MANIPULATION OF CONFLICTS IN THE SOCIAL MEDIA

NEWS WAR WITHOUT TRENCHES

MANIPULATION OF CONFLICTS IN THE SOCIAL MEDIA

Enrique Castejon-Lara

©April, 2022

The appearance of the social media, thanks to the versatility of the Internet, was welcomed by many people, especially the young ones, because they allowed, in a more agile and expedited way than the first "group messengers" applications, to connect with friends and relatives. For that reason, those new communication “channels” became very quickly in the most fantastic and enjoying virtual social connection. However, when this new technological resource expanded itself exponentially —to unimagined proportions—, the situation changed radically. The manipulative experts, from all ideological sides, began to flood them with their distorted messages, and that transformed the funny social media in a very worrying swamp of lies.

This alarming situation, however, is not an exclusive phenomenon of the 21st century or the digital age. Since the emergence of the mass media —starting with the newspapers—, they were seen as possible "combat weapons" on the ideological field and, in the mid-20th century, as an effective mechanism to combat in the own place of war. The two sides in conflict during World War II used specialists in manipulation of the human mind to send negative messages to the enemy and positive ideas to the allies. At that time, these strategies transcended the printed media and adopted the new ones (radio, television and movies).

After that, and with the help of many of the same "manipulator experts" of World War II, the postwar political forces continued using and, even, improving the propaganda techniques popularized by Joseph Goebbels and many others that emerged as a consequence of the "experimentation" in the area of collective human behavior. That was the beginning of the Cold War, a new kind of ideological rivalry, without warlike confrontation. However, despite the fact that this period of political and geopolitical tensions between the main dominant nations in the world in theory culminated in the early 1990s, these practices are still being used today.

No doubt, the "vulnerability" of the human mind has been the best ally of these "unscrupulous communicators." Sometimes, anything they say, according to the basic principles of manipulation techniques (especially those related to false "convincing argumentation") is more "credible" than all the experts and scientists’ explanations through traditional mass media.

It is, then, an extremely interesting —and worrying— phenomenon, because the saturation of manipulated “confidential” messages through social networks such as Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter begin to obtain a “dark power” capable to convince uninformed people of a “reality” totally contrary to what is, indeed, happening in the scientific, technological, political and academic world. That's what the manipulators are betting on, as they know their lies will spread with a “snowball” effect caused by the unsuspecting users who forward them. As a result, fake news is being accepted more easily. This is one of the main reasons why this communicational universe in cyberspace has become a "paradise" for the manipulation and creation of chaos in digital information flows.

REFERENCES

CASTEJON-LARA, Enrique. Fake news conspiracy. Kindle Direct Publishing, 2019.

PACKARD, Vance. Hidden persuaders. Editorial LG. United States, 2007.

Manipulación de Conflictos en las Redes Sociales

Guerra de Información sin Trincheras

Manipulación de Conflictos en las Redes Sociales

Enrique Castejón-Lara

© Abril, 2022

La aparición de las redes sociales, gracias a la versatilidad de Internet, fue recibida con beneplácito por muchas personas, en especial los jóvenes, porque permiten, de una manera más ágil y expedita que las primeras aplicaciones “messengers¨, conectarse con grupos de amigos y familiares. Pero cuando ese nuevo recurso tecnológico creció exponencialmente —hasta proporciones no imaginadas—, la situación cambió radicalmente. Los expertos manipuladores, de todos los bandos ideológicos, comenzaron a inundarlas con sus mensajes distorsionados, y eso transformó las divertidas redes sociales en una muy preocupante ciénaga de mentiras.

Esta situación alarmante, sin embargo, no es un fenómeno exclusivo del siglo XXI ni de la era digital. Desde sus inicios, los medios masivos de comunicación —comenzando por los periódicos— fueron vistos como potenciales “armas de combate” en el plano ideológico y, a mediados del siglo XX, en el mismo terreno de los enfrentamientos bélicos. Los dos bandos en conflicto durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial recurrieron a especialistas en manipulación de la mente humana para dirigirles mensajes negativos al enemigo y positivos a los aliados. Esas estrategias trascendieron los medios impresos y pasaron a los audiovisuales (radio, televisión y cine).

A partir de entonces, y con la ayuda de muchos de los mismos “expertos manipuladores” de la II Guerra Mundial, las fuerzas políticas de postguerra siguieron utilizando y, más aún, perfeccionando las técnicas propagandísticas popularizadas por Joseph Goebbels y muchas otras que fueron surgiendo como consecuencia de la “experimentación” en el área de la conducta humana colectiva. Fue el inicio de la Guerra Fría, de un nuevo modo de rivalidad ideológica, no bélica. Sin embargo, a pesar de que ese período de tensiones políticas y geopolíticas entre las principales naciones dominantes en el mundo en teoría culminó a comienzos de los años 90, esas prácticas aún se siguen utilizando en nuestros días.

