The @realDonaldTrump account on Twitter, the outgoing president of the United States' preferred platform for communication, and which was permanently suspended by the company on January 8, as was the official account as president, @POTUS. Image: Twitter

By Andrés Cañizález
CARACAS, Jan 15 2021 (IPS)

Over the last four years, United States President Donald Trump has had in Twitter his main political communication tool. On this technological platform, he spread messages that were not entirely true, insulted and disqualified people, fired, or mocked his collaborators. Twitter was a stage for his sort of presidential reality show.

Twitter’s business decisions, initially to temporarily suspend Trump’s account, and then permanently, have ignited a heated debate, which like all those involving the United States (US), in these days of January, seems to be wrapped around extreme positions. It would be a good idea for another piece to look into how Trump precisely fueled polarization, the fruits of which are now for all to see, and how Twitter was his tool in such a strategy.

Trump and Twitter already had a love-hate relationship before the events of January 6, with the assault on the Capitol in Washington. With almost 89 million followers, Trump is the most influential head of state or government in office on this social media worldwide. Barack Obama, US president for two terms (2009-2016), is the person with the greatest number of followers worldwide, over 127 million.

Remarkably, Trump favored to communicate through Twitter. With succinct publications and by smartly using the impact of his messages among his many followers, the outgoing president not only skipped over engaging with mainstream media, but he himself had a far greater impact on Twitter than any press or TV company could have. From Twitter, he denigrated American journalism.

Andrés Cañizález

For Twitter, it was also a good business to be used intensively for four years by the most powerful man in the world, who sent out tweets at any time of the day or night, messages that were not filtered by the White House communications team. His Twitter account was a way of finding out what Trump was concerned about or up to, and thousands of news stories ended up being written based on the president’s tweets, not from the official president’s office account but from his personal account.

It should not be overlooked that this corporate decision, unprecedented in the case of a political figure with such a large following, was preceded by “misleading content” labels that Twitter decided to place on some of Trump’s messages in November 2020, in the heat of the election and counting of votes.

On claims that Trump was generating false content, which was subsequently proven to be the case, Twitter not only labeled but also even removed some tweets from the president. In my view, that seemed to be a mistake.

Then I argued that 1) a company should not restrict a discussion that was purely political; 2) politicians in the midst of a debate are not under the obligation to tell only truths; 3) without being media outlets themselves, social media are today a substantial part of the public forum; and 4) if Trump or any politician told lies, journalism was obliged to fact-check or prove it.

After the disgraceful and unfortunate events that took place in Washington on January 6, Twitter decided to suppress Trump’s account because with his messages the president would have “incited violence”.

Donald Trump’s last two tweets before his Twitter account was permanently suspended, after more than 57,000 tweets generated by the outgoing US president, who had about 89 million followers. Photo: Twitter

It is quite accepted that limits can be placed on freedom of expression when messages go from being, for example, a mere insult, to proposing actions that end up unleashing violence. It was only when the crisis became a major scandal and the possibility of an impeachment on grounds of these events began to be floated that Trump finally condemned violence.

It was not the messages of just a random agitated person with a few tens or hundreds of followers. We are dealing with messages from someone who has held the main office in the world’s leading power – and will continue to do so for a few more days, with millions of followers on Twitter. This left the door open for his followers to sabotage the legislative ratification act on Democrat candidate Joe Biden’s victory, scheduled for January 6.

While some of Trump’s messages – or even silence at crucial moments – could be considered an implicit incitement or blessing of violence, the next question is whether a company alone can establish this.

I wonder if it should be Twitter, with a decision based on its corporate policies, that effectively closed Trump’s account or was this a decision that, as it was regarding freedom of expression, had to be settled in the US justice system.

I am afraid that we are facing a case in which we have irresponsible positions both from Trump, with his virulent or deceitful messages, and from Twitter by taking for itself the role of arbiter of what US and global society should read or not.

It is possible that this case will end up spurring a debate that should be urgent, but which has unfortunately been postponed given the immense economic power and political influence that such social media as Twitter and Facebook have gained.

The public defense of these platforms, in order to avoid any public debate or possibility of legislation, was precisely to hide behind the premise that their role was technological. They defined themselves as providers of technological applications to connect people, with no intervention on content. The case of Twitter and Trump proves the opposite.

Excerpt:

El Helicoide, a building in Caracas, Venezuela, currently headquarters of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (SEBIN). Credit: Flakiz/Flickr

By Andrés Cañizález
CARACAS, Oct 20 2020 (IPS)

In mid-September, the United Nations Human Rights Council approved the renewal, for another two years, of the mandate of the Fact-Finding Mission to determine and document the existence of crimes against humanity in Venezuela, under the government of Nicolás Maduro.

In this way, the Council endorsed the work that this independent mission had already been conducting for one year. Weeks before, the team of experts had released a devastating report, prepared after reviewing slightly over 3,000 cases of which it rigorously documented 233.

In order to fully understand what is happening in Venezuela in terms of Human Rights, it may be convenient to pay close attention to one story, one of the many that make up this report. Due to our professional bias, we have stopped at a case clearly linked to freedom of expression and information.

Andrés Cañizález

For this piece, I have picked the events involving Pedro Jaimes Criollo, described in the UN report as from paragraph 727. This case clearly exposes the repressive policy on expression and information. Tweeting just turns out to be a crime, as the government of Nicolás Maduro understands it.

An aviation aficionado, this Venezuelan tweeter’s handles were @AereoMeteo and @AereoMeteo2. Disseminating meteorological and aeronautical information was his hobby, until May 2018.

On May 3, 2018, strikingly a date on which free speech is celebrated (World Press Freedom Day), Pedro Jaimes tweeted the flight path of the presidential plane on which Nicolás Maduro was headed for a ceremony in Aragua State, at the center of the country.

As underscored in the UN report, the tweeter obtained information in the public domain about the models of planes used by the Office of the President of Venezuela, data available on Wikipedia, and tracked the flight using the (equally open and public) FlightRadar24 app.

As of May 2018, there was no law or executive order in force classifying flight information as confidential.

A week after his tweets, Pedro Jaimes was arrested without any warrant by the National Bolivarian Intelligence Service (Servicio Bolivariano de Inteligencia Nacional, SEBIN). He was arriving at his home. At the time of his arrest, he was beaten, and so was his sister as she tried to step in. When his family showed up at the SEBIN headquarters in El Helicoide (a 1950s spiral-shaped building), Caracas, officials denied that Pedro was being held there.

Several days after his arrest, this time carrying a search warrant, the SEBIN took some communications and computer equipment from his home. He was charged with using such equipment to interfere with radio communications from planes and airports; he was also indicted of revealing state secrets on Twitter.

In the report, the UN experts indicate that they have reviewed the handbooks of the equipment seized from the tweeter and that, with those devices, it was not possible either to transmit radio signals or to interfere with communications.

Pedro Jaimes Criollo, who did nothing but write tweets based on public information, was subjected to interrogations in which he was beaten with sticks or wooden bats wrapped in plastic or cloth, which leaves no marks. A bag was placed over his head and insecticide was sprayed inside, suffocating him. He was also administered electroshocks.

He was kicked in the head while on the floor, causing him to partly lose his hearing. SEBIN officials threatened to rape him with a wooden stick they had at hand.

That same month of May 2018, Provisional Prosecutor Marlon Mora filed charges against Pedro Jaimes at the Third Miranda State Control Court ([Tercer Tribunal de Control del Estado Miranda] a trial-level category), with Judge Rumely Rojas Muro presiding. He was charged with interference in operational security, revealing state secrets, and digital espionage. Although he was arrested a week after his tweets about Maduro’s flight, the prosecution claimed that he had been apprehended in flagrante delicto.

After over a month, during which time the government did not reveal the holding place of the tweeter despite the fact that his family filed for injunctive relief on several occasions, Pedro was able to call his sister, on a telephone provided by a guard at El Helicoide, to tell her where he was being held.

During the court proceedings on his matter, he was not allowed to appoint his defense lawyers, was denied access to his own docket, and the basis of the indictment was the interviews with the very SEBIN agents who had detained and tortured him.

Long held in abject conditions, for some time, even without access to a bathroom to relief himself, Pedro Jaimes was released while standing trial in October 2019. His matter has since been deferred a dozen times.

“As of the time of writing, Mr. Jaimes continued to await trial, with precautionary measures including monthly presentation at court and a prohibition on leaving the country. He continued to suffer from psychological symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and physical trauma,” reads the UN report, released in mid-September.

His crime? Tweeting. His case, not being a unique or standalone story, epitomizes the lack of freedom and the repressive system that prevail today in Venezuela.

Excerpt:

US President Donald Trump (right) and Mexican counterpart Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador at the White House July 2020. Credit: Toa Dufour/White House

By Andrés Cañizález
CARACAS, Sep 7 2020 (IPS)

The presidents of the Americas, beyond their ideological differences, seem to agree in questioning the role of journalists and the media in the coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hand, human rights organizations remind us of the fundamental role of information, especially in times of crisis and uncertainty like the one we are experiencing in this 2020.

NGO Inter-American Dialogue and expert Edison Lanza, current Inter-American Commission on Human Rights rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, prepared the report “COVID-19 and Freedom of Expression in the Americas” which has three thematic areas: The role of journalists and the pressure against them from those in power, access to public information in the current context, and the dynamics of pandemic-related disinformation and misinformation.

Ultimately, the goal is for journalists and the media, as well as healthcare professionals and relevant experts, to be able to speak and report freely about COVID-19, "including coverage that is critical of government responses, without fear or censorship”. And this mandate goes beyond the ideological leanings of those who govern

The report, released on August 31 in Washington, reviews the role of leaders who, in the face of the pandemic, divert the focus towards challenging or discrediting newspersons’ work in their respective countries. This policy has coincidentally been implemented by leaders who, ideologically speaking, are at the antipodes from one another, such as Mexico’s Andrés Manuel López Obrador and Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, or Daniel Ortega and Alejandro Giammattei in Central America.

The report confirms, on the one hand, the importance of the right to inform freely, even in situations of crisis, as set forth in documents by the Inter-American Human Rights System and, in turn, echoes public concerns expressed, for example, by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet.

“Undermining rights such as freedom of expression may do incalculable damage to the effort to contain COVID-19 and its pernicious socio-economic side-effects”, remarked Bachelet.

The report outlines this situation: “[…] under the cover of Covid-19 response, some governments in the Americas have taken steps to criminalize free speech […]”

In Mexico, in the context of the pandemic, president Andrés Manuel López Obrador (or AMLO, his acronym) criticized the ethics of both Mexican and international “conventional media” for questioning official data on COVID-19 provided by his administration. This was in May. In April, AMLO had already said that professional journalism did not exist in his country and verbally attacked newspapers Reforma, El Universal, Milenio, and Excélsior.

In theory, ideologically on the other side of the aisle, Bolsonaro also infamously launched a tirade of verbal attacks against journalists and the media in Brazil. Only in the first quarter this year, when the onset of the pandemic was being faced by the South American giant, the president made 32 verbal attacks.

The climate of “continued harassment and abuse” compelled several of Brazil’s main news organizations to stop reporting outside the presidential residence at the end of May, in order to underscore their discontent with Bolsonaro’s public statements.

The report highlights the permanent verbal sparring with the media engaged by President Donald Trump, from Washington, DC, during the harsh weeks of the pandemic that has significantly affected the United States. Between the months of March and May, Trump confronted at least eight journalists during his daily press conferences on COVID-19. The President has responded irately or simply left unanswered questions that are uncomfortable for him and that have been asked in these exchanges with the press at the White House.

Andrés Cañizález

In Nicaragua, meanwhile, president Daniel Ortega accused the media of spreading fake news about his government’s concealment of COVID-19 figures. According to Ortega, there is “disinformative terrorism” in his country on the part of those journalists critical of him.

However, one premier from around the continent who has most clearly voiced his rejection to the exercise of independent journalism during the pandemic has been the president of Guatemala, Alejandro Giammattei. “I would like to put the media in quarantine but I cannot”, he said candidly last March, when he lashed out at what he called negative coverage of his government’s policies in response to the pandemic.

The Inter-American Dialogue report closes with recommendations. As has been the case in other situations of crisis, amidst uncertainty, societies need more and better information.

Regarding the role of authorities, it is stated in the document: “Governments have a duty to ensure that journalism thrives and plays its essential role during the pandemic, as the protection of the media is a protection of the public’s right to information”.

Ultimately, the goal is for journalists and the media, as well as healthcare professionals and relevant experts, to be able to speak and report freely about COVID-19, “including coverage that is critical of government responses, without fear or censorship”.

