5 December 2023

Misinformation, lack of trust threaten democracy, warns outgoing ANU Vice-Chancellor

| Ian Bushnell
Join the conversation
37

ANU Vice-Chancellor Brian Schmidt: “Democracies don’t function without trust. And democracies cannot evolve without trust.” Photo: National Press Club of Australia.

Australian democracy and the institutions that support it are buckling in the age of misinformation and need bolstering to avoid political paralysis at a time of mounting challenges, Professor Brian Schmidt has told the National Press Club in his last speech as ANU Vice-Chancellor.

Professor Schmidt said that at the core of this threat to democracy was a loss of trust in politicians and government, exacerbated by the 24-hour news cycle and the flood of uncurated and evidence-free views on social media.

He said ANU research had found only a quarter of Australians thought that people in government could be trusted.

READ ALSO Nation has much to lose if panicky Labor lets Opposition run negative agenda

“This suggests Australian democracy itself is in peril,” he said.

“Democracies don’t function without trust. And democracies cannot evolve without trust.

“Voters are concerned about what governments are doing. And they don’t think political leaders have their interests at heart. It is possible, then, that they are beginning to believe that the government is not a representation of them.

“This should be a wake-up call for Australia.”

Using the example of the Voice referendum as how this paralysis might set in, Professor Schmidt said that an ANU analysis showed that 87 per cent of those surveyed said Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders should have a say, or a voice, over matters that directly affect them, and 76 per cent of ‘No’ voters also thought they deserve a voice when it comes to key policies and political decisions.

“And yet, 60 per cent of Australians voted against a Voice,” Professor Schmidt said.

He said the referendum may still have succeeded if there had been bipartisan support, but a lack of trust sank it in the end.

“It is easy to say ‘no’ in democracies: ‘If you don’t know, vote no’. But ‘Yes’ is what enables our democracy to evolve and meet new challenges and opportunities.”

Professor Schmidt said the merchants of doubt were deliberately setting out to confuse the public to stifle change.

He said democracy could not function effectively without evidence and knowledge, but these were competing with a torrent of alternative facts in a space where experts were increasingly derided.

“An environment where invention and hard fact can sit indistinguishably side by side, one as credible as the other, is paralysing our democracy,” he said. “It means people in power can survive by avoiding the wicked problems and instead make decisions on 8-second soundbites rather than proven fact.”

Professor Schmidt said the manipulation of information would only get worse with the application of artificial intelligence tools, particularly during election campaigns, contributing to not just paralysis but political dysfunction, which was only too evident in his home country of the United States, where former president Donald Trump continued to cast a shadow.

He said it was vital that universities, as guardians of knowledge and places of debate, retained their autonomy and academic freedom, saying it was corrosive to undermine trust in academic institutions.

“We are not flawless. But we pursue the truth without a political agenda or a paymaster,” he said.

“We follow the evidence and are transparent in our methods and outcomes. There has to be space in a functioning democracy for experts to debate – those places are called universities.”

Professor Schmidt said trust in the digitally disrupted news media was also down and called for reforms that could return it to being a highly trusted institution that informed the public and helped it hold all of society’s institutions to account.

READ ALSO Some things are worth trying, like in-house consulting for the APS

He suggested an accreditation system akin to that used by universities.

“How about if, in order to be an official media organisation, and be given specific rights and protections, you have to accredit against a series of standards?” he said.

“We need the media sector to think deeply about its role in society and be open to reform.

“Nothing less than the health of our democracy rests on restoring public trust in their news providers and in maintaining it in our universities.”

He noted Australia had three democratic pillars going for it that other countries did not – mandatory voting, preferential voting and the independent Australian Electoral Commission.

“These three key pillars that underpin Australia’s democratic resilience were not in place at our country’s inception but have been added over time,” he said.

“These were major changes, where Australia and its politicians had to say yes to change.”

Join the conversation

37
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
CaptainSpiff9:30 pm 12 Dec 23

Lack of self reflection here is almost unreal. Schmidt just can’t understand why there would be a lack of trust in government and institutions.