Sin duda, la “vulnerabilidad” de la mente humana ha sido la mejor aliada de esos “comunicadores inescrupulosos”. Cualquier cosa que digan, de acuerdo a los principios básicos de las técnicas de la manipulación (especialmente los relacionados con la falsa “argumentación convincente”) resultan más “creíbles” que las explicaciones a través de medios tradicionales de los expertos serios y de los científicos, dependiendo del tipo de mensaje.

Se trata, entonces, de un fenómeno sumamente interesante —y preocupante—, porque la saturación de mensajes manipulados “confidenciales” a través de las redes sociales como Facebook, WhatsApp y Twitter comienzan a obtener un “poder sombrío” capaz de convencer a grupos de personas desinformadas de lo contrario a lo que realmente acontece en el mundo científico, tecnológico, político y académico. A eso es lo que apuestan los manipuladores, ya que saben que sus mentiras se esparcirán con un efecto “bola de nieve” provocado por los incautos usuarios que las reenvían. Como resultado, las noticias falsas comienzan a ser aceptadas con mayor facilidad. Esa es una de las principales razones por las cuales ese universo comunicacional en el ciberespacio se ha convertido en un “paraíso” para la manipulación y creación de caos en los flujos de información digital.

REFERENCIAS

Castejón-Lara, Enrique. Fake News Conspiracy. Kindle Direct Publishing, 2019.

Packard, Vance. Hidden persuaders. LG Publishing. USA, 2007.

Social Media Users

A Smarter Social Media User Wanted

No New School, All Schools for His Training

By Enrique Castejon-Lara

© ECL, 2021

@ECastejonL

Abstract:

Intentionally or not, social media users have become a disruptive factor in the news broadcasting system by echoing fake news, manipulated messages and propaganda. For this reason, some sectors of the political and academic areas have suggested the establishment of control mechanisms, the first ones, and a special training, the others.

Historically, technology has provide wonderful tools to improve journalism practice and, at the same time, to impulse the development of mass media, specially since the second half of the XX century. All that progress meant a huge support for the news system establishment. And it looked good enough for every one until, at the end of that century, appeared Internet changing, in a remarkable way, the current information panorama, specially after the naive and cute social media emergency. For the first time in mass communication history, a new player without experience nor adequate training, broke in the regular news broadcast system all around the world.

As it happened at the middle of XX century with journalists, some mass communication experts and academics have suggest the creation of special courses to train social media user. However, the circumstances are quite different. News reporters work for self controlled (and public audit) mass media. Users of chatting applications are totally free to work on them. It is their right. To try control them directly or by government restrictions is a clear violation of a basic human right.

Only in the case of the amateur radio operator, Ham, who become very popular in the first half of the last century, it was necessary to establish rules and limitations. But, that situation was, also, special. No everybody had the money to buy a short wave radio nor a lot of people liked to use such devices. Hams are, indeed, very particular “communicators” and they understand clearly their specific rol and social compromising.

Nevertheless, it is true that social media users are disturbing the entire news broadcast system allowing and promoting the diffusion of fake news, manipulated information and propaganda. So, what can it be do? Democratically, the only way that look possible is the generalized training of people through the regular education system, introducing new subjects in existing civic awareness or ethics classes. Of course, this is a long term and relative solution. Not all people who receive civic and moral instruction act responsibly. But, the beginning is waiting for.

References:

Castejon-Lara, Enrique. Fake News Conspiracy: Use of Information Anarchy of Social Media to Siege Press. Kindle Direct Publishing, 2019.

Pember, Don R. Mass Media in America. Macmillan Pub Co, 1991.

HOW CAN JOURNALISM FIGHT PROPAGANDA?

Mass Media Against Totalitarianism

How Can Journalism Fight Propaganda?

Enrique Castejon-Lara

@ECastejonL

Abstract

Usually, certain government representatives and political leaders use their public relevance to impose through press their ideas in people, although some or all of them do not fit to real facts. Systematically, they use the journalism credibility on audiences and its news techniques for their own ideological benefits.

Historically, journalism has privileged government and other relevant public news sources because of their assumed reliability. Reason? Their prominence. However, this standard practice has become through time a double-edged sword for truth —an Achilles’ heel, indeed.

Totalitarian governments and some political leaders, largely, have been using that journalistic practice for their own benefits. They know that independent reporters always repeat “objectively” what they say, and audiences tend to believe them. In other words, propaganda promoters frequently include fake or altered facts press declarations in their ideological strategy’s campaigns. In addition, propagandists are experts offering “attractive” declarations and “scoop traps” to increase reporters’ interest in covering them.

