Summary
Highlights
Adriana Amado expresses her strong support for memes, considering them the 'quintessence' of this era. She highlights their role as a spontaneous, anonymous, and collective thermometer of societal sentiment, and even a source of information. Memes represent a shift from the monopolistic communication of the 20th century to a more participatory, collective, and diverse public conversation. Amado believes memes also show people are not taking themselves too seriously, suggesting society is more advanced than the 'enlightened elite' of communicators and politicians who remain on pedestals.
Amado never joined the campaign against 'fake news' and is working on a paper about the end of this cycle. She sees 'fake news' accusations as a defense mechanism by those losing their communication monopoly. Political figures like Rafael Correa and Hugo Chávez used the term to suppress dissent, which raised her suspicions. Amado argues that communication systems self-regulate, generating 'antibodies' against misinformation. Scientific data from a 23-country study revealed that 'fake news' is often limited to 'super-fanatic enclaves' and not as widespread or influential as portrayed. She criticizes 'fake news' claims for being used to explain electoral processes instead of addressing deeper societal issues, citing the cases of Bolsonaro and Trump.
Fact-checkers are declining largely due to changes in funding. Initially buoyed by European Union conditions for tech companies, they received more funding than news producers during the pandemic, creating an 'absurd' situation. Tech companies are now shifting funds from human fact-checkers to AI-driven verification systems, which are more agile and precise. Amado also criticizes fact-checkers for not building genuine audience support and depending on single funding sources. She notes that their role is becoming antiquated, as their selection of what to verify was often biased, and reliable public data is scarce in many countries, making verification difficult and prone to error. Fundamentally, she argues that verifying information after it has circulated only erodes public trust in all news.
Amado explains that people verify news directly relevant to their lives (like public transport updates) but abandon international or political news if it feels irrelevant. She observes that journalism has lost its focus on public service, unlike in some European countries where news is continually repeated and explained for casual viewers. She introduces the 'megaphone' metaphor, describing how traditional media continues to shout its importance, like an old-fashioned car with a megaphone, while people now get information from direct connections. She argues this is a 'mendicant' attempt to reclaim legitimacy that cannot be self-assigned, highlighting a crisis for journalism in an age where automated tools can perform many of their tasks, similar to how translators adapted to Google Translate.
Amado discusses the crisis of trust affecting not just journalists but also academics, politicians, and religious leaders. She notes that trust has shifted from authority figures to individuals with personal proximity, like CEOs or close acquaintances. This technological revolution allows for more widespread personal connections, which she deems subversive to traditional power structures. She rejects the idea that algorithms manipulate people, arguing that individuals are not 'stupid' and can discern information for themselves. Amado also critiques the 'echo chamber' theory, explaining that people are constantly exposed to diverse opinions, and the era of a single, universal news agenda is over.
Amado observes that politicians still aggressively target journalism, viewing it as an easy target. She argues that this short-sighted tactic doesn't build credibility for politicians. She critiques both politicians for being disconnected from their social base and journalists for engaging in political games instead of focusing on community-level services. She emphasizes that journalism needs to understand what its audience wants, citing a study showing journalists primarily use social media for self-promotion rather than listening to public needs, echoing the failure of traditional media to adapt to an audience-driven landscape.
Amado views polarization as a philosophical issue tied to a 'totalitarian' worldview, where any differing opinion is seen as an enemy. She argues that having two opinions is not polarization but democracy. The problem arises when there's an insistence on a single 'correct' reality or political viewpoint, leading to the disqualification of alternative perspectives (often labeled 'ultra-right' or 'ultra-left'). This stems from a deeper transformation moving away from the modern paradigm established in the 19th century, where institutions like media, democracy, and education were designed for a different society. She sees this as a fascinating and optimistic period, where societal changes (like evolving family structures) occur organically and often lead to greater freedom.