So, the problem must lie with with the population at large. They have been carried away by “misinformation”. How else could they come to distrust government?

This is truly laughable:

“But we pursue the truth without a political agenda or a paymaster”
“We follow the evidence and are transparent in our methods and outcomes.”

Yeah right. As the Upton Sinclair quote goes – It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

Is this the same ANU which tried to put a lid on the number of sexual assaults and harassment on its campus?

“Schmidt said that an ANU analysis showed that 87 per cent of those surveyed said Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders should have a say, or a voice, over matters that directly affect them, and 76 per cent of ‘No’ voters also thought they deserve a voice when it comes to key policies and political decisions.”

Yet the referendum suffered a crushing defeat with the “yes” vote in the 30%’s. I would have thought that the takeaway from that for a smart, supposedly well-educated man would be something along the lines of “…well, looks like there are some serious issues with our sampling, methodology or there are other factors that we had not considered”.

If all your polling shows that your proposition would be an overwhelming success and yet it turned out to be a crushing defeat, you’d think this would be a wakeup call and initiate some level of introspection on how they got it so very wrong… but it appears that the self-professed “guardians of knowledge” really aren’t all that bright after all.

You could look at it this way.
I believe there should be a voice when it comes to key policies and political decisions. I also belive that the gap is appaling yet I voted no.

Why? because I don’t believe that what was proposed in the referendum was anywhere near the answer to the issues.

@purplevh
Apparently, purplevh, you are in the minority, as “What people were most concerned about was the introduction of race distinctions into our constitution.”

I’m sitting here trying to think of a single time during the entirety of human history when those who were advocating for government control of what is allowed to be considered “the truth” and who openly advocated for the restriction of freedom of speech, were actually the “good guys”.

…I’m drawing a blank. Anyone?

“blank” seems apt.

In what society is speech wholly unrestricted, Bob? Or ever been?

Are there no “good guys” (not mentioning women of course) to have advocated for civil society?

So your justification of government control over what is considered to be “the truth” and restricting what people are and are not allowed to say is that this control leads to a “civil” society?

Is that what you call China, North Korea, Iran, Russia etc, “civil” societies?

I once had a conversation with an ex that advocated for similar authoritarian measures, I asked if she would be fine if people like Donald Trump (who she HATED) get in power and they then get to dictate what is considered to be government mandated “truth” and decide what people are and are not allowed to say?

She changed her mind on the issue VERY quickly.

Bob, where did I say any of that rubbish you invented?

What are your answers to my two separate questions?

@Byline – You’re the one that tried to rephrase openly calling for government censorship and restrictions to free speech as ” to have advocated for civil society” I was obviously responding to that.

You can try and frame it however you like but the end result of such authoritarian measures always ends up the same and if you are really going to advocate for authoritarianism in the guise of politeness then I really don’t know what else to say to you.

I did not rephrase anything Bob. That is obvious. I asked a very simple and straightforward question, one to which an average school-kid could offer a rant-free answer.

So be straight Bob. In what society is speech wholly unrestricted, or has ever been?

@byline You absolutely did attempt to rephrase the discussion from government control of what is considered the truth and restriction of free speech to: ”…to have advocated for civil society”, the fact that you would even try to deny it is positively mystifying.

Did I at any time state that there is a place that has entirely unrestricted speech? This is about the people that advocate for more and more government and institutional control over what is allowed to be said in society and even more terrifying, a government that decides that it should be the lone arbiter of what is “the truth”.

Bob said: “Did I at any time state that there is a place that has entirely unrestricted speech? ”
If you agree there that “freedom of speech” is or has ever been restricted, then why might that be so? What balances should be struck to maximise benefits between freedom and harms?

It is a minimax problem, not one for this earlier sloganeering by you:
“I’m sitting here trying to think of a single time during the entirety of human history when those … who openly advocated for the restriction of freedom of speech, were actually the “good guys”.”
which is patently ridiculous. Between your statements you reject yourself or you admit folly. My response that ” ‘blank’ seems apt” was … apt.

