Debates on fake news have a habit of raising their hood now and then. Whenever there is news that is blatantly a lie and rouses the feelings of the masses to a high tempo, the debate rages and subsides. It is business as usual.
Nothing, however, happens to fake news. It has been around for decades as a weapon used by all and sundry. Fake news is possibly as old and durable as history. It is no surprise that a whole lot of history could be termed as a documentation of fake news as it emerged over the decades. There are plenty of examples to quote. Rulers of every kind and region have used news to their advantage when they have ruled. The glorification of their rule and the suppression of the negatives during their tenure has been a craft in itself. Those who practiced and contributed to it were rewarded. And those who went against the tone, tenor and decibel of the commanded narrative were punished of course.
Now, if you can’t trust history to be accurate, what can you trust?
The point is simple. Fake news is a part of the narrative of our lives. It has become so pervasive and intrusively real that one cannot sift the truth from the lie, leave alone the half-truth from the half-lie. A small number of people who call themselves the savvy intelligentsia are able to spot fake news. The larger numbers of people exposed to fake news, however, seem to find it difficult to distinguish from the real, the surreal and the blatant lies. And this is a point of deep worry.
I do believe there are lies and lies. There are indeed 50 shades of them, if not more.
The debate rages today as a war between the two polarised types of media that disseminate news, views and opinions of every kind. At one end is the curated medium of print and television and radio that has editors who curate, check and deliver content. Then there is the wild animal called social media. Out here, most social media vehicles consider themselves to be pure mediums where independent people post what they want to post. These mediums such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram (and 97 other vehicles) consider themselves to be just this. People who have their handles registered can really post what they want, provided they are within the purview of some basic norms of decency specified by these mediums and indeed the laws of the land.
Out on social media, there are the good, the bad and the ugly. There are the responsible and the irresponsible. The problem lies in the fact that the irresponsible seem to outnumber the responsible for now. Social media is the ultimate tool of democracy. Out here, everyone with an opinion can publish and disseminate. Those who find these views in sync with what they think will further percolate the message and themes (as the case may be). From the consumer point of view, in many ways, you become what you read, you become what you see and you become who you follow on social media.
Would I then be right to say that you are a function of all the media you consume by choice? Think about it. The newspaper you read daily is a choice you make and a choice you stick to largely. The second newspaper you subscribe to is a choice as well. You pay for it additionally. The television news channels you watch and flick, the radio programmes you listen in to, and the OTT channels you subscribe to, all define who you are. The people you follow on Twitter, the groups you belong to on WhatsApp, the Instagram and Youtube channels you subscribe to, all define who you are. In many ways, you and I are a function of what we see, subscribe to and hear in the media. Subscription to an extent is the ultimate endorsement.
As the debate between real news and fake news rages, there is a point of worry. In the case of the curated mediums such as print, television and radio, there is a degree of responsibility vested in the editor who is in charge of news and its dissemination. In the case of the uncurated medium, essentially social media vehicles, this responsibility does not vest with any one entity.
Social media vehicles are today stepping up to the challenge to their imagery in the wake of the new IT rules in India and are saying that they are as responsible as any other. They need to be very concerned. Social media today is curated, but a wee bit selectively and possibly with not as much objectivity as required. While some channels are auto-curated (to flag words, obscenities and issues such as child pornography and religious/gender sensitivity), some seem selectively curated. Some are sensitivity-issue curated. Some are misleading-information curated with their misinformation policies in place, and some are surely policy-curated.
Social media vehicles need to be very cautious and cultivate their consumer-imageries carefully. It is important for them to look as democratic as they purport themselves to be. At the same time, it is important for them to avoid the bitter bite of user-anarchy. There is a very thin line of difference between a democracy and an anarchy in this space. One cause, one issue and one misdemeanour is enough to cause a slip between one to another.
Social media is a media. A media vehicle. It needs to take care and stay cautious as to how it is driven. It needs to be watchful to see who is driving it. With what kind of fuel? At what speed? In what direction? With what colour of ethos? And most importantly, with what intent? What is the purpose behind it all?
The thing to watch is intent. Good intent is a positive, but bad intent is something that needs to be nipped in the bud. The difference between real news and fake news is basically in its DNA of intent. Let’s remember, when a dog bites man, it is not news. When a man bites dog, it is fake news!
The problem is that too many men are biting dogs today. Let’s be sensitive to this.
Harish Bijoor
Brand Guru & Founder, Harish Bijoor Consults
(harishbijoor@hotmail.com)