The experts, against the government's 'anti-bully monopoly': "It would be like going back to NO-DO"

• CIS Barometer. Tezanos defends its survey
• Breaking news - all information about the coronavirus

José Félix Tezanos does not rest. In the midst of the alarm state, in which the coronavirus is expanding at the same speed as the hoaxes by WhatsApp and social networks -as much as the WHO is already talking about an infodemic-, on Tuesday it published a new CIS barometer. And, immediately, it became a focus of controversy that this time has alarmed (and greatly alarmed) freedom of information advocates.

One of the questions from the public body unleashed the storm: the one that raised the option of a government anti-bully monopoly that would restrict freedom of information. "It is a pernicious idea," says Alfonso Armada , president of the Spanish Section of Reporters Without Borders.

Beyond the content of the question itself, it is your own wording that first raises strong criticism: «Do you think that at the moment, the dissemination of false and misleading hoaxes and information by the networks and the media should be prohibited social, referring all information about the pandemic to official sources , or do you think that total freedom must be maintained for the dissemination of news and information? "asked the CIS.

For all the experts consulted it is, at best, "confusing". The Madrid Press Association (APM) branded it yesterday as a "sounding balloon" and assured that it is not only a "misleading" question, but also "implies the answer, since the majority of citizens are against the hoaxes ».

Appealing to trust government sources is innocent or even ... worse

Faced with this barrage of criticism, the CIS president himself did not fade. In Onda Cero's More than One program , he acknowledged that he had overseen all the questions in the coronavirus survey and "advocated an official source that would distribute information" about the pandemic.

For Ramón Salaverria , professor of journalism at the University of Navarra and advisor to the International Association of Verifiers, the very formulation of the question in its content "seems unconstitutional" because it raises something that violates "article 20 of the Constitution", which includes the right to information of citizens. And he adds: "From that point of view, the Penal Code already monitors situations when someone exceeds the informative issue."

The aforementioned article 20 recognizes the right to "freely express and disseminate thoughts, ideas and opinions by word, writing or any other means of reproduction." It also establishes that the exercise of these rights "cannot be restricted through any type of prior censorship."

Equally forceful is Manuel Villoria , professor of Political Science and member of the Steering Committee of Transparency International, regarding this possible interventionist role of the Government. "It would be like going back to NO-DO," said the expert, referring to the famous news reports of the Franco regime.

Faced with the scourge of the infodemic - the plague of misleading information about the coronavirus - Villoria is in favor of regulating measures against fake news and putting a stop to the proliferation of hoaxes. But, he clarifies, always within the constitutional framework and with strict judicial control. "A posteriori, never a priori," he stresses.

This expert considers that if this mission falls to "prosecutors and police" it could have "dangerous effects on the rule of law" . It is a clear reference to the opening of proceedings by the State Attorney General's Office to investigate a possible crime of insults and threats to high-level State institutions and criminal organization, motivated by dissemination through social networks, and also by instant messaging. , with allegedly false information, after a complaint filed by Unidas Podemos .

Government control of information generates much more hoaxes than free and plural information

To all this is added the controversial statements of the Interior Minister, Fernando Grande-Marlaska , this weekend. In them he confirmed that the Government is monitoring social networks not only on the hunt for "criminal speeches", but also "dangerous", a label so ambiguous that it encompasses content of all kinds, and was also willing to fight "disinformation campaigns » .

Villoria not only talks about mechanisms: it is also important to him when they are put into the political debate they come into force. In his opinion, these types of measures require a context with full guarantee of rights and he does not consider that a state of alarm is the right moment to even consider restrictions on freedom of expression.

For his part, Alfonso Armada, a veteran journalist at the Abc newspaper , is also critical and launches the following reflection by telephone: «Appealing to trust government sources is innocent or even ... something worse. You have to always question the information, check it, also when it is provided by a government.

From the APM, they consider that experience is key in these types of debates: "Government control of information generates much more rumors and hoaxes than free and plural information."

The best antidote to hoaxes is simple: good journalism.

Who judges those he judges?

Facebook has 23 million users in Spain. To combat the 'infodemic', the social network signed Newtral, a project led by Ana Pastor, and Maldita.es, an independent data verification website last year. The AFP agency also works as a verifier for Facebook. The mission of these three companies, as reported by the Mark Zuckerberg network, is to "review and assess the accuracy of content on Facebook published in Spanish." The debate that has arisen in recent days is who determines whether these controllers execute their function impartially in a social network so powerful that, for many Spaniards, it is a kind of kiosk with tens of thousands of news a day. The difficulty is increased by taking on the task of actors as diverse as a media and producer (Newtral), a non-profit foundation (Maldita) and an international agency that is also owned by the French State (AFP). "The issue is not who controls the controllers but what protocols are followed, these are backed by reports and reference sources," says Ramón Salaverria, advisor to the International Fact Checking Network for companies in Spanish, an institution that gives them the seal of credibility. . «A deontological code governs the criteria of diversity of information. For example, it is necessary to verify in a minimum period of three months that different ideological spectra are verified, that they are linked to credible sources, that they must allow the correction of those verified, etc ». This control, he confirms, is done annually.

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

• José Félix Tezanos
• media
• Journalism
• Coronavirus
• Covid 19

MediaThe Community of Madrid reprimands the Director of Communication of Telemadrid after commenting on the saucepan to King Felipe VI

PoliticsThe PP accuses the Government of "predisposing the Spanish in favor of gagging the media"

This is how a newspaper is made in times of coronavirus: "This crisis will not stop THE WORLD"