Meanwhile, I have not said a word advocating anything despite your wild attempts to shovel words and views onto me. Your posts look like a fish out of water thrashing about, hardly big enough to be worth filleting.

@byline – Did you or did you not attempt to equate restrictions on freedom of speech to people advocating for a “polite society” (he asks rhetorically) Yes, you absolutely DID, which as I stated is you attempting to rephrase what is a horrible, authoritarian measure as something that is benign or even positive. That kind of doublethink is disturbing.

Simple question: Do you equate the two? If not, then why did you type it in the first place?

Restrictions on free speech are and always have been a means of control. Just because I have acknowledged some level of restriction of free speech is a reality, doesn’t mean that I in any way agree with it and I most definitely will NEVER agree with those attempting to implement additional restrictions to further their political agendas.

In case you are hard of reading, Bob, here are my two (2) questions again, exactly what I typed in the first place:
“In what society is speech wholly unrestricted, Bob? Or ever been?

Are there no “good guys” (not mentioning women of course) to have advocated for civil society?”

Two questions asked, neither answered directly, one by implication recently although it seemed a struggle for you to admit it. I equated nothing. I asked two questions since when, even in your latest post, you have launched into obviously false personal accusations about what you wish I thought or said so you could attack it in your simplistic fashion. In your dreams.

So is it fair to say now Bob that you believe firstly there should be no restrictions on speech at all, and secondly that anyone who advocates for any social limitation whatsoever (‘civil society’) is by that fact not among “good guys”?

I think you have just knotted your fins to your tail.

I notice that tin futures have risen.

Stephen Ellis3:54 pm 06 Dec 23

Most Universities these days class anything to the right of socialism as “misinformation”. Free speech is a crucial part of any democracy and the way to counter an alternative view is through respectful debate. Not by labelling it as “misinformation”. This is simply a way for Governments to control the narrative.

Assuming that everyone, including the 40% of Canberrans who voted No in the referendum, got it wrong is arrogant at best. Suggesting that the No vote was brought on by “merchants of doubt” who set out to “confuse the public to stifle change” shows how out of step this guy is with mainstream Australia. What people were most concerned about was the introduction of race distinctions into our constitution. Australians are one and every Australian deserves the same opportunity to guide our elected members to the best outcomes. While I have great sympathy for the plight of Indigenous Australians who are living in the remote communities, they are not the only ones doing it tough. Nor are all Indigenous Australians doing as tough as those in the most disadvantaged group. Many, like our Indigenous politicians, lawyers, judges and sports personalities, are doing quite nicely, thank you. You cannot seriously argue that these elites need a separate Voice.

@Stephen Ellis
“What people were most concerned about was the introduction of race distinctions into our constitution.”
Really? And what basis do you have for making such a (pardon the pun) black and white assessment of the outcome of the referendum.
To the best of my knowledge, and no doubt you’ll correct me if I’m wrong, the voting paper required a “Yes” or “No” response. Did your voting paper have “If ‘No’, please state your reason”?

@JustSaying – Did any other race get their own representative body inserted into the political process? No, then there you have your “race distinctions”.

I’d love to see how you will attempt to spin, redirect or deny this fact.

@Bob
Read my comment. Bob.
“And what basis do you have for making such a (pardon the pun) black and white assessment of the outcome of the referendum.”
Talk about redirecting, ‘kettle’ Bob. I asked Stephen Ellis to provide facts for his assertion that “… people (no voters) were most concerned about was the introduction of race distinctions into our constitution”. I guess you and he obviously were – but that doesn’t mean all, or even a majority, of no voters held that view.
You seem to want to continue to argue the pros and cons of the referendum. You are as bad as the ‘true believers’ of the late 70s who continued to maintain the ‘dsimissal rage’ years after the event. As I’ve said to you previously – the referendum has been decided, so move on.

