Truth vs Myth in Elections / DAVOS 2025

Summary

This panel discussion focused on the challenges of truth versus myth in elections, particularly in the context of disinformation and technological influence. The conversation began with an examination of the impact of disinformation in recent elections, with participants offering differing views on its prevalence and effectiveness. Moldova’s Prime Minister Recean highlighted the significant foreign interference his country faced, while others noted that the anticipated large-scale disruptions didn’t materialize as feared in some elections.

The role of social media platforms and AI in amplifying disinformation was a key topic, with panelists discussing the need for responsible moderation and transparency. The European Digital Services Act was cited as an attempt to regulate these platforms and combat systemic risks. The importance of education and critical thinking in combating disinformation was emphasized, along with the need for quality journalism to reach audiences where they are, particularly younger generations.

Panelists debated the effectiveness of fact-checking and the challenge of reaching people in information “bubbles.” The discussion touched on the responsibility of news organizations to provide unbiased, quality information and the potential for technology to both spread and combat misinformation. The conversation concluded with reflections on the different ways people engage with news and information, and the ongoing challenge of addressing disinformation in a rapidly evolving media landscape.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The impact and prevalence of disinformation/misinformation in recent elections globally

– The role of social media platforms and technology in spreading vs. combating false information

– Regulatory approaches like the EU’s Digital Services Act to increase transparency and accountability of tech platforms

– The challenges traditional media faces in reaching audiences, especially younger generations

– The importance of media literacy and critical thinking skills for consumers of information

Overall purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore the current state of misinformation and disinformation in elections and political discourse, examining potential solutions from government, tech, media and civil society perspectives.

Tone:

The tone was largely serious and concerned about the threats posed by misinformation, though there were moments of cautious optimism about potential solutions. The tone became more nuanced as different perspectives were shared, moving from initial alarm to a more complex view of the challenges and opportunities.

Speakers

– John Harris: Editor and founder of Politico

– Almar Latour: Chief Executive Officer and publisher of the Wall Street Journal

– Sasha Havlicek: Chief Executive Officer for the Institute of Strategic Dialogue

– Dorin Recean: Prime Minister of Moldova

– Clara Chappaz: Minister for tech and AI in France

– Audience: Various audience members asking questions

Additional speakers:

– Mark Penn: Former pollster for Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, now involved in journalism and media analysis

The Impact of Disinformation on Elections and Democracy

This panel discussion, featuring prominent figures from journalism, government, and civil society, explored the complex challenges posed by disinformation in elections and its broader impact on democratic processes. The conversation revealed both areas of consensus and diverging perspectives on the severity and nature of the threat, as well as potential solutions.

Assessing the Threat of Disinformation

There was general agreement among panelists that disinformation remains a significant threat to democracy, particularly in vulnerable countries. Sasha Havlicek, CEO of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, argued that disinformation and foreign influence operations had ramped up significantly in recent years.

Dorin Recean, Prime Minister of Moldova, provided a sobering first-hand account of the challenges faced by his country, stating, “Moldova, unfortunately, went through two cycles of malign interference and disinformation campaigns ahead of the local elections in 2023 and then presidential elections and pro-EU referendum in 2024.” He revealed that Russian investment in disinformation campaigns amounted to 2.5% of Moldova’s GDP over three years, highlighting the scale and intensity of these efforts in vulnerable democracies.

The Role of Technology Platforms and Regulation

The discussion frequently returned to the role of social media platforms and technology companies in both spreading and potentially combating disinformation. Clara Chappaz, Minister for Tech and AI in France, emphasised the need for platforms to take responsibility for moderating content and reducing systemic risks. She highlighted the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) as an example of regulatory efforts to address these issues, stating, “Europe has put together the DSA, Digital Service Act, that maybe some of you are already aware of, which tries to do just that, saying what is illegal offline, what is illicit offline should be illicit also online.” Chappaz elaborated on the DSA’s focus on transparency and the responsibility of platforms to combat systemic risks.

Sasha Havlicek stressed the importance of transparency and data access to evaluate the impact of platforms on information ecosystems. She also highlighted the rise of networked influence and the need for proxy influencers to reach audiences that traditional media isn’t reaching.

Challenges and Opportunities for Quality Journalism

A recurring theme throughout the discussion was the struggle faced by traditional media outlets in reaching audiences, particularly younger generations. Almar Latour, CEO and publisher of the Wall Street Journal, highlighted this challenge but also expressed optimism about the opportunity for quality journalism in the current climate. He noted Gen Z’s interest in news and emphasized the need for news organizations to find ways to reach audiences where they are, including on social media platforms.

John Harris, editor and founder of Politico, added that people consume news for different reasons, including entertainment and getting agitated, which complicates the landscape for quality journalism.

The Importance of Media Literacy and Education

There was broad consensus among the speakers on the critical role of education and media literacy in combating disinformation. Dorin Recean emphasised that critical thinking and education are key to building resilience against false information. Almar Latour echoed this sentiment, highlighting the necessity of teaching discernment skills to youth and the opportunity for media organizations to address basic information needs.

An audience member raised the point that many people lack basic factual information on key topics, underscoring the need for accessible, clear information about government systems and processes. Mark Penn, a former pollster for Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, mentioned the “Just the Facts” series he created with Steve Ballmer as an example of efforts to provide basic factual information.

The Disconnect Between Elite Perceptions and Working/Middle Class Experiences

Mark Penn offered a thought-provoking perspective on the disconnect between elite/educated perceptions and working/middle class experiences, stating, “And when I look at middle, working and middle class voters, working and middle class voters go to the doctor, they go to the gas station, they go to the grocery store. Information that they read is not the primary driver of their attitudes, it’s what they experience.” This comment challenged assumptions about the primacy of information in shaping political attitudes and highlighted the need to consider personal experiences when addressing disinformation.

The Potential of AI and Technology in Combating Disinformation

John Harris raised the possibility of using AI and technology as tools to combat disinformation, suggesting that these technologies could potentially be harnessed to identify and counter false information more effectively.

Unresolved Issues and Future Challenges

The discussion revealed several unresolved issues that require further attention:

1. Effectively breaking through information bubbles to reach diverse audiences.

2. Balancing content moderation and free speech concerns on technology platforms.

3. Addressing the disconnect between elite/educated perceptions and working/middle class experiences.

4. Understanding and mitigating the long-term societal impacts of prolonged exposure to disinformation campaigns.

5. Harnessing AI and technology responsibly in the fight against disinformation.

Conclusion

The panel discussion highlighted the multifaceted nature of the disinformation challenge in modern democracies. While there was general agreement on the seriousness of the threat, differing perspectives on its impact and potential solutions underscored the complexity of the issue. The conversation emphasised the need for a collaborative approach involving government, media, technology companies, and civil society to effectively combat disinformation and strengthen democratic processes. As the information landscape continues to evolve rapidly, ongoing dialogue, adaptive strategies, and innovative approaches will be crucial in addressing this persistent challenge to democracy.

John Harris: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is John Harris. I’m the editor and one of the founders of Politico in Washington, D.C. and also a major European news organization. The question that we’re all gathered here today, truth versus myth in elections, is one that is central to us. Our name is Politico. We cover politics and policy, and we every day are organizing our journalists in pursuit of the truth, but we’re doing so in a climate, a political climate and a technological climate where that job for journalists and for other people who are in public life has in some ways never been more challenging. We’ve got a very large, spacious topic in this question of truth versus myth in elections. My job is pretty easy with a panel as impressive as we have. I do think distilling this big question down to some concrete takeaways is our challenge, and I think we’re all prepared to do that. Our hope is that once we get some particular perspectives on this question, we can enlist you in the audience for some questions and conversations about this. I will plead in advance, preemptively, that once we have audience discussion, if we could really keep your comment or question especially crisp, that will allow the conversation to be freewheeling. Having laid out that warning, I will sort of enforce that if we hear something that sounds more like speechifying. It would probably be an interesting speech, but just not well within the confines of this format. You know, I’ve been thinking about this topic, and my mind goes back a year ago to Davos, where this was also, at the beginning of what we knew was going to be a very consequential election, this was central in our minds, the possibility that a our elections would be marred by deliberate falsehoods and distortions, attempt to undermine and confuse, undermine coverage and confuse voters and electorates around the world through falsehood, through distortion. In fact, I think the World Economic Forum in 2024 identified this as in the top three of major issues globally imperiling democracy. As we look back on 2024, it does seem to me that we had, obviously, a huge election in the United States, critical elections in the European Parliament, in France, in the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. And although there were examples of this kind of distortion and manipulation, they didn’t, by my lights, seem to define this election year. And if that’s the case, I don’t know whether that’s the result of good luck or good management or maybe even my perception that this actually distortion didn’t happen. It wasn’t as pervasive as we thought. Maybe that’s just because the manipulation was so effective that I don’t even realize it. That’s the frame through which I’m looking at these questions. And I’d like to just maybe go down the row here. And we’ll start with Prime Minister Recean of Moldova. I know you have strong feelings about this. We were discussing it in the green room before we came on. Take my question, how bad was this problem in 2024? How effective were the efforts to combat it? Where do those point the mind in terms of how we should be engaging with this, obviously, lawfully? a long-term problem in the year ahead.

Dorin Recean: Thank you. First of all, thank you to all for being invited to this panel. Moldova, unfortunately, went through two cycles of malign interference and disinformation campaigns ahead of the local elections in 2023 and then presidential elections and pro-EU referendum in 2024. I’ll start with an example so that it’s clear how this disinformation works. A pro-EU referendum is advocated by the government as the best way our EU integration strategic objective will bring Moldova into a safe environment and a prosperous environment. Now what the Russian disinformation campaign produces is a short movie with a school in the school garden, kids in military uniforms with Kalashnikovs are preparing for war, and this is on the background of the EU flag. And they are presenting this as a true thing happening right now. So they are trying to associate EU with war and say, look what happens to Ukraine. If you want to EU, this will happen the same in Moldova. Moldova is prepared for war. And we are exposed to this kind of disinformation constantly because the decision of an individual about what to choose in an election campaign is not done in the same day. So they are trying to promote false narratives about security, false narratives about European Union, and they are trying to undermine the democratic processes themselves. And ultimately they what they tried to do, and they in a way achieved, is to outright buy votes with cash. And that at a scale of about 300,000 voters out of 2.5 million votes casted. So, and this is part of the hybrid war that Russia is waging against Moldova right now. With the technology that is now available to all of us, I mean the artificial intelligence algorithms and the social networks, this task of disinformation is made much easier and we noticed this not only in Moldova, but then at the latest stage in the elections in our neighboring and friendly country, Romania. And then the issue that a government is having is this overwhelming information campaigns, a lot of false narrative, a lot of lies, and then the strategic communication units within governments become very, very important. But the most important, if you ask me, is to continue to invest in education and critical thinking. I’ll stop here so that we have more time for discussion.

John Harris: But in other words, education and critical thinking so people are less subject to, they’re more skeptical and less subject to being manipulated. I would love to get the French perspective on that. And I will say that where the prime minister left it is one that is very much on my mind, because if you look at US politics, and I wanna make sure that this is not just simply reflect the US perspective, but to me, the challenge of kind of warring narratives where we aren’t even arguing over. or the same body of fact is not strictly the result of somebody using the kind of information sphere to inject like outright lies. It’s the fact that with the voters themselves live in different kind of cultural universes. And so that they’re seeing the world in such fundamentally different ways. And that’s more profound than trying to inject, say a photograph that’s been manipulated and it’s just simply false. It’s not that people are necessarily in the grip of falsehoods. They’re in the grip of really entirely different worldviews. And I’d be curious for your reaction and your perspective from. So as a minister for tech and AI,

Clara Chappaz: I will talk about the tech aspect of this conversation. Because as you rightly concluded, the impact of tech, AI, social networks in this conversation is quite critical. So just to restate the problem here is obviously on those networks like anywhere else in the street, in the media, everyone is completely free to have all the opinions they want. But what those networks do is that they amplify some of the things that are said on the platform in a way that reach a huge number of people that is completely unprecedented with traditional press, media, radio, et cetera. And so obviously when it comes to elections, that causes a lot of questions. But even stepping away from the election issue, what we’ve tried to do, and this is where my message is probably a bit more optimistic. What we’ve tried to do with Europe is framing some rules on how those platforms who have gigantic reach needs to be responsible for part of the content that is on their platform. So not the content itself, but the way that this content follows local regulation. And there’s been a lot of discussion over the last few weeks on that topic. But I believe, as you said, it’s not just the election part and the election days that matter, it’s really like more generally how the population use those platforms to get information, to communicate with each other. And this needs to be a very strong reflection on the roles that we also have offline. So Europe has put together the DSA, Digital Service Act, that maybe some of you are already aware of, which tries to do just that, saying what is illegal offline, what is illicit offline should be illicit also online. So when it comes to communication and platforms, they’re responsible to make sure that they can moderate content. For example, in France, you can have racial, you can say anything racist or homophobic or negationism are things that are against the law, prohibited and can be judged by a judge. So platform is responsible to follow the same rules online. And regarding misinformation, they’re also responsible with the Digital Service Act to put all the means they want, they’re obviously free to choose the means they want, but to make sure that they are taking steps into reducing the systemic risks that goes with disinformation. And I think no one can really be against that. And every time we’ve discussed with platform over the cross of the last few weeks, everyone is very aligned that the objective is definitely very important. And the way we are going after it, which is the platforms have to be responsible is probably the right way. But it is becoming increasingly important to have those conversation because. especially with the younger population, the way they interact with information is a lot on those platforms.

John Harris: So, Sasha Havlicek is the Chief Executive Officer for the Institute of Strategic Dialogue and you’re London-based. And I feel like maybe we’ve set you up well with the first two. One, I would be curious whether you agree with my assumption that this wasn’t as central as we feared in the major elections of 2024. But I’d also like you to run with what seems to be a shift in the narrative. A couple of years ago, the narrative was, look, these technological platforms, they’re enormously powerful, but they need to be responsibly used and the owners and executives of these companies have a responsibility. And so, moderation and appropriate filters is the way to get the best of these tools and shut down the worst. Now that the, and I think driven heavily by the election in the United States, the narrative and the winner of that election, the narrative has flipped. And these efforts that were designed to promote responsible speech are being castigated as shutting down speech or as trying to dictate to people what they should think. So, what happened to the old narrative and the idea that what we really need is responsible moderation and filters. And now this narrative like actually a freewheeling Wild West atmosphere is the best for.

Sasha Havlicek: Thank you. Thank you so much, John. Well, let me start with the first question. Sure. And take a little bit of issue with the way in which you frame this as being less effective. Please, absolutely. So, we’ve actually seen much a ramping up of certainly foreign state influence and information cyber operations. And whether it was the Moldovan case or the Romanian case, you’ve actually seen enormous impacts. in relation to the dynamics of electoral discourse as a result of those investments. Little bits of money go a long way in asymmetric warfare, and we’ve seen an uptick in Kremlin, in CCP, and in Iranian information and cyber operations often now mixed with cyber hacktivist activities that have been actually very effective in many parts of the West, including in the U.S. Hacking now into public and private infrastructure has been a feature of this last year’s cyber warfare. The impacts weren’t enormous in the sense of what we were sort of expecting, you know, the one major bit of AI that would disrupt the election. No, that wasn’t the case. But plummeting trust because of the existence of AI, absolutely, and a lot of sort of low-level disruption. And we shouldn’t forget that. Huge amounts of threats to election workers, to public officials, ballot boxes, intimidation, doxing, bomb threats, and so on. Low-level disruptions that were effectively dealt with because actually there was a lot of infrastructure put in place in many parts of the world, and that infrastructure was really necessary because this is all on the uptake. But as you rightly pointed out, work on disinformation now is highly contested. It’s become a big political hot potato. It’s been couched, I think, slightly disingenuously in this sort of binary free speech debate. And I think part of that is because we haven’t, perhaps, clearly enough defined what we’re talking about. Yes, beyond the question of falsehoods being purposefully spread, that’s disinformation, what researchers, organizations like mine that detect and track this kind of activity and look to respond to it are looking for are other types of activities. And that is deceptive, manipulative activities, botnets, fake account networks, essentially. used to fake popularity, to deceive users. They are invisible, if you like, to the naked eye of an average user. They’re there to deceive. And then the architecture, the technological architecture of these platforms, the ads, the algorithmic infrastructure, which is there to amplify whatever it is that’s gonna engage you more in order to make money from the business model, the attention economy. We’ve seen now through various pieces of research, including our own, disproportionately amplifies essentially the most sensationalist, lots of falsehood, lots of extreme content over whatever is moderate, whatever is likely to sort of calm the waters. So you have essentially not a free speech environment. You have a curated speech environment where these technopolistic giants ultimately choose what you see based on the data that they’re collecting and the money that they’re going to make. And so leveling the playing field for speech, I think is probably the most important piece. And John, to your point that it’s not one bit of disinformation that’s gonna tip the balance. It’s these completely distinct ecosystems of information that are emerging. Well, that’s a part of what we’re, that’s the result, I think, of these technological systems. The DSA prioritizes, I think, the most important piece, which is transparency, where authoritarian regimes respond to these problems with censorship. We must respond through sharp transparency. And that means getting data access for independent research so that we can evaluate the impact of these systems on public discourse. That’s what the DSA is trying to do, but it’s being highly contested. I think it’s in everybody’s interest. Free speech was, I think, never meant to apply to botnets, never meant to apply to algorithms.

John Harris: We’re gonna, at the end of the panel. somebody who’s in my own line of work, Almar Latour is the Chief Executive Officer and the publisher of the Wall Street Journal. So you’ve got a big concern with this issue and a big responsibility, and your journalists do, the question of separating truth from falsehood. How do you come at this? What is the responsibility of the Wall Street Journal? What’s the responsibility of the profession generally?

Almar Latour: Yes, and then first, I would say the suggestion that somehow disinformation did not play a large role in the year past is misinformation, right? I mean, that is, it is grotesque what is happening on the political front. The fact that we have a prime minister here who is attesting to voters being bought and the social media and information networks of a country, a vulnerable country being flooded by a foreign enemy isn’t an act of violence, if you will, a violence against democracy. And so I feel very strongly that this continues to be a crisis, particularly if it happens on a small scale. These are, in my view, can’t really prove this, but it seemed like test runs for larger operations. Then clearly just a proliferation to many other theaters where this is taking place. And so what is the role of journalism in this? Disinformation, misinformation is riding a wave of lack of trust in institutions that has deeper roots, is exacerbating that trend. It’s a very malignant trend for society. Trust in news media, John, you’re in news media, is at an all time low. Edelman survey came out this week, reemphasizing that. There are roles to play in public education and in journalism. Journalists have to commit to being unbiased. Our institution really pushes hard, the Journal and Dow Jones, to make sure that. A, we stay away from being biased, and B, stay away from the perception of being biased. We have code of conduct. We want to make sure that our reporters and editors are not politically active. And so that’s an always-on task. Investing in quality journalism is actually, in the context of all of this, a great opportunity to also address the crisis that journalism is facing. There is a great opportunity here for quality journalism to help address this. And that’s how we are approaching this as an institution. And we’ve seen that effectively with great success commercially and reader-wise. And so there is a market for this. The other thing that journalism will have to figure out is, how can we meet readers, users, consumers where they are? And I think that there is a huge gap still for quality news to find its way to where the majority of people today spend their time. That’s journalism part. Education and news literacy, which we at Dow Jones also feel very strongly about, is something that needs to be institutionalized, that needs to be pushed so that people can actually, from a young age, make a distinction between what they’re facing. And so you have many different aspects to this. That first point, I feel just very strongly, there cannot be a takeaway that somehow this problem is not as bad as it seems because it’s terrible.

John Harris: I think, in fairness, that it probably was a US-centric position. And I think your point is well taken. Just because we didn’t have the big, sort of all-defining controversy that was proven to be fake and that was decisive in the US election doesn’t mean that this isn’t pervasive. Mr. Prime Minister.

Dorin Recean: One very short comment. Look, Moldova survived both exercises, in 23 and then in 24, with the referenda and the presidential elections. But the effects are there. there, with all the destabilization attempts, with all the protests, paid for protests, with squads to attack government and police and so on. So now, what happens the next day? What do you do with those people that, for all these period of time, have been pumped with this misinformation and disinformation and outright lies? And this brings you into a dynamic of the society that will hit you definitely the next electoral cycle if you don’t act on it. And just one number. In three years, Russia invested 2.5% of Moldova’s GDP in this exercise. Can you imagine the scale of this?

John Harris: I want to turn to the audience. If you’ve got questions and comments, just raise your hand. I think we’ll bring the microphone to you. We would ask that you introduce yourself. And also, as I say, keep things crisp, as we already may have some. So I’ll turn to it. And then I’m going to intersperse that with some of my own questions. And we can keep this going. But yes, ma’am, let’s see if we can get you a microphone.

Audience: Thank you. Hello. My name is Melanie Amman. I’m a journalist also. I’m a deputy editor-in-chief for Der Spiegel in Germany. And my question regards Mr. Latour. Your comment really resonated with me about finding the readers where they really are. Would you mind elaborating a little more on your strategies how to do this? Because this seems to me like the main challenge for serious and reliable news sources like ours. Like, how do we reach these people? We try to be unbiased, of course. And we have the same guidances and statements. But still, what if they don’t find us? What if these people simply don’t consume what we do?

