WSIS Action Line C9: Milestones, Challenges and Emerging Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development

Experts Discuss Media Development and Freedom of Expression at UNESCO-Moderated Session

The session, moderated by Albertina Piterbarg of UNESCO, convened experts to deliberate on the milestones, challenges, and emerging trends in media development and freedom of expression under Action Line C9. The panel comprised representatives from UNESCO, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Fondation Hirondelle, and Lupa, a Brazilian media organization.

The discussion began with a historical perspective on the evolution of media’s role and the development of legislation to safeguard media independence and plurality. The panelists acknowledged the significant transformations over the past two decades, particularly the challenges introduced by digital platforms and the decline in traditional media business models.

Guilherme Canela Godoi from UNESCO highlighted the progress made since the Windhoek Declaration of 1991, including a dramatic increase in countries with freedom of information laws, from 12 to 140. He stressed the necessity for a comprehensive approach to media development, which involves empowering citizens through media and information literacy, supporting the supply of reliable information by protecting journalists and other content creators, and rethinking the governance of social media and AI platforms within a human rights framework.

Renaud de Villaine focused on the increased legal harassment of media and journalists, citing the misuse of defamation, blasphemy, and fake news laws to suppress media freedom. He advocated for the decriminalization of defamation and the adoption of anti-SLAPP laws. He also addressed the concerning trend of online gender-based violence against women journalists and the rise of online hate speech, particularly targeting minority groups and women. He called for extending offline gender-based violence laws to the online sphere and for social media companies to establish clear protocols to address such violence.

Caroline Vuillemin from Fondation Hirondelle discussed the ambiguous definition of media in the digital era and the importance of distinguishing between professional journalists and other content producers. She pointed out the challenge of the changing business model of media and the deepening digital divide, which reinforces existing societal inequalities. Vuillemin also noted the progress in terms of political commitment and the media sector’s organization to defend itself. She emphasized the need for continued funding and political action, including the inclusion of media principles in the UN Pact for the Future.

Natália Leal from Lupa highlighted the specific challenges in Brazil, including a crisis of credibility in journalism, with a significant decline in public trust and a shift towards news consumption via social media. She criticized the lack of transparency and commitment to information integrity by digital platforms and stressed the need for collaboration among stakeholders to fight misinformation. Leal also underscored the importance of local journalism in rebuilding trust and the role of education in improving the information environment.

The session concluded with an acknowledgment that, despite the absence of time for a formal wrap-up, the key points and highlights would be summarized and contributed to the conference’s ongoing discussions. The panelists collectively called for sustained dialogue and action to address the challenges facing media freedom and development, highlighting the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach and adequate funding for media development initiatives.

