The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> DENIZ WAGNER: Okay. I think we should get started. And we'll kick off and there's people I'm hearing also in the room physically, so should probably not keep them waiting any longer. So, hi, everyone. And also, good afternoon to those joining from IGF in Kyoto. Though it would have been nice for all of us to hold this session in person in Kyoto, of course, I must admit I really do appreciate the access that this hybrid form of event provides, looking especially at this fantastic group of speakers that we are able to have with us today. So, thank you all for joining.
My name is Deniz Wagner, and I have the privilege of monitoring this discussion for the next hour where I kind ‑‑ I want us to imagine a little bit the future of the media. What will it look like ten years from now? And who will be the actors and what purpose will they serve in our societies? Admittedly, we're having this conversation at a time of major uncertainty. Many political developments around the world are worrying, conflicts and war escalating with devastating impact on human lives and little hope for solutions in near sight. Democracy is eroding, as we have heard time and time again. And private actors are continuing to exploit and capitalise on the newest technologies, always staying one step ahead of regulation at the expense of our digital rights.
So, how can we define what comes after the uncertainty? How can we shape or influence the way emerging technologies are developed and deployed? And how can we ensure that the media of tomorrow serves as the speakers of truth, democracy, peace and security.
I'm joined by a fantastic panel to start off our discussion around these somewhat difficult questions. And let me quickly introduce them all. So first, we have Teresa Ribeiro, who is the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Meera Selva, the CEO of Internews Europe, Khadija Patel, is the Chairperson of the IPI Board and Head of Programmes of the international fund for public interest media. And Susie Alegre, Senior Fellow at the centre for international governance innovation, Director of Alegre International, and author of Freedom to Think. A must‑read book about how the online information ecosystem undermines our (?). So I want to start by doing one round of quick questions to all of you and then we'd invite our participants if they have any questions or comments to post those, and after that I'd like to pose a second round of questions to our speakers as well.
So, let's dive right in and start with a question for Teresa. How can we ensure that the media can serve the public interest? How can we make sure it is able to play its crucial role for democracy and security, now but also in the future? Teresa ‑‑
>> TERESA RIBEIRO: Thank you you Deniz. It's a pleasure to be here with such a high‑level panellists and that they're also good friends of the Office of the Representative on Freedom of the Media. So, it's really an after, you know, everything that you just said, deni and all these que questions I would like to start by saying that I think one of the biggest challenges, democracy, we'll face and is facing already is definitely artificial intelligence and the disruptive ‑‑ and the disruptions in the digital space and if, we not be able ‑‑ if we fail this challenge, definitely, we will pay a high price as democratic countries in the future.
So, I would say for me, this is really key to ensure that we are all prepared to look at this biggest challenge and to look at it in the right way.
It means that it's not enough just to have some guardrails regarding what is happening in the digital space but on the country, we really need to put the technology at the service of democracy and it's possible. And we need to use the technology to boost democracy, to improve democracy and not just to be a cause for the destruction or at least the disruption of democracy. So, this is my first concern to tell you the truth.
Because if we will not be able to face this challenge again, we cannot have what is basic for the citizens, which is a clean information, which is a proper information, as we have clean water and we need clean information for the citizens, for them to be empowered, to be driving forces of transformation in our societies, and to take informed decisions and to have the sense of belonging to dare communities, to dare societies for them to fully participate and to ensure democracy's alive. I do not. Maybe I'm extending a little bit too much. If it's the case, please let me know. But maybe it will be nice also to hear the other panellists and I will gladly go back again to develop a little bit more or to elaborate a little bit more on this ‑‑ on this main issues that I just raised.
>> DENIZ WAGNER: Thank you, Teresa. No, I think we're all very happy to hear your thoughts on this, but I will definitely come back to you with a second question to follow up on what you have said.
But based on what you said, Meera, I'd like to turn to you next, if I may. Teresa just mentioned that AI for example is one of the biggest challenges for the future of democracy and how much it poses ‑‑ or how much all of this poses a big challenge for the media, which is putting ‑‑ which is in a way facing a litmus test. So, my question to you is, specifically about that and what the situation the media finds itself in. Is it facing an existential crisis? And is it just the media that is facing this crisis, or is it also democracy as Teresa has touched upon? Is it more ‑‑ and what is driving this crisis? What's going on?Er.
>> MEERA SELVA: There's several aspects to this. There's the financial aspect of the media industry, the technology firms and upended the business models so traditional advertising, revenue models would (?) their heads over ten years ago. The media industry struggled to work with the technology companies, found ways of working and now we're in further had area with the technology companies are pulling away from news so the models of information are now being changed again, so there's a kind of problem over who funds the media because it's not very clear, and at the same time, we see certain governments weaponising advertising revenues so they give government public advertising spend to media outlets that are favourable to them and withhold it from ones that are RITcal. So we're seeing that media companies are really facing different kinds of pressures, and at the sale time we're seeing an absolute breakdown of trust, not just in journalism but in democratic institutions and in institutions in general. And this is driven by a rising inequality in societies in many cases. It's driven by increasingly polarised narratives, so we really struggle in communities to find a shared ground, to find a shared agreement, even what is fact and what is truth and what is a lie. And once you don't have that shared ground, it becomes really impossible to debate policy outcomes and debate ‑‑ you know, and possible solutions because we don't even agree on the fundamentals.
At the same time, people still need stories. People still crave stories. People still seek out information. So, what media really needs to find a way of doing is providing this information for people and finding a way to be financially viable while doing that. So, there is an existential crisis but the need for Germany and the services that journalism provides is still very much there.
>> DENIZ WAGNER: Thank you, Meera. So financial aspects of the crisis definitely, also the models of distribution have changed. So it's really a lot of layers and you've mentioned ‑‑ I think we'll probably talk about that at length again with all of the speakers because this is really a big question, trust in the media and this blurring of lines between what is truth or reality and what isn't is really impacting the trust that the public has, like you say, media but also in institutions. It's ‑‑ it didn't just happen yesterday. Light? It's a long‑term issue that you've just spelled out.
Which brings me to Khadija, who I also have a question about, you know, sort of a little bit maybe the background of this crisis. And Khadija, recently,altually at the IPI world Congress this year, you opened with a keynote and I had the wonderful honour of listening to that keynote at the event where you spoke about a prolonged crisis of the media. And this really resonated with me and rednated I think with a lot of people in that room and probably with many people listening today. You said that, for the last decade or so we've been talking about an emerging crisis, a crisis oncoming, and now that this is just sort of the reality that we are in those who work in the immediate were a, those who work ‑‑ media, those who work to protect the role of the media, but we've spoken a lot about doom and gloom here. So I wanted to also mention that what really resonated, I think, was that you also spoke a lot about hope and resilience and that was really wonderful to hear and I think gave us a sort of moment of energy again to work on the things that we are working on.
But in this period of prolonged crisis, as you've mentioned, is the media still able to be effective in such a crisis or, in other words, is it able to be effective, and is media or independent media still able to be relevant for democracy, for peace and for human security today?
>> KHADIJA PATEL: Thanks, Deniz, and, yeah, I think that it's absolutely essential. We cannot conceive of ourselves, we cannot conceive of others without information, about each other. And that's what independent media ultimately guarantees us. It's essential, and without it, we're not able to understand the world that we're living in. We're not able to make decisions about how we will vote in elections, who, indeed, we trust to lead us. The ‑‑ there is a crisis, as you've pointed out, and it's a moment of prolonged crisis. It's become the reality that the world of news media, the world of journalism is not a great place to be in right now. And it really irks me when I hear experienced journalists listening to younger people saying they want to be journalists and discouraging them from that, because the world that I want to ensure exists is the world in which a young woman like me from Johannesburg, South Africa, can grow up and say they want to be a journalist and that dream is fulfilled and it's not silly, that increasingly ‑‑
(Background noise. There's a bit of noise coming in, I'm not sure from where. But increasingly what we're headed towards is a world in which news media is seen as a ‑‑ as bastion for elites and where rank and file people will never actually get into if, indeed, independent media even exists, right?
So, for us, it's not just about understanding how essential news media is to democracy, but it is essential. If democracy is a system of governance that ensures every person their ability to have a say in how they are governed, then the media is essential to facilitating that, to holding that system even accountable. And what we are headed toward is a world in which all of these things are deeply endangered, and it's a moment of crisis, but I think there's also a great moment of opportunity. And there is so much to mourn for the work that we've done that hasn't gone far. Deniz, you mentioned even the distribution on social media, you know, breaking down. As ‑‑ you know, in early parts of my career as a digital native journalist, that was the only way we knew how to do journalism, right? We wrote ‑‑ we published stories. We plucked them on the social media platforms and that's how we got an audience. Even all of that that has been upended. So I think that there's also a crucial moment of opportunity for us to, first of all, recalibrate the relationships between news media and the platforms but also news media and democratic institutions, the platforms in democratic institutions. We have to ensure that this is a moment in which we understand the urgency of the problem we're facing, the need for action, because it is an ‑‑ you know, to do ‑‑ to extend on the question you asked Meera, it is an existential crisis. It's an existential crisis for more than just news media. It's so much more at stake.
>> DENIZ WAGNER: Thank you, Khadija, for this. It's ‑‑ indeed, I want to take away this message of a great moment of opportunity, and I want to come back to that in a second round, because when we come closer to the end of this session, I want us to leave with that thought of it being a great moment of opportunity and hearing also how we can capitalise on this opportunity, rather than dwell on the challenges that we are facing.
But before we get to that round, I want to turn to Susie, and maybe follow up particularly on what ‑‑ well, all of you previously have mentioned, Khadija mentioned, you know, the need to recalibrate particularly the relation between media and platforms. Teresa at the beginning mentioned AI is one of the biggest challenges and threats to media freedom in terms of these new and emerging technologies really having a vast impact on our information space. Meera, you also touched upon these issues.
So, Susie, I mean, you've ‑‑ your research strongly intersects with how technology is playing a role in all of this, so can you tell us a little bit about how the development and deployment of these technologies is shaping the information space, how this is impacting our rights, but also, beyond the impact, how can we address it? What ‑‑ how can we ensure this information landscape can be better, can be respectful of human rights and conducive to democracy?
>> SUSIE ALEGRE: Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here even if not to be in person in Kyoto. I think what Teresa and Meera and Khadija have already said, I would absolutely endorse and sort of see if I can build on it. And I think this issue of the prolonged crisis and a lack of shared ground, you know, there's simultaneously a lack of shared ground but also a lack of individual opportunity for analysis and opinion and sort of breaking out of silos.
And I think one of the things that, for me really struck me this year, you know, not only in terms of sort of human rights and somebody who writes in a print media but also someone who is a creative writer is that the door neigh of this sort of mass access to generative AI is now something which we've seen over the past two decades as sort of erosion of international media. Now we're we're seeing a complete hammering of all opportunities for creativity, whether it's written creators, whether it's image creators. There's a huge crisis of what it means to be human and to express yourself and communicate with other humans.
But what I think there is right now is a real opportunity. I think there's a window. I think we're seeing a massive shift. It's almost as if, you know, technology may well have overreached and may now be starting to eat itself. And so what I would say, you know, certainly from a media perspective but also from a creative perspective and the engagement of media organisations with journalists is that I think the way forward if you want to ensure that you're a respected outlet and a beacon of truth, you have to keep it human. And to keep it human, you have to pay real humans to do the work. What you will find if you suddenly decide that it's much more efficient and effective to get an AI to do your analysis for you or to do your journalism for you is that you will be spouting rubbish. That's what's going to be on your platform. And people are seeing it and will start to move away from it. I mean, you see that even in terms of search. If you use AI search, you then get a sort of potted digest which may or may not be true. For me, my first sort of foray into experimenting with ChatGPT was, obviously, to ask it about who am I? And ChatGPT at that stage said I didn't exist. So then I asked it, who wrote my book, and it came out with 20 different men, some of whom, according to Google, don't exist. But they were men. So they were probably writing about deep thoughts about human rights and thought. And I mean, that's one thing that it's great to be here on a panel with such incredible women to prove that women do think about things deeply and have important things to say. And I think there is a really serious danger for media outlets if they rely too heavily on the hype around generative AI that they will become obsolete, untrustworthy, and people will ultimately turn away. And I think that's what a was saying about how people ‑‑ Meera was saying about how people crave stories and seeking out info. And also, people aren't stupid. People can see the pollution in the information environment. And I think that the opportunity for media organisations now is to double down on their integrity and double down on their humanity. And I think we are at an inflection point where people will start to recognise the problems with the online information space. And I think the online information space itself will readjust.
So, I think keeping it human is the way forward for a bit of hope and resilience. It's hard right now, but I think we're at a turning point.
>> DENIZ WAGNER: Thank you, Susie. Keeping it human. I like that. I have to say you have a lot of confidence in society and there ‑‑ their trust in the future of this.
I too ‑‑ I want to follow up on that and actually ask more questions, but before I do, I also want to stop for a moment because I know that this is ‑‑ I want it to be an interactive session. So, I want to take a moment and also make sure that everyone who is listening from Kyoto in the room or online, if you have immediate comments or questions to our fantastic speakers, please do raise your hand or put it in the chat and we will definitely pick up on that and make sure that you can pose your question we already have Emmanuel Asiedu in the chat. I don't know, Emmanuel, do you want to turn on ‑‑ or shall we turn on ‑‑ I don't know ‑‑ can we turn on your microphone? Do you want to ask the question in person? I'd much rather see and hear you than read out your question, if I may. You don't have to. I'm happy to read it but I want to give you the opportunity to speak ‑‑ your microphone is on if you want to say something. No? Okay. I will read out the question to our expert speakers. First is how can we ensure that everyone has equal access to reliable information in the digital town square especially when platforms are coal controlled by private companies? That's the first question. And second, what strategies can be implemented to tackle the spread of disinformation and misinformation? Oop ‑‑ on the online public interest information space? Who should be responsible for enforcing them?
So anybody want to pick up on the first question on equal access? Meera, I see you've already turned on your microphone.
>> MEERA SELVA: I'm happy to have a go at the big questions. There's no simple answer. Equal access to the online space is important because it's about penetration and making sure everyone has connectivity. But then also looking very hard at there are social media companies play in this space and recognizing the role that they play because there's been a almost kind of Kaagnytive diso Nance over what they do and the reality is that they make their money in one part of the world but they use space in another part of the world and this really distorts access globally. So if you look at Meta, you know, their users are mainly in Asia, but that ‑‑ but their money is made in North America and the regulation happens in Europe and in North America. So, there is nobody really looking on a global scale at how do these companies cope with their responsibilities to ensure access to news in other parts of the world and I think this is a really fundamental problem so there's kind of two issues, which is I'm sure everyone has broadband and digital access and connectivity is done through mobile. Phone companies are supported really in spreading this access and then looking at how the distribution of news happens in these spaces and it's ‑‑ there's just inherent contradictions there, and it's not really clear who's taking responsibility. And I see Khadija is nodding there as well.
>> KHADIJA PATEL: Absolutely. I agree with everything Meera said. I am from the part of the world where most people are accessing the Internet through mobile. And that might be the only way they do experience Internet services. So, I think that it's essential that we also understand the complexity of access and what ‑‑ and I think that when we're a thinking about equality we're seeing also different layers of inequality appearing now with I think the levels of Internet penetration and how that is differentiated across contacts being another clear sign of how socio‑economic inequality is manifesting itself but alongside that, I think that what we are also seeing is access to quality information where the best information in some contexts is only available for a fee and then most people are only able to access less ‑‑ you know, less good information, information that perhaps isn't as rigorously sourced. And so, again, there's another kind of information inequality happening there. So I'd like to think about that as another layer on top of that digital inequality as well. And I think that the fact that the platforms have to be more accountable. We've never had companies as large and as powerful as the technology platforms in human history, I think and, therefore, dealing with them, there's no precedent for it. But it's essential, I think, for governments to hold them account. It's absolutely essential and therefore just to ‑‑ if I could jump jump into the next question there, who should be responsible for enforcing them? The same companies who are responsible for collecting revenue off of those platforms have to employ people to ensure the quality of information on those platforms. Meta will tell you they have some people, but when you look at how many people they have compared to the number of users in a particular context or the languages in which people ‑‑ their employees are proficient in, there's a huge gap there. So, for me, what is really a problem is the profit motive of these technology companies. Don't get me wrong. I mean, they're free to make profits, but I think the astronomical profits that they're making at the cost of human security is something that has to be decried and it's something that has to ‑‑ you know, that has to change.
>> DENIZ WAGNER: Absolutely. Thank you for both of those I think very detailed and helpful replies to both questions. We have ‑‑
>> SUSIE ALEGRE: Can I just ‑‑
>> DENIZ WAGNER: Yeah, Susie.
>> SUSIE ALEGRE: I would absolutely agree with this. I think it's an incredibly complex question and one of the big complexities is, of course, that we've now got this idea that we can have three global information sources at all times, but ultimately going back to my kind of point about keeping it human, somebody has to be providing these services. People need to be paid to produce reliable content, to do investigative journalism to deliver these platforms. I think it is a really complicated question. And it's something that historically ‑‑ I know people are sort of talking about ‑‑ and we're seeing it now, there's this question of, well, if you want quality information, then you have to pay for it. And so maybe what you need is a pay ‑‑ a paying system in these kind of platforms. But of course, that then means that you've got one level of people who can afford to get unpolluted information and another level of people who are effectively being fed what George Orwell in 1984 called prol feed and they're then open to exploitation and control. It's one of those sort of interesting questions, which I think relates as well to debates that are happening as well in many countries, access to public libraries, there's a sort of question of where public information spaces are being de‑funded because we can only get all this fabulous information off the Internet for free. What happens then when that information is either closed down or it's totally unreliable?
