Quality Press Battle for beating false news

When hundreds of millions of people trust their homes in March 2020, the world threw the brake, but the appearance of the slow hidden, from paradoxes, accelerated some of the trends that began to appear in the years before Covid-19, as shown in the great changes in generating and reaching news. Few companies lived after years of epidemic, such as the media, which faced a complex scenario, such as expanding wrong news. The “fake news” on social networks has also found a perfect land for reproduction, which is the most powerful of the great technological technology and extremist politicians.

The networks, which were born in the previous decade, began as Agora Proitia began in a yearful debate, in emission before disturbing signals. The abusive use is that the President of the United States (and now), Donald Trump, the Facebook Cambridge analytical scandal for electoral manipulation or feeling that its contents and algorithms are related to the initial wave of mental health problems in the world, has taken a distortion. But will they remain prosperous despite the defamation of reputation after Covid-19, or will it be the beginning of its end?

“The networks that we call badly socially and these digital platforms that appear in many ways, such as correspondence services or Internet stores, show the dynamics of business that harm democracy. Their algorithms prefer a specific content over others, and its business model prefers some agents over others, in general, its culture as an ecosystem for toxic information “, journalist and writers specializing in technology and power Marta Peirano, who in 2019 published the book” The Enemy that the Enemy knows “, which he warned of the use made by Giants Technology From technology in technology.

Those small reassuring factors were fulfilled on the networks almost to the message. “I am not only subscribing to my words at that time. The central and generalized force of digital platforms and its extractive nature, vigilance and manipulation of the digital environment have been accurately exceeded to facilitate global political change and liberal democracy to popular tyranny. “The monitoring machine will become a repression machine,” says Pirano.

Although some people will use them during their main arrival to the news, people went to social networks “to enjoy or overcome, but not because they considered them reliable sources of information,” he said in 2020 Rasmos Klein Nielsen, who was then director of the Reuters Institute to study vision. Now, as a senior researcher at the Reuters Institute and Professor of Communication at the University of Copenhagen, Nielsen is clear that “the diagnosis is preserved.” If the means is the message, as Marshall McLuhan believes, the message that is transmitted by networks is not exactly that reliability.

“There are positions in which people trust specific sources that follow social networks, and many of them get the news while using them. But most of them do not use social networks to inform themselves. On the main platforms, less than half of those who use them also claim that they also reach the news while using it. If we set aside the older three platforms, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, the number is less, closer to one in three. In general, we find, over and over again, an important “confidence gap” in which people trust even in the news that you see on social networks more than the news in general.

It seems that citizens realize that the contents they find in networks are not the best place to inform themselves, according to Reuters reports. “Our research indicates that the digital platforms are useful for many different purposes and that many audiences trust their individual ability to distinguish between reliable and reliable information in these sites, but the news is not the main use they do from them, and in general, they question the news they see.”

During the first months of the epidemic, quality media lived a boom, especially in its digital releases. The residents wanted to obtain information about the state of health and achieve this, and trust in traditional heads. But this information had a great added value and it had to be paid, so that the contributions increased. “Quality content is the most important. People need to inform themselves of what is happening. “The value of the news was no higher than ever,” said Emilio Garcia Ruiz in 2020, who was in 2020, deputy director of the Washington Post.

Indeed, Garcia was completely supportive of the payment walls, a bet that gradually presented the “media” a few years ago. “The media that had no subscription had suffered, and if someone had doubts, this is the only model. “The ads cannot support large writing,” he said.

In these years, Emilio Garcia Ruiz jumped from the eastern coast to the western coast of the United States to practice director of another prestigious way, San Francisco Cronic. From the distinctive monitoring tower in the world’s most technological cities, it has more clearly that there is no other way to make profitable means other than subscription, although they also distinguish between the largest and comfort.

“The highest quality in the United States is the New York Times, which has more than 11.4 million subscribers. It received a total income of $ 726.6 million in the last quarter of 2024, or 7.5 % more than the previous year. We can say that the war has ended and won. Now we have to see the number of subscriptions we can sell to others.

In this sense, García-Ruiz admits that there may be a “limit” in the number of people ready to pay the price of the news and that some media have already reached their roof. “But it is also true that the media that depend exclusively on ads was much worse,” says a long luggage journalist in some newspapers with most readers in the world.

In an increasingly complex ecosystem, Garcia realizes that getting the work “still profitable” is a challenge.

Taking into account, he remembers that in these past five years, a new actor, artificial intelligence, has emerged, which promises to return another return to the telecommunications sector, with preliminary challenges related to economic, moral aspects and above all. “We need to take advantage of the best parts of new innovations, such as artificial intelligence, which can make us more efficient and allow us to focus on our most important work,” and the director of San Francisco Cronic.

Five years ago, the questions that were not answered were stacked at the same speed of the masks used. Do we prefer to inform us of friends or popular people in front of specialists we do not know? Do we expect entertainment in the face of rigor? Will we tolerate falsehood if you mean to reaffirm our ideas? Then the philosopher Daniery wanted to focus on the individual responsibility of citizens. “We have to ask ourselves about the effort that each of us dedicates to our own opinion, to build good thought in good sources of information. Innerarity said: “If citizens do not make this effort to train us, we will be more flammable and wrong information.”

Now the thinker still wants to search more and think about a certain pessimism seems to have left the epidemic. “We will need more certainty than we should be sure of this catastrophic future than some, and not as a warning to the possible, as a ruthless thing. This disaster is the possibility that it is not necessary. Certainly, it is not good that there are no children to live in these circumstances, because if we cannot stop crises, our commitment may be to allow others to try. We do not have the right to assume that future generations will be stupid as we are.

This was the sixth episode of A documentary series “Then what?” This newspaper was published in 2020, which is reflected in the possible consequences of the epidemic in the next society.

Therefore, there were not many players or wrong news, or citizens were exposed to many lies that are likely to be dangerous, a serious problem related to social networks. How was the press reaction?