2.1. A Brief Analysis of the Threats to Democracy

In order to understand the correlation between polarisation and the growing emergence of political leaders with totalitarian profiles and democratic stability, it is crucial to delve into the concepts expounded by the German philosopher Hannah Arendt. Arendt advocates for the establishment of democratic political arenas as spaces for the free expression of opinions and the challenging of established truths, thereby facilitating dissent and consensus through strategies of persuasion and dissuasion. In her work, As Origens do Totalitarismo (The Origins of Totalitarianism), ^{Arendt (1951/1989}) emphasises that “the ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction no longer exist” (p. 312).

According to ^{Arendt (2003}), cinema and radio played crucial roles in facilitating the spread of totalitarianism during the first half of the 20th century. Although dictators also resorted to violence to suppress truths that resisted manipulation, the German philosopher underscores the power of communication and emphasises the need for a free and responsible press to uphold the democratic system. At this point, it is noteworthy that our super-connected lifestyle has exponentially amplified the possibilities for manipulation.

For the philosopher Óscar ^{Barroso Fernández (2020}), we live in a world where the obliteration of truth no longer requires silencing witnesses but rather drowning their voices amid a sea of lies or hoaxes. The author argues that we are trapped in a “perverse dynamic based on lies, where under the guise of a false freedom of expression, uncomfortable factual truths are distorted into opinions with which one may or may not agree” (^{Barroso Fernández, 2020}, para. 6).

Drawing from the concepts of ^{Arendt (1967}), who contends that “freedom of opinion is a farce unless factual information is guaranteed and if the facts themselves are not in dispute” (p. 49), one can appreciate the pivotal role of quality journalism in combatting disinformation and threats to democracy.

2.2. Public Trust in Democratic Institutions

In democratic societies, journalism can be seen as a key element in the articulation of the public sphere (^{Habermas, 2006}), serving as a mediator between the State and society, ensuring the population access to information of public interest. As ^{Casero-Ripollés (2020}) points out, access to information impacts not only citizens’ understanding of their immediate reality and their commitment to public affairs but also the very concept of “democracy”, given the intimate connection between information and the democratic State.

As a dynamic and adaptable concept, democracy changes as the social, cultural and political frameworks of society evolve. Within this evolutionary paradigm, the media and citizen participation are the driving forces behind this development. For ^{Dahl (2006}), in a country where the right to vote exists but where its rulers repress the opposition, representation and participation, essential axes in democratic societies, may suffer. Hence, the significance of one of journalism’s primary objectives: provide citizens with socially pertinent information, enabling them to form opinions on the subject and fostering civic competencies for social and political participation (^{Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2007}).

The concept of “democratic citizenship”, established by ^{Hannah Arendt (2005/2008}), posits that citizens should have a civic competency nurtured by a free and equal public space. A place that gives them a voice and allows them to develop a political culture grounded on dialogue aimed at forging agreements and peacefully resolving conflicts in the public arena. Instilling these attributes of civility demands dedication and engagement from citizens alongside transparent and trustworthy public institutions.

According to the report La Calidad de las Instituciones en España (The Quality of Institutions in Spain; ^{Lapuente et al., 2018}), the trust population’ demonstrates in the administrations that provide public services is remarkable, in contrast, the trust rate in the political system is the lowest in Europe. Only 13% of individuals express trust in politicians, while 20% express trust in political parties. ^{Alberola (2018}) states that in “Spain, political scandals have eroded citizens’ trust in public institutions and their satisfaction with the functioning of democracy” (para. 2).

The lack of trust in politicians among the Spanish people has been particularly evident during the COVID-19 crisis. In a survey conducted in the country, only 31% of respondents expressed belief in the information about the coronavirus provided by politicians, and 45% believed the information provided by the Government (^{Kleis-Nielsen et al., 2020}).

Distrust of public institutions and politicians is also evident in the data on fake news. A survey of internet users indicates that 49% of Spanish people identify the Government, politicians and national parties as the primary sources of disinformation, followed by journalists (15%), citizens (11%) and other political actors or foreign activists groups (8%; ^{Amoedo et al., 2020}).

During crises such as that generated by the coronavirus pandemic, it becomes imperative for governments to demonstrate transparency and trustworthiness to garner citizen support and participation in addressing the social emergency. In this scenario, the press plays a crucial role in explaining to the public unfolding events and engaging them in finding solutions, serving as a vital ally in the political, institutional, and health management efforts of governments (^{Costa-Sánchez & López-García, 2020}).

2.3. The Concept of “Quality in Journalism”

As a starting point, we have relied on international studies highlighting the absence of a universally accepted concept defining quality journalism, even though there is a consensus on the existence of fundamental criteria for this practice. Primary research on this topic predominantly centres on academic analyses and the perspectives of professionals to delineate categories indicative of “quality journalism”, often associated with the designation of “leading newspapers”.

