Posted on April 7, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
–
–
Jean-Philippe Warren: To what extent has South American politics become pure verbiage?
Ana Cristina Suzina : You know, the situation in South America is not much different from what is happening in other places in the world. Populist leaders are in a way a symptom of the exacerbation of a neoliberal system that turns communication into a commodity and makes us believe that we are making progress in access to information, when, in truth, we remain very limited. to start a real democratic debate.
Why do you think the speaking space is gradually shrinking in Brazil?
We believe that the new digital resources at our disposal are miracle solutions for making the voice of ordinary citizens heard. We think that it is enough to create a blog or a Facebook page to have an opinion heard.
It is true that there is more space for expression today. We must rejoice in this. We must welcome the existence of digital platforms that provide increased visibility to all kinds of people.
However, we cannot stop there. It is obvious, in fact, that a person can spend a lot of energy proposing diverse opinions without obtaining a real echo. For its message to be audible, it must be relayed through powerful channels.
We are therefore still very dependent on media structures. There is more room for dissenting voices, sure, but if you want to have a major impact, you still rely heavily on the established media, a problem that is compounded in Brazil by the high concentration of media industries.
Take the example of the women’s movement #EleNao [ce qui signifie « pas lui », le mot-clic du mouvement « femmes ensemble contre Bolsonaro »]. During the election campaign, the movement was in the streets: there were massive demonstrations. There were intense debates online. However, the mainstream media did not cover the movement. They functioned as a sounding board to amplify news that claimed the movement did not exist.
You worked on the mobilizations of 2013, when the Brazilians rose up against the lack of funding for social services (public transport, health, education, etc.). To what extent have these mobilizations influenced your work on fake news?
The year 2013 is a very ambivalent moment. It raised a great wind of hope. As the demands of 2013 were expressed outside the parties and as the mobilizations involved many people from various backgrounds, we had the impression that civil society was in the streets to demand justice, to demand rights.
But 2013 did not have the expected results. It turned into a great opportunity for the right to assert that everything was wrong in the country and that the ruling left was responsible for everything that was wrong. What began as a rather progressive movement has thus become a political moment in favor of the right.
This event, however, started a discussion around fake news and the best ways to combat it. Because we were able to see in 2013 how many speeches of the right were reproduced on the front pages of the major newspapers. We have heard the same speeches being repeated on national television. The same message that the country was not happy because of the left was broadcast over and over by the mainstream media.
Sometimes we think we need to fight fake news by tackling what is being said outside of mainstream media. But what happened in 2013 in Brazil was that the mainstream media themselves played the game of disinformation.
Why do you think populist strategies cannot be called communications?
When we read the work of Paulo Freire [pédagogue brésilien ayant lutté contre les oppressions], there is a conception of communication centered on dialogue and oriented towards emancipation. From this perspective, to communicate is to present certain elements and invite the other person to an exchange. From this exchange, there will be a certain understanding of the world, a certain understanding of certain facts. The result of this process is what is called communication. It is not about making the other believe what you already believe yourself.
Insofar as it does not meet this requirement, I think that the populist strategy is not communication. For populists, it is about imposing ideas and gagging any opponent who might express a different thought. You absolutely cannot call it communication.
> To read tomorrow: The fake news forest fire in Africa
–
