the box is turquoise.

Democracy is neither a default state nor an inevitable outcome. The only way to keep it is to live it. Every day.