_

A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth, so goes a popular saying that aptly captures the modern—at times perverse—manufacturing of post-truth. In this phenomenon, certain mass media outlets play a predominant role, deliberately forgetting or omitting that their duty is to guide, inform, entertain, and educate society with verification, contrast, plurality, and truthfulness. That, at least, is the expectation.

Reality, however, is far removed from this ideal: there is an abundance of “militant” media actively involved in political processes by constructing and amplifying content and messages that circulate within society and influence social behaviour. Ideological engineering in service of the status quo. In this context, it is worth asking whether there is any real understanding—specifically among Ecuadorian media—of their importance in strengthening and safeguarding democracy.

Photo_ Daniel Lobo_ CC BY 2.0

Quite the opposite seems to be the case, and as a result of their entanglement with political and economic power, the role of the media today is permeated by a kind of militancy and/or activism aimed at bolstering certain representatives of political power. These representatives, in turn, seek to secure their own interests while exerting full influence over the country’s political and economic trajectory.

The Sleeping Power: Public Opinion and the Production of Meaning

It is no coincidence that the mass media are considered the Fourth Estate in society, alongside the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches; for ever since their emergence—1440, with Gutenberg’s printing press—they have wielded significant influence, acting as mediators between people and power. This has sparked intense interest in the media from political, business, and civil groups, as they represent nothing short of a path to seizing power itself.

“Given that meaning is constructed within a social environment, the media manage that same public space where meaning is produced for social actors and thus where public opinion is established. From a political standpoint, then, the media become active players in a country’s political life. They intervene directly in the building of public opinion, which in turn influences political decisions” (Cevallos, 2018) [2].[2] Cevallos Ludeña, Cinthya María (2018). Los medios de comunicación ecuatorianos como actores políticos. Una visión desde las teorías de swarming y agenda-setting en el caso del 30s (Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Vigo) [The Ecuadorian Media as Political Actors: a Glance into Swarming Theories and Agenda-Setting in the case of 30-S (Phd Thesis, University of Vigo]. Available here: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/tesis?codigo=221755

Agenda-setting theory emphasises the role of the media as gatekeepers of the information discussed in the communicative space under their control (M. McCombs, 2013). By directing public attention towards specific issues, they exert significant influence over how those are perceived (Weaver, 2007). That is to say, the media not only define what we should think about—agenda setting—but also how we should think about it—the framing [6].[6] Cevallos Ludeña, Cinthya María (2018). Los medios de comunicación ecuatorianos como actores políticos. Una visión desde las teorías de swarming y agenda-setting en el caso del 30s (Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Vigo) [The Ecuadorian Media as Political Actors: a Glance into Swarming Theories and Agenda-Setting in the case of 30-S (Phd Thesis, University of Vigo]. Available here: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/tesis?codigo=221755

The importance of public opinion lies in its nature as a product of cultural heritage, and thus built of behaviours, prejudices, customs, habits, traditions, and convictions—elements shared by various groups and actors in a given society. It is from these shared feelings and concerns that public opinion is born and nurtured:

Public opinion is regarded as an intangible force, a sleeping power that occasionally awakens—indefinable, yet one that must be heeded in its judgment of human activity. (Abreu, 2001, p. 39) [7].[7] Idem.

Dader [8][8] Dader, J. L. (1992). La opinión pública: Concepto, formación y medición [Public Opinion: Concept, Buildup and Measurement]. Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (CIS). maintains that within the field of public opinion, there are three core perspectives which, though mutually exclusive, offer valuable insights and help clarify what this term entails. These are:

1. The political–evaluative perspective, in which Habermas establishes that public opinion may be an “institutionalised fiction” [9],[9] Habermas, J. (1987). Teoría de la acción comunicativa (Vol. 1-2) [Communicative Action Theory (Vol. 1-2)]. Taurus. (Originally published in 1981). as it cannot accurately measure individual behaviour on a real-world scale. For this reason, Habermas suggests that the most strategic approach is to measure opinions empirically, based on their relation to public life. He thus develops two spheres: informal opinions—understood as “non-public” and personal,—and formal ones—those that are institutionally sanctioned. From this, Dader deduces that “public opinion may represent either a critical instance regarding the public visibility of political or social power, or a receptive instance concerning individuals, institutions, consumer goods, and programmes”.

2. The social anthropological perspective, where Noelle–Neumann adopts a realist or pragmatic stance by reducing the concept of public opinion to the description of a social fact as it actually exists. Consequently, Neumann avoids normative assessments and presents the phenomena of opinion as deeply intertwined with ordinary traditions, prejudices, values, and trends. She also values what she calls the “sixth sense”, a capacity to infer the socially dominant opinion on controversial matters. It’s based on this that Dader maintains: “The analyses of the German researcher may be classified as psychological insofar as they consider public opinion to be the sum of behavioural or symbolic expressions that reflect the mindset and conceptual/value systems of a population, regardless of the subject at hand” [10].[10] Dader, J. L. (1992). La opinión pública: Concepto, formación y medición [Public Opinion: Concept, Buildup and Measurement]. Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (CIS).

It is thus beyond doubt that the media constitute a pillar of democratic governance. Although Ecuador’s contemporary democratic system languishes to such an extent that there are neither spaces nor willingness to debate the role of mass media, it is clear that they are capable of delivering fatal blows to democracy.

Ecuador: Systemic Crisis and the Emotivisation of Politics

The nature of the media poses a problem not only in Ecuador but across Latin America—a continent where access to information is manifestly unequal, plurality is lacking, and media ownership is concentrated in private hands. Furthermore, the region is arguably dominated by large corporations—products of globalisation that often operate beyond democratic oversight.

As early as 1998, Sartori noted that the impact of television on society had altered political dynamics, manifesting effects across multiple areas: a citizen “forms opinions” according to how television induces them to do so; television shapes the electoral process—whether by influencing the choice of candidates, the framing of electoral competition, or the way support is mobilised for a particular figure; it influences government decisions, and it also personalises elections by prioritising individuals over discourse, thus encouraging the emotivisation of politics—that is, reducing politics to emotional episodes.

Robert Dahl (1992) argued that the challenge of democratisation stems from the gap between the policy knowledge held by elites and that held by the general public. To address this issue, certain conditions must be established to broaden democracy, including an “enlightened” understanding, control over the agenda, access to alternative sources of information, informed consensus, transparency, and comprehensibility. To achieve this, it is essential to expand both the quantity and quality of the information disseminated by the media, as public access to better information depends heavily on them. In contrast, as the media’s influence as transmitters grows, the amount of information available tends to shrink. Some authors have drawn attention to the negative effects of the media on democratic political life, arguing that instead of expanding the available information, they actually restrict it (Villafranco, 2005) [11].[11] Villafranco Robles, Citlali (2005). El papel de los medios de comunicación en las democracias [The Role of the Media in Democracies]. Andamios, 2(3), 7-21. Available here: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1870-00632005000200001&lng=es&tlng=es

Since the return to democracy, the media in Ecuador have played a decisive role in political, economic, social, and cultural spheres. They have been active participants in the political process, contributing significantly to the creation of a conflict-ridden country, characterised by an unstable political system, a fragile party system, and a poor political culture that is perpetually in crisis. All of this is the result of internal and external disturbances within the system, stemming from the struggle for power and influence.

In addition, with the emergence of a new communication paradigm—computer-mediated communication (CMC)—new digital environments have arisen, radically transforming the way ideas flow within society. Social media became virtual public spheres through which the social and political events of this highly digitalised and connected society are debated. Within this new environment, the media also play a role, transferring their content to these platforms in order to continue generating meaning.

In this regard, concerning the paradigm shift in communication, it is naïve to think that theories and ideas about communicative practice have remained unchanged. Traditional communication models—functionalism and structuralism—described a process in which information was transmitted linearly from sender to receiver, with feedback occurring only after the information had been emitted. After that, critical theory proposed a process with no separation between the subject and reality, marking a clear ideological departure from older models and recovering the social subject as the fundamental axis of the communication process.

The successive paradigm shifts in communication are, without a doubt, closely linked to power relations, since power itself is what allows one idea to gain ground at the expense of another. This theme, central to understanding the process of computer-mediated communication, has been extensively studied by scholars such as Castells, Jensen, Maigret, and Andrade, yielding significant findings.