Albertina Piterbarg:
Welcome everyone. Sorry, we’re slightly late. This is a very hands-on session because we have not much time and we need to go through the action line C9, which is related to media. And I want to introduce the panel. I will start by introducing myself. My name is Albertina Peterberg. I work for Freedom of Expression and Safety of Journalists section at UNESCO. I usually work in the area of elections, communication, and media. And I’m really very happy to be here moderating this session. We have also with us Mr. Guilherme Canela, who is online. He’s the chief of the section of Freedom of Expression and Safety of Journalists at UNESCO. We also have Monsieur Renaud Villene. That’s a media freedom and safety of journalist advisor for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Madame Caroline Villene. She’s the general director of the Fondation Nirondelle. And Miss Natalia Leal. She’s the CEO of Lupa, which is a very important fast-fooding organization and media organization in Brazil. And thank you to all of you for being here. Thank you particularly to Natalia because she’s in Brazil and it’s 4 a.m. in the morning. Thank you very much for our online participants. and to our in-presence participants. We are going to start, this is called Action Line C9, Milestones, Challenges, and Emerging Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development. And as you know, we’re going to go through an overview of these 20 challenging years of multi-stakeholders contribution and innovation to media development. And I think it’s very important to do a brief overview of the framework of this meeting so we all understand where we are and why we are doing this. And for that, I will start by, if you need to, this is not working. Well, just to remind us what Action Line C9 is, because it’s important to see what was discussed in 2003. To me, I think it’s a very, kind of, travel back in time to see this Action Line. So, particularly for media, because many things have changed. Action Line C9 consists of seven points. The first one is to encourage the media to play a role, encourage the development of domestic legislation that guarantees independence and plurality of media, the measures to combat illegal and harmful content in media content, encourage media professionals to develop countries, to establish partnerships with media and inter-cooperation with media in developing ones, promote balance and diverse portrayals of women and men by media, and reduce international imbalances affecting the media, particularly as regards to infrastructure, technical resources. and the development of human skills, and encourage traditional media to bridge the knowledge divide and to facilitate the flow of cultural content, particularly in rural areas. So I think these action lines are very much also a mirror of the times. And as we know, that has changed, but this is our baseline for today’s discussion. So it’s important for us to remember what happened in 2020’s road trip. And this is just, I shared this slide with you because I think it really summarizes what we’re doing here today. We’re going to look very briefly to the achievements of the last 20 years, and we are going to identify key elements, and we’re going to just try to identify the trends and the challenges, and the way forward. All the outcomes of this meeting are going to be summarized, and then we’re going to share that with the organizers. And at the end, we’re going to, I’m going to share them with you, of course, in a draft format, and then we’re going to share them with the organizers, and then we’re going to contribute with that from our perspective to the discussion. Albertina, if you allow us, I think there’s an issue with the screen sharing. I know, I realized. So if you can’t help me, you are really welcome. I think maybe we could just- Sorry. And then there is this one, this is the slide. Yeah, I think we can share it. Should I go to the participant? Okay. You see that here, it’s the roadmap to- our contributions. We’ll finalize because we don’t have much time, so we’ll leave it like this. Thank you very much. So this is the roadmap I was mentioning before, how the contributions are going to be submitted. And I think that it’s just for you to have an idea of the framework of our contribution and why we’re here today. From my side, I just wanted to share with you some of the actions that UNESCO and the UN have been involved in