Conversations 2020: Roundtable on Ethics, Media, Communication, and Propaganda
(Photo Courtesy of Gettysburg College).
By Vanessa Igras, Staff Writer
On Tuesday, Oct. 6, viewers joined philosophy Professor Garry Mullen in discussing the relationship of ethics, media, and communications alongside its impact on the spread of propaganda during the 2020 election cycle. CNN journalist Katy Lobosco ‘09 and Philosophy Professor Stanly Uche Anozie came together to answer questions regarding the current state of political discourse in the world of media alongside the possibility of renewal in an era of disinformation.
“There is a lot of misinformation out there,” Lobosco said, “and as a journalist at CNN, a big part of it is actually working on our fact-checking team.”
From presidential debates to national events, such as the State of the Union, fact-checking teams work in real-time to continue the spread of truthful information. Lobosco emphasized that although misinformation is spread through authority, there is a lot of misinformation also being spread from people that are not in power.
“CNN is focusing a lot on combating that,” Lobosco said, explaining that “as a massive media organization, it’s really important to get the word out there about how this [fact checking] works so that people get the right information.”
In a difference of perspective, Professor Anozie went on to question this idea of fact-checking:
“My concern as an individual philosopher is that I don’t see that as fact-checking but rather fact crushing, which kind of poisons the political discourse in our society. It makes it a confrontational project [among the media] instead of taking the ethical accountability approach.”
Through a philosophical lens, Anozie interprets the idea of polarized media fact-checking to be stimulating the cycle of propaganda. Having analyzed the first presidential debate between former Vice President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump, Anozie stressed the importance of this event as it confirmed the polarizing difference between confrontation and discussion in politics.
“If the issues are divided then they don’t stimulate the well being of the American people,” Anozie said.
As the media, according to the speakers, becomes more and more politically charged, political confrontation begins taking place at higher levels among the population. Anozie stated that the productive and necessary discussion of important issues is being trampled by the very essence of partisan confrontation.
“Many people do not believe what a CNN reporter writes, which is disheartening when that’s what your career is,” Lobosco said.
In response, Anozie explained that there is a simple lack of understanding of the mutual political interest in the hands of these media corporations.
“Discussion has to be deliberately respectful; mutually recognizing the dignity, rather than diminishing the other side,” he said.
Toward the end of this conversation, an audience member asked a question regarding the notion of political renewal; is fact-centered media a possibility within the current political climate?
Anozie made the argument that emotions are simply not dependable. Media in the United States, however, relies on the use of emotions to trigger a response from the public as a means of propaganda. Anozie stated that he believes the American people would be better off if the media was based on facts.
“In divisive times like these, it is easy to feed off of people’s emotions,” Lobosco said. She noted, however, “There is much more engagement in our times.”
Both speakers agreed on the theory that the increase of partisan media representation oils the gears of democracy and establishes a sense of civic duty.