Amado agrees that a 'Pandora's Box' has been opened, where 19th-century models were massified in the 20th century and now allow millions to participate. She believes there's no going back, but highlights that while the general 'mass' is fractured, 'collectivities' thrive. She admires the phenomenon of YouTubers who serve specific communities, calling traditional media attempts to replicate this 'babbling' because they fail to deliver services beyond content. She emphasizes that successful online creators offer 'services' and foster public conversation, even if it leads to disagreements. She draws parallels between Taylor Swift's 'Swiftties' and Javier Milei's supporters as examples of successful collectives built around shared interests, distinct from traditional political parties.
Amado challenges the 'moral panic' surrounding screen time, contrasting it with the past fear of excessive TV viewing. She argues that measuring mobile phone usage by hours spent is misleading because mobiles are used for diverse, multi-functional activities (banking, communication, reading) unlike passive TV watching. She criticizes traditional media for almost always portraying mobile use negatively and for paternalistic campaigns urging people to put away their phones. She points out that digital connections can be liberating, allowing individuals to connect with wider communities beyond their immediate physical circles, a concept often misunderstood by those outside digital social spaces.
Amado discusses how the expectation for politicians to constantly communicate has made it a 'painful obligation,' consuming time that could be better spent on their actual work. She contrasts this with successful YouTubers who produce content thoughtfully, often just once a month, engaging with their audience to understand what they want. She criticizes the notion of needing '600 news items a day,' arguing that quality and relevance outweigh quantity. Amado believes people are learning to be more prudent about what they share online, moving past the initial urge to photograph everything. She also argues that the most successful Instagram accounts are those that use humor and self-deprecation, rather than presenting an overly perfect or fake life, countering traditional media's misinterpretation of online influencers.
Amado notes the lack of discussion around online pornography despite concerns about screen time, pointing to a need for deeper inquiry into adult online behavior and how it relates to fleeting relationships. She dismisses 'technofeudalism' accusations against figures like Elon Musk as 'fake news,' arguing they were exaggerated and lacked genuine influence. She views Musk's management of Twitter as a failure, reflecting Twitter's pre-existing struggles and limited user base compared to other platforms. Amado criticizes intellectuals for focusing on Twitter (a niche platform used by elites) when discussing social media, overlooking larger, faster-growing platforms like YouTube, which are harder to study due to data accessibility issues.
Amado believes AI has already 'arrived' and will exponentially accelerate changes. She sees it as a tool that forces individuals to ask 'what am I here for?' If a task, like reporting sports results, can be done more efficiently by AI, humans must focus on creativity and higher-level thinking. While AI can assist with idea generation and data processing, it cannot replicate human creativity or write what is 'not yet written.' She points out that journalists often underutilize data analysis tools, including AI, to understand their audience. Amado emphasizes that learning 'how to ask' will become more crucial than 'how to write,' as language remains fundamental, even in video content where scripts are essential. She expresses confidence in language's enduring power.
Amado deems Elon Musk 'overrated,' seeing him as an entrepreneur rather than a visionary. She considers 'agenda-setting theory' 'overrated' and outdated, arguing it's irrelevant in an age without a single mass audience or unified agenda. Manuel Castells is 'underrated' in her view, specifically his 2008 work 'Communication and Power,' which correctly identified platforms (protocols) as the true source of power, a key insight that is still often overlooked. She finds phone calls 'horrendous,' citing the time commitment involved and the efficiency of modern messaging. Comparing Argentina and Spain's communication environments, she notes Spain is more 'backward' in clinging to traditional media, while Argentina, having experienced earlier media fragmentation, is more adept at understanding and leveraging social networks, though Spanish journalism maintains a higher level of professionalism and organization.
Amado concludes with profound optimism, describing herself as an 'optimistic catastrophist.' She believes humanity is living in the best of times, comparing her life favorably to her mother's and grandmother's. She acknowledges ongoing conflicts but finds beauty in humanity's ability to communicate and circulate globally in new ways. She expresses deep trust in the public, contrasting it with those 'specialists' who criticize social media without having genuine engagement or understanding of its dynamics. She challenges critics to demonstrate the effectiveness of their theories on their own social media presence, highlighting that many academic critiques of social media phenomena are detached from reality and overlook the intelligence and adaptability of users.