Jesús Alberto Andrade [13][13] Andrade, J. (2006). La sociedad red: una visión global [The Network Society: a Comprehensive Overview]. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. Available here: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3194476 explains that the networks present in society are an extension of the power [14][14] The Latin word ‘possum’ (to have the power to do something) is the source of the word ‘power’. It implies the ability to do something, to have the strength to do it, or to be powerful enough to achieve control or possession of a physical or concrete object (Ávila, 2007: 2). Michel Foucault, in Security, Territory, Population, points out that power is a set of mechanisms and procedures whose role or function, even when they fail, is precisely to ensure power. Power is not based on itself and does not emanate from itself; rather, it is a process that is constructed by providing precise conditions for its emergence. ‘A relationship of forces, or rather every relationship of forces, is a relationship of power […] Every force is already a relationship, that is, power: force has no other object or subject than force itself’ (Foucault, M., 1992). concentrated at the top of verticalist organisations, which have been responsible for shaping the course of human history. The author highlights the contributions of several researchers on the topic, particularly Castells, from whom he draws that “the traits of the network society—flexibility, adaptability, survivability—are fundamental for unlocking the potential of society and thus for achieving a technological paradigm based on microelectronics, which has ushered in the information age” [15].[15] Andrade, J. (2006). La sociedad red: una visión global [The Network Society: a Comprehensive Overview]. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. Available here: here: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3194476

In Ecuador’s case, it is worth recalling that between 1995 and 2007 [17][17] Between 1830 and 2008, Ecuador enacted 20 constitutions and had around 44 presidents, many of whom came to power through military coups. the country experienced one of the most politically, economically, socially, and culturally unstable periods in its history. Seven presidents in just twelve years, a state burdened by fiscal deficit, collapsed healthcare and education systems, severely limited public works, and an unprecedented wave of migration that saw thousands leave, following the collapse of the financial system and the imposition of dollarisation. All this took place under governments ranging from centre to right-wing, fully aligned with the decrees of international creditors, and supported by media outlets devoted to preserving the status quo.

And what led to such a fragile position? In the 80s and 90s, Ecuador faced a deep crisis caused by its enormous foreign debt and its limited to non-existent capacity to generate revenue, along with its narrow export base. One must bear in mind that the Ecuadorian economy relies primarily on the export of raw materials, including oil, bananas, cocoa, and shrimp. In other words, it is a primary, export-dependent, and fragile economy [18],[18] The strength of the State, expressed in the effectiveness of its institutions, plays a secondary role or disappears altogether, as resources appear to replace institutionality. In essence, beyond the state of institutions, public goods reach their recipients—health, education, subsidies—either as public assets, accessible to anyone as a citizen, or as privatised commodities, i.e., perks that can only be accessed through a relationship with the ruler. Due to this “political rentiership”, the effectiveness of voting as a means of citizen oversight to punish bad governance is lost, as are the incentives for parties to develop efficient bureaucracies and governing capacities. (Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2012) a model further exacerbated by natural disasters like El Niño and global energy and financial crises, which led to a a sharp decline in oil prices.

Moreover, governments aligned with neoliberal rationales have consistently prioritised debt repayment at the expense of further shrinking the state. This has led to mass dismissals, fuel price hikes, the privatisation of strategic sectors, limited investment in public services… and, ultimately, widespread poverty.

The mass media have supported these political processes—of course, not in a disinterested manner. Despite Ecuadorian legislation [19][19] Asamblea Constituyente del Ecuador (2008, 20 de octubre). Constitución de la República del Ecuador. (Artículos 20 y 323) [Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador (Art. 20 & 323)]. Registro Oficial 449. Available here: https://www.oas.org/juridico/pdfs/mesicic4_ecu_const.pdf explicitly prohibiting such entanglements, there are direct ties in the country between financial, media, and political power. For instance, Fidel Egas, the owner of Banco Pichincha, also owns the television channel Teleamazonas, the digital news outlet Primicias, and the Multicines cinema chain, among other assets. That one single individual can amass so much power has unquestionable consequences for the course of Ecuador’s future.

Manufacturing Monsters: Corporatism, Clientelism, and Insecurity

As early as 2003, Noam Chomsky pointed to the lack of serious proposals to tackle major social issues: healthcare, education, housing shortages, unemployment, crime rates, the growing insecurity affecting broad swaths of the population, the prison system, and the degradation of peripheral neighbourhoods. He warned that instead of addressing these challenges, the powers-that-be focus on diverting the attention of a “bewildered herd” away from them, lest it start to become aware of what is happening—and dislike it. “Perhaps entertaining them with the Cup Final or soap operas won’t suffice, and it may be necessary to stir up their fear of enemies. In the 1930s, Hitler spread fear of Jews and Roma among Germans: they had to be crushed in the name of self-defence. But we, too, have our methods. Over the past decade, every year or at most every two, a new top-tier monster has been manufactured, one against which we must defend ourselves” [20].[20] La vaca. (2023, 28 de agosto). El control de los medios de comunicación [Media Control]. Available here: https://lavaca.org/notas/el-control-de-los-medios-de-comunicacion/

It can be argued that the country operated under an institutional design poorly suited for resolving political conflicts, which instead served as a powerful incentive for vetoes and blockades [21].[21] Mejía Acosta, S. (2009). Informal Coalitions and Policymaking in Latin America: Ecuador in Comparative Perspective. Routledge. Political and social actors found they gained—“benefited”—more by operating outside the rules of political exchange than by abiding by them. As numerous studies have shown, practices such as corporatism and clientelism, along with a widespread disregard for democratic procedures, have become the norm across political and social organisations in Ecuador [22].[22] Pachano, S. (2009). La representación política en el Ecuador: Entre la crisis y la reconstrucción [Political Representation in Ecuador: Between Crisis and Reconstruction]. In S. Basabe, A. Mejía Acosta & S. Pachano (Eds.), *La democracia en Ecuador, 1979-2008* (pp. 75-96). FLACSO. Available here: https://biblio.flacsoandes.edu.ec/libros/digital/57261.pdf This, among other factors, has led to a stagnant political system and, consequently, to an entrenched lack of effectiveness.

The economic, social, and political foundations that Ecuador managed to build between 2007 and 2017—during the governments of Rafael Correa—as a result of a series of public policies aimed at reducing inequality and achieving a state of “Buen Vivir” [23][23] The Constitution of Ecuador recognises rights for individuals, communities, peoples and nationalities, and rights for Nature. Therefore, Buen Vivir can be understood as the effective enjoyment of the rights of individuals, communities, peoples and nationalitiesin the exercise of their responsibilities, within a democratic framework of harmonious coexistence among citizens, with nature, and with the supremacy of the common good and public interest. Alternatively, Buen Vivir can be understood as life in its fullness, comprising the internal harmony of individuals–both material and spiritual–social harmony within and between communities, and harmony with nature. (Inec, 2016). (Good Living)—began to crumble with the subsequent neoliberal restoration. All signs suggest that the country is currently facing a crisis even more severe than that experienced between 1985 and 2005, especially in terms of the worsening levels of insecurity and violence.

Today, Ecuador stands as the most violent country in Latin America, with an alarming homicide rate of 38 per 100,000 inhabitants. In just the first 50 days of the year, the country recorded 1,300 murders—equivalent to one killing per hour [24].[24] Insight Crime. (2024, 30 de enero). Ecuador’s Violence Reaches New Heights in 2024. Available here: https://insightcrime.org/news/ecuadors-violence-reaches-new-heights-2024/ This marks a radical shift, considering that up until 2019, Ecuador was the second safest country in the region, with a homicide rate of 6.7 per 100,000—comparable to that of the United States [25].[25] BBC World. (2024, January 10). Cómo Ecuador pasó de ser uno de los países más seguros de América Latina a vivir una ola de violencia sin precedentes [How Ecuador Went fro Being One of the Safest Countries in Latin America to Suffer from an Unprecedented Wave of Violence]. Available here: https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/cx8j77j1d9yo

Photo_ Angel Ramos G_ CC BY 2.0

That same decade also saw the implementation of measures aimed at democratising access to the media and the radio spectrum, such as the Communication Law—enacted in 2013, following a constitutional mandate from 2008. However, the political process that brought about all these advances has come under brutal attack from the media—the very same outlets that, without the slightest pretence, have resisted any attempt to reform the media landscape: 99% of media outlets remain in private hands, marked by heavy concentration and the absence of any regulatory body to oversee content based on audience rights.

Conclusions.
The Realm of Opinions: Between the Loop of Democracy and the Tyranny of the Majority

The profound distrust of institutions and the political system among citizens in Ecuador is clearly a response to their limited capacity to represent the population’s interests and respond adequately to their demands and needs. The poor performance of public representatives is self-evident, with the Legislative branch receiving the lowest approval ratings and generating the least sense of representation.

Confidence in democracy is feeble across the region, consistent with the fact that democratisation in most Latin American states has not brought about a sufficient reduction in social inequalities. In Ecuador’s case, it is essential to remember that the country emerged from a 15-year crisis that eroded the legitimacy of the social order as a whole, culminating in the “¡que se vayan todos!” (throw them all out) phenomenon. That is, a visceral response from a weak and demobilised civil society, which—out of disaffection and weariness—lumps all political options together, creating the perfect breeding ground for intense personalism in decision-making and agenda-setting [27].[27] Pachano, S. (2012). El sistema político ecuatoriano: Entre la inestabilidad y el autoritarismo [The Ecuadorian Political System: Between Instability and Authroitarianism]. FLACSO Ecuador.

In conclusion, one of the main challenges facing the country is ensuring that the media fulfil their social role by strengthening the democratic system, rather than continuing to act as militant agents of the status quo. It is urgent that mass media recognise their responsibility towards the public, and that the authorities fully guarantee the right to communication—not that of companies to own media outlets and control the public conversation, but the right of citizens to receive verified, balanced, and plural information. This means guaranteeing public access to media that serve the common good rather than commercial interests, for which it is essential to curb the concentration of media ownership in private hands.

We must move beyond Habermas’ historical distinction between a “news press” and an “opinion press” [28][28] Habermas, J. (1998). Facticidad y validez: Sobre el derecho y el Estado democrático de derecho en términos de teoría del discurso [Facticity and Validity: On Law and the Democratic Rule of Law in Terms of Discourse Theory] (5ª ed.). Trotta. and instead conceive of the media as a “press of proposal, practice, review, and expansion of civic issues”, given that the media reduce the distance between the macro-social and the micro-social [29].[29] Martín Serrano, M. (2004). La producción social de comunicación [The Social Produciton of Communication] (3ª ed.). Alianza Editorial. Just as they have traditionally brought public affairs into the private sphere, we must also recognise that mass media have the capacity to elevate private, politically charged matters into the public arena [30].[30] Aguirre Sala, J. F. (2011). El fortalecimiento de la ciudadanía participativa a través de los new media (Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Monterrey) [The Strengthening of Participatory Citizenship Throughout the New Media (Phd Thesis, Monterrey University].

However, we must also remember that a risk inherent to democracy is the so-called “tyranny of the majority”. This refers to “the danger that a mediocre public opinion, created and sustained by the pressure of the majorities, should prevail” [32].[32] Abreu Sojo, C. (2007). La opinión pública y los medios en crisis políticas [Publico Opinion and Media in Political Crises]. Revista Venezolana de Ciencia Política, 32, 45-60. It is undoubtedly one of democracy’s intrinsic threats, the risk that minorities may be left isolated and unprotected, as Tocqueville warned. The ultimate consequence of this vulnerability is what Price referred to as “the expansion of the phenomenon of public opinion”, whereby “the most certain outcome is the likely authority attained by majorities, while the least likely itself is the rise of energetic minorities”.

Immersed in a media ecosystem shaped by what Pareto termed “logical and non-logical opinions”, or what Dader referred to as “rational and irrational dichotomies” [33],[33] Idem. access to truthful information—grounded in verifiable and objective empirical data—is now more crucial than ever. Without it, contemporary democracies will continue to suffer from a lack of knowledge and certainty, remaining at the mercy of political leaders’ persuasive power and the rule of emotionally driven opinions. We must not forget, as Uslar Pietri once remarked:

“We express the strongest opinions about that we know least. Faced with events and situations about which we have only superficial and highly incomplete information, we rush to deliver absolute and final judgements—which those with deeper knowledge would hesitate to make” [34].[34] Uslar Pietri, A. (1954). Las visiones del camino [The Visions of the Path]. Edime.

The internet, telecommunications, and digital social networks have revolutionised the communication paradigm by dissolving the boundaries of time and space within the digital sphere. However, neither Web 2.0 nor social media have resolved—nor is it their role to resolve—the problem of participatory inequality identified by Jakob Nielsen: 90% of users merely observe, 9% contribute occasionally, and only 1% do so consistently and meaningfully [35].[35] Nielsen. J. (2006). The 90-9-1 Rule for Participation Inequality in Social Media and Online Communities. Available here: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/participation-inequality/

In light of this, fostering participation becomes essential, as its absence only deepens inequality in power relations. This, we must say, stands in stark contrast to the original vision of the internet, which was rooted in a libertarian and democratic spirit.

·

SHARE THIS: