Vanina Berghella is a type of propaladora (megaphone used in the cities of Argentina), the same name she gave to her blog in the 2000s, when these spaces were just starting to become popular in Latin America. There he spoke about the impact of new technologies on journalism and experienced what he calls the first click of his career. “I knew that from that moment on we journalists would no longer have the final say and we had to find a way to take advantage of the new voices that were emerging and give them feedback.”
The second was two decades ago, when he started thinking about the financial sustainability of the media and geared his work toward that. Today, she continues to be a speaker, a woman who urges others to continue their efforts to create and sustain media. Vanina Berghella is the Latin America director of the International Fund for Public Interest Media and advises, supports and financially supports dozens of independent media outlets in the region. From his home in Buenos Aires, he talks about the polarization of Argentine society, independent journalism in the region and the impact of artificial intelligence in the media.
Questions. We are experiencing virulent democratic processes in different latitudes. In Argentina, for example, the appearance of Javier Milei. What role do you think the media played?
Answer. The word laboratory applies very well to what will happen from now on. Argentina has endured a long process of conflict that began with economic decline but has also impacted social issues and political debate. As far as the media are concerned, they have particularly suffered from the polarization of society in recent years. There are few who are not affected by this polarization. With Monday's newspaper, we should have recognized, as we say here, that we should not be surprised by what was about to happen, that it was a product of the problems that we had, of the failure to solve many of the problems that our country had. As for the media, everyone has started to take a position that in some cases has led to certain positions being radicalized and the agenda of what society really needs has been lost.
Q Milei also seems to be a product of the media (he was a panelist). What does this tell us about how we build these leaders who end up making decisions for our countries?
R. I would divide the analysis into two parts. On the one hand, although very concrete and real, he began to be known in the media as a debater on economics, especially because his temperamental personality gave him high ratings on television, at times in many moments bordering on violence. In this first scene, the media bears no responsibility for his later taking the political route: they had a character who was interesting, made ratings and began to achieve visibility, dominance and impact. The second part takes place once he enters politics, runs for president and presents all his proposals. There the media actually had a venue for this candidate on the rise. The media this year gave a lot of space to the candidate who eventually became president. At first I think out of curiosity, because there were also ratings like when he was a panelist, and then when he ended up being one of the candidates with the most votes in the primaries, that was a shock. From then on, the media became more cautious and clear about what this particular candidate meant.
Q What lessons can all this leave behind?
R. For many years we have talked a lot about the impact of social networks and user platforms, leaving somewhat aside the analysis of the place occupied by traditional media. Social networks had a big influence in this choice – because Milei grew up on social networks, on TikTok and YouTube, where she had a created community. It was like his own space, which he earned with his followers. When it found its way into traditional media, particularly in the latter stages of the campaign, it had a huge impact. The lesson here is that traditional media continues to have influence and the media itself needs to return to that value and understand that what appears on its screen, on its website and on its pages matters.
Q We come from a recurring discourse that the media is in crisis and people are not consuming it.
R. I think they consume them. There are two elements in recent years that have shaped this pulse. One of them is the pandemic. During the first year of Covid and in the second wave, media audiences grew exponentially. People have stopped getting information simply through social networks to legitimize the information or verify it in traditional media. That was shocking. Then they lost interest, people got tired of us only talking about the pandemic or bad things, and they looked for other places, not only to be informed but also to entertain themselves. But this was evidence that at the worst moment, in the greatest fear and uncertainty, people turned to the media expecting that at least they would receive service, qualified information, scientists and doctors who would speak from a representative and qualified place would speak to them. The other moment is the elections. In the end, people ate up everything that happened with this candidate [Milei] especially on television.
Q The factor of artificial intelligence is now being added to social networks. How do you think AI plays with the media and what impact it has on democracy?
R. AI as a technology, as a phenomenon and novelty, is conquering the media, which is better prepared than with the advent of social networks and platforms. Back then we all thought that networks were a good thing, that everything would be positive, collaborative, open and useful, but we hadn't seen the certain negative consequences. With AI we are more vigilant. Since its release late last year, it's never had the social media honeymoon. We started thinking about regulating and verifying information.
Q What should the media focus on to avoid being swept away by AI?
R. In this case, it comes down to learning to validate and verify the information that comes from qualified sources, political parties, the government or organizations that produce visual or written content and created with AI. It's not about demonizing the technology. We must use them to our advantage and be very vigilant.
Q She was a pioneer of blogs and spoke of “neither censorship nor anarchy, but rather a responsible use of social networks”. How responsible were we?
R. The journalists made many mistakes. At the beginning there was a lot of rejection, they demonized the networks because they thought they were a tool that could take away jobs. But in the end, many managed to make their professional profile visible and show their work to the audience in a more human, direct and clear way. This also had the effect of capitalizing on this audience, strengthening their loyalty both personally to the journalist's profile and ensuring the appeal of their medium.
Q And the media?
R. They have managed to generate a community and direct feedback with an audience whose approach was previously based on old letters to the editor. Now you can know exactly who the group of people who follow you are, not only through comments but also through metrics. However, there is a complex and unresolved aspect, namely the relationship with the major platforms. Many media outlets became addicted to distributing their content on social networks that generated traffic. But as each of these platforms has changed their algorithms and priorities, they have condemned or deprived some small media outlets of their traffic.
Q We're talking about audience and credibility crises, is there hope?
R. When I work with journalists from here, I fall in love again because I see something that perhaps cannot be conveyed to the audience – we would have to find a formula for it – namely passion. The journalist is a journalist because he is passionate about what he does, not because of his earnings, nor because of the label or the name. Journalism generally provides a service to society, but unfortunately we fail to convey this to our audience. This would generate much more empathy.
Q What do you recommend to bring them closer together?
R. Society has come to a point where it needs more transparency, self-criticism and a re-evaluation of an old journalistic technique that is errata: to fall in love with journalism again and to be consumed by it and ultimately paid for improvements, mistakes recognize.
Q Their job is to guide and support small, independent media outlets trying to make their mark. How are these media doing in the region?
R. The overall health of large and small businesses is complex. There is a big problem with the financing model, the decline in advertising revenue is constant and increasingly noticeable. The traditional companies, which are usually large corporations, may have other companies that facilitate the financing of journalism. But in the smaller farms, unless they receive philanthropic financial support, they cannot start their operations and then it is difficult for them to support themselves. However, the latter are very creative: some work with member groups, others organize events that allow them to provide funds to maintain part of the structure or to develop services for other media. Due to their size and scope, they have sufficient mobility to generate other financing models. It is a strenuous journey and that is why it is important to support them so that this media base does not weaken. What usually happens is that the largest survive and the smallest lose strength.
Q Has the presence of women in media leadership positions made progress?
R. Things have improved a lot since I started 20 years ago, there are now many more women in relevant positions in the media, but of course there is still a lot left. Entrepreneurial and especially digital media have a different reality: many of them were founded by women or have female leaders on their board or in their leadership areas. There are also more and more support and training programs for women.
Q And as for diversity?
R. A lot more relegated people. When we talk about diversity, we are referring to all types of diversity, including people with different abilities, but also the presence of rural or indigenous communities who bring their perspective. We are generally many steps behind in all countries. This is everyone's fault, including the other communities that have already created space: women can, for example, offer space to journalists from the trans community. Apart from the fact that this is a legal matter, the media also sees no chance of reaching other target groups. General media should have more pluralistic and open spaces.
Q And what is surprising in the region's media?
R. [En cuanto a medios pequeños] We're not talking about projects or mass consumer products here, we're talking about something that talks about doing good for others. Journalism in general, carried out by journalists who want to do good for others, is something that continues to exist and will continue to exist. We have to ensure that this becomes visible in society.