In an age where we consume vast amounts of data, through the ever-diversifying social media and the conciseness of print media, misinformation is dangerous. Dangerous to the point that it lies act as basis for the hostile political opinions of many and is creating a society filled with division and animosity.
I am reluctant to use the term "fake news", because the man synonymous with its popularity is only fuelling the problem, but it is the easiest way to label this phenomenon. I have long spoken of the troubles we have in terms of media coverage throughout the Western world, how our rush for speed of information often gets in the way of telling a truthful story. Journalists are controlled by editors with specific briefs, obstructing rigorous, investigative work with the facts buried under a pile of abhorrent political rhetoric.
This has been endemic, bubbling underneath the surface. But now it is bearing its teeth, with regards to a problem that really ought not to be overly politicised.
The coronavirus pandemic that has completely taken over our lives in the last few weeks has illustrated some pretty stark problems with a world that many like to laud as the most advanced ever. The information we see about it is nonstop, both through the mainstream media and largely unverified social media means.
Naturally, the more media exposure, the more likelihood of misinformation. What concerns me more, however, is the platform that people who spread misinformation have - and how they often don't bother to check their "facts".
Case in point. On Twitter a few days back, I saw a verified professor with sixty thousand followers tweet about the possibility of the U.K. experiencing 7,000 deaths from coronavirus, rather than the astronomical figures suggested beforehand. This was not plucked out of thin air, granted. But the study he had summarised (with no link) was undertaken by a physicist at Imperial College London with limited specific knowledge on the spread of the disease, using possible figures and infection rates. In summary, he had guessed.
This seems reputable to many, as it was indeed Imperial who had predicted that we may experience up to 500,000 deaths and then, having accounted for social distancing measures taken, suggested we could now make it below 20,000. But those studies were carried out by epidemiologists, trusted to advise the government on what steps the U.K. needed to take.
The physicist's study had no link to this group of specialists, yet given the report they had published on the matter a week or so earlier, Imperial was in the spotlight. Social media filled with 'Imperial have revised their predictions to 7,000 from 500,000' amongst others, when in reality, it was two separate, constrastingly reliable sources under the same institution.
Back to that professor on Twitter. It would not have taken him long to research what data he had put out to his audience. He chose not to, and it this kind of behaviour that irks me most. He is a professor after all, who would have known about the values and limitations of different academic papers. Whilst neither can be seen as objective facts, one has been widely accepted in the scientific community and the other, less so. I'll leave you to work out which is which.
For the average Joe, our social media platforms are not big enough to influence a wide array of people. Whilst we still have a responsibility to share as accurate stories as we can on social media, the impact is lessened given the small sphere of influence we have. I would hope that people would question the validity of my own story, given I have no evidence of it. I also hope I come across as too principled to lie about that, but regardless I think the message is an important one.
When you have a large standing on a social media platform, you have a responsibility to use this to recount facts and figures only when they can be substantiated. Every incorrect one that gets shared with sixty thousand people has the potential to snowball and create misinformation everywhere.
Most know of the power of social media by now, where opinion is often treated as gospel, so it is important that at every level we challenge the spread of misinformation. Verification on Twitter is an acceptance that this somewhat famous person is who they claim to be. Many see themselves as reliable, they'd do well to verify their information like Twitter verifies their influence.
It also shows that as news-readers, we now cannot accept what we see at face value. As I mentioned, media headlines are sensationalised, taking the "important" parts out of a headline for our comfort - so we can see one-line stories without wasting too much time in our ever-so-busy lives, unless we so desire.
If we start accepting those one-line stories, we increase the risk of misinformation. Obviously, less words, less information, more chance of twisting the facts to suit an agenda. It is my hope that something akin to a global pandemic might stop this, because the problem has grown out of control.
I think our busyness reflects badly on the society we have become. In fact, I think it is quite poisonous. That we need to read one-sentence summaries of news stories to pay attention suggests that we move far too quickly. We don't care enough to read or listen to full stories because we are so busy in our own lives, so caught up in the many things we "have to" do to survive and occupy ourselves with on a daily basis.
The tragedy of the coronavirus pandemic has exposed superficial problems we obsess over every day as somewhat useless in the face of more deep-seated concerns. Concerns that are alarming if we don't address them, but potentially ground-breaking if we do.
The possibility of global climate action being enacted in the future is even more probable than it already was. The six months in which cars, trains and aeroplanes are used dramatically less will perhaps help us to realise that reversing the abhorrent impact we have made on this world is achievable.
We have also realised that giving money to people is the best solution. When you are in crisis, the government has a clear obligation to look after everybody as best possible. That countries are committing vast monetary sums to help people survive, shows what we should actually be doing. Giving people money, and the opportunity. Many of the homeless have been housed, there is the money to give the majority of the population a safety net. Perhaps we may soon have a universal basic income in place, maintaining this security for all human beings.
No longer can people say these things aren't possible. The next few months will prove that we are adaptable as human beings. Don't think you could live life without excessive transport use? Think again, you will have just done so. Don't think we have the money to give people a livelihood in the face of economic downturn? We already have.
As much as I lament the hatred fuelled in the media, there is opportunity for change here. But it starts with eliminating misinformation through all platforms of media. Only then can we make true judgements on facts we see on everything - society, politics, economics. I trust that as human beings we will make the right choices. Our generation alone is more progressive and accepting of climate change, mental health problems, and sexuality and identification. If we rustle through the lies and deceit that are thrown at us in the media, we can implement politicians and policies that will help these progressive ideas develop throughout the world.
The youth have always been idealistic. But that is not to be dismissed. One of my favourite books, Utopia for Realists by Rutger Bregman, talks of the need for radical policies and action that cannot be reversed. He finishes poignantly, "Remember: those who called for the abolition of slavery, for suffrage for women, and for same-sex marriage were also once branded lunatics. Until history proved them right."
Maybe this pandemic is a message from the world. Maybe it is telling us to look at ourselves, what we have done, and to change. We operate at full capacity, that businesses go under through weeks of no sales and people potentially lose their livelihoods when stuck at home show that we have no contingency plans for if things spiral out of control. We have taken over every inch of this world until it is ours, with no regard for what could go wrong. Maybe we are the true virus.
We have created these problems entrenched in society, now we must use this as a lesson to do better. Misinformation, the climate crisis, socio-economic inequality. The world has given us clues on what we need to solve - now it's over to us.
I am reluctant to use the term "fake news", because the man synonymous with its popularity is only fuelling the problem, but it is the easiest way to label this phenomenon. I have long spoken of the troubles we have in terms of media coverage throughout the Western world, how our rush for speed of information often gets in the way of telling a truthful story. Journalists are controlled by editors with specific briefs, obstructing rigorous, investigative work with the facts buried under a pile of abhorrent political rhetoric.
This has been endemic, bubbling underneath the surface. But now it is bearing its teeth, with regards to a problem that really ought not to be overly politicised.The coronavirus pandemic that has completely taken over our lives in the last few weeks has illustrated some pretty stark problems with a world that many like to laud as the most advanced ever. The information we see about it is nonstop, both through the mainstream media and largely unverified social media means.
Naturally, the more media exposure, the more likelihood of misinformation. What concerns me more, however, is the platform that people who spread misinformation have - and how they often don't bother to check their "facts".
Case in point. On Twitter a few days back, I saw a verified professor with sixty thousand followers tweet about the possibility of the U.K. experiencing 7,000 deaths from coronavirus, rather than the astronomical figures suggested beforehand. This was not plucked out of thin air, granted. But the study he had summarised (with no link) was undertaken by a physicist at Imperial College London with limited specific knowledge on the spread of the disease, using possible figures and infection rates. In summary, he had guessed.
This seems reputable to many, as it was indeed Imperial who had predicted that we may experience up to 500,000 deaths and then, having accounted for social distancing measures taken, suggested we could now make it below 20,000. But those studies were carried out by epidemiologists, trusted to advise the government on what steps the U.K. needed to take.
The physicist's study had no link to this group of specialists, yet given the report they had published on the matter a week or so earlier, Imperial was in the spotlight. Social media filled with 'Imperial have revised their predictions to 7,000 from 500,000' amongst others, when in reality, it was two separate, constrastingly reliable sources under the same institution.
Back to that professor on Twitter. It would not have taken him long to research what data he had put out to his audience. He chose not to, and it this kind of behaviour that irks me most. He is a professor after all, who would have known about the values and limitations of different academic papers. Whilst neither can be seen as objective facts, one has been widely accepted in the scientific community and the other, less so. I'll leave you to work out which is which.
For the average Joe, our social media platforms are not big enough to influence a wide array of people. Whilst we still have a responsibility to share as accurate stories as we can on social media, the impact is lessened given the small sphere of influence we have. I would hope that people would question the validity of my own story, given I have no evidence of it. I also hope I come across as too principled to lie about that, but regardless I think the message is an important one.
When you have a large standing on a social media platform, you have a responsibility to use this to recount facts and figures only when they can be substantiated. Every incorrect one that gets shared with sixty thousand people has the potential to snowball and create misinformation everywhere.
Most know of the power of social media by now, where opinion is often treated as gospel, so it is important that at every level we challenge the spread of misinformation. Verification on Twitter is an acceptance that this somewhat famous person is who they claim to be. Many see themselves as reliable, they'd do well to verify their information like Twitter verifies their influence.
It also shows that as news-readers, we now cannot accept what we see at face value. As I mentioned, media headlines are sensationalised, taking the "important" parts out of a headline for our comfort - so we can see one-line stories without wasting too much time in our ever-so-busy lives, unless we so desire.
If we start accepting those one-line stories, we increase the risk of misinformation. Obviously, less words, less information, more chance of twisting the facts to suit an agenda. It is my hope that something akin to a global pandemic might stop this, because the problem has grown out of control.
I think our busyness reflects badly on the society we have become. In fact, I think it is quite poisonous. That we need to read one-sentence summaries of news stories to pay attention suggests that we move far too quickly. We don't care enough to read or listen to full stories because we are so busy in our own lives, so caught up in the many things we "have to" do to survive and occupy ourselves with on a daily basis.
The tragedy of the coronavirus pandemic has exposed superficial problems we obsess over every day as somewhat useless in the face of more deep-seated concerns. Concerns that are alarming if we don't address them, but potentially ground-breaking if we do.
The possibility of global climate action being enacted in the future is even more probable than it already was. The six months in which cars, trains and aeroplanes are used dramatically less will perhaps help us to realise that reversing the abhorrent impact we have made on this world is achievable.
We have also realised that giving money to people is the best solution. When you are in crisis, the government has a clear obligation to look after everybody as best possible. That countries are committing vast monetary sums to help people survive, shows what we should actually be doing. Giving people money, and the opportunity. Many of the homeless have been housed, there is the money to give the majority of the population a safety net. Perhaps we may soon have a universal basic income in place, maintaining this security for all human beings.
No longer can people say these things aren't possible. The next few months will prove that we are adaptable as human beings. Don't think you could live life without excessive transport use? Think again, you will have just done so. Don't think we have the money to give people a livelihood in the face of economic downturn? We already have.
As much as I lament the hatred fuelled in the media, there is opportunity for change here. But it starts with eliminating misinformation through all platforms of media. Only then can we make true judgements on facts we see on everything - society, politics, economics. I trust that as human beings we will make the right choices. Our generation alone is more progressive and accepting of climate change, mental health problems, and sexuality and identification. If we rustle through the lies and deceit that are thrown at us in the media, we can implement politicians and policies that will help these progressive ideas develop throughout the world.
The youth have always been idealistic. But that is not to be dismissed. One of my favourite books, Utopia for Realists by Rutger Bregman, talks of the need for radical policies and action that cannot be reversed. He finishes poignantly, "Remember: those who called for the abolition of slavery, for suffrage for women, and for same-sex marriage were also once branded lunatics. Until history proved them right."
Maybe this pandemic is a message from the world. Maybe it is telling us to look at ourselves, what we have done, and to change. We operate at full capacity, that businesses go under through weeks of no sales and people potentially lose their livelihoods when stuck at home show that we have no contingency plans for if things spiral out of control. We have taken over every inch of this world until it is ours, with no regard for what could go wrong. Maybe we are the true virus.
We have created these problems entrenched in society, now we must use this as a lesson to do better. Misinformation, the climate crisis, socio-economic inequality. The world has given us clues on what we need to solve - now it's over to us.
Comments
Post a Comment