Alenka Jelen is an Associate Professor at the University of Stirling in Scotland, who works and researches in the field of communications and their influence in the creation of the socio-political reality. She comes from Slovenia, but has been living and working professionally in the United Kingdom for 16 years, of which, to be precise, 11 years in Scotland. Recently, Dr Jelen participated in a conference in Skopje, organised by the Institute of Communication Studies (ICS), entitled: Driving Institutional Accountability through Open Political Communication.
In her presentation in Skopje, Alenka Jelen covered the aspect of the challenge – how we can preserve democratic values, ethical standards and public trust in the era of post-truth in politics. Operating with the term “post-truth” was the real provocative moment in the study of Dr Jelen, who also communicates in a language she calls “Yugoslav Tutti Fruti” (re a mix of the languages spoken in the countries of former Yugoslavia used commonly for informal communication among the people of the region), but professional communication prefers to be in English, because it is the language in which she works and thinks professionally.
Your presentation at the conference focused on ways to preserve democratic values, ethical standards and public trust in the era of post-truth politics. Any prefix before the word “truth” raises suspicion that it is the complete truth. Can democratic values, ethical standards and public trust be preserved when politics operates with incomplete or selective truth, even if it is called post-truth?
The term post-truth began to be used with the development of events in the 21st century, when arguments based on beliefs and feelings started gaining momentum in the public sphere. President Trump may not be the first to establish that phenomenon, but he is probably the first to put post-truth on the global stage, that is, to attract global attention. We also saw that during Brexit, when the United Kingdom was leaving the European Union.
It did not matter what the facts said, it mattered how we felt, that we knew better than the facts... There is a famous quote from that period in the UK when Brexit campaigner Michael Gove said during one of the TV debates: ‘People in this country have had enough of experts’, suggesting that people should not trust “elitist” organisations, but themselves as they themselves know what is best for them and how to take back control of their own country. It is a situation where the truth is not irrelevant, but it does not have to be based on facts. That is the premise. Priority is given to what people believe, regardless of whether those beliefs are supported by facts, corroborated evidence, any material evidence… Thus, it created a challenge to argue with feelings and emotions that may or may not be grounded in facts or material evidence.
In such a case you cannot say what is right from what is wrong. You would need to argue with someone else’s feelings. Debates mostly boil down to emotions and the facts are put in the background, although sometimes, we must admit, the facts are also debatable. But things get more problematic, because arguing with emotions leads us to the brink of telling lies or at least half-truths. In a non-nuanced context, post-truth is also a lie. It may not be an outright lie, or a synonym for a lie, but post-truth refers to arguments based on beliefs rather than the facts available in reality.
Post-truth gave people the right to say during Brexit that it was bad that Britain was in the European Union without the complete evidence or examples of how the UK has been disadvantaged by the EU membership. Or that the EU steals our power and sovereignty... Or that the EU decides for us. Of course, that was not the whole truth. If you are a member of the European Union, you have the right to sit at the table and have a role in decision-making. But that did not correspond to the beliefs of the time during Brexit - that we have no power, no control, that it is the EU’s fault that the United Kingdom is in social and economic decline and facing an immigration crisis (even though these statements were not fully evidenced either). Then that selective truth that people believed, according to the information they had at the time, became problematic. In the long run it can be costly. We could see that in the United Kingdom after leaving the European Union. People in Britain were stripped of their rights as EU citizens, the right to work and live in the EU. Those EU citizens who lived and worked in the United Kingdom already had to apply for residence there, even though they were equal citizens until yesterday. Indeed, those applications went smoothly, but still that permission for the EU citizens on live in the UK and vice versa for the UK citizens to live anywhere in the EU, with the status that is implied, has been lost.
The problem with post-truth is that we cannot protect trust. Not by a long shot. People who trust politicians and their statements are often betrayed. And trust is lost. In that case, you can expect disruption of social stability, lack of social cohesion. People are becoming more suspicious and that is why the parties orient themselves, that is, they return to the so-called traditional values under pretence that only these offer stability and social cohesion, with which come populism, nationalism... Also, more frequently we can see how accusations of fake news, post-truth and lies are easily made. These terms are used as arguments in a dispute, when someone disagrees with you and the facts you present. Then they resort to the claims by politicians, who say that the facts you operate with are fake news, lies, frauds, they have no meaning... That these are the views of experts and the elite... In fact, in this way they discredit the other side, using with ease the terms such as “fake news”, “lies”, “deception”, about what the other side is saying.
According to the definitions and traditional normative conceptualisaitons of the public sphere, we can preserve the democratic values with the equal participation of all citizens in that broad social discussion, when different opinions can be heard. But on the other hand, it is a double-edged sword. It implies that everyone can express their opinion in the public sphere and they equally matter. Now we have that and now we are closer to these democratic ideals of the public sphere as ever. Even if the public sphere is the cyber sphere, where anyone can say anything and everything on social media. Do we have an even better situation with “democratic values”? Do all people share information and opinions? Who are the loudest ones and which actors resort to strategic silence? Whose voices matter and what are they saying? I think we all need answers to these questions.
In the background of that situation, those who actually have the expertise and highly informed and nuanced knowledge that can have a very positive impact on informing the citizens usually do not contribute to that debate, because very often there are the trolls, insults, threats... And thus actually in that debate in which a wide range of citizens are involved, democratic values become endangered and under threat.
I consider that trust cannot be preserved if we are constantly exposed to half-truths and lies and we do not see anyone we can trust, except ourselves, that is, our ability to recognize the right information, from the range of information we are exposed to, in order to make the right decision. But this lack of trust in social and political institutions jeopardises social stability and cohesion and makes citizens more risk averse.
Even though we have ethical standards, we are witnessing their constant breach in the political public sphere. The trouble is that if these are broken, there are hardly any sanctions. In journalism, in public relations, in politics, many ethical standards, such as openness, truthfulness, accuracy, are emphatically threatened. Sometimes even politicians do not have all the facts at their disposal and can act on what they know. In such conditions, thet need to admit this and openly talk about the complexity of the evolving situations and explain how they arrived to the decisions made. In communication with the citizens, politicians often act from the position that the citizens will not understand this, so they simplify the facts and pack them into attractive slogans, omit critical information or even decide that “strategic silence” is the best solution.
Do you have information on how this post-truth phenomenon is reflected in the countries of the Western Balkans?
I think there is no big difference, though each country has its own specifics and differences: cultural, social, political... What I have seen, mostly in Slovenia, is that right-wing political parties resort to introducing feelings of nationalism and scapegoating “others”. The others are other people or ideas, that is, those that are not in accordance with the norms that the majority follows - or according to the way the majority lives and how that majority thinks we should live. Those “others” may be immigrants, those with different ideas, the rights of the LGBTIQ+ community, a different religion... The majority of people are not affected by such political narratives, but minorities may be hurt by such political rhetoric. If we want to live in a multicultural society (I think such a policy has many benefits, because accepting that we are different leads us to progress), we have to be sensitive to those differences and recognise rather than discredit their value . But right-wing politicians in Slovenia are usually hostile and discriminatory towards them – this is no different from right-wing political rhetoric elsewhere.
In the short time I was in Macedonia, at the ICS conference, I got the impression that the new government is really trying to be more transparent and communicate frequently with the public and the media. What caught my attention is that transparency is very important to the Macedonian government. But it should be kept in mind that transparency does not mean accessibility. We can be transparent and publish everything as it is and about everything we do, but too much transparency can lead to cognitive overlaod for people, in the sense of having to deal with too much and often very compelx information and jargon. It can also be tricky. That is, politicians are transparent, but they say what they want to say, what they want to be public. With such engagement, one can only be too transparent, but the essence is in accessibility, that what is communicated should not only be publicly available, but also understandable and comprehensible to the citizens. How to make information accessible? That is the key question. Many political institutions operate with their own jargon. They have their own language that they have created, they work and produce documents in that own format, which are not understandable to people outside that “political bubble”. Typically, journalists and public relations people are in a way “translators” between the complexities of political language and citizens. The political situation is complex, and politicians are faced with making complex decisions. In such a situation, the challenge for journalists and public relations professionals arises, how to “translate” and make information available and understandable for citizens, but without “dumbing it down” too much and omitting critical facts and nuances.
And there, in the EU, there is “excessive transparency”. Indeed, the EU is transparent, everything is available: the Commission, the committees, the Parliament... but how much do people understand about all that? How capable are citizens to navigate all the information that is publicly available? How can the instituions translate it into a language that citizens will experience as friendly, feel that they can engage and get involved in EU policies? This is a very important task for communicators!
I think that Macedonia, as part of the democratic world, is in a very good position to learn from and use the Western experiences and the experiences of the EU. This is in terms of both; adopting best practice as well as avoiding the mistakes and mitigating errors that the Western democracis and the EU have encountered while trying to tackle the issues of transparency, fake news, misinformation, disinformation and unethical behaviour in political communication.
What is the role of the media, that is, how “guilty” are they in creating that environment of post-truth in politics?
The media of course have a responsibility to report on things that have an effect on citizens. When politicians make statements, it is the media’s responsibility under their editorial policy to report on it. But the critical role of the media is to assess the value of that information. Of course, you have as a basis what a certain person says, but you also need to check the truth of what they say, check the facts, but also check the facts of any other opposing opinion. Things are never black and white. There are many shades of grey in between. I know that many of us expect absolute answers: that things are such and such, that this is the best solution and that we should do this. But most of the time things are not that simple. Decisions should in principle be made that will benefit everyone, not just a certain group, but this can rarely be the case in practice. With every political decision and action, some people benefit, and some people lose, either money, social capital, opportunities or even worse their rights. On the balance public good and wellbeing should always be the guiding principle. That is why it is necessary to make a counterbalance and check the facts from another perspective.
But fact-checkers in the media, while doing a really good job at times, do not always present a nuanced story. What the politicians say is broadcasted, while the statements are not always contextualized, verified and interpreted. I know that the media and journalists work under pressure to publish information as soon as possible and there is no time to do all those checks. I know that the professional standard in the media outlets is to check the information with at least two sources before publishing it. It is necessary to perceive a situation from different perspectives. I think it is dangerous to reduce to a single statement about whether something is good or bad for all of us. It is necessary to capture the nuances in order to understand the complexity of a particular situation. What is basic is that the information should be accurate, correct and as comprehensive as possible, and when you have more facts, it is easier to verify the reliability.
However, the media have a role in creating the political environment and have the responsibility or some “guilt” for it. But we have all kinds of media: good and bad, that is, higher and lower quality media. We also have sensationalist media and tabloids… They all have different levels of “guilt”. Absolutely, traditional media have a big role, but now social media is also becoming significantly important. Many people have given up on traditional media and only follow social media.
In any case, the media is an influential institution in society, which can influence how we perceive events, what to believe and what social action to take. The media, along with politics, public relations, social media, influencers, is a powerful institution that importnayl co-shapes social reality.
Are influencers already becoming a relevant factor of influence in the creation of the political, or at least the social environment?
Influencers are becoming very important in thе current cyberspace and the political public sphere.
Global research shows that we tend to trust people who are more like us rather than politicians or media institutions. In fact, the trust in politics and media has been steadily declining for quite a few years, On the other hand, our trust in people who are more like us is increasing and these people are frequently the influencers. Younger people in particular are turning to influencers. Increasingly, influencers are also becoming relevant for political issues. In the financial sector it is not unusual that influencers often have more power to advise people on how to invest than banks and financial institutions.
Influencers are slowly stepping into the field of traditional media, although influencing is considered a non-traditional and non-political sphere. But more and more frequently we see, suddenly beauty tips influencers start talking about politics and political issues. The problem with influencing is that this space is not regulated and that influencers do not have their occupational code of conduct. It is often their individual moral compass that guides them in terms of what is right or wrong, and this is extremely risky and can cause real harm, especially with the amount of power that they have to influence certain segments of the population.
Are consumers of information able to recognise harmful narratives produced by politicians or the media?
If we agree with the politicians and what they say, we may not recognise that what they say is harmful. If a certain politician discredits someone and calls them offensive or derogative names, and we agree with some of their other views, we can think that the offensive behaviour is also okay and as such becomes increasingly normalised. People who do not share those values certainly recognise the harmful narrative. That is why discussions and dialogue in society are important to see how other people are affected by the narratives, stories and facts that are communicated in the public sphere.
I think we are all capable of recognising hate speech. I consider we have such a moral compass that hate speech is wrong. It's not okay to insult someone based on their appearance, it is not okay to make threats, or use violent language... These are the primary rules of socialization. But some politicians who have been consistently using harmful discourses give people permission to voice similar views, and consider it acceptable to make threats in public speech. The challenge arises – how to explain to people that this is still not acceptable.
Yes, hate speech is recognised. But do you recognize the consequences that harmful narratives can have in certain segments of society? I am not sure we have such an open mind to discuss how other people are affected by such narratives, how it reflects on them. For example, at the time of Brexit, very few people asked European citizens how they are doing and how they are feeling. The narratives that were put forward at the time were very harmful to a large segment of the population –10 million people who have lost their right to live and work in the UK. But the UK citizens did not recognise this impact and most carried on like nothing happened under the assumption that the EU citizens will be okay. They did not share the lived experience with the EU citizens and did not realise how harmful narratives around EU migration and EU rights were. The EU citizens felt unheard and unwanted and many have left the country post-Brexit. With this, the UK lost a lot of talent and cultural richness.
I think we recognise the harmful narratives, but we fail to recognise the dimension of their impact, that is, how they are reflected in different communities of society.
In terms of facts, it is very interesting how people buy into narratives with enticing headlines without using the basic skills to determine how credible that information is. Now we have access to information like never before in history and we have no excuse for not being able to check what is true.
Recently in Slovenia there were started workshops on media and information literacy, i.e. how to critically assess the information that people get, recognise disinformation and how to find reliable sources and verified information. I think we increasingly need information literacy skills.
It may seem trivial, but people love to read information about the royal family, and in that information, for example, there are unverified facts about the cost of the dress worn by Princess Kate. It seems trivial, but we do not know the consequences that such fake news can cause. It can cause certain feelings in the society that would create problems for the royal family, that is, they would lose the support of the public for the promises they had made, for example - that they would not make unnecessary expenses.
What are the chances for common sense, that is, of making a truthful assessment of the conditions and situations by ordinary people, before the power to influence politics and the media?
Indeed, we live in a time with many challenges for common sense. Sometimes we seem to lose our common sense, especially after being exposed to different influences and information. If, for example, politicians tell us that incoming migrants are stealing our jobs, while at the same taking advantage of social support for unemployed people, there is really no sound logic. How can someone have a job and receive social assistance at the same time? In a normal situation, this does not happen, because one excludes the other.
Common sense is very important for people to think critically. Here I see the important role of educational institutions, to teach people how to think critically, not only reproduce the facts. Our school system is based on exams for which facts must be learned in order to be replicated, but facts must also be critically re-evaluated. We should always think before we speak, but even more so we should think before we act, based on the information we have.
More frequently I come across people who switch off, or at least distance themselves from politics and the media. Are they better off? Do they have a better life? They think they are better off. But when you have an apathetic population, it is much easier to establish power and rule over it, because people basically do not care. They tell me: ‘I do not care about politics; it has no influence on my life’. But of course it does influence, it affects every aspect of life: from how we live, what kind of house we have, what school our children go to, pensions... Every aspect of our life is determined by politics.
The influence is now not manifested through any solid power as it was before, neither through the media, nor in politics, nor by some organisations, because we have a multiplication of information. It limits the power of those who have ownership of knowledge, truth and facts. But it makes our lives more complicated, because the challenge arises - who to trust, whose information to trust, on what we base our decisions as individuals. I would not underestimate the role of common sense, which can cultivate the critical opinion of society. It brings us a higher quality in the public debate and leads us to better joint decisions in different spaces of the community.
Who do you personally trust?
Who do I trust?! I trust science and scientific development, but I always critically evaluate them with a dose of scepticism. Every time I receive new information, I check what it is trying to say, who or what it supports, who is behind it, how it was funded, what was methodology behind it. Sometimes it is exhausting, so I do at times accept the information as it is, especially if it comes from trusted sources, for example the BBC or established academic institutions.
Yes, I trust science, but not science in general, but that supported by established institutes and universities, but I always check who is behind certain research... I trust politicians to a certain level, depending on which political party they are affiliated with and what their track record is... I do not blindly trust the random posts social media. I always check the reliability of social media information, especially if they come from untrusted source. I trust my close people, but even them with a healthy dose of scepticism.
Journalist: Jasminka Pavlovska
The interview was conducted by the editorial team of the online media outlet www.mkd.mk.