during these 20 years. Some key milestones that you might already know that are related to the model curricula. We started in 2007 with a model curricula for journalism education, media development indicators are a really important milestone, UN plan of action on the safety of journalists, the judges initiative, world trends in freedom of expression and media development, and SDG 16.10 to ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms. This is a snapshot of the evolution of the discussions too. And if you take a look, we’ll see we have media defense fund and then the information as a public good when really the discussion started to be about disinformation and the Chilean report that is a trend on violence against women journalists, which was also a huge milestone of the situation. And at the end, the guidelines for the governance of digital platforms. So if you take a look to the evolution of the milestones that I’m presenting from UNESCO and the UN, you will also see how the problems we have been facing during all these two decades. decades and how this is reflected in the different initiatives. I would say that we started thinking a lot in the professionalism of journalism and we ended now addressing the new kids on the block, which are the digital platforms. So it’s also a good way to have an overview of what happened during these 20 years. So just summarizing some positive trends, of course, in multilateral and global engagement and legislation, but also some legislation and legal frameworks, threatening the freedom of expression, access to information in some cases. We have observed also that media traditional business that we’re going to take later about this, they are at breaking point. Many media outlets have been forced to cut down on staff or close or lost revenue and declining. We have observed, luckily enough, during the last years, a declining of the killings of journalists, except that this year has been terrible in the death toll, particularly in war zones. So even if the attendance is declining, in conflict zones, we have an increase of this situation. And also, we have seen an increase in detentions and new types of attacks of journalists online, particularly technology-facilitated gender-based violence. It’s a huge problem for human rights of women and for vulnerable groups too. So this is many challenges. As we were talking about disinformation, misinformation, safety of journalists is also at stake and the platforms have revolutionized the media landscape and the… are actors that were not present in 2003. Also, the financial model, the business model of the media is undermined by the whole new technology, the arrival of the new technology. Even if it’s from one side, there are new opportunities from the other side, it’s creating a lot of problems. Well, recently UNESCO launched its guidelines for the governance of digital platforms, that was the last milestone I showed you on the screen. Because many things have changed, and particularly the number of people connected and the number of people getting informed through the digital platforms. The problem of the murkiness or lack of transparency of the algorithm in the world is creating many new challenges. And the fact that there is no distinction between facts and reality, or it’s really difficult for the general public to identify what is true or from what is not, and all the gray scales in the middle, it’s really damaging and undermining democratic institutions. So that’s a huge, huge worry. But there are trends and opportunities, broader access to information through digital content. Freedom of expression can be expanded by implementing a regulation and governance. But of course, in the context of the respect of human rights, and technological development and plurality of voices can give access to previously marginalized communities. So this is an opportunity, traditional business models need to change. it’s important that this change can be inclusive, and opportunities are linked to development of the ecosystem and information as a public good and freedom of expression need to be central to keep countering hate speech and harmful content. So thank you very much. That’s my, it’s just the framework of this discussion, but we will give, it’s Guilherme online. We are going to start the presentations and the contributions with Mr. Guilherme Canela, the Chief of the Section Freedom of Expression and Safety Journalists at UNESCO.

Guilherme Canela Godoi:
Hello, everyone. I don’t know if you can see me, but we can see all of you there, although we can’t no longer see all the 39 slides that Albertina presented. So thank you for this. Since we have so little time, and Albertina did the great job of stealing all my thunders, and I don’t want UNESCO to monopolize this conversation, I will be very brief on my initial remarks to leave the floor for the other partners and colleagues joining this. This action line is a daughter of the Windhoek Declaration of 1991. If you look in the first slide Albertina presented, the framework is the framework that the Windhoek mothers and fathers created, and that organized the discussions around media development and freedom of expression in the last three decades. So the idea of an independent, pluralistic and free media environment. And we were more or less successful in this. The news, actually, if we look in a 20 years framework or a 30 years framework, are good news. 30 years ago, we have 12 countries. with freedom of information laws, which of course is essential for an independent and pluralistic media, now we have 140. This is not a minor change in such a short period of time. I’m seeing Caroline there, all the issues related to community media and media and information literacy that are two issues that I know Fundación Higóndel cares a lot about, have advanced quite strongly in these last 30 years. I’m seeing people from CETIC there, our capacity in monitoring these things have advanced enormously in these 30 years. I’m seeing Renault, the joint work of the UN system in applying the principles of the Vindouk Declaration has evolved significantly in terms of international norms, resolutions and so on. Natalia can tell you how much this new way of looking into the digital environment has also evolved positively through transnational border journalism or the fact-checking initiatives and so on. So all those things are good news, are elements which show that the implementation of the C9 is not only bad news, although particularly in the last five years we are very much focusing on the problems. That’s why in 2021 we said we need to have another discussion about Vindouk, so we did in the same city a new debate that generated the Vindouk plus 30 Declaration and here is what I want to concentrate in terms of trends. The Vindouk plus 30 Declaration of course reaffirms the principles of the original one but says that we need to look in a more coherent way to this problem, so understanding information as a public good and all what is required from a governance perspective to protect information as a public good. public good. And basically, the Vinduc Plus 30 again, asks us to look in three main pillars to frame this discussion. The first one is that we need to invest a lot in qualifying the demand for quality and accurate and reliable information in this digital ecosystem. So in other words, we need to empower the citizens from all ages to have a critical thinking in this process. So media and information literacy is one of the answers for that, but there are many others. So qualifying the demand is absolutely central. But it’s not enough. It’s a necessary condition, but it’s not a necessary and sufficient condition. Although it’s, besides that, it’s unfair to think that citizens should bear all the burden when in the other side, we have $1 trillion companies with their army of lawyers and whatever to face this system. So it’s important, but it’s not enough. So the second element in the Vinduc Plus 30 declaration to understand information as a public good is how we support the supply of reliable and accurate information in this system. So for that, we need to protect journalists, we need to stimulate fact checkers, we need to protect scientists, artists, scholars, everyone that is inputting reliable and accurate information in this system. And all these people, unfortunately, they are at risk. They are at risk from physical threats, not only journalists, scientists, artists, and so on. They are at risk because of economic threats, the viability of media that was already said, and so on and so forth. But anyways, we need to support the content side, we need to support the supply side. But again, this is a necessary but it’s not a sufficient condition. So and then the third element is that we need to discuss the transmission chain, we need to discuss the social media platforms, we need to discuss the AI platforms. discussion is not easy for many reasons. So we need to rethink the governance and the human rights-based approach to this system, looking into players that are very different players of the ones that were the most powerful players when we first discussed the C9 story. So anyways, I will stop here to say this. We do think that still the original Vinduc framework is valid and necessary to be implemented, but it needs to be complemented with this idea that information is a public good and everything that is behind it, and how we reinforce this holistic and coherent approach. Without that, we will be only facing an even more complex statistic. The last time we measured the world’s trends report on freedom of expression and media development three years ago, we found out that 85% of the world’s population have experienced a decline in their freedom of expression. So if we don’t want to approach these statistics to 100%, we need to keep working together in this multi-stakeholder fashion to move ahead. Thank you. Back to you, Albertina.

Albertina Piterbarg:
Thank you very much, Guillermo. That’s very very interesting, and at least some hopeful thinking and positive thinking for the future. We will review all the points at the end of the session, and now I will pass the floor to Mr. Renaud Villene. We need to put the other PowerPoint. Is it still up to us? Okay, very good.

Renaud de Villaine:
So hello everyone. Thank you for coming in person, but also for listening online. I will concentrate in my presentation on four main challenges to media freedom and the safety of journalists nowadays, and also suggest some recommendations to address those challenges based on the report that OICHR presents every two years to the Human Rights Council, as well as to the General Assembly on the safety of journalists, but also on freedom of expression, but also based on the report of the special rapporteur, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, as well as other reports of the UN. Excuse me, because they cannot see the slides online. Sorry, I cannot tell you what to do. Is anyone able to share screen? We can keep going anyway. Yeah. So maybe the first main challenge related to media freedom and the safety of journalists, which is linked to information technology and the digital age, is definitely an increase in the legal harassment of media and journalists. Why such increase? because we see that traditionally laws from defamation, blasphemy, sedition or censorship were used to suppress media freedom, sorry because some people arriving, to suppress media freedom. But in the digital age, we see an increase of new kind of legislation like criminal cyber libels, cyber security and fake news laws that are used to harass journalists. And based on that, we see an increase of strategic lawsuits against public participations, the so-called slaps against journalists. Can we move to the next slide? So, based on that picture, there are some recommendations based on, as I said, the reports that OICHR presents to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, as well as reports by the UN Special Rapporteur. And also another important text is the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, because the stakeholders there are not only states, but they are also business companies and social media platforms. Also to mention that OICHR released recently a brief specifically on slaps. So here are some of the recommendations, if we can move to the next slide, because I can. So you can find in all those reports that states should decriminalize defamation, blasphemy and other offenses that may impose disproportionate penalties on those exerting their human rights, starting by freedom of expression. But also there is a need to adopt anti-SLAPS laws. We saw a number of initiatives at the regional level, but also some initiatives at the national level, but not enough initiatives. What are SLAPS? They are the Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. It’s when you use lawsuits in order to harass journalists, but not only journalists, human rights defenders, activists around the world. In the absence of such legislation, it is important that states ensure at least that courts can dismiss SLAPS through abuse of process provisions. When it comes to business actors, it is important that they develop clear protocols to deal with SLAPS, and that they exercise human rights due diligence to identify and prevent SLAPS through their supply chain and within corporate groups, and that they also develop grievance mechanisms that address the risk of SLAPS. The second main challenge is related to online harassment of women journalists. There was some years ago, I think it was in 2020 or 2021, a very interesting study published by UNESCO and ICFG on showing that really women journalists are more subjected to online violence compared to their male counterparts. Online gender-based violence is very various. You can find threats of rapes, murder, or sexual violence, as well as deepfakes, doxing, trolling, sextortion, non-consensual dissemination of intimate image, or smear campaigns against women journalists. This is really a global trend that we can witness nowadays. And what is really concerning is that such online violence does not have only a psychological impact on women journalists, but it has also a repercussion sometimes offline. As it was shown in the study by UNESCO and ICFG, 20% of women journalists interviewed that had been attacked or abused offline in connection with online violence that they had experienced. So this is really a concerning trend. Last year, we presented, the Secretary General presented a report to the General Assembly specifically focusing on women journalists, and here are some of the recommendations. It should ensure that laws dealing with gender-based violence offline should also apply online, but also that law enforcement officers, public prosecutors, and judges be trained on gender online violence against journalists to empower them to respond more effectively to such abuse. Social media companies also have a very important role to play. It is important that those companies ensure that first that their personnel have the necessary expertise on the safety of journalists and gender-based violence, but also that they create direct accessible routes for the escalation of complaints in case of gender-based online violence. Media organizations have also a role to provide digital safety support for their staff, and especially to their female staff. And also, it is important that they address gender discrimination, the gender gap, in order to also address this question of gender-based violence. main trend is related to hate speech online. Hate speech, as you know, is prohibited by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Interestingly, in 2021, the Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues presented a report that showed that three quarters or more of the victims of online hate speech are members of minority groups and among them, women are specifically, as it was already mentioned, targeted. Online hate speech can result in two kinds of deterious outcomes. First, it can cause a real harm to the victim, but also we can witness around the world that it can provide also to ill-intentioned states a tool to punish and restrict freedom of speech that is legitimate. When it comes to hate speech online, I think there is an interesting report to consult, which is a report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, which was published some time ago, specifically on online hate speech. So you have the reference there. And in that report, you find some interesting recommendations, all based on an important also document, which is a milestone, which is the Plan of Action on the Prohibition of Advocacy of National Racial and Religious Hatred, which was adopted in 2012 in Rabat. So this constitutes also a milestone that should be added to the chronologies that you presented at the beginning, Albertina. So it is important that states review existing law and develop also legislation on hate speech, legislation that are in line with… with international human rights law, and especially to the requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality, as well as legitimacy that you can find in the international, for example, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is also important that they establish and strengthen independent judicial mechanisms to ensure that individuals may have access to justice and remedies when they suffer such hate speech online. Internet and social media companies are also an important role to play to adopt and to develop content policies that also are based on international human rights framework, and also that any enforcement of hate speech rules are also in line with this international human rights framework. Last but not least, a last challenge, which is very important, that we see in the digital age, is the increase of use of spyware technology targeting journalists, but not only journalists and media, but specifically journalists. There was a study that was published two years ago that shows that between 2014 and 2021, 200 more journalists were were targeted by the Pegasus spyware in at least 12 countries. This is an example among others, because Pegasus is not the only spyware tool that is used globally. You can refer also to the OCHR reports on the right to privacy in the digital age that are presented every two years to the Human Rights Council, and in those reports you will find some recommendations to states. First, the position of OCHR is really to claim for a moratorium on the sales, the transfer, and the use of spyware. spyware technologies, but when it is not possible to have such moratorium, to really use spyware as a last resort, and also to conduct regular and comprehensive human rights impact assessment, but also business enterprises have a role to play, and also to have some human rights due diligence policy in place to tackle such an issue. I am asked to be brief, so I have to stop, but please consult all the reports that I mentioned in my presentation.

