One of the co-winners of the Nobel Peace Prize Maria Ressa was one of the main speakers at the event by the European Parliament Special Committee (INGE). It held the hearing to discuss a topic of foreign interference into Baltic states which Maria Ressa opened.
The Nobel Peace Prize laureates are people who become even more empowered by the award.
Maria Ressa, born 1963, is a Filipino-American journalist and author, the co-founder of Rappler, Philippine online news website. Maria Ressa is the first Filipino recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. She alongside her colleagues with Rappler were persecuted for covering the wars on drugs by President Duterte who urged members of the public to kill both drug suppliers and drug addicts.
It happened so that in 2006 I came to New York on the invitation from Elie Wiesel, the Nazi atrocities survivor and the reciepient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. He is the author of one of the most profound requiems for the perished, the “Night” book. Reading that book filled me with both admiration and fear. I neither could imagine that one day Elie Wiesel would invite me to visit him.
Our meeting gave me an impetus to keep working for the most destitute people, the ones who nobody knows and who are trapped by armed conflicts or similar historical upheavals. Elie Wiesel then told me, “You are involved into the most difficult kind of work: attempt to draw attention to the most invisible. Keep doing it”.
Therefore, when I learnt that there is a chance to listen to the Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa, I decided I should not miss the chance. What if Maria Ressa gave me another boost to think what else might be done or changed for the better.
The hearing at the European Parliament was held on February 1, 2022. It was chaired by Raphaël Glucksmann, the leader the Special Committee on Foreign Interference in all Democratic Processes in the European Union, including Disinformation (INGE).
Maria Ressa opened the discussion with her presentation on the spread of disinformation through online platforms. She also shared her views on how to defend freedom of expression when the online debate is manipulated.
Maria Ressa stated that online platforms are not purely “freedom of expression” issues but rather “freedom of reach” issues due to “the algorithm character” of the platforms which codes determine what topics would gain maximum reach. She also introduced the term “the surveillance capitalism”, by which economic system centred around the commodification of personal data with the core purpose of profit-making is understood.
Maria Ressa compared the impact of such social networks as Facebook as kind of fertiliser which “seeds the ground”. That is the reason, in her view, why it is necessary to speak about “weaponisation of the law to counteract the “weaponisation of social media”. At that, Maria Ressa concentrated her presentation only on two states which are Russia and China as the source of targeted campaigns to affect people’s opinions.
The MEPs responded with a variety of questions to Maria Ressa after her presentation.
The Green group representative Alexander Geeze (Germany), the shadow rapporteur raised the need to provide NGOs like it is the case with academical researchers to provide access to the social platforms data to enable them “verify what is happening”. She also expressed worries over the role of “big profiles” in social platforms which are capable to shape and influence the public opinion by “ceding and introducing the narrative” into groups of people who are either “particularly vulnerable” or “particular inclined” to accept it. She spoke of the legislative initiative to “limit a number of such profiles” in the context of combatting “disinformation and hate speech” which is now under discussion at the EP.
Daly Clair, Ireland, The Left Group, “Good journalism is about bringing the powers to account. In the context of disinformation, targetting Russia and China in particular, what is your view on the danger of the misinformation coming from the West”. She also reminded Maria Ressa of her negativity to Julian Assange in 2019 who she refused to recognise as a journalist. MEP Clair asked if Maria Ressa has a different view on Assange in the light of the most recent developments.
Anna-Sophie Pelletrier, a French MEP, also in the Left Group, reminded of Dmitry Muratov, the editor-in-chief of the Novaya Gazeta in Russia, “one of the last spots of truly independent journalism there”. She asked Maria Ressa how to take the fact that the same country, Russia, has been sheltering Edward Snowden. “I believe that we have to do something about it. This country does not respect freedom of the press or freedom of expression and at that it is housing a whistle-blower who is very important for the democracy. What should we at the European level be doing to ensure protection for Mr Snowden and Mr Assange and all whistle-blowers?” She suggested to develop a protection mechanism on the European soil.
Another member of the EP Left group, a Greek journalist and writer Stelios Kouloglou, congratulated Maria Ressa on her achievements “in your country” but noted that “your idea of Europe is idealised”. He stated, “In Europe we also have huge problems with the freedom of the press, we had assassinations of journalists, we have laws that abuse the rights of journalists. In my country, Greece, we have threats against journalists, their assassinations and we have corruption”. He asked Maria Ressa what is going on in her country with journalists working in traditional media. He also asked her is she feels surprised that the same things are happening in Europe.
Christel Schadelmose, a Danish MEP, a Social Democrat group, asked what kind of liability should be developed against social platforms, at least, with regard to the how they use the content. She also noted the need to not compromise freedom of speech while proposing such a legislation while making the platforms liable for what is happening there.
Raphaël Glucksmann told Maria Ressa giving her the floor to answer the questions that “although it is difficult to cover such a broad range of issues but we all trust you that you will come with the right answers”.
Maria Ressa started the sessions of answers by asking the question, “Who is responsible? Why are we living in the climate of impunity? Why is information weaponised? We certainly know who benefits. There is a loophole in the way America has dealt with the technology platforms. I asked them to either reform or revoke the section 2 of the Comminucation Decency Act of 1996”.
She also gave an example of her own effort to start a new blogging platform which she personally “shut down as soon as saw that lies started to appear there”.
With regard to access to data, she told that “it is not just NGOs or researchers who should have access to it”. She pointed out that “platforms are just trying things without any accountability” using their algorithms which in their turn are “opinions in codes”
Journalists are still being killed, journalists are still being put to jails (23 journalists in the Philippines are in the jail now) and it is compounded by the loss of trust. You could use counter speech against the lies or against the hate speech. But these days are over. All people should have access to data and understand how their data is used.”
Maria Ressa omitted answering all the other questions.
She has omitted answering very important questions. I felt saddened. I doubt that Maria Ressa should feel concerned that a difficult answer to a difficult questions might lead to the Nobel Committee decision be revoked. But it seems it is a lot easier to express joy over her own perception of Europe as a realm of democracy and human rights.
It had been my wishful thinking of some ten years ago.
But then I had to work on the case of fabricated criminal cases in Lithuania against a Chechen family and some years later on the case of Alexander Dolmatov whose death in the Netherlands led to significant changes how asylum cases processed there. There have been recent cases of extreme human tragedies at the border between Poland and Belarus this year the scale of which is still impossible to assess. My own colleagues in Latvia have been unfairly targeted by accusations of being “the fifth column” because most Russian-speaking journalists of Latvia are now contributing to the Russian media outlets also because in Latvia Russian-language media has been diminishing in size.
While talking about the issue of responsibility, Maria Ressa proposed to the MEPs that they must define who media is. She told, “It would have been much easier a decade ago when it was clearer who an influencer is. To challenge the law makers today, you must look at the start of the failures and strip away all cascading failure which are the result of it”.
If there was a chance, I would ask Maria Ressa whether she would back a law which permits some individuals to “influence people” banning others? On what criteria then? There have been already laws aimed at fighting hate speech and incitement to violence. These are already sufficient grounds to limit possibilities of some particular person to spread their views. Still, it requires to prove it. When I hear a call to the politicians to “identify who of the influencers be allowed to speak and who barred from it”, it fills me with concern.
Human rights and freedoms must not be exclusive awards to the most loyal ones. Journalism is about putting difficult questions. Human rights advocacy is about the European Convention on Human Rights being applied equally.
