Solutions from journalism

Traditional journalism is identified as an essential institution in the democratic public sphere, so the decline in its credibility is related to the rise of fake news (Dahlgren, 2018). As journalism loses its relevance as a professional practice and the main gatekeeper in the establishment of the informative agenda of the audiences -at the same time as it is committed to a professional standard that favors speed over the depth of stories- the attention of the public towards sources of information of doubtful quality is activated (Elías and Catalán-Matamoros, 2020). To this is added an evident transparency problem that torpedoes the confidence of citizens in journalistic practice (Sambrook, 2018).

These same critical discourses towards the profession are assumed by Generation Z professionals, for whom journalism has the mission of protecting democracy by seeking the truth and denouncing lies, especially by those who hold some kind of power. They argue that the exercise of well-executed journalism equips citizens with sufficient tools to control those who exercise power and prevents audiences from seeking information from non-credible sources.

For this reason, they advocate for higher quality, a commitment to informative rigor, and a reinforcement of the ethical principles of the profession. For these new journalists, “the media must commit to quality work that does not fall into disinformation in any way” (INT_12), to become standard-bearers “of neatness before the scoop” (FG_02) and to offer correctly “contextualized and verified” information (INT_31) so as not to contribute “to this festival of false information and sensationalism in which we live” (FG_02).

One of the journalistic practices that they censor is clickbait, present even in the highest quality newspapers (García-Serrano, Romero-Rodríguez, and Hernando-Gómez, 2019): “They should criticize themselves and flee from content made only to become viral, from clickbait” (INT_42). Likewise, they request the reformulation of the traditional communication schemes between the media and audiences to regain their trust. In this sense, it would be essential to adopt a more two-way communication model, typical of the communication structures of the Internet, where "the media listen to the audience, dialogue with it, and admit and correct errors" (INT_05).

The connection between media and users should also be reinforced with the role of journalistic institutions as catalysts for the media education of audiences. The pedagogical work from the media in a context governed by the saturation of information and the growing circulation of malicious content is considered an interesting line to explore to "warn of the circulation of false information explaining the reason for its falsehood" (INT_24) and "disclose how they have come to discover that content was false information" (INT_32). The media should use their position of power to train the population on how to consume truthful information, differentiating “the rigorous precepts that a journalistic piece should have” (INT_33).

To do this, they defend the existence of specific spaces or sections where "how to identify these hoaxes is shown" (INT_27). There is, however, no unitary position on the need to incorporate their own verification departments in the traditional media. On the one hand, fact-checking integrated into newsrooms is considered a positive practice "to verify information from the media, thus allowing the user to validate anything they consider suspicious" (INT_19). On the other, the existence of a difference between communication media and verification platforms is defended: " I don't think they should exist within traditional media because we all know what each one is due to" (INT_37). This position is consistent with the results obtained in the third phase of our research -whose data we will present later- where we observe that fact-checking is perceived as a less neutral practice than other instruments (artificial intelligence) used to combat fake news.

Likewise, Generation Z journalists defend a greater pluralism in the editorial lines of the media to break their ideological biases and take their users out of a “comfort zone to prevent them from becoming mentally lazy” (FG_01).

The work to be carried out by the media includes the education of journalists themselves. Based on the discourse produced by the participants in our study, some keys are pointed out about what should be the competencies to be promoted from within the university system in the degrees of the area of Communication offered in our country. In general, Generation Z journalists adopt a technocentric approach in this field that leads them to define technological and digital skills as the most important when dealing with disinformation. In their discourse, it is essential "the acquisition of digital skills and specific current tools related to the verification of facts and data" (INT_01) because to determine whether a content that circulates on the Internet is reliable or not "we must know the dynamics of how fake news is spreading” (INT_06).

By linking the production and distribution of disinformation with social networks and digital environments in general, our interviewees affirm that it is essential that communicators of the 21^st century know their language and their ways of acting, as well as being quick “to research the origin of the news, so we must fully understand how search engines work” (INT_23). In this sense, they demand greater technical training to learn "the necessary tools to know how to identify the patterns of production and circulation of false information" (INT_09) or to "master data monitoring instruments" (INT_16).

The digital skills described above must be added to the aptitudes and values ​​that traditional journalism has enshrined since its birth, especially those that focus on proper management of information sources. Verification of sources is perceived as a critical competence in the fight against information disorders, so that “when a journalist receives information, whatever the source, it must be duly dealt with before working with it” (INT_25). The role of the journalist must be active and exhaustive in verifying the data, for which a certain “training in fact-checking, analytical and research capacity” would be necessary (INT_20) so as not to limit themselves to being “mere speakers of power” (INT_32). They affirm that "the new journalism must leave the old journalism and take the time that is necessary to contrast the information and take care of the sources" (INT_19). Along these lines, they value the ability to integrate different visions of reality into journalistic works using a variety of voices, to “cover all angles of that information” (INT_04).

The perceptions about the education that universities are currently offering to future professionals as essential actors against disinformation will be analyzed in a more in-depth way in the section dedicated to the educational field.

The technological way The role of digital platforms

The technological approach to the phenomenon of disinformation is also substantiated by the central role that Generation Z journalists give to digital platforms in the fight against fake news. For the young journalists interviewed, digital platforms should not be kept apart from what is published, but rather should control the information spread by their users. The detection, labeling, and elimination of hoaxes, the fight against bots that automatically distribute false information on the networks, and greater visibility and ease of access to quality sources -to the detriment of the Internet spaces that disseminate false or biased content- are the main aspects pointed out by the interviewees.

The most common discourse on the role of digital platforms advocates the adoption of measures to eliminate information that has been proven false. The censorship of these contents would be a measure to be applied by large technology companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc., which should implement "more powerful verification mechanisms that allow these messages to be suppressed from the beginning before they go viral” (INT_36). Historically, fake news has served as a catalyst for the spread of fear and anxiety, which function as activators of moral panic and violence (Schinkel, 2008). That is why, in the opinion of the interviewed subjects, this prior censorship should be more forceful “on those who contribute to promoting hate speech towards the most disadvantaged groups” (INT_07).

Another assumed censorship mechanism is the blocking of accounts of those actors who are especially active in the dissemination of fake news: "Since they have the power to regulate their internal functioning, they should block false accounts or eliminate posts that contain malicious information" (INT_10). The labeling of false information “through pop-up notifications like Facebook does or using similar models” (INT_24) or the application of “mechanisms to hinder the spread of false content” (INT_28) are other strategies that, although to a lesser extent, were mentioned during the fieldwork. The fight against bots should be articulated from "the verification of the identity of the profiles" (INT_17), while these platforms must privilege access to reliable sources and "avoid directing the user to the untrue ones" (INT_13).

The adoption of these measures is not exempt, however, from difficulties and ethical challenges that could endanger freedom of expression. Several of the journalists interviewed do not agree with the content censorship measures or with the blocking of accounts because “[the platforms] can exceed their powers, as has already been demonstrated in some cases in which certain posts are censored and other similar ones are not” (INT_06), so “they should have mechanisms for verifying issuers, but never for censoring their messages” (INT_19).

Educating citizens in the era of disinformation

The last block of solutions provided by young journalists is located in the educational field, based on three clearly differentiated approaches: (1) digital education, (2) media education, and (3) critical education. We analyze each of them below.

1. Digital education. This first approach to the role of education delves into the technological discourse. If fundamentally the problem of misinformation is perceived as a consequence of the popularization of social networks and digital communication environments that favor the production and dissemination of fake news, digital education "for all citizens" (FG_02) stands as one of the main factors in the fight against disinformation processes. For Gen Z professionals, the digital medium is the most fertile ground for the proliferation of malicious information. The irruption of the new information and communication technologies in our society would have brought with it the creation of a new need: digital literacy as a factor of human development and inclusion to reduce or avoid accentuating the digital divide, which they perceive as a “reflection of the existing social inequality outside the virtual universe” (INT_01). They are aware that most citizens do not have the necessary skills to identify false information, so they should acquire technical knowledge because, just as technology is used for its dissemination, “there are also more tools than ever to check whether something is true” (INT_13). These digital literacy actions must include the entire society, regardless of age, since the fact of “not having basic technological knowledge limits the quality of the informative diet of the audiences” (INT_05).

2. Media education. Gen Z journalists understand this competency differently than digital skills. They define it as those informational skills that citizens should adopt to know in a basic way the standards of production and dissemination of quality news, as well as the structural composition of legitimate information to differentiate it from informational disorders. To these competencies would be added the capacity to manage the information overload that characterizes the digital society. Young journalists observe that a democratic society can mitigate the negative influence of fake news if its citizens receive education on the criteria and practices that constitute journalistic work. For this, educational institutions should teach to discern between opinions and facts and contribute to responsible and diverse consumption of information sources. They advocate the creation of an educational curriculum that includes “measures to make young people aware of the amount of information they have in their pockets” (INT_24), how to use it to be better citizens, and the immense damage that they can do, even to themselves, if they don't use it correctly. It would be essential, therefore, “to teach from the educational centers, to contrast the information since they are little, and not to stay with the first thing they hear, read, or see on television and the Internet” (INT_29), as well as “educate in knowing how to read the news, contrast, discern, and assess” (INT_39).

3. Critical education. The participants in the study argue that if we information to generate knowledge and that digital education does not have a purely instrumental character, being reduced to the acquisition of technical skills, access to education that places value on critical thinking should be facilitated. Otherwise, even if adequate instruction in technology is received, its full pedagogical potential would hardly be exploited. It is perceived that, by putting their own cognitive biases into play, the citizen also participates in disinformation processes. To combat them, they should "adopt a position of the critical subject and not only of passive consumer of the information who willingly and irresponsibly shares contents of dubious origin" (INT_41). The interviewed young journalists claim for a demanding citizenry with the content it consumes and that it stops being attracted to "media that have provided us with false information" (INT_12) to question the information it accesses and "always have critical thinking to ask themselves: is this true? " (INT_04). In this sense, citizens must be aware of the interests behind the production of each piece of information. From their point of view, empowering citizens with this critical attitude would be equivalent to generating a less uninformed society.

In the opinion of the interviewees, digital, media, and critical education should be provided from the earliest ages through the “incorporation of specific subjects or programs in the curricula” (FG_02). This opinion contrasts with the lack of education actions of this type at all educational levels. The general opinion is that neither schools, high schools, nor universities deal with the issue of disinformation in Spain. They affirm that beyond including theoretical conceptualizations about post-truth or disinformation, there is no subject throughout the degrees in the field of Communication that broadly addresses these issues, delves into their causes and consequences, and delves into the verification of facts and data and in teaching other specific tools to combat fake news.

From the educational centers, this problem is broadly treated through superficial explanations about its definition and the analysis of its importance for the profession, but without offering deep and practical approaches to the problem: “In high school, education in this field was totally non-existent; and in college, we sometimes talk about the matter, but never with a well-founded and organized education” (INT_25).

Generation Z journalists perceive that in the Communication area degrees, disinformation is dealt with superficially and in all kinds of subjects, both with a theoretical, practical, and methodological approach. Some of the subjects indicated by the interviewed subjects were Structure and Power of Information, Digital Journalism, Methodologies of Journalistic Investigation, Journalistic Deontology, Public Opinion, Journalistic Writing, Sociology, and Audiovisual Postproduction. It is perceived, therefore, that the treatment of this problem is not established in a specific subject, but is linked to the voluntaristic action of teachers interested in the subject and motivated by the analysis of the misinformative processes in the classrooms.

It is, however, in the workplace where they find greater opportunities for education in this matter. Our interviewees claim to have participated in short-term practical workshops organized by their companies and usually given by technology companies that offer instrumental training in the use of their own software to very specifically address certain journalistic needs, such as source verification, detection of false images and videos, and the identification of fake news on social networks: “The only time I remember receiving information in this regard was during my first stage of the EFE-LaCaixa scholarship when Google offered us training on online verification and tools against misinformation” (INT_33).

This specific training usually focuses on the acquisition of technical skills based on fact-checking, data journalism, and the use of automatic artificial intelligence tools to detect false information or malicious sources. As we pointed out previously, these three journalistic practices were especially prominent in the discourse of the participants in our research. That is why the last part of our study analyzes in-depth the perceptions around these three instruments as useful tools in the fight against misinformation.