Jamie Oliver and the Fight Against Disinformation

Hybrid attacks, disinformation and foreign interference in democratic processes have become a constant of contemporary politics. At the recent meeting of the European Political Community in Copenhagen, Romanian President Klaus Iohannis said that the presidential election in Romania in December had been the target of “aggressive hybrid Russian attacks,” including the spread of disinformation, pro-Russian content on social media, cyberattacks and coordinated manipulation. According to him, these attacks were extensive, complex and coordinated—the work of a state, not of individuals.

A similar scenario recently unfolded in the Czech Republic, where the intelligence services exposed a network of Russian influence that used web portals, fake accounts and internal channels to spread pro-Russian messages and discredit pro-Western politicians. Part of this network was the portal Voice of Europe, registered in Prague and financed from Russian sources, which published pro-Russian content and supported Eurosceptic and radical parties. The portal is known here too—it liked to publish contributions and interviews by some Slovenian politicians from the right-hand edge of the political spectrum.

The fight against hybrid attacks and disinformation has therefore become one of Europe’s most important security priorities. If we cannot protect our own information space, all the investment in drones, guns and tanks will be in vain.

How much attention Russia devotes to Slovenia in its hybrid war is hard to assess. On the one hand, the statements and positions of some prominent individuals suggest quite a lot; on the other, there is so far no hard evidence. There is, of course, also the possibility—however small—that Putin really did send agents to Slovenia only because he was interested in our art market.

Be that as it may, everyone is busy fighting disinformation, but so far no one has found a truly effective way. The reason is simple: a successful fight against hybrid attacks requires a whole range of activities carried out simultaneously. What this means can be illustrated by Jamie Oliver’s attempts to improve children’s food in school canteens. The analogy is not perfect, but it is instructive.

Oliver tried twice—first in Britain, then in the US. Both times we got highly watchable television programs, but almost no long-term effects. Children in British and American schools still eat junk. Just as there is more and more junk in the European information space too, despite all efforts.

In the first phase of his project, Oliver simply stopped the supply of bad food in the schools taking part. Here he had a much easier job than those fighting disinformation. The right to hamburgers and frozen pizza is not protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, unlike the right to freedom of expression, which also covers content that is offensive, disturbing or untrue. So lies and insults cannot simply be banned. The initiative for a new convention within the Council of Europe is limited to the criminal prosecution of the most serious forms of foreign interference in democratic processes, and even that will have to respect the limits on interference with freedom of expression set by the European Convention on Human Rights. A functioning democracy needs a high threshold of freedom of expression. Ill-considered attempts to restrict it, even with the best of intentions, can be dangerous—and often come back like a boomerang. Authoritarian populists know how to turn the “fight against hate speech” quickly into a weapon against any opinion they don’t like.

In the second phase, too, Oliver was in a better position—he could easily replace bad food with radishes and free-range chickens. In the information space this is much harder. Traditional media that produce quality content while respecting professional standards are in a difficult position. If we want quality content to replace trans fats in the information ecosystem, immediate and large-scale investment in support of credible media is needed. A sustainable economic model must be created, and at the same time answers must be found to the challenges brought by the development of artificial intelligence. Paradoxically, it is AI platforms that will, in the long run, depend on quality journalism—without it they will become a cesspool of unreliable content. Junk in, junk out. Perhaps it would make sense to consider making platforms pay for the use of journalistic content, with the money collected used to create conditions for the survival of quality journalism and a better information ecosystem. Such a proposal was recently published by the Forum on Information and Democracy, which operates within the framework of Reporters Without Borders.

But even if we managed to establish broad access to quality and credible information, we would find ourselves where Jamie Oliver failed miserably. “Kids today know more about the Kardashians than about vegetables.” What good is serving carrots and salad in the canteen if the pupils don’t eat them and go to McDonald’s after school instead? Re-establishing a quality information space is necessary but not sufficient. Many, despite access to verified information, will continue to reach for content they pick up on social media. Some perhaps because they can’t tell a tomato from a hot dog or don’t understand why pesticides in food are harmful to their health.

To tell the truth, I think that for now anyone who is at least moderately literate and intelligent can still check in a few seconds and with a few clicks whether something is fact or disinformation. If they want to. Most of the time it is enough to watch out for emotional manipulation, bizarre and unverifiable sources, exclamation marks, or posts shared by Branko Grims. It is true, though, that technology is developing fast and checking will become ever harder, and even Mr. Grims may have a moment of inattention, so it is important to invest in fact-checking and media literacy.

But an even harder problem is those who consciously seek out and spread disinformation because it suits their political or emotional needs. In such cases even the most credible facts are doomed to failure. If we respond merely by moralizing about their “illiteracy,” we will only achieve more anger and an even firmer belief in lies. That is grist to the mill of those who use disinformation to undermine democracy.

So what is left to us? As Jamie said bitterly after his failure, “I’ve tried everything I can. If people still want to feed their kids crap, what am I supposed to do?”

A situation in which more and more people are frustrated, angry and frightened, and in which many seek comfort and a sense of belonging in disinformation, did not arise overnight—so the solution will not be quick either. But that is no reason for passivity. The road to change leads through substantially greater investment in education, knowledge, civic education, media literacy, critical thinking and—not least—a critical understanding of history, since history often serves as raw material for manipulation.

Culture is also extremely important. Disinformers work with stories and emotions; the answer cannot be moralizing, but creating an environment in which culture and art can function as a space for commentary, criticism and creativity—without which there is no functioning and successful democracy.

In the end, what will be decisive is whether we can recognize and find effective answers to the reasons why more and more people feel injustice and neglect and therefore seek comfort in lies and hatred. People’s confidence in the future must be restored. Without it there will be no trust in information, in facts—and ultimately not in democracy either. And confidence in the future is built on better solutions to very concrete social and economic questions: education, employment, health care, the environment, security.

If democracies cannot understand this and address it more effectively, their future is very uncertain. As the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Filipino journalist Maria Ressa, said, “when a society no longer agrees on facts, it is the end of democracy.” And that is a fact.