Fighting the new censorship: Emily Maitlis and Dr Ayala Panievsky

It’s not often that you get to see one of your colleagues interrogated by Emily Maitlis, but that’s precisely what happened last week. Dr Ayala Panievsky, presidential fellow in the journalism department, has just published a book: The New Censorship: How the War on the Media is Taking Us Down, and Maitlis, who knows Ayala from when she was preparing to deliver the 2022 James MacTaggart lecture, was here to interview her. Ayala’s research became a key part of that talk, and a friendship was born.

But that doesn’t mean Maitlis was going to go easy on her.

“I can’t understand why so many people are shocked and surprised by the actions and languages of populist politicians,” she said. “They’re very familiar. Why are journalists so bad at coping with this?“

Those familiar techniques include defining the conversation so that there are only two groups: the people and enemies of the people. You can tell which groups journalists are in. And there’s no room for nuance of opinion in this framing.

The power of the mainstream media

Panievsky pointed out that institutional media is still very powerful. Despite the advent of social media, much of the time online it’s harder for the ordinary person to get their ideas out there, because of the sheer volume of content. Winning attention is hard.

“But sometimes the institutional media is playing straight into the hands of politicians like Trump. They are giving them massive exposure before they’re popular.”

Nigel Farage is another good example: the medium through which most people are exposed to these figures is the institutional media. And that’s spreading:

“Just having lots of followers on TikTok is not a good reason to bring people into the studio,” said Ayala.

When they apply strategic bias

Emily has been on the receiving end of some of these techniques. “When people accuse you of bias, then you can lose your sense of balance and impartiality,” she said. “You start trying to prove your understanding of that person.”

You, in essence, move towards their position because you’re trying to counter their accusation of bias.

“Things can change quickly, and we need to be serious about how we protect our journalists and journalism,” said Ayala. “There’s clear targeting by the populist right, leading to fear, trauma, exhaustion. It seems to be some kind of strategy.”

Partisanship is not the problem. Lies and conspiracy theories are the issue. People are using the look and feel of journalism to spread horrific lies.

“Journalists see their profession as being about objectivity and balance. These campaigns say journalists are biased — not because they made a mistake — but because they are bad people and bad citizens,” she said. “They are doing it on purpose because they are part of the ‘liberal media‘. The language varies, but the ides is that you are not just a bad professional, but a bad citizen.”

She suggested we call it strategic bias — because it is strategic, designed to stop media criticism and attention. And journalists end up trying to find ways to signal that they are not leftie traitors. So you end up leaning further and further to the right to appease this imaginary critique. You stop using certain words or covering certain topics. And over time, the conversation also shifts further and further to the right.

These efforts are supported by a growing pool of hyper-partisan media, which could be considered an anti-media media.

Is there an anti-media media?

Emily then probed into the idea that there’s anti-media media. “What is wrong with media that comes from the right? What is wrong with challenging liberal bias in the mainstream media?” she said. “You can’t just call it anti-media media — that’s ridiculous.”

“There is wonderful right-wing media,” answered Ayala. “This is different. This is the populists attacking the media because it doesn’t share their position. But it’s very easy to use the facade of journalism to do something very different.”

That was a critical point to me: the internet has made it really easy for what are essentially propaganda outlets, with no aspiration to unbiased journalism, to dress themselves in the clothes of the news media, and piggyback on that assumed authority.

Who is a journalist?

“We need to come up with a new way to evaluate media organisations that’s not based on their idealogical position,” said Ayala. “Partisan Media can be great. Imagine a newspaper that supports a particular cause, but still does journalism — debunks misinformation, does reporting. They are transparent about their allegiances. Like The Guardian. Partisanship is not the problem. Lies and conspiracy theories are the issue. People are using the look and feel of journalism to spread horrific lies. Sometimes they even know that is what they are doing.”

“So, who is to judge who is a journalist and who is not?” asked Emily. “For a long time, journalists and academics have been reluctant to discuss this. Do we want it to be the government? No. Do we want it to be corporations? No.”

There was general agreement that, in the UK, GB News needs to be held to the same standard as other broadcasters — when they spread lies misinformation or hate, they need to be held to account.

“Too much regulation has been weakened by politicians,” said Ayala. ”The current state of our information environment is not sustainable. Will there be enough string journalism in the next pandemic to keep us safe? There’s research in the US that showed that Fox News viewers died more in COVID.“

Regulating the influencers

That said, the online space is increasingly the influencers’ world.

“There’s something so convenient about getting your news online, and it feels the same as other forms of journalism,” said Ayala. “Journalism delivered information — but also monitoring of those in power. The powerful are more powerful than ever.”

Elon Musk can intervene in elections in so many countries without us knowing, with no accountability whatsoever, thanks to his ownership of X and financial resources. “We will have to regulate big tech,” she said. “There is no other way.”

Supporting institutional media

And that’s why the power of the mainstream media is still so important. “There is no way the most brilliant person with a TikTok account can hold these people to account,” she said. “It requires time and resources to do investigative journalism. We can’t give up on the institutional media.”

But the shift towards reader revenue was an issue, suggested Emily.

“A spectre is opening up of only the few percent of people who pay for media being in a ring of truth, and everyone else isn’t.”

Some polarising figures who freely spread misinformation are proving resilient. Alex Jones is back, for example.

“The things that we used to think would shut them down — like paying for news, aren’t working,” said Emily. “Is there an argument that we need a post-paywall space, or only 0.01% will know what was going on?”

Regaining the power of the media

The pair explored the idea that media is so democratised now, there is no longer a sense that the media is in charge because they are the ones with the cameras and the lights. We need to recalibrate: where is the power now, and how do you counter it?

Emily cited the example of her interview with Kari Lake, which she described as like being in a video game:

“It was like somebody throwing tin cans at me the whole time. If she says that you need your head examined, don’t answer that. Keep asking the question. People get personal in an interview to lead you down a track they’re more comfortable on. Your job is not to say that you don’t need your head examined, it’s to get your question answered.”

And, she said, you should be aware “when you’re being told complete shite”.

Ayala raised an issue that’s hit the headlines again since: should we just broadcast the words of known liars?

“So you just broadcast live?” she said. “Or do you record and edit and add context and talk about what was wrong or omitted?”

Normalising the dictator

Emily pointed out that we’re seeing a breakdown in the rule of law in the US. “Dictators are not what’s terrifying — it’s the people around them normalising it,” she said. “Once you start normalising it, you become complicit in it. The crazy thing about the Epstein scandal is how many people think it is normal for 15-year-olds and 17-year-olds to be wandering around a millionaire’s mansion.”

Dictators are not what’s terrifying — it’s the people around them normalising it

But Ayala brought us back to the role of the institutional media. “What do you do when institutional media lets us down?” she said. “I am worried that young people and researchers choose to avoid the battle. They choose to go and do their podcast with a few thousand listeners. I’m all for niche media, but we cannot give up the fight over the mainstream, the institutional media.

“It’s difficult, and it’s challenging to stand up to people, and to fight this big machine — but it’s important. A tiny percentage of people knowing what’s going on is not enough.“

Buy The New Censorship

Available on Amazon, Apple Books and Bookshop.org