For that reasons, journalists have to increase their fact checking task to avoid divulgation of fake news. At the same time, they have also to place propagandist declarations on the real news context and continuously clarify to audiences that the ideas exposed are responsibility of that news sources. In other words, reporters have to rethink some traditional journalistic criteria.

Constructing liar source barriers is the only way to stop —and, maybe, defeat— propaganda, which is trying constantly to use press credibility for your own ideological benefits.

IMPACT OF SILENCE IN JOURNALISM

Abstract

Sometimes, the omission of certain sources’ information can be the best way to combat fake news and propaganda. However, some reporters involuntary are helping liars to spread false information and ideological commentaries with their news. Is it really an obligation of journalists to report everything provide for a clearly deceiver spokesperson?

Enrique Castejon-Lara

Major studies in Mass Communication recognize noise as a perturbation of message transmission. Noise, in this case, is any external content element that affects message comprehension. So that, noise is not the same thing than silence. An omission in a news chain may be part of the meaning of the own messages.

In that sense, in certain occasions, quietness can have stronger connotation than any word that journalists can write or pronounce. For that reason, reporters have to decide when omit sources’ quotes that can contribute to create an interested confusing information environment. He or she, ethically, cannot become a diffusion agent for fake facts promoters.

However, constantly we can read stories on newspapers, hear on radio or watch on TV broadcast reports about false facts only because they were announced by “important” sources. Today journalistic principles reject that old fashion rule. Prominence of a spokesperson is not a guaranty of truth.

Therefore, the major strike that journalist can do against information manipulators and propaganda agents, is introducing a deep gap in their deceiving communication strategies no reporting their false news. Only in that way, fake-fact promoters will understand the huge strong meaning of silence in journalism. A blocked liar source has, definitely, a big impact on honest journalism.

Furtive Press as the Last Defense of News Freedom

Venezuelan case

Furtive Press as the Last Defense of News Freedom

Enrique Castejon-Lara

Abstract

The increasingly worldwide press restrictions by intolerant regimes —including those called “democratic”— are forcing journalist to use social media as new report trenches, but using prudently semantic writing strategies to evade political and illegal reprisals. That is the specific case of reporters in Venezuela.

When a government rules out constitution and laws, and does not respect citizen rights, journalistic mass media have the moral obligation of acting against it. That is the main principle stablished by Press Social Responsibility Theory (Siebert, Peterson, and Schramm, 1984). But, many times, as in the case of Venezuela, journalists do not have the possibility to accomplish efficiently that ethic command, because their lives are on risk and the media’s owners have been menaced by the regime. Usually, the unconstitutional governments, like that one in Venezuela, not only manipulate law and justice institutions, but also control printing paper, ink supplies, and broadcast frequencies. So, the “combat sceneries” for contemporary newsmen are really “asymmetric”, and deeply difficult.

That is the reason why Venezuelan reporters are increasingly using social media as alternative means for reporting true facts. At this moment, in that country, those online resources are their trenches against censorship and political reprisals. However, they even so are exposed to government officers’ aggression. In the last three years, many domestic journalists have been jailed without previous arrest warrant, and, in some occasions, their passports have been “confiscated” when traveling out the country. Similar things have been happened to some international reporters, especially those working for news agencies like Reuter, AFP, and EFE, and television networks like CNN and NTN24. Some of them have suffered Venezuelan government aggressions and censorship.

In that sense, social media are not effective enough for Venezuelan reporters, and, of course, for Venezuelan people. The arbitrary acts of the government are invaded those “freedom spaces” where citizens hope find the truth of what is really happening in their country. A regimen “mercenary army” of false users (bots) of Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, and other social media are virtually flooding them with fake news and psychological messages to undermine people hope to demoralize them. However, not all is good for the regime. Fortunately for freedom, opposition and so active people on line are helping journalists to spread the truth. In that case, the government strategies are not obtaining the results they want. Maybe, the Venezuelan regimen never expected a persistent and huge amount of spontaneous citizen reporters acting together to unveil their traps and propaganda.

That is today situation of press in Venezuela. Newsmen are trying to disclose true information from social media trenches, but using alternative writing methods including semantic strategies to evade regimen reprisals. They, now, are practicing a new way to report, a kind of “guerrilla” journalism that can be named “furtive press”.

Sources:

CASTEJON LARA, Enrique. Interpretative reporting. CreativeSpace (Amazon), 2015.

SIEBERT, Fred S.; PETERSON, Theodore, and SCHRAMM, Wilbur. Concepts of what the press should be and do. University of Illinois Press, 1984.