Almar Latour: Yeah, and to be clear, there are probably about 40. panels taking place simultaneously to answer that question about the other crisis that faces journalism. So but in a nutshell I’m not gonna have a super satisfactory answer but we have found a sustainable business model for us. It’s subscription based. Focus is everything being very clear about what information you offer, what makes you unique as a media entity. That way audiences can actually recognize oh I turn here for this type of answer. Embracing a non-text-based journalism I think is incredibly important. Having a partner approach to many of the social media platforms and a partnership approach with where possible if IP is respected with with AI platforms as well. And so leaning into innovation, leaning into new technology while maintaining standards and having absolute clarity on what you stand for and being beyond reproach. One very simple thing I think to instill trust is the mechanism of correction. Journalists make mistakes. We make mistakes and owning up to that and being transparent as to how that happens I think is not pervasive enough in the industry. It’s something that I think we could all lean into but this is worthy of a much larger discussion. But on the whole I’m actually optimistic about where journalism can go and how it can contribute to a healthier society including where free speech and freedom of expression is broadly defined. When there’s a lot of noise and whether a lot of voices, the voices that can assure you that quality information is being delivered stand out to win. And I think there is, I know there is demand for that. I see that in our numbers. I see that in our financial performance and I think there are quite a few startups that are leaning into models like that as well. So on the long term I’m encouraged on that.

John Harris: Some of our panels were also stimulated by that.

Clara Chappaz: Yeah I also would like to jump in on where they are when you say that that’s something that resonated because and I like what you said about the partner approach because something that has been on my head over the last few weeks is in France we’ve seen some big journal actually decide to leave some of the platforms. And that’s a very relevant fact that we have to think through. And obviously, I mean, there are plenty of reasons why, and some of it is that the journalists themselves don’t feel comfortable on those platforms, and I have a lot of empathy for that, and that definitely needs to be addressed. But this is where I think the role of government and the DSA also comes into place. Because if we end up in a world where the people who are using those platforms won’t get access to the quality information that the journalists actually produce, I don’t think society will get in a better place. And so it’s incredibly important that I think in this whole conversation, the partner approach that you mentioned is staying quite central and trying to figure out how we all work together. Because we need to find ways to make things work and not just have people consume certain types of news on the platforms and then go to the subscription model when they want to have the qualitative information that you provide. Especially when you go back to the point you’ve mentioned that you have a lot of international inferences on those platforms that are actually facts. We also have services under a prime minister in France who’s looking into interferences. And there has been different occasions where social media have been used to get some news out which actually were not news. And so this question to me is, again, similar as you, I don’t have all the answers yet. But I think definitely partnering is extremely important.

Sasha Havlicek: I think this question of reaching audiences is absolutely critical. I chaired a session here yesterday on the rise of networked influence. Of the top 10 influencers in terms of of reach online today. None are either government institutions, politicians, media outlets. And so we’re really faced with a massive challenge here. We’re not breaking through. There’s no question about that. I always think you take a leaf out of the bad actor book. They seem to be so good at it. One of the things we’ve seen really effectively used by hostile states is the deployment of influencers. And we need to think about proxy influencers, influencers that have reach into audiences that none of us are reaching right now. And we need to be building audience needs to be the strategic objective. And that’s something that we haven’t invested in, but certainly bad actors have invested in that infrastructure. So I hope we can do more on that.

Almar Latour: The good news, I think, is that Gen Z is very much interested in news and in getting information. They’re very inquisitive. And there are news aggregators and influencers who talk about other people’s news and have millions and millions of followers. So there are models evolving and there are people leading the way. And so this will take some time, but I think there will be a correction to this gap that exists today. But there’s absolutely a misconception that somehow Gen Z or younger generations don’t care about news. Absolutely.

Dorin Recean: The only issue, if you allow me, is how to get into those bubbles. So what was very difficult for our government is to get into those bubbles. And those bubbles are very much exploited. And sometimes it’s very difficult to convince. And we used the influencers for the last two weeks of the elections, because we didn’t see any other way to fight these disinformation campaigns that were coming. But again, even for some of them, it’s very difficult to get into a bubble that is not theirs.

John Harris: up in the front, and then we’ll get Mr. Penn in the front row.

Audience: Hi, my name is Joshua. I’m with the Global Shapes community. I’m also a local politician here in Davos. My question is more in the way of these bubbles, for example, because social media platforms are built to create those platforms to get the users hooked, so to say. Should there be legislative work around this, maybe something like Australia is doing right now where they ban it for the youth to at least protect them from this bubble until a certain age, or do you see any other legislative measurements we could take here?

John Harris: I feel like that, for one of the two of you, or both, would be fascinating.

Clara Chappaz: Yeah, I talked a bit earlier about how the Digital Service Act in Europe tries to answer this question, say, you talked about transparency of the algorithm, and the platforms under this act have the responsibility to fight what we call the systemic risks, so definitely these types of behavior are part of what is being investigated, and every year they have, and they all do it, actually, and they have to report on how all the algorithms work and have to make it open for the work you’re doing to be able to make the science also advance on those topics. So my short answer to that is, I think with the DSA, we have the tool to address a major part of this conversation and the issues that we’re facing. Regarding youth and the use of the youth online, this is definitely another topic that is obviously very important. In France, we’ve taken quite ambitious steps, for example, with adult websites, because you have by the law to be 18 to consume these types of content, but until last week, the websites didn’t have any enforcing… Low to the law was here, but it’s applied. It’s been applied for one one week now allowed to enforce that they have to put a actual tool to verify the age of the users that is trying to access this type of content and obviously the state is not here to like Have any judgment on the content itself is just to make sure that we have mechanism to enforce that children don’t get exposed to this content because I think it’s like one out of two of the young kids who are Consuming this type of content they do it by chance. They were not even looking for it And so we’re trying to address that but there’s definitely a lot that we need to reflect as government on. How do we? How do we enforce this type of regulation for this type of content? How do we work better with platforms to also make sure that they have those tools?

Almar Latour: I think having regulation that propels a button-clicking sort of blind approval Kind of atmosphere actually it puts us behind and I think can be very damaging I mean the amount of time and a number of lawyers at my institution has invested in you’re complying with GDPR and Such measures it while great intentions aside That we could spend a time actually solving the real problem Which is connecting with audiences and until a market mechanism actually identifies. Here’s how we answer your question I think we’re not going to get to the root of this and so I would like to cast this as an opportunity to certainly certainly, I think situations where regulation can protect a vulnerable children should not be exposed to certain content, but The market mechanism I think is it ultimately a better answer

Dorin Recean: Just very quickly Look, if we just prevent access to the information We are not solving the fundamental problem of why people consume and believe and stuff with these beliefs of theirs.

John Harris: Yes, ma’am.

Audience: Thank you. My name is Laura Althoff, and I’m from Seattle in the United States. You said that youth get their content online. They’re tech-savvy and they’re social media savvy, but how discerning are they? You said that our youth are inquisitive, but are they discerning, and are they any better than we are at determining what’s true and not true?

Almar Latour: I don’t want to generalize, just typify one generation. I think like any generation, there’s different levels of engagement. But what I can say is that there are big influencers that are focused on news and are aggregating news, and they have millions and millions and millions of followers. And so even in these new formats, there are people of that generation that connect with that. And so I think it’s a shortcoming of perhaps legacy media itself to not have filled that gap. Secondarily, I think educating young people on how to make a distinction between what’s reliable as a source and what’s not I think is helpful and even necessary. Without coming into that with bias, but just teaching people how to think for themselves.

John Harris: I’ve got a question coming up. Sasha, very quickly, we see that technology can be a great engine of BS, but can it also be a great engine of anti-BS that would help young people, old people, make those critical distinctions? People don’t have all day to click around and get to the bottom of something. They need distillation and efficiency in identifying content that they should be wary of.

Sasha Havlicek: Yeah, I mean, there’s lots of ways in which technology is used for good and for bad. I mean, this is the nature of things. I do want to just come back to this question of regulation of free speech. I have because I think there’s a misrepresentation of what the DSA is about. It’s been sort of termed the great censorship regime. It doesn’t in fact require platforms to remove anything that is not illegal. Number one. Illegal. Number two, what it does require is the kind of data access for us to be able to understand the way in which the platform’s own products and algorithms are impacting harm so that we can bring it to light. That is not censorship. That is bringing to light something that is obscure to the public right now and shouldn’t be. And three, it is designed to serve fundamental rights. One of which, by the way, is the protection of free speech and expression. And so if there are in fact systemic risks in the language of the DSA to free expression, that can in fact be investigated by the European Commission and we should be holding the platforms to account. Finally, if we do in fact have an ecosystem of scrutiny through independent research access to the data, I for one I’m particularly interested to make sure that we use that to see where there’s been over moderation. Where there has been suppression of speech that we shouldn’t allow. I am a free speech advocate. Absolutely. We can do that if we have these tools of transparency.

John Harris: I notice we’ve got a relevant voice who’s joined us in the hall today. Mark Penn is somebody I first knew as a source for journalists going all the way back to the Clinton years where he was a prominent pollster for Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and others. And now he’s at least a quasi journalist himself. You may have seen his conversation with Elon Musk, I guess, last month. And he’s been engaged in this question of the future of news.

Audience: Thank you, and maybe this is I’m going to give a comment that maybe John you react to related to the U.S. But first, Almar, I would say last year I did a piece in your paper called how to save a billion hours. And the first thing was to stop requiring everybody to click on every single website because it’s completely non-sense. nonsensical and most of the problem with the regulations is that they’re nonsensical. And the point that I wanted to kind of bounce off you is that I noticed you all kind of deal with misinformation centrally rather than as a doctor would look at who’s sick. And when I look at middle, working and middle class voters, working and middle class voters go to the doctor, they go to the gas station, they go to the grocery store. Information that they read is not the primary driver of their attitudes, it’s what they experience. And the voters under 30,000 who rely on government programs, they also are much less information based. The two groups that seems to me who are most susceptible to information and misinformation are rich educated people who are disconnected from the actual world and problems and therefore form their opinions from reading you all and young people who really don’t have that much real world experience. And if I was gonna say that this election was not about misinformation, but it was about an information disconnect between what the working and middle class voters saw and believed in their lives and what the upper classes and elites came to believe through the written word. And I’d get some reaction.

John Harris: I’d love to give you my reaction, Mark. I do want you to sharpen your metaphor or the implications of it. Are you saying, look, we’re worrying too much about the sort of broader universe of questions about misinformation, instead we should just be focused on, and it’s the implication of what Alma was saying. Look, just worry about your own publication and why somebody would read it and why they should have confidence in it.

Audience: And particularly focus on young people and elites who really are the, at least in the US, I don’t know that that’s going to be true in France or in the Mideast where the structure is different. But in the US, I would say there are two groups most swayed by misinformation. And yet we don’t really focus on that as a problem. Now I did a series with Steve Ballmer called Just the Facts, which was an attempt. The other thing is that these things are always negative. We’ve got to stop misinformation. The Just the Facts series was how about just giving people basic information about the budget, about the immigration system, how it works. We used to have great documentaries on TV. We don’t have any of that stuff anymore, which is why Steve got about 50 million views on his stuff, because people are not given straight down the middle, really hardcore information as opposed to opinion as much as they could get.

John Harris: I guess the place my mind goes to is that people consuming this information do it really for two different reasons. And it’s not the classic image of somebody picking up the morning paper at their doorstep because they want to know the weather and they want to be a good citizen and know what’s going on in the world. There is some of that. But I think also we’ve seen engaging in information warfare, consuming journalism in part for the reason of getting agitated about it. I put my brother in this category. He loves scouring the news. It would give him something to get mad about about the bias of the news. But he’s fundamentally doing it for almost entertainment purposes. I would think at least with the elites that you mentioned, really attracted to their abstract ideas, that doesn’t worry me so much. They have access to whatever they want. And the young people not developing the habits, this goes to what the prime minister said, you need habits of discernment of your own responsibilities of citizens as a citizen about how to respond to news. I think that is something that collectively news organizations, educational institutions should help facilitate. that kind of mindset. But again, if I’m reading the Wall Street Journal because I’m making a decision about what investment to make or how it influences my portfolio, I’m pretty serious. I want the facts. I don’t, it’s a very rational exercise. I think the Politico’s core audience is people coming because they’re engaged in politics and they really put a premium on sort of neutrally presented truth. And then there’s a large universe of other people out there who I think are engaging with the news for other reasons. And I don’t know, that larger universe, I hate to be disbarring about it, but I don’t actually see the fact checks. We looked at both candidates and what they said and like this is an exaggeration and that part’s an outright false. I don’t see those exercises having much influence. I feel like they’re a leaf in the wind generally. I don’t know, is that responsive to your, and I’d be curious what others think. I guess my view is that people talk about the media and all I can worry about is Politico. All Homer can worry about is the Wall Street Journal. Do our job. I worry about it more, but we’re working on it. We’ll worry effectively, I would say.

Almar Latour: But I think what Mark said, there’s an opportunity to address an information need and that’s a responsibility for media organizations, but it’s primarily an opportunity. And the answer is relatively simple. Answer basic questions. We are definitely engaged in that.

John Harris: Okay. We are at time. I’m gonna hang around. I know some of these others are, we could maybe get some Q&A. I do wanna be respectful for the economic forum, which has probably got other claims on this room very shortly. We started out by saying this is a big topic and obviously we only penetrated it to a small degree. But I do think we were left with some very useful thoughts that can shape our thinking about something that is at least for all of us and the work we’re in, this is in some sense the work of our. professional lifetimes. So thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Disinformation remains a significant threat to democracy

speakers

– Dorin Recean
– Sasha Havlicek
– Almar Latour

arguments

Disinformation campaigns remain a serious threat to democracy

Disinformation and foreign influence operations ramped up significantly in 2024

Disinformation continues to be a crisis, particularly in vulnerable countries

summary

These speakers agree that disinformation campaigns pose a significant and ongoing threat to democratic processes, particularly in vulnerable countries.

Need for quality journalism and reaching audiences on new platforms

speakers

– Almar Latour
– Clara Chappaz

arguments

Partner approach with platforms is important for news organizations

Need to find ways to reach audiences where they are, especially younger generations

summary

Both speakers emphasize the importance of news organizations adapting to reach audiences on new platforms, particularly younger generations.

Importance of transparency and accountability for technology platforms

speakers

– Clara Chappaz
– Sasha Havlicek

arguments

Platforms need to be responsible for moderating content and reducing systemic risks

Transparency and data access are needed to evaluate impact of platforms

summary

These speakers agree on the need for technology platforms to be more transparent and accountable in their content moderation practices and algorithmic impacts.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of education and critical thinking skills in combating disinformation, particularly for young people.

speakers

– Dorin Recean
– Almar Latour

arguments

Critical thinking and education are key to combating disinformation

Teaching discernment skills to youth is necessary

Unexpected Consensus

Challenges in reaching audiences within information bubbles

speakers

– Dorin Recean
– Almar Latour

arguments

Difficulty breaking through information bubbles with quality journalism

Need to find ways to reach audiences where they are, especially younger generations

explanation

Despite coming from different backgrounds (government and media), both speakers recognize the challenge of reaching audiences within information bubbles, suggesting a shared understanding of the complexities in modern information dissemination.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the ongoing threat of disinformation, the need for quality journalism to adapt to new platforms, the importance of platform accountability, and the role of education in combating misinformation.

Consensus level

There is a moderate level of consensus among the speakers on the major challenges posed by disinformation and the need for multi-faceted approaches to address it. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the problem, which could facilitate more coordinated efforts to combat disinformation across different sectors (government, media, technology).

Different Viewpoints

Impact of disinformation in 2024 elections

speakers

– John Harris
– Sasha Havlicek
– Almar Latour

arguments

Disinformation had less impact than feared in major 2024 elections

Disinformation and foreign influence operations ramped up significantly in 2024

Disinformation continues to be a crisis, particularly in vulnerable countries

summary

While John Harris suggested that disinformation had less impact than feared in major 2024 elections, both Sasha Havlicek and Almar Latour argued that disinformation and foreign influence operations significantly increased and continued to be a crisis, especially in vulnerable countries.

Unexpected Differences

Regulation of platforms

speakers

– Almar Latour
– Sasha Havlicek

arguments

Partner approach with platforms is important for news organizations

Transparency and data access are needed to evaluate impact of platforms

explanation

While both speakers discuss platform regulation, Almar Latour unexpectedly emphasizes a partnership approach, whereas Sasha Havlicek focuses on transparency and data access. This difference highlights varying perspectives on how to address platform-related issues within the journalism industry.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement centered around the impact of disinformation in 2024 elections, approaches to platform regulation, and strategies for combating disinformation.

difference_level

The level of disagreement was moderate, with speakers generally acknowledging the importance of addressing disinformation but differing on the severity of its impact and the best methods to combat it. These differences highlight the complexity of the issue and the need for multifaceted approaches to tackle disinformation in elections and beyond.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of working with platforms, but Almar Latour emphasizes a partnership approach for news organizations, while Clara Chappaz focuses on platform responsibility for content moderation and risk reduction.

speakers

– Almar Latour
– Clara Chappaz

arguments

Partner approach with platforms is important for news organizations

Platforms need to be responsible for moderating content and reducing systemic risks

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of education and critical thinking skills in combating disinformation, particularly for young people.

speakers

– Dorin Recean
– Almar Latour

arguments

Critical thinking and education are key to combating disinformation

Teaching discernment skills to youth is necessary

Key Takeaways

Disinformation and foreign influence operations remain a serious threat to democracy, particularly in vulnerable countries

Technology platforms need to take more responsibility for moderating content and reducing systemic risks

Quality journalism faces challenges in reaching audiences, especially younger generations, in the current information ecosystem

Media literacy, critical thinking skills, and education are crucial for combating disinformation

Resolutions and Action Items

News organizations should focus on reaching audiences where they are, including on social media platforms

Governments and platforms should work together to implement transparency measures like the EU’s Digital Services Act

More investment is needed in education and teaching critical thinking/discernment skills

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively break through information bubbles and reach audiences that don’t consume traditional news sources

Balancing content moderation and free speech concerns on technology platforms

How to address the disconnect between elite/educated perceptions and working/middle class experiences

The long-term societal impacts of prolonged exposure to disinformation campaigns

Suggested Compromises

A partner approach between news organizations and technology platforms to distribute quality journalism

Using influencers and new formats to reach younger audiences with factual information

Focusing fact-checking and media literacy efforts on groups most susceptible to misinformation (e.g. youth, elites)

Moldova, unfortunately, went through two cycles of malign interference and disinformation campaigns ahead of the local elections in 2023 and then presidential elections and pro-EU referendum in 2024.

speaker

Dorin Recean

reason

This comment introduced concrete examples of disinformation campaigns, providing real-world context to the discussion.

impact

It shifted the conversation from theoretical concerns to actual instances of election interference, prompting others to consider the tangible impacts of disinformation.

Europe has put together the DSA, Digital Service Act, that maybe some of you are already aware of, which tries to do just that, saying what is illegal offline, what is illicit offline should be illicit also online.

speaker

Clara Chappaz

reason

This comment brought attention to regulatory efforts to combat online disinformation, introducing a policy perspective to the discussion.

impact

It sparked a debate about the role of regulation in addressing disinformation, leading to further discussion about the balance between free speech and content moderation.

We’ve actually seen much a ramping up of certainly foreign state influence and information cyber operations. And whether it was the Moldovan case or the Romanian case, you’ve actually seen enormous impacts in relation to the dynamics of electoral discourse as a result of those investments.

speaker

Sasha Havlicek

reason

This comment challenged the moderator’s initial assumption that disinformation wasn’t as impactful in recent elections, providing a broader perspective on the issue.

impact

It led to a reassessment of the scale and impact of disinformation campaigns, encouraging participants to consider less visible but significant effects.

Trust in news media, John, you’re in news media, is at an all time low. Edelman survey came out this week, reemphasizing that. There are roles to play in public education and in journalism.

speaker

Almar Latour

reason

This comment highlighted the crisis of trust in media and connected it to the broader issue of disinformation, introducing a new dimension to the discussion.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards the role of journalism in combating disinformation and rebuilding public trust, leading to discussions about journalistic responsibility and strategies.

And when I look at middle, working and middle class voters, working and middle class voters go to the doctor, they go to the gas station, they go to the grocery store. Information that they read is not the primary driver of their attitudes, it’s what they experience.

speaker

Mark Penn

reason

This comment introduced a different perspective on how voters form opinions, challenging the assumption that misinformation is the primary driver of voter behavior.

impact

It prompted a reconsideration of the relative importance of information versus personal experience in shaping political attitudes, leading to a more nuanced discussion of the impact of disinformation.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope from theoretical concerns about disinformation to concrete examples and real-world impacts. They introduced multiple perspectives, including regulatory approaches, the role of journalism, and the importance of personal experience in shaping opinions. This led to a more comprehensive and nuanced exploration of the challenges posed by disinformation in elections and potential strategies to address them. The discussion evolved from a focus on the mere existence of disinformation to a more complex analysis of its varied impacts, the different vulnerabilities of various demographic groups, and the multifaceted approaches needed to combat it effectively.

How can quality journalism effectively reach audiences on social media platforms where they spend most of their time?

speaker

Melanie Amman and Almar Latour

explanation

This is crucial for ensuring reliable information reaches wider audiences, especially younger generations

How can governments and media organizations work together to ensure quality information is accessible on social media platforms?

speaker

Clara Chappaz

explanation

This partnership approach is important to combat misinformation and ensure factual content reaches users

How can we educate young people to be more discerning about the information they consume online?

speaker

Laura Althoff and Almar Latour

explanation

Developing critical thinking skills in youth is essential for combating misinformation

How can technology be leveraged as a tool for fact-checking and combating misinformation?

speaker

John Harris

explanation

Exploring technological solutions could help users efficiently identify reliable content

How can we better understand and address the information disconnect between working/middle class voters and elites?

speaker

Mark Penn

explanation

This disconnect may be a key factor in shaping political attitudes and voting behavior

How can we create more accessible, factual content about government systems and processes?

speaker

Mark Penn

explanation

Providing clear, unbiased information about how systems work could help combat misinformation

How can we better understand and address the long-term societal effects of prolonged exposure to misinformation campaigns?

speaker

Dorin Recean

explanation

This is important for developing strategies to mitigate the impact of disinformation on future electoral cycles