In August 2017, a publication in the newspaper 14 y Medio [1] reported a fight between communists caused by a “disrespectful sign” calling for a cleanup of Havana’s seafront. According to the newspaper, a group of party leaders had ordered the sign to be removed.
But the original idea for that canceled event had been mine, and I experienced the unfolding of those events as closely as anyone. It was the first time I’d encountered fake news , and I was also the implicit subject of it.
Advertisements
Poster calling for the aforementioned cleanup day, in August 2017.
Source: 14 y medio
This is one of many cases published about and from a country where freedom of expression is, de facto, absent.
Freedom of expression is a human right (declared as such and legitimized by most nations) associated with thought, opinions, and ideas. Although it is formally declared in Cuba, partisan media outlets do not contain texts that reflect expressions contrary to certain positions of the party, or those of the government, or against the party itself. Therefore, restrictions on the exercise of the press restrict freedom of expression.
This lack of space has, over time, generated a range of media outlets, ranging from what might be considered left-leaning to right-leaning, in which some of this limited freedom of expression is exercised. In this context, fake news , manipulation, and other forms of distorting reality come into play. In the name of freedom of expression, lies are told.
Added to this is the fact that partisan media outlets frequently use similar techniques. (It’s pointless here to compare which media outlets engage in these practices the most.)
As a result, readers, including editors, are forced to receive material that misinforms and manipulates them. This, when reinforced and prolonged, redirects the social pact, especially considering that the media have a clear political and social function, as they are a network of interacting powers [2] .
The crime of attacking the truth
As a companion to freedom of expression, Western legal discourse introduces the right to truthful information [3] , something like the other side of the coin. Like the right to freedom of expression, this is inherent to states governed by the rule of law.
The right to truthful information is the right of citizens to receive information with that quality. This term is distinguished from truth, because the use of the latter refers to a single, unquestionable, almost enlightened variant. However, the development of science itself has demonstrated the coexistence of numerous non-exclusive truths, and others that are, always depending on the referential frameworks. Factual reality may be one, but the multiplicity of interpretations and nuances cannot. Hence the distinction between the terms.
Likewise, truthful does not have to mean being exactly true, but in many cases, it refers to the attitude of the sender of the information, the (positive) attitude towards the truth [4] . Then, truthfulness comes to be given by the seriousness of methods and sources consulted, of those available, by whoever publishes in a medium. These sources and methods must be susceptible to verification, that is, truthfulness lies in the compliance with ethical standards and procedures [5] by the sender, in his seriousness and professionalism.
It is important to distinguish between freedom of expression and the right to information. Freedom of expression is associated with thought, ideas, and subjectivity; and the right to information is associated with facts and news, always taking into account their close interrelationship [6] .
The right to information, when present, ultimately acts as a determining factor that limits freedom of expression, preventing it from becoming an aberration or an enemy of justice. This would serve the citizen’s right to information. To ensure that freedom of expression is not equivalent to the right to lie, and that communication is not simply a free-for-all to achieve the goal of a power struggle, and to prevent citizens from being harmed in their consumption of information, this right to information is essential.
The declared Cuban rule of law condemns media outlets it does not control, sometimes using the argument that they lack truth. Instead of employing a method of managing the press and its policy based on state rights, it should instead advocate for the right to truthful information, a rule that would limit the bad habits of the Cuban press when it acts as an unconditional spearhead of political ideologies anchored in fundamentalisms. Under these conditions, freedom of expression would not be seen as a liberal slogan , but as a social necessity, the results of which would always be inclined toward the common good, as it is built and exercised on a citizen’s right. We would avoid so much misinformation in the name of political imperatives. We would have a society closer to the cult of values and honesty.