So I think there are really big questions and clearly, who's responsible ‑‑ whether or not you want your state to be responsible for your access to information probably depends very much on who you are and where you are in the world. So, that's a bit of a double‑edged sword. And I think it is a really big question, a really complex questions that we're not going to be able to answer in five minutes today but I think are really important to explore. So thank you.
>> DENIZ WAGNER: Yeah. And it brings back to the point that Khadija made that really there are so many layers that discrimination here and that we need absolutely an intersectional approach in addressing those different layers. Teresa, I think you wanted to pick up on a point that was just made.
>> TERESA RIBEIRO: I wanted to reinforce one or two points. The first is the access to infrastructure so it's a more material aspect and more material I mentioned of the problem. And then, of course ‑‑ and this involves not only it involves issues, availability of the services and many things. But I also ‑‑ I also would like to point to something that, in a way, is always there when platforms are controlled by private companies. That's true. It's very true, but we shall not forget the type occupying the public space and you cannot occupy a public space without rules and I think we have to clear on that. And this is what is missing. Okay. They are private companies so they can do whatever they want and it's up to us to make them more or less accountable. I think that we need to go further and to have a serious conversation about what it ‑‑ what it means for a private company to control the public sphere. The public sphere is our public sphere of all ‑‑ all of us at citizens. So, for me, this is a very complex question again, nothing is easy here, but maybe you have ‑‑ we have to look at ‑‑ at this question and through not so ‑‑ in the usual ways, okay, they are private companies and, you know, yes, they are, but we are responsible, all of us, we are responsible for the public space and, again, Susie, thank you very much because I used to say many times we need to rehumanise the world and not dehumanise the world which is very much what we are doing. So thank you very much for bringing this question and putting it really in the centre of our discussion. This is about human beings. This is about empowering human beings. This is about ‑‑ because if we are not empowered, we can never belong to a group, to a society group or community. We cannot participate in the life of this community. We cannot, in a way, be part of the force that is able to transforth positively our communities and not to distry them because democracy and this is about conflict, but it's also about the possibility of compromising on different and divergent interests and sometimes conflicting interests. This is democracy, and for that, we need information and we need participation. So, access is fundamental and at the same ‑‑ at the same time to ‑‑ we need access but we need access to something that is produced by human beings, which is information. Sorry. Maybe I was too long.
>> DENIZ WAGNER: Absolutely, absolutely. And I really like that we keep coming back to this point that is about humans and that this rehumanising rather than dehumanising approach.
>> TERESA RIBEIRO: Yeah.
>> DENIZ WAGNER: So thank you for highlighting that again. We have two more questions from the audience.
>> A comment in the chat. Because it's quite an active chat, I won't read out all the comments so if anybody wants to particularly speak out and share their comment to let me know. I am happy to read it for you or give you the floor. But in the meantime, let me first turn to our next question, which is by the Ghana IGF remote hub. If we can turn on your video or microphone, maybe you can pose the question directly to our speakers. Your microphone is on, so we should be able to hear you.
>> Okay. Good morning. I'm from Ghana. My question is, in developing countries where the media are limited to speak on issues (?) sitting governments, how do you ‑‑ how effective is democracy in such countries and what rule is a government and authorities paying to ensure media (?) from the government?
>> DENIZ WAGNER: Anyone want to respond? Susie? Yep, please.
>> SUSIE ALEGRE: Yeah, I think that's an incredibly important question, and I think it goes back to the importance of human rights more broadly, that it's not just about the Internet. And in countries where human rights are not fully (?), expressing yourself on the Internet is a very dangerous activity in itself. And so I think it really does come down to the importance of working on questions of democracy Tyisation and human rights holistically and not just looking at it as a sort of bubble question about tech companies. I think it's a really important question. And again, a very complicated question that doesn't have a quick fix, but I think it ‑‑ there is a tendency and there can be a tendency in international public policy to sort of look at the next shiny thing and forget all of the things that we've been working on for decades and sort of, you know, since the UDHR, and I think it's very important to look at these new questions within the broader context of all the old questions that are not yet fully resolved.
>> DENIZ WAGNER: Thanks, Susie. And I just want to acknowledge it's fantastic to see so many of you on one screen there in the Ghana IGF remote hub. So hi, and thanks for joining and listening to us and engaging.
There's one more question I've been asked to read it by Dan Gillmor, for any of you who want to address it. His question is, instead of granular content regulation of big companies, would it be better to break them up by enforcing competition laws and give people better choices? If anybody wants to touch on that very briefly, then we might just about have enough time for another round of very quick questions to all of you. Meera.
>> MEERA SELVA: I can jump in quickly. Yes, because I think we've run away ‑‑ we haven't recognised the mononalistic power of these technology companies fast enough and we also haven't kind of accepted that they are simply operating as media companies or as publishing houses so all these other sectors that do have to operate under competition laws are finding themselves at a disadvantage because they're being ‑‑ the market is being distorted by the fact that the technology companies haven't been classified as operating in their space.
And giving people better choices, again, where? So if we broke up these large technology companies, would there be new companies that will operate as effectively in Ghana, in Indonesia, and give the citizens there better choices? At the moment, I don't see the mechanisms where that would necessarily happen. So, if we do want to say we need to break up these companies, which I think there's very, very strong arguments for doing that, we need to ensure that there are ways of supporting smaller technology companies in all parts of the world to provide the same digital access that they do provide as well.
>> DENIZ WAGNER: Thanks, Meera. And since we've already sort of naturally gone into the direction of talking more and more about the social media platforms, big tech, the elephant in the room, as it's always often referred to in these conversations, I want to go very quickly through another round of questions to our speakers that focuses more on this particular group of actors. And shifting the order a bit just because of the natural progression of the conversation, I want to maybe turn to Susie first this time. How do we address the elephant in the room? Not just in reactionary ways because, as we see most of the time, it's about introducing regulation in ways that really responds to harms that have already been caused or fitgate potential harms. But how do we address this issue in ways that can perhaps even effectively reshape their current business model? A question was just posed about that sort of in a way, and Meera's touched upon it. How can we reshape the business model in ways that first and foremost serves the public interest, serves media's role in democracies?
>> SUSIE ALEGRE: I'm quite optimistic. I think things are starting to change. Having said that and echoing what marry's just said, I think the problems are very different in different parts of the world and I'm not sure that there's a one‑size‑fits‑all solution, but I think we are in a stage where, if you, like ‑‑ I mean, I've been of the view for a long time that the problem is not really an absence of regulation, it's an absence of enforcement of existing laws and regulationlations. And we're now starting to see things shift. So, I think the European data protection board talking about matters business model not being compliant with GDPR, Norway as well, Meta's business model being declared unlawful and then effectively being shut down, same in Canada, you know, Meta saying, right, well, we're not serving news on our platform because of the change in Canadian law around payment for news.
I think this is very much an opportunity for change. And I think we will see different business models coming out of that, because I think the current business model is starting to shake and be on its last legs. So I think the question is, what comes next?
I think one of the many pros that we've seen with traditional media, I mean, certainly in Europe and North America, one of the problems and frustrations that I find is you kind of got an all‑or‑nothing approach from online news outlets, where either it's sort of completely free access or you've got a situation where you've got to sign up for an annual subscription in order to access things. And I think the online news outlets are going to have to start having to think more subtly about how they engage with the public. Looking at it as well more from the perspective of choice rather than personalisation because personalisation has not been about choice. There's sort of micro‑personalisation that media companies have sort of jumped on because they said this is what social media is doing. So I'm seeing completely different news to what you're seeing because of an analysis of who I am and what I might be interested in. As you're working out models maybe with micro‑payments where I can choose what I want to look at and not have to sort of buy the whole cow, choose where I can get my milk from, if you like, and I think we are in a ‑‑ at an inflection point where there are opportunities for creative thinking about business models. And as I say, you know, that's where the caveat that means very different things potentially in different parts of the world. But I think there is an opportunity for change now.
>> DENIZ WAGNER: Thanks, Susie. So, maybe just building on the notion of opportunities for different business models, for different models of information and ‑‑ I really want to focus on the sort of positive, how we can build a better information space. And with that, I want to turn to Meera next. Keeping the opportunities in mind, how can we think about the use of emerging technologies like AI, generative AI, in ways that ‑‑ because they are in a way redefining journalism, information and communication already. But how can we see it as an opportunity? How can journalism benefit from this rather than the harms that we have already heard about?
>> MEERA SELVA: Well, I think going back to Susie's point about keeping things human, there's been an obsession about using technology for scale if we're online and we normally reach 100 people, can we reach 1,000 or a million? And we really need to look ‑‑ there's been a thinking that's the point of technology that the reason you go online is to reach millions of people at once and do these massive blanket things online and forgetting that you can't ‑‑ if you can't do them in the real world at that scale, you probably can't do them online at that scale. So digital communities can also be small‑focussed and human scale. I think we need to use technology more on that scale.
When you start looking at that, AI has huge potential. You can use AI to understand your communities better. You can use it to provide information for them in their local languages and local dialects. What we're seeing at Internews because we work with journalists around the world is newsrooms are using it to improve the click rate of their newsletters to take something that the IPPC has put out on climate change, for example, and distill it down to something that their local readership can understand and use in local languages and pull out graphics. So that's the beneficial use of AI is to forget the idea of scale and kind of bring it back to a local size.
The flip side is emerging technologies can spread huge amounts of misinformation and create these huge polarising narratives. And that is where we need the regulation that Teresa spoke about, the kind of recognitions that they operate on a public ‑‑ in the public space. And it ‑‑ and it's not up to local journalists to try and solve the problem of that kind of disinformation being spread across borders at vast scale. That is something that really needs to be done by regulators and policy‑makers.
>> DENIZ WAGNER: Thanks, Meera. Yes, I think we can all agree that the time of assuming so‑called self‑regulation of big tech is over, and it's time to see some hard regulation and direction in improving their practises.
So, thanks for that point.
I want to take a bit of a turn now because I don't want this question to go unanswered. It's a difficult one, and I apologise to Khadija in advance that I'm directing it towards you, but I want us to reflect on this before we move on. We've spoken a lot about the changes, I mean, the crisis but also opportunities, overall the shift, the big change we're seeing in the information landscape, big changes we're seeing from media. And it's also a question that we at the office together with Teresa and her team have been grappling with a lot as well. So, it's something that I want to pose here. But when we're talking about the media, independent media, freedom of media, what or who is our current understanding or perhaps your current understanding of the media when we talk about Freedom of the Media as a concept?
>> KHADIJA PATEL: Yeah, it ‑‑ I guess we could have a whole conference actually on just the subject. And I wouldn't be surprised if the conferences are already convened to address this subject. The concept of media that I grew up with, it was the television news that I sat in the family room watching every evening with my parents or the newspaper that I waited for the delivery every day. And in most instances, a young person today has not experienced that version of news media at all. And is unlikely to experience that. So even our idea of what is news media has shifted in terms of the actual products that news media produces has expanded greatly because newspapers, they exist to some extent. Television news through linear broadcasting still exists, but increasingly, we're seeing news products being delivered in alternate means. You know, we have platform‑based news products, for example, that an exciting development, I think. But increasingly, I think what we have to understand is what defines ‑‑ what are the defining characteristics of the news media that we are fighting for its freedom for which we are fighting its freedom? And it's media that is, first of all, accountable in itself. It's a news media that is accountable in itself, that is subject to some kind of code that ‑‑ this code somewhere or is ‑‑ or makes clear that there is a code that it is ‑‑ that it is subject to, that all of its work will conform to these norms. And some of these norms are very simple things, like, when we accuse person X of doing something, we will give person X an opportunity also to respond to this.
So ensuring that news media, the kind of media, quality news media ensuring that these codes are not just implemented, that they ‑‑ also invigorated through new practises to make sure that even through the new products that we develop that ‑‑ you know, I think that this is really, really important, ba us the nature of ‑‑ because the nature of news is fast and inevitable mistakes do happen. If we just think about developments in geopolitics over the last few days, I've seen so many broadcasts, for example, where a statement is made by a reporter that has to be kind of climb back after a few minutes because new information has come out. That is the nature of news. It's very quick, especially in a situation where there's a conflict, for example.
But the identifying characteristic of news media is that it is able to do that and it does so transparently, and I think transparency is another key defining characteristic. Of course, there's some contexts where transparency for news media is dangerous in that if they are ‑‑ if they are to diVilk who exactly they're funded by in very close societies, this might mean that that owner of that operation might become subject to some kind of judicial process but in most democratic settings, the kind of media that we're fighting freedom for is transparency in both its processes, but also in itself in who it is, in who funds it, because ultimately, what we want is news that is free from the undue influence, whether that is commercial influence or political influence. That is the ideal that we're working for, and that varies from context to context. Yeah, it's such a meaty question, and I feel like I could talk a lot more about it, but I think that we have to think about the fact that, first of all, (?) between the different products, media and news media products that exist today, and that has shifted, but I think that remains is the philosophy of journalism that has to be embraced throughout these products, and that is a philosophy of transparency, of accountability, and ultimately of quality.
>> DENIZ WAGNER: Thank you so much, Khadija. I know it's a big and difficult question, but I think the exercise is almost just a food for thought with what you have already mentioned and you framed it really perfectly with news media and its role in serving the public interest, its need for being transparent, at least in ways that doesn't threaten their livelihood, all these things can strengthen the reliability and legitimacy of independent media and, of course, being free from undue influence. Very, very important points and many other that you mentioned. I will not repeat.
But I want to turn and quite intentionally to Teresa after these presentations because I know that this is a topic overarchingly that we are grappling with a lot in the office, you are grappling a lot with as the representative, so I wanted to wait and pose you a rather reflective question on these ‑‑ on the discussion we've had so far and ask you about your thoughts on all of this, on the changing media environment and also what is the role of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media in addressing all of these issues? Maybe if you can tell us a little bit about that. Oh, wait, we have to turn on your ‑‑
>> TERESA RIBEIRO: Sorry. And also thank you very much for giving me this possibility to explain a little bit what is the role and how is the office working in all of this important issues that are clearly defining issues for the future of the media as such.
But first of all, I would like just a little bit of publicity. You know, this year, Khadija, after everything that Khadija said, I just wanted to point it out that in the joint declaration of the free speech mandate orders, which means DOSC of the global system, the African Union, the OSCE, the UN as well as the organisation of the African states, I think that there were ‑‑ which was this year about media freedom and democracy, precisely because we wanted to put together what is relevant for media to really play its role in the democratic system.
And I think that two important definitions that appeared there and were coined by this ‑‑ by this joint declaration were precisely one of them which is ‑‑ what is information on public interests and the other one what is media freedom? And media freedom precisely is what you, Khadija, said. And so, that's the reason why I just wanted ‑‑ we didn't ‑‑ we did not invent. We try to coin in a document with a global impact in principle what does it mean, media freedom, and what does it mean public interests? And speaking about public interests, what is the content that really supports democratic debate? And so this is related to media. This is related to democracy.
And of course, you know, it's ‑‑ the mandate of the I RFM is quite an interesting one because it's a mandate of an institution which is placed in an organisation, the OSCE, which is a security organisation. So ‑‑ and this is very important again and back to media is essential for democracy and for security. And I think we need to insist on that. It's not just a stand‑alone issue. It's not just a kind of an ornament or something of our democracies but it's key for our common security. And this is very interesting because in the founding documents of the USC, the access of information, the free flow of information, I've looked at as key purists to achieve peace and security which is quite interesting and it's not what happened in other organisations or in other institutions that could have in the global system similar mandates but our agenda is an agenda for peace and for security. And I think it's very important to stress this message especially nowadays where we are witnessing terrible wars, raging across the world unfortunately with the horrible consequences for humankind.
So, this is the ‑‑ and this is the framework in which we want to work, and we try to develop our work. And again, for having this media freedom as a reality in our societies and bearing in mind all the digital disruptions introduced by the digital evolution and the business model and everything that ‑‑ and all the issues that were raised by all of you, we are very much focussed on exploring the concept of public interest framework and, you know ‑‑ and how can we really develop the concepts and implement the concepts and have real, again ‑‑ a real information space that is clean and really contributes to our democratic debate.
>> DENIZ WAGNER: Thank you.
>> TERESA RIBEIRO: That's what I wanted to say, and thank you very much, all of you.
>> DENIZ WAGNER: Thank you. Thank you so much, Teresa, for these final words. And with that, I want to conclude our session, first also thank you to my colleague Julia who has really put together a wonderful summary of our main messages. Thanks a lot, Julia.
In closing, I want to thank all of you, the speakers, but also the participants for engaging in this session. And I want to say as we stand at this crossroads of this new era of ‑‑ for the media, the questions as you have heard are really overwhelming, so this is a topic that certainly needs much more than a one‑hour session. It needs constant reflection, and I would invite all of you, all of us to continue doing so with the RFRM office in your a office and a healthier online information system and you also in your own work and your ‑‑ daily work and your daily lives. So thank you so much for joining us today and I hope you enjoy the rest of IGF 2023. And wishing you all a lovely rest of the day. Thank you.
>> TERESA RIBEIRO: Thank you, Deniz. And thank you, all of you. Bye‑bye.
(Session concludes)