Albertina Piterbarg:
Thank you very much. I’m sorry to…

Renaud de Villaine:
No, no, no, it’s normal. I’m sorry, I was too long.

Albertina Piterbarg:
Now we’re going to pass to the last PowerPoint from Caroline Villemin from Fondation Hirondelle.

Caroline Vuillemin:
Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for inviting me. Fondation Hirondelle is an NGO. We are based in Switzerland. We are part of the media development sector. We work among many actors in the strengthening the media sector from the non-governmental perspective. So this is the perspective from which I will talk this morning. I organized my presentation looking at the seven points and… No. Oh, sorry. Fondation Hirondelle, it says the other one. It says you need to download it and then to charge it. You had it because you had downloaded it already. I organized my talk looking at the challenges still facing the media, the progress we see as media development actors. and what must continue to be done with a look at the seven points from the C9 basis. And so in the challenges, a lot of things were said already. I just want to emphasize that, you know, the first point was to encourage the media to play a key role in the society. But today the definition of media is blurry. We are in this transition of traditional media, mainly TV, radio, newspaper, versus digital and social media. I think it’s important to continue to talk about media, whatever their support as organizations that follow professional, ethical and journalistic values. And so a lot of what we consider today as social media are not media. And that creates and entertain a little bit of the confusion and the difficulty to strengthen the work of journalists, defend the work of journalists, versus the intentions and work of many content producers who are not journalists, who may have political, private, commercial interest and work for PR, public relations. And also to consider, especially in more than half of the world, that yes, digital is growing, but the radio, for instance, in Africa, this is a survey from Afrobarometer on more than 33 countries throughout sub-Saharan Africa, radio is king. So looking at legislation, actions, we should not forget that it’s a hybrid world. It’s online and offline. Another challenge, it was mentioned already, is how the business model of media has drastically changed. Media cannot count on subscription and advertising anymore. They have to work from a hybrid business model perspective with brands more and more. You see a lot of international foundations like Gates and Soros and the big foundations supporting media, including commercial media, not only community medias, and also these bargains that are done with the big technological companies, the meta and other big tech. This bargain deals, I think, with the one in Australia, there is one in Canada. The results so far are not good for the media. The big tech are buying the piece with the media in terms of sharing revenues and uploading content information up front on their screen, but it is not the model that will save the business model of the media. This is happening now, even before artificial intelligence is really making a difference in all the content production, and we have no idea how this is going to disrupt even more the work of journalists. The last challenge is that we mentioned the digital gap with progress, but in the details, the digital gap has grown in the wrong direction in the sense that it reinforces the existing inequalities of the society. The ones who were before the digital era are already the poorest, the less people with access to information, the less… inclined to be the first to serve with the technology remain in the back of the line. I’m thinking of women and I’m thinking of the poorest countries in the world these days. So these are the challenges that I wanted to highlight. In terms of progress and opportunities, I have less recent figures than Guillermo in terms of the number of countries with access to information law. But indeed, that target of SDG 16, the 1610, has grown. It’s been an improvement. In many cases, unfortunately, it is a law with no enforcement. And we see more and more countries having the perfect legislative system regarding media and freedom of expression and access to information, but no rule of law, no political will to implement these laws. And this is why I reminded on the side that a media sector is made of many layers, and one cannot just take one layer without working on all the layers. From the journalist’s perspective at the beginning, to the media houses, to the technological environment, the political and legal environment, and the sociocultural environment, which is very important today. Very often today, the progress is about enforcing media literacy, to really have people more savvy for reliable information, integrity of information. But we have to ask our societies, what kind of media do we want? Are we willing to pay for quality information? Are we willing to pay for public service broadcasters? And in many, many countries, these questions now are very problematic, and the answer is very often no. So how can we expect, if there is no sociocultural beliefs in the value of media, to have a functioning sector? Another progress and opportunity that I wanted to highlight is I think in the last 20 years, the sector became stronger and better organized to defend itself, being from a kind of official or formal perspective with, for instance, the Media Freedom Coalition that brings today together more than 50 countries to NGOs and media actors like the Global Forum for Media Development that is gathering more than 200 media and media development actors throughout the world and that very recent kind of hybrid initiative, the International Fund for Public Interest Media. I’m talking of a hybrid initiative because it’s public funding and private funding, kind of the kind of fund you have seen in the past for against AIDS or for women, bringing states and philanthropy to really help media survive what has been analyzed as a period of survival for media because of all these disruption being digital, being business model, being the way people consume media. So these networks did not exist 20 years ago. They are important. It’s a mix of different actors, and I think this is a good way to move forward, but they need to be supported, of course. We talked about women and the threats against women. It’s very difficult to actually have global statistics. If you want to know the number of women in media in Sub-Saharan Africa or in Asia, it’s very difficult to get. You have data from Europe, from Northern America, but there are definitely more women on air, in media. So that means different perspectives on the reality and the world and better content. But as is what’s said, that’s that additional exposure has put more harassment and more violence against women. And in many newsrooms, editor-in-chief and media managers are not well equipped to protect their journalists in general and women journalists in particular. The last opportunity, and Guillermo mentioned it, is the development and strengthening of community media, mainly community radios. Here is an example of what Fondation Rondelle does in the Sahel, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, where we work with more than 200 community media in strengthening capacities of journalists, equipment for this media, media management, and sharing of content and production. So what should be done next and some recommendations? I think there is a political commitment that was visible with this summit today. The G20 in Brazil, the Media Freedom Coalition, the OECD, very recent principles for effective media support. So these are very good positive signs, but that political commitment must translate into real action. And there is a key momentum coming up, which is the UN Pact for the Future in September. Currently the first version of the pact that came out had no mention of media or information. A lot of people mobilized. The version two that came out on May 14 included the protection of journalists and access and protection of freedom of expression. But there is no mention of information integrity, access to reliable information, the key role of media in societies. And I really call today on member states to make sure that these very important principles are included in the Pact for the Future and all UN texts at the Summit for the Future in September. And funding is also a big issue. In the last 20 years, the level of funding dedicated to the media as part of international development has not grown. So there is a discrepancy between the political commitment and the level of funding. And there too, I think more must be done. Thank you.

Albertina Piterbarg:
Thank you very much, Catalina. And we will pass the floor to Natalia. Are you there, Natalia?

Natália Leal:
Yeah, I’m here. Good morning, everyone. I may sound a little sleepy because it’s 4 a.m. in Brazil and usually I’m not awake at this point of the day, but I will try to be brief. I would like to start by saying that I’m here as a journalist who has been dedicated to combating misinformation and promoting information integrity for the past eight years in Brazil. I am the CEO of Lupa. Lupa is a digital platform that tackles misinformation by journalism and media literacy. So I want to share some emergent trends and some key challenges we are seeing in Brazil right now. It’s no news that journalists have been under attack and it’s going through a credibility crisis. The Reuters Institute is producing some reports last year and only 43% of the population, of the global population, said they trusted journalists. in the last year is a much lower percentage than in 2015, for example, when this figure reaches 62% of the population. And this decline in trust in journalism is directly influenced by the change in the news consumption patterns. In 2018, 32% of people said they consumed news directly on the websites of reference media outlets. And today, this total reached only 20%. Currently, 30% of people say they consume news only through social media. And in Brazil, this percentage is higher. It reached 57% in Brazil. A large part of the global population believes that the information circulating in the digital environment is safe and produced by credible content creators, but this is not the reality. And more than that, I would say a large part of the global population no longer sees journalism as a credible filter of reality, and dismisses journalism as an intermediary in their individual understanding of the world. And this perception has a direct influence on the transparency of digital platforms and their commitment to the promotion of information integrity. One of journalism’s greatest challenges today is the efficient monitoring of digital environments to identify viral narratives harmful to public debate. And this work has become more difficult in recent years to reduce access to platform data. Many companies and non-profit journalist initiatives are working to develop tools that cover this gap and enable effective observation of the digital environment, but this is still insufficient to ensure that all the problems that we are observing are addressed. Additionally, generative artificial intelligence has proven to be a complicating factor for information integrity in the digital environment. Although its exploration can contribute to identifying misinformation and hate speech, or even to accelerating journalistic processes, the tools we have are not prepared for these challenges we are experiencing nowadays. They need to be connected to reliable databases that contribute to qualifying the public debate, and it is worth remembering that many artificial intelligence tools reproduce gender and racial stereotypes when generating images and texts, and many of them still fail to identify gross manipulations in audio and images, photos and videos. Furthermore, the financial sustainability of journalism is an open question that deserves attention. Free and independent press is one of the pillars of democracy, but without financial investments that guarantee independence, the entire informational chain is compromised. Independent funds and public policies that support the activities of this sector are important to maintain plurality in journalist coverage and safeguard the rights of journalists. democratic values, ensuring quality information for the population. And the advertising driven funding model and the dependence on social media are not sustainable and detrimental to journalists. In this context, some practices emerge as alternatives for developing the information integrity. Collaboration is one of them. And personally, I think this is key in this process. In Brazil, since 2016, fact-checking outlets and institutions responsible for the electoral process, for example, have been working together to identify disinformative narratives and mitigate their effects on digital environment. More recently, journalistic and academic research initiatives constantly monitor the digital environment to prevent false information from spreading and harming the electoral process. These experience can be replicated by other countries facing the rise of anti-democratic movements and can contribute to a healthier digital environment. Another fundamental point is the role of digital platforms. This is known as also outlawed. There are regulatory process such as in the European Union. This reality is not replicated in countries of the global South and represents a constant risk to the quality of information here. In Brazil, digital platforms are constantly called to debate with public institutions to improve their processes and prevent the spread of false content in electoral, health. and climate crisis context. However, cooperation terms are generic without effective actions and depend on the platform’s willingness to comply with their own community guidelines, which does not always happen and this urgently needs to change. Strengthening local journalism and community journalistic initiatives is also crucial to ensure good information. Local initiatives experience the lowest rejection rates from the population and can be a bridge in rebuilding journalism’s credibility and the formation of news consuming audience through media education in schools and journalism aimed at children and teenagers as well as elderly audiences is also essential for improving the information environment. And finally, and with this I will conclude, it is important to remember that social media are not a kind of public square where anything could happen, but rather an economic domination space for private business entities competing for attention and any action aimed at improving the digital environment and promoting information integrity must start from this perspective or we risk accepting as normal practices that intensify radicalization, hinder the development of a more egalitarian society and ultimately destroying our democracies. Thank you for the invitation and I’ll be here if you need anything. From Brazil. Thank you very much.

Albertina Piterbarg:
Thank you very much, Natalia, for being there and for really being. contributing with this conversation. Thank you to everyone. Unfortunately, we don’t have any more, we have run out of time. We won’t be able to do the wrap-up of this session, but I will send you the outcomes of the session, the high points, the highlightings of the session, and then we contribute to the process of this conference. Thank you very much to everyone.