I admit I don’t entirely like what you say but you do have a point. I think that’s the problem with the majority of people these days, you can state a fact such as “fire burns” and the other person thinks ‘Fire burns? That’s not nice, it’s painful I don’t like this and therefore I disagree.’ Very rarely will someone say “I don’t totally agree but you do have a point.”

Stephen Ellis9:29 am 12 Dec 23

I used the simple expedient of research. While a simple yes/no response was indeed what was required on the ballot paper, I for one looked more deeply into what a response would mean (I know, overthinking it, right? Surely I should have just gone with the “feel-good” argument given by Albo). What I found was that, throughout the period of the Voice debate, people were expressing concern about (or support for) the fact that the simple “yes/no” response was about inserting a racial distinction into our Constitution, providing additional representation to Indigenous Australians that no other group, whether disadvantaged or not, would have. The breadth of the powers of the Voice were central to the debate, given that the VTP would enable representation to Government and the bureaucracy on any matter affecting Indigenous Australians (given that any policy enacted by Government could/would affect any Australian). Many on the No side argued these points, while Labor and the ABC described it as “indigeneity”, which amounts to the same thing. The Yes proponents spent a great deal of time arguing that it was not about “race”. The fact that race was the topic of argument on both sides of the debate would, on its own, suggest that it was a major concern. If you wish to debate whether or not it was of “most concern”, I’ll leave you to it. It is, after all, a moot point, given that, for whatever reason or reasons, 61% of Australians agreed that they did not want a constitutional VTP. Generally, only those in inner-city areas of Sydney and Melbourne as well as the ACT voted Yes.

@JustSaying – I am not arguing the merits of the vote, I don’t need to as sanity prevailed and it was voted down. Where did I, in your opinion argue for either side?

Unlike yourself who is apparently still in the dark about why your side of the argument lost so spectacularly, people such as myself and Stephen Ellis have read many thousands of comments in the places where people were actually allowed to comment without censorship.

If you had done similar, you would already KNOW why people voted no.

@Stephen Ellis
“I used the simple expedient of research.”
So what was the basis of your research?
“I for one looked more deeply into what a response would mean” – well done, you thought about your vote.
“What I found was that, throughout the period of the Voice debate, people were expressing concern about (or support for) the fact that the simple “yes/no” response was about inserting a racial distinction into our Constitution, providing additional representation to Indigenous Australians that no other group, whether disadvantaged or not, would have.”
That’s quite a specific outcome. How many people did you survey to arrive at that absolute conclusion?
I actually gained the impression that there were a myraid of reasons people intended to vote one way or the other – unlike you I’m not drawing any finite conclusions of reasons for the way people voted. It seemed a major driver was the “if you don’t know, vote No” slogan … that’s hardly a slogan based on race.
Nevertheless, the vote is over and the conditions for changing the Constitution were not met so it’s time we moved on.

Stephen Ellis11:38 am 12 Dec 23

@Bob, I think you are correct. @JustSaying doesn’t seem to want to know why the vote failed. As you say, we have read through thousands of comments and numerous expert opinions, yet JustSaying now suggests that the major driver was “if you don’t know, vote No”. We did try to inform ourselves, which is a reason that I completely ignored it during the campaign and have not been impressed by the No proponents who keep throwing it up after the vote. Regardless of the reasons, the people of Australia showed that they cannot be guilted into something that they do not feel is right.

@Bob
“Where did I, in your opinion argue for either side?”
Are you talking about in this thread? Or the multitude of posts you made prior to the referendum denouncing the proposed change? Btw – not my opinion you argued against it, check your own posts.

“Unlike yourself who is apparently still in the dark about why your side of the argument lost so spectacularly …”
Oh, I’m not in the dark at all, Bob. The “if you don’t know, vote ‘No'” campaign was probably the best slogan of the whole campaign and certainly achieved the desired outcome.

“If you had done similar” – i.e. you mean gone to sites which are frequented by those who have the same political perspective as you, Bob? Yeah right – how to get an objective opinion … Not!

@JustSaying – You said, in this thread “You seem to want to continue to argue the pros and cons of the referendum.” My god, you can’t stick to a position can you? I didn’t at any time during the thread “continue to argue the pros and cons of the referendum.” and you very well know it.

