Last December, Elon Musk shone as the highlight of Rome’s Atreju Festival, a yearly event organized by the Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s political party, Brothers of Italy. Its name comes from the lead character in a fantasy novel The Never-ending Story, set in the Kingdom of Fantasia. It involves a creature named the Nothing intending to erase the realm by progressively consuming large sectors of this fictitious territory. Musk seemed to fit right into the ambiance of escapism.
He claimed to the spectators that within three generations, the global population would reduce to a mere tenth of its current number. Despite projections suggesting the global population would increase to around 10 billion, he insisted that the birth rate had dropped to approximately half of the replacement rate, contradicting reality where it’s slightly higher. As if that weren’t enough, he also posed the comment that farming and cows do not significantly affect the ecological balance. Musk confidently stated this as an absolute fact, despite evidence proving that bovines contribute to about 15% of the planet’s harmful methane gas emissions.
Even though Musk heads one of the world’s biggest information sources, his disregard for factual accuracy is concerning. He has an audience of over 190 million followers on X, a social media platform that he acquired when it was still known as Twitter. Recently, Musk caused an uproar as he shared a doctored video of Kamala Harris’s US election campaign video featuring a misleading voiceover. The dubbed voiceover stated, “I was selected because I am the ultimate diversity hire,” resulting in the video being viewed over 128 million times. This move led to allegations that Musk has flouted the rules of his own firm, which discourages the circulation of media that’s synthetic, tampered with, or taken out of context that could mislead or cause damage to the public. It raises serious questions – how can we trust this man with the truth?
The role of media proprietors is essential. The communications committee at Westminster acknowledged this fact in their report on future investigative journalism, asserting that a proprietor’s influence over the news organisational culture can be profound. It’s common practice for affluent individuals to purchase newspapers to manipulate political policies, increase their prestige, attain leverage, promote themselves, or simply to get even with corporate competitors. However, not all of these individuals would pass the fit-and-proper-person exam. A striking example is Robert Maxwell, who bought Mirror Group Newspapers for £113 million in 1984. He turned out to be a litigious conman, a suspected spy, and a thief of his employees’ pensions.
Possession of a media beacon can be the backbone of an individual’s vanity who desires public intellectual recognition. Musk demonstrated this during his fruitless parody of an “interview” with Donald Trump on X, highlighting the magnetic pull to shape the news narrative.
A disturbing excerpt from the recent High Court inspectors’ report on the debatable governance at Independent News & Media (INM) reveals what ex-CEO, Robert Pitt, told the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) at a meeting on November 18th, 2016. As per the ODCE’s note of the meeting, Pitt talked about reducing company costs, and the potential renegotiation of the Editor-in-Chief’s (Stephen Rae) terms came up. However, chairman Leslie Buckley was wary lest the editor decide to publicise previous instances of editorial interference. INM has formally stated that no INM title experienced any editorial interference by Mr O’Brien.
In today’s world where truth is constantly under siege and misinformation regularly used as a tool to dismantle democracy, maintaining ethical standards right from the top is paramount.
Prior to being acquired by Mediahuis, Denis O’Brien, a frequent plaintiff in defamation cases, was the largest shareholder of INM. This took place before the company’s last meeting. The immediate focus of the Cabinet coordinated by Simon Harris should be the implementation of a fitness and probity test, aimed at curbing the slew of false narratives, hate speech, and instigation on internet platforms worth billions of euros. An indication from the Prime Minister expresses readiness to enforce compliance with the same legal criterions as traditional publishing houses, a move that is long overdue – a welcome move, yet insufficient.
In Ireland, the financial regulatory framework mandates the beneficiaries, owners and managers of charitable organisations and financial services companies to meet a fitness and probity test. According to the Central Bank, this implies individuals should exhibit attributes such as ‘honesty, integrity and fairness’. In the financial domains, handling colossal amounts of cash, the necessity for such a test is self-explanatory. However, the absence of a comparable benchmark for media ownership demands explanation. In an era where truth is continuously assaulted and misinformation poses a threat to democracy, ethical behaviour is crucial from the top tier down.
Merely being wealthy enough to purchase a media outlet should not be the only stipulation for ownership. Facts are too delicate to be left to negligent management. Even in the existence of a regulatory body dictating ownership norms, they are not always upheld. An instance being the proclamation by Westminster’s culture, media and sports committee that Rupert Murdoch, owner of News of the World and Fox News, was “unfit for the administration of a large international company”, post examination by the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom in the aftermath of the phone-hacking scandal.
Given Ireland’s major role as a monetary contributor to tech corporations, it is obligated more than most nations, to put stringent restrictions on the rampant tech wilderness. If the Government opts for minimalistic solutions or inactions, the potential harm to the nation’s prestige could be insurmountable. Moreover, the rapidly escalating extremity necessitates immediate implementation of effective statutory shields for the preservation of facts, as further delay might prove detrimental.
Rephrasing the original text to British English, let’s consider this. It’s essential that the Harris administration makes three urgent measures. Firstly, an appropriateness test for those owning social media platforms. Secondly, placing social media firms under the category of publishers, thereby binding them with the same legal obligations. Thirdly, an outright prohibition on anonymous social media profiles. One might recall the words of Kamala Harris to Trump, “If you have something to express, do so openly.” It would seem contradictory for a government that is set on prohibiting disguises at public demonstrations, to also bear with keyboard activists who hide their true identity under false names.
And as for battling one of the greatest threats to our civilisation – the attack on truth, Harris and his government would do well to embrace a long-cherished journalistic principle. Journalism students are guided from the start that pure objectivity is elusive. However, this does not negate the constant pursuit of it. This is a maxim that the Harris administration should contemplate whilst addressing the issue.