Media then and now
According to my experience, the decades-old model of traditional media lived until the economic crisis of 2008. In this, a relatively small number of newspapers – later radio and TV – reported to the public, which mostly competed for public attention with their credibility, so the reporting of facts played an important role in their daily practice. Most of the time, the aim of the mediums was to generate a fair profit, the business operated as a segment of the service sector. This model also had consequences that cannot be overestimated: well-known editors and experts vouched for the authenticity of the content, so the dialogue was based on facts accepted in public (or other) discourses. Older people know: "the newspaper wrote" and "the radio announced" were very important authentication phrases in public speech.
The global crisis of 2008 and the overwhelming appearance of the Internet showed that the traditional economic model of the press does not work, that it is no longer possible to make money with the previous methods. In addition, the entry threshold has become very low: content created with a smartphone can easily reach millions. Another world has come, there is another world. The motivation for content production is no longer necessarily moneymaking and information, but in the best case self-expression, in the worst case political or economic manipulation, spreading disinformation or simply causing confusion. In addition, content made with often unknown motivations spreads lightning fast on social media, so the underlying intention can prevail undisturbed. The incomprehensible abundance of content also results in the scarcity of information: the creators' underlying motivations, which were not necessarily clear at first, led to the fact that, despite the abundance of information, important facts and trends remain hidden.
We don't have to look for examples to support all of this for a long time, we can see many illustrations on our screens every day. Let us recall one thing: Russia is one of the biggest actors in disinformation distribution for political purposes, with giga editorials producing fake news and narratives (Russia Today) and countless websites, and with the millions of real and fake profiles associated with them, they have already influenced the American presidential election, the Brexit vote, continuously they are trying to weaken the European Union, and then we didn't even talk about the war propaganda - which of course is characteristic of all parties.
Division, mistrust, tempers
The effects of the trends just outlined are particularly strong in Hungary. Due to deep political divisions, trust in the media is at a record low, even compared to Visegrad countries. (Of the 47 countries included in the 2024 report by the Reuters Institute, Greece and Hungary have the lowest media trust index: only 23 percent. The fact that the indicator even shows a downward trend in our country worsens the picture. Interestingly: the value of the index is 25 in Slovakia, 27 in Romania , 31 percent in France, 39 percent in Poland, and 43 percent in Germany.)
In other words, citizens who want to be informed usually trust media outlets that are close to their views and confirm them, but others do not. This means, among other things, that conversations and debates become impossible not only because of strong emotions and cultural and political differences, but also because there is simply no commonly accepted factual material for the interlocutors, who moreover do not recognize any objectivity or expertise, and deeply they distrust each other.
They offer narratives instead of facts - both in business and political communication. In other words, they tell stories that support important messages and stir emotions, and the shared news crumbs all support and reinforce the already well-known story over and over again.
The receiving community formed in this way has a strong explanation of the world, which is not free from emotions; the members of these real communities, but nowadays much more so in social media, have a deep trust in each other, and the voicers of the views they support are always rewarded. They know opposing views, possibly even facts, but they laugh at them, deny them, make them impossible, and often see them as proof of their own worldview, which they think is correct - that is, they evaluate views that differ from them as malicious misinformation, an attempt to silence their group. The specialized literature of social psychology calls this group of phenomena an echo chamber: what is inside is amplified and justifies itself, but there is no access from the outside. We can know all this up close and personal.
In this environment, the case of NGOs that shape and serve community needs, that want to build dialogue, and that envision a more open and humane Hungary, does not stand very well in the public eye.
Do we have a leeway?
The question cannot be avoided: what can we do as an individual or as an employee of an NGO with an important social mission in this environment? Can we do something? My short answer: yes.
The most important thing is to doubt. Let's search for the information that is important to us from several sources, let's find out actively, not just from the data set that comes in front of us. Fortunately, many programs and applications already help to show the true source of a news, picture, or video, meaning that the question of authenticity can be decided with a good chance.
As an organization, we must adapt to the environment, but constructively and self-identifyingly. It is possible to present the values and actions we hold dear by building positive narratives (stories supporting our mission and principles and affecting positive emotions). You can redraw the map: you don't have to draw the existing categories and divisions of others onto yourself; we can build new, inclusive and loving categories. One of the most beautiful recent examples of this is the Szivárványcsaládokért Foundation's “A család az család” campaign, in which there are neither traditional ("normal") nor traditional ("abnormal") families, but only families in which there is love.
All of this is not easy, nor is it quick, but it is possible, and civil organizations cannot avoid the contemporary task either.
Author/Source: Iván Bardócz