The concept of gatekeeping in journalism, first introduced by Kurt Lewin and later developed by David Manning White, emphasizes the crucial role of editors and media institutions in filtering and verifying information before it reaches the public. However, with the rise of digital media and social platforms, this traditional model has been turned on its head. In Sudan, as in many other countries, the proliferation of social media has created a situation where anyone can publish information without prior verification or editorial oversight.
This shift has led to three significant changes in the media landscape. Firstly, power has shifted from institutions to individuals, with anyone possessing a smartphone potentially becoming a news source. Secondly, traditional verification processes have been bypassed, with news often being published and then verified – if at all – after it has caused harm. Thirdly, the recipient of information has become a victim, exposed to a torrent of information, some of which may be false or misleading, without the tools to discern fact from fiction.
The conflict in Sudan has served as a stark illustration of these challenges. Fake videos created using artificial intelligence and false news about the fall of cities and the use of prohibited weapons have spread rapidly, garnering millions of views. The reason behind this phenomenon is the absence of a gatekeeper. In traditional journalism, news undergoes a three-stage process of editing, fact-checking, and legal review. In contrast, social media platforms often publish first and verify later, if at all.
So, how can regulation be strengthened without reverting to media dictatorship? The solution lies not in reinstating the old gatekeeper model but in creating a new system of smart regulation based on five integrated levels. Firstly, self-regulation and media education are crucial, with a focus on teaching individuals to distinguish between fact and opinion, reliable and dubious sources, and genuine and fabricated images. This approach empowers citizens to become critical consumers of information.
Secondly, professional institutions must reclaim their role not as censors but as verifiers of published information. This involves establishing national fact-checking platforms that can operate at the same speed as social media, debunking false information as it spreads. Thirdly, legal and legislative measures are necessary to combat electronic publishing crimes. Sudan needs modern and effective laws to punish deliberate falsehoods, hate speech, and incitement to violence, while balancing the right to free expression with societal responsibility.
Fourthly, algorithmic regulation can play a significant role in filtering out terrorist and pornographic content. Social media platforms already possess the technical capabilities to do so; what is needed is international pressure to extend these efforts to combat misleading news that threatens public peace. Finally, societal regulation, or the role of the public in policing itself, is vital. By enabling collective reporting of false content and fostering a culture of verification before sharing, communities can act as a watchdog against misinformation.
The challenge facing Sudan and similar countries is to strike a balance between freedom of expression and the responsibility to protect the public from harm. The battle ahead is not about freedom versus regulation but about chaos versus accountability. The aim is not to muzzle voices but to prevent the abuse of individual freedom to lie from becoming an attack on the collective right to know the truth. Smart regulation, coupled with an informed and critically thinking public, is key to navigating this complex terrain.
Key points
- Establishing national fact-checking platforms to operate at the speed of social media.
