Antonio Navalón
Sometimes, life surprises us, shows us different ways of looking at things, and forces us to modify the perspective under which problems are examined. Last weekend, the World Law Congress was held at the prestigious New York Bar Association. The event was attended by many influential personalities such as presidents of the supreme courts of various countries – among them the Mexican Minister, Norma Piña – lawyers from different parts of the world, professors, among other leaders in their respective fields.
The Congress discussed various topics ranging from environmental care, energy transition, legal stability, the future of democracy, and many others. In particular, there was a panel – of which I was honored to be a part – that addressed the question: is independent journalism capable of surviving in this era? I had the opportunity to share this space for discussion with three personalities who have stood out for being great leaders with a significant impact in their corresponding sectors.
The first of them was one of the last living legends of American journalism and who was in charge of the Boston Globe when the explosive case of pederasty by some priests of the Catholic Church was uncovered. The investigation called “Spotlight” won multiple awards – including an Oscar for Best Picture – and was an exceptional journalistic work guided by Martin Baron, who, after his leadership at the helm of the Boston newspaper, held the position of Director of the Washington Post. Years after being the newspaper that carried out the successful investigation of the “Watergate” scandal, on August 5, 2013, Jeff Bezos acquired the Washington Post, forming a strange alliance between the new economy, the new powers of the world, and the safeguard of the right to independent and freedom of information, having Marty Baron at the head of this new stage of the newspaper.
Another participant in the panel was Juan Luis Cebrián, the creator and first Director of the newspaper El País. Thanks to his leadership as the head of this newspaper, which was launched months after the death of General Franco and which became the representative and the best reflection of the Spanish democratic transition, this stage of Spanish history was exemplary for different countries and regions around the world, especially in Latin America.
Finally, there was the participation of Ambassador John Feeley, who was the first to have the courage to present his resignation to Donald Trump after he arrived at the White House and who, in the different functions he has performed around the continent, has stood out as a great diplomatic leader. Ambassador Feeley has always had a particular sensitivity – of which we Mexicans can be witnesses – when it comes to strengthening the relationship between the press and the government, giving life to what Thomas Jefferson once said about it is preferable to have “a press without a government than a government without a press”.
Since the creation of the propaganda bureau by Napoleon and with the Duke of Otranto in charge until today, the main threat to free information has come from the powers that be. The powers that be have had and wanted to remove witnesses, eliminate critics and consolidate the worship of their actions. The only thing that has changed over time is not the behavior of men but the common perception and feeling of society. It is a struggle between the press and governments that has been raging for centuries and that, on the one hand, seeks absolute control while, on the other hand, what is desired is freedom of expression.
In the past, the greatest danger was autocratic tendencies. Today, in my opinion, the threat is different. For some years now, the media owners are those who lead the big technology companies. These characters, among which stand out leaders such as Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Larry Page, among others, are those who – through the use and application of algorithms and artificial intelligence – have taken over our tastes and preferences, exercising a clear manipulation over us. Artificial intelligence has not only taken over our privacy, thinking, and behavior, but it is also already capable of making us believe that the platforms presented result from what we really want.
The control exercised over us is a control that, in my opinion, has been and is possible for two reasons. The first is because of the depreciation and misuse that has been made in the exercise of the laws. The second is because of the complete abandonment of respect for the truth. On the premise that there cannot be an efficient government without laws, nor laws without governments that comply with them, in journalism, in politics, and in today’s world, such fundamental truths, which are also the pillars on which our societies are built, as the respect for truth and the established order, are in an evident decline and degradation.
For example, in a country like the United States, lying in a court of law or the middle of a legal process is considered a crime and can lead the offender to spend time in jail. However, that did not stop a lying Republican from becoming president. The lie was very obvious in the case of the “tweeting” president, Donald Trump. In the case of the current U.S. president – who we are not sure he could create a “tweet” on his own – the lie is less blatant, and there is less evidence of manipulating the concept of truth.
Amid a context in which current governments have lost the battle against the great technologists, today’s world and its future are not in the hands of the Oppenheimers – a character so fashionable lately and remembered for having discovered the atomic bomb – today, the world is at the disposal of those who build the algorithms. These intoxicating algorithms are used to direct us and dictate our behavior.
Some argue that political choices have ceased to be a matter of concern and preoccupation for politicians, strategists, and political scientists and have become a roadmap drawn up by the companies that lead the artificial intelligence sector. First, these tools are put at the service of a candidate or political party, although we must be aware that later they can be placed at the service of any political offer, however much this form of government may resemble the establishment of a Fourth Reich.
These, among many others, were some of the conclusions of this Congress and of many of the panels. Democracy is under siege because it has become a platform through which those in power can violate and destroy anything that does not go along with their plans and interests. Any politician who wins the elections and takes control has the right to change the laws that come with the powers granted to him from day one. However, what is not justified is the violation and, in some cases, the destruction of existing orders.
Without programs or visions whose main objective is to improve the conditions of societies, it is impossible to ensure the development and continuity of democratic structures. And within the debate whose fundamental principles are freedom, legality, respect for truth, and the construction of the future, I believe this is the greatest problem and threat we face.
Further Reading: