Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff has been grappling with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe for more than twelve years. Below is her report from this year’s supplementary meeting in Vienna.
First, the videos of her interventions. Many thanks to Vlad Tepes and RAIR Foundation for uploading these videos.
Intervention Day 1:
Intervention Day 2:
Debunking the Prebunkers
by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is to this day the only international organization permitting the input of civil society in its meetings in the human dimension (human rights) realm, which are organized by ODIHR (pronounced “oh dear”), Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. The main conference, the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, takes place in early fall in Warsaw, while the three supplementary meetings take place in Vienna. The second OSCE Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting, which addresses a topic chosen by the current Maltese chairmanship — pardon me, in 2024, it’s “chairpersonship” — focused on the urgent need for media literacy to foster democracy.
In original OSCE lingo:
The second Supplementary Human Dimension meeting will focus on […] the interlinkages between media literacy and democracy. It will provide a forum to explore challenges and opportunities in today’s online information environment and their impact on democratic participation, discussing the role of media freedom and information literacy in promoting active citizenry and social resilience, especially in an important election year like 2024.
Session I explored the role the media plays in strengthening social resilience amidst technological advances. The annotated agenda noted the need for the “fostering of data-based journalism that provides a counterbalance to misinformation […]. New fact-checking initiatives have been established with the aim to provide well-researched facts instead of false information.” One of the so-called introducers to the session was a young woman from Correctiv, yes, the “fact-checkers” that broke the sensational story of an innocuous meeting of like-minded people to discuss the future of Germany, a meeting that was likely infiltrated, either in person or with listening devices or both. Correctiv reiterated the urgent (!) need for fact-checkers, especially in light of the right-wing actions “we are currently witnessing.” Another introducer discussed “good” and “bad” info, as well as the “challenges” associated with this type of information.
In my first intervention I focused on the question of who decides what is good or bad information, who decides what a “false narrative” is, and whether “challenges” aren’t just “contradictory views” that are not pleasing to the Powers That Be. In addition, I asked how we, the citizenry, can form an opinion if we cannot access information or an alternate view if media outlets such as Russia Today are banned in the European Union. Furthermore, I addressed the Representative of the Freedom of the Media, who in her speech spoke about the necessity of protecting freedom of speech. I said: “However, the concern is more that the media reports something that goes against the prevailing narrative and that is immediately subjected to labeling, such as conspiracy theory or misinformation.” I quoted Elle Purnell, assistant editor at The Federalist: “Misinformation is the perversion of information; information doesn’t have a moral component.” I then turned to Correctiv: “It is the perfect example of government outsourcing censorship efforts to evade finger-pointing and accusations of censorship. How do I know that Correctiv is doing the dirty work of the German government? Because in the presentation, there was a reference to Correctiv sponsors, one of whom is the German ministry of culture.” I also told Correctiv that it is not the job of so-called “fact-checkers” to decide whether the opinions and assessments of other journalists, or anyone else, are correct.
For the entire intervention, click here.
Having skipped Session II, which “provide[d] a focused discussion on the role of media literacy in the context of elections” due to meetings, I returned to Session III, which “explore[d] the nexus between media freedom and media literacy and their positive contribution to wider democratic processes and security.”
So, now it’s all about “media literacy” and “prebunking”. The former term sounds familiar, but the latter is wholly novel in my world. In an age of rampant “information disorder”[1] with its fill-in-the-blank (mis/dis/mal) information,[2] the antidote is not seeking the truth by allowing more speech and more ideas, but to prebunk before we debunk. And, of course, more than ever, we need media pluralism, according to the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. How there is media pluralism in the OSCE region when alternative media such as Russia Today are banned, she and others did not elaborate on.
The introducers noted that media literacy is a crucial skill in the 21st century as it enables democracy and security and urged the rebuilding of trust in the media. Thus, definitions are now called for:
Media Freedom Literacy: “The knowledge and skills that enable citizens to appreciate the democratic functions of the media, both online and offline. This includes understanding the significance of a pluralistic, well-functioning media landscape serving the public interest, along with the ability to critically evaluate and ethically produce media content.” (OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media)
Prebunking: “The approach to educate people preventively (sic!) about the mechanisms of disinformation is called Prebunking. While debunking involves correcting specific false reports after they have spread, prebunking has a preventive effect. This provides an opportunity to proactively combat misinformation before it spreads. By providing information and analytical tools, resilience to misleading content is strengthened. (Prebunking — protection against disinformation (klicksafe.de) [3])
Perhaps I am ignorant and/or naive, but prebunking to my simple mind appears to be another word for pre-censorship, that is, censoring an idea or a thought before it even has a chance in the marketplace of ideas. How does that square with the OSCE’s noble idea of “promoting and fostering freedom of expression”? I argue that it doesn’t, and this is surely intentional.
