By "post-truth", or post-truth, we mean that condition "relating to circumstances in which the objective facts are less influential, in forming public opinion, of recourse to emotions and personal beliefs" (Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective is less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief).
This, at least, the definition that, of it, provided the Oxford Dictionary (the famous dictionary historical of the English language ancient and modern published by the publishing house Oxford University Press), electing, in 2016, the term in question "word of the year", due to the growing use of it, especially in the media world, during the campaigns for the American presidential elections of 2016 and for the referendum (of that same year) on the permanence of the United Kingdom in the European Union.
False news, therefore, maliciously artefacts or invented, to try (often succeeding) to create non-existent reality, to be able to alter the thinking of public opinion, directing it towards a certain "feeling, based on the belly" and not on the analysis of objective data and verifiable from qualified sources.
How can we forget, for example, the slogan repeated to infinity (and, after the vote, promptly denied by its own proponents), just during the campaign for the British referendum last June from the front of the "Leave" (favorable to the exit from the EU), according to which "Brexit will allow Britain to save three hundred and fifty million pounds a week currently spent on contributions to the European Union and invest them in national public health"Or that, used by the current number one of the White House, Donald Trump, during the last presidential campaign, according to which"Barack Obama was not born in the United States and is Muslim", asking for a long time to see his birth certificate and contributing, in doing so, to spread the idea that, the latter, was born in Kenya (instead of Hawaii, one of the fifty US states): fact that, if true, it would not have been of little importance, since it would have made it ineligible (according to US law the president must be, in fact, born in the United States).
Or, to report one of the last "fake news" in chronological order, the one according to which, always the US, would have been ready to put in "permanent alert" the nuclear bombers B-52, in the North Korean crisis (news promptly denied by the spokesman of the US Air Force).
Or, again, to come to our country, the one circulated on social networks, in the aftermath of the tragic earthquake that, recently, hit the center-Italy (and repeated, substantially, even in those others that, unfortunately, have followed in recent months), according to which "The Italian government has announced that the recent earthquake in Central Italy has been 6 degrees, rather than higher as reported by foreign media, not to have to pay the reconstruction that takes from 6,1 degrees up".
In reality, the phenomenon in question is not new at all, since, as also observed by the Accademia della Crusca, the discrediting of the adversary with false news has always been (widely) a tool widely used in the political campaigns, and the same regime propaganda, from a certain point of view, can be considered one post-truth.
Since ancient times, on the other hand, there are numerous examples, even outside of politics, in which emotionality and personal convictions have come to overwhelm the objective data: from Aristotle, to Plato, to Thucydides, all ancient thought has denounced the risks resulting from false information and their ability to influence people's opinion.
And the same policy, after all, has always been considered more as a "domain" of emotions, civic passions and values, than narration of truth.
What, however, today, acts as game changer it is the speed through which every news, true or, for what interests us, false, spreads, and the fact that this happens everywhere, thanks to the media tools offered by modern technology (television, but above all internet, to name among the most important).
We can well understand the effects on the mass, little accustomed to the control of the reliability of a news, however exaggerated or strange it may appear, or of the sources from which it comes; just as the consequences are imaginable, especially when the "fake news" concerns issues that are able to involve the audience's emotions in a rather intense and intense manner, thus triggering passions which, at times, could become difficult to manage.
This is well known by the various governments, especially those who, in various capacities, have experienced, in recent times, particular events linked to their democratic life and in which these "storms of news" have played an important role, often invented or, at best, artfully inflated (in addition to the above examples, many others could be cited).
To the point that, now, the intelligence apparatus, especially Western, do not hesitate to define everything as "information warfare", looking for the corresponding countermeasures.
So, while on the first of November the US Congress will listen to the "general counselor" of Facebook (one of the main accused, having apparently allowed the spread of false news and commercials designed to pollute the American debate), Google and Twitter on the role of the respective technological platforms in the Russian interference during the already mentioned presidential elections of the 2016, also NATO began a counter-offensive, first of all "informative", gathering, last Friday, in the important setting of the Nato Defense College, in Rome, some of the most prominent figures in subject matter (Postmedia's International Affairs columnist Matthew Fisher, journalist and visiting professor in War studies at King's College London, Nik Gowing, the director of the British Conflict Studies Research Center, Keir Giles, journalist and television author Peter Pomerantsev, and the deputy assistant of the secretary general of Nato for Emerging security challenges, Jamie Shea) with the aim of analyzing the state of the art and increasing, thanks also to the contributions of the highly qualified audience (members of the Armed Forces of various nationalities, former students of the College and military and political analysts, (in primis)), the spectrum of actionable countermeasures.
It is no coincidence that the theme of the meeting which, due to its importance, was introduced by the precious intervention of the commander of the renowned College, Chris Whitecross, general of the Canadian Air Force, had the title of "Born and Information warfare in the post-truth era", To signify the strategic centrality of this new (old) scenario of real war that now characterizes our era.
The state of the art
That the classical war had been supplanted, today, from the asymmetrical one is a well known fact, for the professionals of the trade: for sure, this emerging type of "information war" has accentuated this feature, making it, in reality much more subtle This is, in truth, a hybrid war, conducted below the officially declared war threshold but, in power, equally destructive. It can be carried out by anyone against anyone, at any time and from anywhere, making it even more difficult for States to protect their citizens.
These are some of the key points emerging from the conference in question, together with several others, including:
a) to resort to it are, in particular, China, North Korea, Iran and Russia, which already have a real "army" specialized in cyber-warfare, used on various social media as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. Among them, the most active actor is definitely Moscow, which has made Information warfare one of the privileged fields of its international strategy, using the Internet just like game changer in conflicts, and thus placing the West back a few years. Through this instrument, Putin's nation would be trying to hit Western society, not only in its customs, but also at the political level: evident cases such as the Ukrainian or the Catalan one, with the support "to independence movements and secessionist movements, that can help weaken Western countries. At the same time, on the social media mentioned above, other users are ready to attack and contest any "anti-Russian" content, while the Moscow-related broadcasts repeat incessantly positive messages about Russia and its undisputed leader, Vladimir Putin;
b) the difference between the West and Russia would no longer be of an economic nature: although the Nato countries spend a lot more for their defense than Russia, the methods linked to the hybrid war (traditionally used by those who intend to fill the strategic inferiority that they would have on traditional fields) reduce by far the gap budget (on the other hand, as has been pointed out, in the information warfare there are no costs for fuel, ammunition and logistics), with effects very similar.
The possible countermeasures of NATO
As Commander Whitecross pointed out, misinformation can have a devastating impact on the effectiveness of NATO, and this is why the Alliance has been looking for countermeasures to be implemented in the hybrid war for some time: among them, the one that is trivial emerges at first sight, but not always easy to implement at a practical level, the sharing of information between the coalition states' intelligence apparatus, in addition to an increase in research and analysis efforts. With this in mind, an important step forward was made with the creation, in Helsinki, of NATO itself, in partnership with the European Union, of an "ad hoc" Center of Excellence (Hybrid CoE), for the contrast to hybrid threats, with the aim of increasing the resilience to this type of attacks and making them less profitable - and therefore less desirable - for their supporters (as mentioned, Russians in the lead).
The European Union
In addition to the creation of the Center of Excellence stationed in the Finnish capital, aforementioned, the EU, which of the contrast to fake news It has made it one of its cornerstones, has placed the issue in question under the magnifying glass also from the point of view of a possible legislative intervention: but, in reality, at least at the time, this would seem to constitute only thelast resort in the intentions of the neocommissary to digital, Mariya Gabriel (who, precisely among the tasks assigned to her by the President of the EU Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, in the letter of assignment also has the contrast to this new threat), which would seem to aim more at a sort of self-regulation by the various platforms existing in the world of the network (especially with regard to the post-racism or hate speech), under which a proper "duty of care" should begin.
To think of a regulatory intervention by the States, in fact, raises some perplexities, from a European perspective, since we would clash on a land where, to be at stake, important values such as freedom of press would be called into question, with consequent profiles of presumed unconstitutionality, on the basis of what, moreover, would already be happening in some countries of the old continent (for example, in Germany).
"It is very important for me to identify the best practices and a coordination mechanism, to understand what we can do as a European Union, what is our added value in the fight against fake news", said the European Commissioner, according to whom"If we do not, these erroneous examples will simply multiply, which is why it is really important to ensure this kind of coherence at European level".
Italy
On the Italian side, a bill against the fake news was presented in the Senate at the end of last February, but since then it is still under discussion: it contains a series of provisions to prevent the manipulation of information online and guarantee transparency on the web with related sanctions: a) up to five thousand euros for who publishes or disseminates through social media or online journalism sites, false and tendentious news, concerning unfounded events.
More severe penalties would be expected if public alarm were raised with the fake news published (Article 265-bis of the Criminal Code: imprisonment of not less than twelve months and a fine of up to five thousand euros), while, for those who published or disseminated "hoaxes" aimed at building a hate campaign against a single individual or against the community or, again, who were to promote campaigns aimed at undermining the democratic process, according to what should be the new article 265-ter, the imprisonment of not less than two years and a fine of up to ten thousand euros.
A bill that, in reality, does not seem to have convinced the overwhelming majority of parliamentarians, legal practitioners and the same information who, basically, have agreed to see a sharp contrast with - as we said earlier - freedom of printing.
Net in this regard, the position of the organizer of the International Journalism Festival in Perugia, Arianna Ciccone, according to which "First of all there is no unanimous consensus on the definition of 'fake news', which is a complex phenomenon. The common opinion is that they are a worrying phenomenon, because they affect people's behavior and opinion. But there is no scientific evidence of this concept, now taken for granted. We don't even know what the extent of this phenomenon is, and whether it really has such an impact on people's behavior. Why shouldn't political propaganda, disinformation, bad journalism arouse the same concern? And then the text presents articles that put everything together - and badly -. First: fine and imprisonment for those who spread false information. Does this mean that those who in good faith share a post or retweet content that will later turn out to be false is also punishable? And it is specified that the sanctions also concern information that are misleading for public opinion. But how can one establish objectively what it is? misleading? The bill also provides for the obligation to register in the press section of those who want to open a site. But this also applies to those who have a Facebook profile where they talk about politics? And it wants to introduce the obligation of rectification without the possibility of replying for blogs. And in case the correction was false?".
What is certain is that, at the legal level, some rules that could very well act as a cover already exist (it being understood that, to a Russian or Chinese hacker, it would be difficult to import their respect) and, in this sense, we could also agree with how much has been chiked by the same Ciccone about it: "The conception of a network without rules, as these legislators say, is itself a 'fake news'".
Some final considerations
Obviously, even the direct "blamed" (Russia primarily) have their own point of view, and overturn the accusations against their detractors: the same Vladimir Putin, to stay on the much discussed topic of the American elections, said (as reported by the Russian news agency Interfax) in January that "The customers of the news false"on the American president-elect Donald Trump, they are"worse than prostitutes"and that who builds false news for"use them in the political struggle" He has not "no moral limit"But not only: continuing his reasoning, he added"What we see in the United States? We see a continuous and acute internal political struggle despite the presidential elections ended with one victory convincing of Mr. Trump. During this fight some objectives are set, (...) the first is undermine the legitimacy of the American elected president"And then conclude by saying that"I have the impression that, after doing the test a Kiev, are willing to organize one Maidan a Washington not to let the job take over Trump"Clear, in short, the accusations against the Americans in their alleged involvement in the Ukrainian case, in the same way that the US - as mentioned above - accused the Russians, on the contrary, in the recent case of Catalonia.
In short, it seems clear that, from the mutual accusations, are not (or are not) Russia and other powers ended by accused by NATO to resort to this new hybrid war instrument, but (also) some Western governments (curious that, in the 2017, we have returned to this dichotomy) and, indeed, the examples, on the contrary, would not fail (see Syria, Libya or, going back in time, Saddam Hussein's Iraq).
But, by mixing various themes, one could talk about the phenomenon of migration (remember, for example, the artificial photographs to make the world public, or the "economic migrants" / "political migrants" dispute), or, to come back to the Italian case, the dispute over whether or not vaccines are appropriate, gender violence (too often, to "femicide" too often), "gender theory" or even retirement age, increases more and more according to an alleged greater longevity of the Italic people.
On the other hand, the point of view of those who argue that the new "fashion" of "fake news" is nothing but a different conceptual idea to replace the famous "conspiracy theory", which in in recent times, it seems to have lost credibility as a way of boiling criticism anti-mainstream.
Clearly, we risk seeing shadows everywhere, and that everything can become the opposite of everything: never as today, then, should we go back to what was desired by the deputy Edmund Burke (that during a session of the House of Commons of the English Parliament in the 1787, he exclaimed, addressing the parliamentary chroniclers seated in the tribune reserved for the press: "You are the fourth power!"), according to which the press (or the world of information, to better adapt it to the various tools for disseminating news that exists today) can exercise its important function, that of informing people, only if it remains clearly separated from the other three constitutive powers of the state.
And, perhaps, that the same people have a little 'more curiosity in deepening the news, without accepting, in an uncritical (and sometimes lazy or comfortable) content. In their own interest.
(photo: Nato Defense College / US Air Force / Kremlin)
