Abu Dhabi

In a session held in the UAE Pavilion at the World Economic Forum WEF 2024, Sir Martin Sorrell, a notable media and marketing figure, and David Haigh, Chairman and CEO of Brand Finance, engaged in an exclusive fireside chat discussing the urgent and critical issue of “Misinformation and Disinformation,” an obstacle highlighted by the WEF as the most significant short-term risk.

The one-to-one fireside chat, focused on the global issue of misinformation. The conversation explored the soft power landscape, with a special emphasis on the Media Communications sector—an integral pillar in the Brand Finance Global Soft Power Index.

Sir Martin Sorrell and David Haigh addressed the main challenges facing traditional media, including the dynamic information landscape of today which presents unprecedented challenges for traditional media giants. Sorrell and Haigh unraveled the hurdles faced by the industry titans as they strive to maintain relevance and credibility.

During the discussing, participants highlighted the key role of the Digital and Social Media, where they discussed its risks, shedding light on the complexities of navigating the digital landscape in an era of rapid technological advancement. The world of digital and social media is ever-evolving, offering powerful communication tools that come with inherent risks. The fireside chat will explore these risks. They emphasized that the world of digital and social media is ever-evolving, offering powerful communication tools that come with inherent risks.

Also, the fireside chat highlighted the impact of misinformation and its profound effects on societies and global affairs, dissecting the implications of distorted information on public opinion, governance, and international relations.

Discussion has been wrapped up with a thoughtful exploration of actionable solutions, mitigating the risks posed by misinformation and disinformation. The collaboration between Sir Martin Sorrell and David Haigh underscores the importance of uniting industry leaders to address global challenges. The exclusive fireside provided valuable perspectives on the complexities of the media landscape and offered tangible solutions for a world grappling with misinformation.

Published under an International Cooperation Protocol with Middle East Business

_______________

The post Misinformation leaves profound effects on societies and global affairs first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Nazarul Islam

It’s this special time of year when the global elites gather together at Davos. Or rather it would have been if it weren’t for Covid. And thanks to the Omicron wave, the event we know as World Economic Forum 2022 has been postponed.

But let’s not despair. Instead of the annual jamboree that you probably couldn’t afford and wouldn’t be invited to, there’s an online event called The Davos Agenda. This opened on Monday with a “special address” by Xi Jinping.

What could be more Davos than China’s communist dictator telling a bunch of virtual capitalists that we should “remove barriers, not erect walls”? Inspirational stuff — and I’m sure a great comfort to the people of Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet.

For our Davos-sceptics, however, this will only confirm suspicions that something has gone very wrong with global capitalism — with the World Economic Forum at the center of it all. The fact that we’ve exported so much of our productive capacity to China and other countries is one concern. But the bigger worry is about what we’re getting back from the globalized economy.

And for our Westerner friends, capitalism is first and foremost a consumer experience. In the 20th century, the system triumphed over its socialist rival because it delivered the goods. After the long, dark centuries of scarcity, we suddenly found ourselves in a time of plenty. We were grateful — but not, let it be noted, pathetically grateful. Indeed, the real clincher for consumer capitalism is that it made us feel strong.

Motorized transport — above all our cars— gave us the ability to go where we wanted, when we wanted. Combined with modern construction methods, our newfound mobility also massively expanded the supply of new housing. Space and privacy, previously reserved for the rich became available to the masses.

Then there was the food. Today, we romanticize the kitchen table as the heart of traditional family life. But in most homes it was also a traditional — and very necessary — instrument of rationing. Consumer capitalism transformed the situation. Above all, there was the miracle of meat every day, not just on special occasions; the modern world is defined as much by beef and mutton as it is by steel and silicon.

Of course, abundance comes at a cost. There are the obvious downsides of excess; but also our growing distance from the old ways: the rhythms of nature, the bonds of community, the dignity of craftsmanship. Yet we didn’t sacrifice these deep connections in return for mere comfort. Rather, we were offered an alternative form of vitality: the freedom of the road; the mastery of owning one’s home; the visceral satisfaction of unrestricted carnivorous indulgence.

It might seem strange to describe these things as cultural goods, but within a certain set of consumerist values, that’s exactly what they are.

Beyond its merely material comforts, the consumer society — especially the American version — offered an empowered, independent and, dare I say it, manly way of life. Whether or not one approves, the fact is that it gave birth to a distinctive culture — one to which most of us remain attached.

Nonetheless, it’s now under threat. While the global economy produces more than ever, there’s a growing anxiety that the associated sense of empowerment — what could be called the red meat of capitalism — is about to be snatched away from us.

That’s literally the case when it comes to food. One only has to look at the effort being made to promote meat-substitutes. Most distastefully, there’s the argument that we should feed the world on insect protein. A quick search of the World Economic Forum website reveals an obsession with the idea. Here’s a small selection of articles from the last few years: “Worms for dinner? Europe backs insect based food”; “Good grub: why we might be eating insects soon”; and “Fancy a bug burger?”

I warn you, not to be surprised because the house journals of global capitalism, the Financial Times and The Economist, take a similar line. Both publications advocate for entomophagy beneath perky headlines such as “Eating bugs: a culinary idea with legs” and “Why eating insects makes sense”.

Yet a backlash is underway. “I will not eat the bugs!” has become a rallying cry on the alt — and not-so-alt — Right. The golden age of capitalism gave us affordable meat, and there’s a slice of public opinion that’s in no mood to accept substitutes.

Obviously, we are not just talking food here, but a whole way of life. Consider the second part of the anti-Davos mantra: “I will not live in the pod!” This refers to the proposition that we should radically rethink how we allocate living space in crowded, unaffordable cities. And by “rethink”, I mean “reduce” — both in terms of floor area and privacy. In place of apartments and houses, a WEF report invites us to consider “tiny homes” (i.e. boxes) and experiments in “shared living” (i.e. dormitories).

And then, there is the element of mobility. Never mind the “war on the motorist”, vehicle automation threatens to abolish the motorist. In the golden age of capitalism, people drove cars; but Davos looks forward to a future in which cars drive people.

It’s not difficult to see all this as a process of disempowerment — indeed of emasculation.

I am really surprised to see a certain ideological group in the US, leading the backlash. It’s as if some alien force has taken control of capitalism, pulling it in a new and un-American direction. I’m also not surprised to see the WEF — with its rhetoric around “The Great Reset” — become a symbol of this apparent change of course.

Yet, as much as I hate to admit it, Davos isn’t to blame. All of the trends that these people see as threatening their kind of capitalism are in fact a consequence of it.

It’s a paradox of productivity. The greater the abundance of goods and services we produce, the greater the number of people who get to enjoy them. Unfortunately, it also means we use up more of the enabling resources that can’t be as easily multiplied. The most obvious example is the car, or rather the space required for cars. There was a time when the freedom of the road really meant something.

But as roads fill up, there’s no choice but to impose speed limits, one-way systems, road charging and other measures required to save lives and keep cities moving. Self-driving cars, if and when we get them, are just the next step — a means of reducing driver error and thus making the most of limited road capacity. After all, that’s what free markets are supposed to do: maximize resource efficiency.

As a corollary, the same applies to living space. That too is limited, especially in city centers — and, therefore, we can expect the laws of supply and demand to have their inevitable impact. You may not want to live in a pod, but if that’s all you can afford, then you have a choice: either take the deal or move somewhere less expensive.

Eating the bugs is a just another response to market forces. Meat is delicious, which is why demand for it is going up as more of the world’s people get rich enough to afford it. Supply responds to demand, but also pushes harder against natural limits — like the availability of land for feed crops. There are ethical concerns too — and so producers and consumers look for alternatives. If you see supermarkets filling their shelves with an ever wider range of meatless meat products, it’s not because someone at Davos told them to.

What the malcontents see as a conspiracy is just the market doing its thing. And Davos, when it comes down to it, is just a fancy trade fair for a global economy selling whatever it can at a competitive price.

Of course, that still leaves a lot of good reasons for rejecting the “Davos agenda” — but if you think you do, then you’re going to have to contemplate a rather more radical break with consumer capitalism. However, I don’t expect many takers for this. If the choice is between eating the bugs or worms or eating only carrots, then most people will eat the bugs.

Nazarul Islam

The Bengal-born writer Nazarul Islam is a senior educationist based in USA. He writes for Sindh Courier and the newspapers of Bangladesh, India and America. He is author of a recently published book ‘Chasing Hope’ – a compilation of his 119 articles.

The post We surely will end up eating bugs and worms first appeared on Sindh Courier.