And this mandate goes beyond the ideological leanings of those who govern.

A teenage girl covers her face with her hands in front of a laptop computer, frightened by the news she reads about the pandemic. Photo: Dusko Miljanic/Unicef

By Andrés Cañizález
CARACAS, Aug 6 2020 (IPS)

Every era brings its own buzzwords or catchphrases along with it. The term du jour is ‘pandemic’, namely ‘coronavirus’ and ‘COVID-19’; but alongside these words, speculation and forecasts over the post-pandemic world are flourishing. There is a proliferation of pieces and commentary on what our daily lives or the economy will be like once the epidemic is under control, that is, how we will live in the aftermath of the pandemic.

I will briefly delve into this forward-looking exercise. In the light of what we, all of the Humanity, are experiencing today, the very scope of these omens and forecasts is seriously threatened. Nobody, absolutely nobody, could have foreseen the scale that the current global health crisis would have when we were celebrating Christmas and wishing each other the best for this year 2020.

Once we are able to put a forecasting exercise into perspective, in the sense that it proves ineffective in allowing us to envision what would come, it is difficult to take as a given any projections made, from present day and place, as to what the post-pandemic world will be like.

Indeed, we have no idea of the world awaiting us. Uncertainty reigns in all aspects of social life.

Andrés Cañizález

Based on the above remarks, below I propose three dimensions that, in my opinion, will be distinctive regarding the exercise of journalism in the aftermath of the pandemic.

In the first place, and without a doubt, specialized journalism takes on capital importance. In countries of the South, we have not had many outstanding go-to personalities or figures in scientific or health journalism.

Once the coronavirus has been controlled, there will be a pressing need to train journalists in scientific and health issues. In the specific context of Latin America, Asia, or Africa, this is urgent.

This very pandemic, that has just unleashed a silent yet ruthless war over which will be the first vaccine to reach the market, in a battle involving pharmaceutical companies and governments, challenges journalism to appropriately cover what is going on in its rightful perspective.

Just as we advocate for a journalism that is capable of challenging political or financial power, today the world needs journalists with the training necessary to challenge the healthcare power. This encompasses ministries of health of different countries, international organizations specialized in this field, and obviously the business world of healthcare

We need journalists trained in public health, epidemiology, infectious diseases, vaccination, and so on. Journalists are not meant to replace doctors and healthcare specialists; but they must have a modicum of preparation to ask the right questions and put into the right context statements from health authorities, healthcare staff, and those people indeed affected.

Just as we advocate for a journalism that is capable of challenging political or financial power, today the world needs journalists with the training necessary to challenge the healthcare power. This encompasses ministries of health of different countries, international organizations specialized in this field, and obviously the business world of healthcare.

There is also a pressing need for solutions-oriented journalism. This exercise of journalism of putting oneself in the shoes of citizens and providing them with practical information has become manifest, in the current context, as a matter of absolute essence.

Imagine the media, in a country where government data are no longer existent, providing information on drugstores in major cities, along with their phone numbers, where you can find practical advice for dealing with domestic issues, or simply provide information on psychological or legal counseling offered free of charge by universities as part of their community outreach.

It is nothing less than putting oneself at the service of citizens. In countries of the North, citizens can have direct access to plenty of information online; but in nations of the South, that are disconnected and fragmented, the idea of the mainstream media providing a public service gains importance. Therein lies one of the challenges that has always surrounded the exercise of journalism.

This brings me to one last dimension. Journalism in the aftermath of the pandemic, as well as that during the pandemic, must be humane. It seems a truism, but it is essential that the media and journalists understand that the center of their endeavor is the human being. People are on both ends of a news story: On one side, they are the source or the protagonist of what is being told; and, on the other, they are the public that reads, listens, or watches.

And in the middle of both is the journalist, another human being who has the privilege of connecting both ends of that line.

Excerpt:

By Andrés Cañizález
CARACAS, Apr 7 2020 (IPS)

All over the world, journalism is going through an era of uncertainty. It is not yet clear what the business model for the news field will be, and this is happening precisely at a time when information is a central issue in every person’s life.

The coronavirus pandemic has highlighted both dimensions. Citizens in preventive confinement consume much more news regarding the wide implications of COVID-19; but this, in turn, happens under a modality not necessarily lucrative for the news business. The scenario of a post-pandemic global recession is stirring fears in the news business field among many countries.

Citizens in preventive confinement consume much more news regarding the wide implications of COVID-19; but this, in turn, happens under a modality not necessarily lucrative for the news business

The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism published its report on the future and main trends expected in this field for 2020. This was released before the global spread of the coronavirus. However, the document is very relevant as it draws important lines on the future of journalism.

In this article, for reasons of space, the most significant aspects of the executive summary – just the tip of the iceberg – are included. For those interested in further detail, I recommend reading it in full here.

The study is based on surveys administered to executives in the journalistic world and leaders of digital projects in the media. A total 233 people in 32 countries were surveyed. The countries include the United States, Australia, Kenya, South Africa, Mexico, Argentina, and Japan.

Nevertheless, most respondents live in Europe: United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, France, Austria, Poland, Finland, Norway, and Denmark. It is very important not to lose sight of this fact, as it implies the viewpoints of people living in environments with no issues regarding connectivity, Internet speed, or access to smart phones. 

Below, a closer look at some interesting aspects:

Most media executives claim they are confident about the prospects of their companies; but they are much less certain about the future of journalism. This is usually the case in surveys: When people are asked if conditions in their country will get worse, to which they usually reply affirmatively, next thing they say – conversely – they expect an improved personal situation.

Andrés Cañizález

One of the significant issues about journalism resides in local news output. There are fears of loss of credibility impacting journalists and media in general; and this may be intensified by attacks on journalism from public officials. Furthermore, it may be the case that Donald Trump is turning into a role model of this form of attack for populist leaders of any ideological persuasion in their run for power.

Closely related to the above, 85% of the respondents agreed that the media should do more to fight fake news and half-truths, that is, addressing disinformation while keeping an eye on the fact that it can be encouraged or steered straight from the hubs of political power.

The global crisis generated by the coronavirus, leaving thousands of casualties behind, with no certainty about the effectiveness of the vaccines currently under evaluation, has been a hotbed for the spread of fake news. These not only increase in contexts of political tension, but also thanks to the uncertainty prevailing at this time.

How should journalism be funded? Media owners still rely heavily on subscription fees: Half of them assure it will be the main avenue of income. About a third of respondents (35%) think that advertising and income from readers will be equally important. This is a big change in the mindset of those running the media: Only 14% venture that they will manage to operate exclusively on advertising.

Without knowing exactly the global economic impact of coronavirus, news companies must brace themselves for the direct impact of a massive recession on the pockets of their readership base, as they, faced with the dilemma of paying for news or meeting basic needs, may end up choosing the latter.

On the other hand, there is much concern among publishers and media project leaders about the growing power of digital platforms providing social media to the public (Facebook, Twitter, Google). Although this concern is widespread, there is no consensus on what kinds of response should be given to this new power that has been consolidating.

It is feared that regulations approved by the legislative or executive branches of government will end up hurting instead of helping journalism (25% to 18% of respondents), although most consider that they will not make a noticeable difference (56%).

2020 will be the year of podcasts. Over half of respondents (53%) state that initiatives in this field will be important this year. Others point to text-to-voice conversion as a way of capitalizing on the growing popularity of these formats.

We are likely to see more moves from the media this year to customize digital covers and explore other forms of automatic recommendation. Over half of respondents (52%) state that such AI-supported initiatives will be very important; but small companies fear to lag behind. This is still practically a science fiction topic for readers in Southern Hemisphere countries.

Attracting and retaining talent is a major concern for media companies, especially for IT positions. Another concern relates to the way in which companies are taking action on gender diversity. In this area, 76% believe they are taking steps in the right direction.

However, although progress is being made on gender diversity within the news media, this is not the case for other forms of diversity – geographic (55%), political (48%), and racial (33%). There is remarkably less progress regarding decisions inside of news companies and, in some cases, these issues that are just not part of their agendas.

The outlook for the future of journalism, in general, is marked by questions rather than certainty. The world as it turns in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic may further trigger some of these questions, without any likely answers in the short term.

Excerpt:

"Censorship never again" . Credit: Gustavo Bezerra/Fotos Públicas

By Andrés Cañizález
CARACAS, Mar 18 2020 (IPS)

During his 1992 run, Bill Clinton, then elected US president, made “It’s the economy, stupid!” a household phrase. Coined by campaign advisor James Carville, it pointed out economic and health issues as part of the strategy resulting in the accession of this relatively obscure governor of Arkansas into the White House.

From time to time, this phrase experiences mutations. For this piece, it morphs once again to draw attention to disinformation, an invisible web of sorts wrapped around today’s societies, mostly in Western democracies, where free press has traditionally been one of the pillars of the political system.

Social media today are literally swamped with fake news, hard-to-check information. Everything colludes to make the citizen ill-informed. At a time when societies seem over-informed, they are indeed suffering from disinformation

Censorship and disinformation seem to go hand in hand with authoritarian regimes. China’s model is more geared towards a logic of strict control over what the population reads, sees, or hears; and technology has resulted a fine-mesh sieve for consolidating this model. The aim is to prevent the Chinese society from being informed, accessing information deemed sensitive or dangerous by the regime, that is to say, leaving citizens none the wiser.

Meanwhile, Russia has been developing its own disinformation scheme. More than censoring content, the objective is to flood the public with versions, most of which false, thereby encouraging confusion among citizens. This model seems to aim at shedding doubt on everything and taking nothing for certain.

On a visit to Caracas, Venezuela, American historian and journalist Anne Applebaum gave a clear example of how this Moscow-generated disinformation logic works. She looked into the case of Malaysia Airlines flight 370, with a presumed death toll of 239 passengers in 2014, in an interview for local news site Prodavinci: The information ecosystem was flooded with hundreds of theories, so that, ultimately, nobody would believe anything or knew whom to believe. The goal is to discredit them all. After these versions were circulated, the role of the Russian army in the death of the Malaysia Airlines passengers was just another idea floating on a tide of falsehoods: Objective accomplished.

Towards late 2019, two global organizations defending freedom of expression, with clear differences in emphasis and perspective, agreed to denounce disinformation as a serious threat to democracy in current times: Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontières, RSF), and Freedom House, with offices in Washington, D.C., and New York.

RSF, for its part, highlighted how 2019 closed with the fewest journalists killed in a decade and a half worldwide. Nevertheless, this does not equate to an improvement in global freedom of expression. For this organization, Russia’s president Vladimir Putin is one of freedom of expression ‘predators’, and Russian citizens are held hostage to this scheme turned Moscow’s newest worldwide export, disinformation. 

Andrés Cañizález

RSF 2019 World Press Freedom Index on Russia warns: “As TV channels continue to inundate viewers with propaganda, the climate has become very oppressive for those who question the new patriotic and neo-conservative discourse […]”.

Freedom House, meanwhile, noted in its 2019 Freedom on the Net worldwide report that governments around the world are increasingly tapping into social media to manipulate elections and monitor their citizens. This report shows how at least 40 of the 65 countries assessed have advanced social media surveillance software in place to that end.

Disinformation, a sort of good ol’ censorship at its upper stage, is a challenge reaching beyond groups of journalists and media outlets today. The world’s democratic governments can no longer stand idly by as this phenomenon spreads. And, in my opinion, this is not a question requiring a response from the bench or the Legislative.

Social media today are literally swamped with fake news, hard-to-check information. Everything colludes to make the citizen ill-informed. At a time when societies seem over-informed, they are indeed suffering from disinformation.

We are at a tipping point in the field of information. On the one hand, mainstream media – press, radio, and television – are experiencing a period of uncertainty, since a successful, long-term business model is still uncertain; and, on the other hand, citizens’ search for information on social media is gaining ground.

In this regard, democratic governments and concerned endowments must support independent journalism so that it gains self-reinvention capabilities, as free mass media are a guarantee for democratic living. Likewise, there is an urgent need to boost independent studies conducted by universities or NGOs on disinformation and fake news in order to produce documentary evidence of what is happening.

Finally, we must take up educating audiences to develop a critical eye. This would be a fundamental step when standing up to the challenges posed by this new ‘Disinformation, TMI Age’.

Andrés Cañizález, Venezuelan journalist and doctor of political science. Researcher at Andrés Bello Catholic University. According to Google Scholar statistics, he is the highest-impacting Venezuelan analyst on the web with his texts on freedom of expression and journalism. He has been founder of the first fact-checking media and fake news observatory in his country

Excerpt: