More and more people say they avoid the news, and the result is a less informed society and, therefore, a weaker democracy. In countries where journalism is declining, authoritarian populism is gaining ground. But why is the number of citizens choosing to live outside journalistic current affairs growing, who choose not to know, not to ask questions or seek answers, with all that this entails? Many justify it this way: because they believe they are already informed through social networks. Because bad news distresses them. Because it is increasingly difficult for them to distinguish between what is true and what is false. Because they feel overwhelmed: too much impact and too little reliability.
The internet and social networks were welcomed a few years ago as an opportunity for the democratization of information: everyone could be a sender and a receiver. Today, however, we have moved from this hopeful initial mirage to the dominance of the communicative environment by a few, large digital platforms that circulate third-party content – without remunerating its creators – through which they capture the attention of large volumes of audience and advertising. So that the platforms enrich themselves economically while impoverishing both journalistic media and news and public debate, which has become a noisy, voracious and fast-paced jumble where evasion wins by a landslide over reflection and information. But above all, the feeling of saturation wins and, as a reflection of survival, the need for disconnection. In English, the phenomenon has been dubbed news avoiding: avoidance of news.
The issue is that many citizens have become accustomed to receiving content not chosen by them, which reaches them randomly through platforms, without journalistic guarantees, based on opaque algorithms that maximize audience attraction and retention as their sole objective. No one knows the changing criteria that make up these algorithms. Of course, they do not respond to shared civic values. And, of course, anyone can see how they blatantly fuel political polarization. All of this pushes too many people to give up understanding current events and to get trapped in the web of entertainment and tension, and in bubbles that isolate them.
To combat this disorientation and this hijacking of citizenship, there is only one plausible formula: to practice and demand rigorous journalism. To defend it tooth and nail. Every day. In the face of the democratic and social danger posed by growing disconnection, to offer quality, honest, committed, and independent information. The same people who say they feel distressed must be able to find, if they wish, support in the media that strive to do constructive, brave, plural, and serious journalism. This is our job and our commitment. The more noise and infoxication, the more necessary we are, those of us who offer an alternative based on the values of good old journalism, but using with sense and ethical practice all the technological tools available, including artificial intelligence. This is the ARA's commitment to our readers: to offer them a healthy communicative diet.