Researchers such as ^{Shapiro et al. (2006}) suggest that current literature has assessed quality in journalism by employing criteria rooted in values such as accuracy, impartiality, the reputation of the news organisation, sources of information and the content of the reported stories. ^{Lacy and Rosenstiel (2015}) propose that while each individual may have their interpretation of quality in journalism, it likely aligns with that of a collective group sharing common experiences.

Most recent studies examine quality from either the demand or production perspective. In the demand approach, emphasis is placed on the interaction between citizens’ needs and the news content. On the other hand, the methodology that analyses production focuses on the characteristics of the content (^{Lacy & Rosenstiel, 2015}). Drawing from the concepts advocated by the researchers above, it is possible to infer that in the content-focused approach, the public assesses the news based on their own standards, thereby determining whether it meets quality criteria or not. ^{McQuail (2011/2012}) suggests that quality measured through demand is tied to how journalism is perceived in fulfilling the needs and desires of citizens, adopting a relativistic approach that may reinforce arguments suggesting that quality cannot be objectively measured due to its inherent subjectivity.

A study conducted by ^{McQuail (2013}) highlights some fundamental requirements for the quality of information, including comprehensive coverage of relevant news and general information concerning local and international events; objective, factual, accurate, reliable information that aligns with reality; balanced and fair information, reporting alternative perspectives and interpretations soberly and impartially.

According to ^{Vehkoo (2010}), there are no universal criteria to ascertain the quality of journalism, as it is contingent upon factors such as socioeconomic and educational contexts. Nevertheless, in light of the standards and codes of conduct shared by professionals globally, the researcher affirms the notion that a well-functioning democracy requires an informed public.

Theoretical discussions generally indicate that journalistic quality can be directly influenced by the social and cultural background of the community surrounding its production, thereby emphasising the importance of observing its context within the specific space-time continuum (^{Santos & Guazina, 2019}).

2.4. Consumption of Mainstream Newspapers Today

In recent years, there has been a decline in readership and credibility for mainstream newspapers, jeopardising their social relevance (^{Carlson, 2017}). Moreover, they now compete for the limelight with other social players (^{Casero-Ripollés, 2020}). However, the coronavirus outbreak has underscored the importance of traditional media during crisis. In April 2020, 56% of Spanish people acknowledged that the media had helped them understand the pandemic. Meanwhile, 64% stated that traditional media explained the measures they could take in response to the coronavirus (^{Negredo, 2020}).

The heightened interest in news stemming from the coronavirus pandemic has resulted in a surge in the volume of reports on the topic. ^{Lázaro-Rodríguez and HerreraViedma (2020}) note that the number of news articles published in online newspapers in Spain rose by nearly 50% in the first 30 days following the implementation of mobility restrictions in March 2020.

While the use of social media to access information is growing (^{Newman et al., 2019}), it is important to acknowledge their limitations in order to generate a well-informed and civically engaged citizenry (^{Zúñiga et al., 2017}). Apart from fostering the “filter bubble” phenomenon, the possibility of consulting multiple digital platforms promotes an environment impregnated with information, potentially leading to confusion regarding the factuality of each one. This saturated environment contributes to the proliferation of misinformation (^{Bennett & Livingston, 2018}) and reduces trust in traditional media while encouraging political polarisation (^{Van Aelst et al., 2017}).

Despite the surge in the consumption of mainstream newspapers during the coronavirus pandemic, there is a prevailing trend of low trust in the press. Only 36% of Spanish internet users report regular trust in the news. This marks the lowest level of news credibility since 2015, reflecting political and social events that polarise citizens (^{Amoedo et al., 2020}). Data from a survey conducted in Spain in 2020 reveals that 48% of respondents favour obtaining information from impartial sources, while 30% opt for media aligned with their ideologies, and 10% declare following channels that offer diverse viewpoints. Among readers at the opposite ends of the political spectrum (both left and right), more than 40% express a preference for media outlets that echo their perspectives (^{Amoedo et al., 2020}).

A survey conducted by the Reuters Institute (^{Kleis-Nielsen et al., 2020}) discloses additional significant findings: 60% of users who seek information in mainstream newspapers (online or offline) state they value the social function of journalism. However, among those who rely on social media to stay informed, this figure drops to 45%. In light of these insights, media organisations are compelled to invest in economically sustainable business models that allow them to fulfil their social role while concurrently rebuilding trust among citizens.

2.5. Social Media and Disinformation

Theorists such as ^{Loader and Mercea (2012}) underline that, despite its potential, the use of the internet is not always as positive as it should be. As an example of the negative use of technology, we can cite the avalanche of disinformation caused by the spread of rumours on social media, which can lead to political and social instability, posing a threat to democracy. In the political sphere, we experienced the spread of fake news in the Brexit vote (2016), the United States presidential elections (2016) and the Brazilian presidential elections (2018). Furthermore, in the realm of health, the zika virus outbreak in 2015 is an example of disinformation, as is the coronavirus pandemic.

Social media facilitate a significant flow of information, where it is possible to find genuine news, written and verified through basic journalistic techniques, and navigate between rumours and biased information imbued with ideological messages, each presenting truth from particular perspectives (^{Wood, 2018}). Specifically concerning the coronavirus pandemic, the dissemination of news was so widespread that the ^{World Health Organization (2020}) declared the situation as an “infodemic”, indicating an overwhelming abundance of information that made it difficult to identify reliable sources and accurate guidelines.

As the disease progressed globally, misinformation also spread rapidly, despite the efforts of platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp and Google to mitigate its dissemination. Likewise, many social network users took to flagging suspicious content, contributing to the fight against misinformation (^{Pérez-Dasilva et al., 2020}). During the first two months of the pandemic, the Spanish fact-checking organisation Maldita.es verified and debunked 586 rumours about COVID-19.

According to a report by ^{Blanco (2020}) in the newspaper El País, the National Police attended to more than 7,000 individuals in a single day who expressed doubts regarding the accuracy of messages received on social media. Such a high level of misinformation is particularly concerning given the context of a public health crisis. In these situations, it is not enough for people to be well-informed; it is imperative that they also cooperate to mitigate the spread of the disease.

The proliferation of fake news increases distrust in institutions, leading to social instability and instilling confusion and anxiety among the population (^{Waisbord, 2018}). This impacts governments and politicians, as disinformation has the potential to sway the beliefs of even those who are supportive of the ruling administration (^{Casero-Ripollés, 2020}), fostering an environment that is detrimental to democracy. According to several studies, the profusion of rumours is fuelled by the availability of diverse alternative sources of information. It is often linked to populism and radicalism, which exploit this strategy to garner support (^{Bennett & Livingston, 2018}).

The “infodemic” resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has unveiled paradoxical scenarios wherein social players tasked with combating the spread of fake news have become purveyors of disinformation. Examples include a Chinese Government spokesperson disseminating the rumour that the virus originated from the United States, a claim echoed by Chinese State media. Russian media suggested that COVID-19 was engineered in a laboratory in Georgia, United States of America. Additionally, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro speculated that the virus could be a potential biological weapon targeting China while also promoting natural remedies to cure the virus in a tweet that was flagged on Twitter (^{Pérez-Dasilva et al., 2020}).

2.6. Combating Disinformation

The combat against disinformation and its repercussions on democratic societies involves various approaches, with different disciplines playing a role in alleviating the situation. In the book The People Vs Tech, author and journalist Jamie ^{Bartlett (2018}) argues that governments should establish effective regulations for social media, targeting oligopolies, and exercising oversight over algorithms.

Online search platforms, instant messaging companies, and certain social media are also actively engaged in developing tools to curb the dissemination of false information. Google has forged partnerships with verification firms and is enhancing its algorithm-based filtering system for search results. In response to the coronavirus “infodemic”, WhatsApp has implemented a new measure to restrict the frequency with which messages can be forwarded. Facebook has started sending pop-up notifications to users who have interacted with questionable content related to the coronavirus (^{García, 2020}).

In fulfilling their social role as contributors to the consolidation of democracy, news organisations are tasked with implementing measures to counter the proliferation of misinformation, including the use of verification tools and heightened vigilance in verifying news accuracy (^{González-Fernández-Villavicencio, 2014}). Meanwhile, the primary challenge lies in recovering and consolidating public trust by delivering high-quality content. Most Spanish internet users (64%) perceive that the media effectively disseminates timely information, but only half (56%) believe that leading newspapers provide in-depth analysis and insight (^{Newman et al., 2019}, p. 24).

In an effort to restore the industry’s credibility and establish standards of trust, an international media consortium, The Trust Project(https://thetrustproject.org/), collaborates with technology platforms to reaffirm journalism’s commitment to transparency, accuracy, inclusion and fairness, thereby empowering readers to make informed decisions. The project involves the participation of 121 media outlets worldwide, including prominent names such as The Economist, The Washington Post, La Repubblica, Corriere Della Sera, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, as well as Spanish newspapers El País and El Mundo. Additionally, search engines and various social media are engaged in the project as external partners, as they have become important distributors of news.

The Trust Project’s guiding principles stem from those developed in 1947 by the Hutchins Commission, spelling out the commitments a free and responsible press must follow. In order to establish trust indicators, they are committed to:

Combating disinformation also relies on fact-checking platforms, which are dedicated to identifying false information and disseminating accurate data. In Spain, the most prominent companies in this field are Maldita.es, B de Bulo and Newtral. Their objective is to equip citizens with the tools to discern between fake news and legitimate news. To achieve this, they monitor political discourse and information circulating on social media, analysing messages using data journalism techniques. Additionally, they encourage citizen participation by soliciting verification of suspicious content via WhatsApp, thereby providing a valuable service to the public (^{Palomo & Sedano, 2018}).