When called out on your incorrect statement, you try and change it to “yeah but you did before the referendum…” HOW is that even remotely relevant to stating that I “continue” to argue for it? I’m starting to think you’re just a troll…

Oh yes, intentionally hiding details on exactly what they were proposing until AFTER the referendum absolutely did hurt them and if you want to try and convince yourself that this was the main reason despite what the many “no” voters have said since the referendum, then that’s on you.

No, going to sites that allow the free posting of opinions of people from both sides of the debate, unfortunately these were fairly few and far between as news sources on one side of politics seemed to be rather hesitant to publish any comments that disagreed with their editorial opinions, as usual.

@Bob
” I didn’t at any time during the thread “continue to argue the pros and cons of the referendum.” Simply not true, Bob … perhaps read your own posts before you deny the facts.
Of course, you wanted to continue the referendum debate – you raised the racism motive: “Did any other race get their own representative body inserted into the political process?” and then challenged me to “… attempt to spin, redirect or deny this fact.”
I chose not to as the referendum is done and told you to move on too.

When called out on your incorrect statement, you try and change it to “yeah but you did before the referendum…”
Far from being incorrect, it’s your cherry picking my comment that is false. I asked a simple question of clarification in response to your ““Where did I, in your opinion argue for either side?” I asked was it in this thread or previously where you had railed against the change. All you needed to do was clarify – instead you froth at the mouth over … well I’m not actually sure what.

“No, going to sites that allow the free posting of opinions of people from both sides of the debate …” I’d be interested to see a link to these sites, as from what I saw on RiotACT there was quite a vociferous debate on it – with very definitive views expressed on both sides.

@Stephen Ellis
“JustSaying now suggests that the major driver was “if you don’t know, vote No”.”
Yes, Stephen, I do have the impression that the slogan was very successful and a major driver.
However, all I know for a fact is that nationally, some 60.6% of voters wrote “No” on there ballot paper and 39.94% wrote “Yes”.
And no matter how many of the “thousands of comments and numerous expert opinions” you read, like me, you cannot absolutely say why voters wrote what they did.
As I have already said, the vote is over and the conditions for changing the Constitution were not met so it’s time we moved on. Which is exactly what I intend to do.

“Misinformation” is itself a politicized term. It is deployed by the ruling elite to smear any dissent from their preferred ruling narratives. This is fundamentally anti-liberal (in the sense of classical liberalism as a political philosophy, not to do with the Liberal Party), and uneasily close to an new, emerging ruling class authoritarianism, where elites believe they can infallibly decide in the best interests of everyone, while those “beneath” them in social status are unable to think for themselves. That’s authoritarianism.

Stephen Saunders3:03 pm 06 Dec 23

It’s a bit like Matildas v Canada, isn’t it Rusty. Readers 5, Riotact 0. Will Riotact take any notice? Hell no, it’s a bit of a slippery slope, isn’t it, if mainstream media starts taking any notice of their readers.

@Stephen Saunders – Maybe but to their eternal credit, at least they actually post the comments of readers who disagree with them unlike SMH, ABC, News.com.au etc.

Yeah, Misinformation has been politicized but just because I don’t like a term I know it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s fallible.

The government is the largest source of misinformation and corruption. Government lies have killed far more people than any rando on the internet.

Ironically the government threatens democracy.

Stephen Saunders7:44 pm 05 Dec 23

Nonsense, 24 hour news cycle. Nonsense, social media. The biggest mis-informer is always the government. That’s axiomatic. Albanese is no different.

Nobel Prize or not, Brian ought to get out a bit more often, his thinking here is insular and “beltway” in nature.

I know so many people online who hold open debates on a weekly basis, who would gladly debate (and beat) this clown in public, showing not only that distrust in governments is absolutely justified, but that the questioning of them doesn’t go nearly far enough. We’d soon then see who hasn’t got enough evidence behind them, and who was the real threat to democracy.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.