Earlier too we had fake news. But we generally called them rumours, gossip, lies etc. Today, they have a new medium to spread, which is faster and reaches more people, that too directly. Now, these fast-spreading rumours and lies have a fanciful term.
WhatsApp, Facebook are not news sources
Nowadays you find many forwards and shared posts, especially on WhatsApp groups. It's like those forwards we used to see in emails, some 15 to 20 years ago, when emails were new to all of us.
There is no idea from where the information contained in them have been sourced. People keep saying, "I read it on WhatsApp" or "I saw it on Facebook", giving one an impression that WhatsApp and Facebook are news sources. But, they are only platforms on which we read information put out by different people -- just as Google is not a website, and is only a search engine that gets you relevant websites for you to read. What I mean is WhatsApp and Facebook are not equivalents of a BBC or a Fox News or an NYT.
Unlike social media (where mostly individuals post information), institutional media have in place a system where information goes through multiple people who not only fact-check them, but also vet the information, before they reach the public domain. News media organisations are not supposed to put out unverified information.
Next time you read something of major consequence or import, on WhatsApp or Facebook, or any platform for that matter, it may be a good idea to see who has posted that. Is that information from a credible source?
How do you know if a source is credible?
Difficult to say. But there are a few generally accepted parameters. One, a well-known or reputed institution. Like, if it's some information related to astronomy, see if it's from any space-related organisation, like NASA or ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation). Two, a well-known or reputed person, or someone who is occupying a position of some responsibility.
Another source which is considered credible, is 'institutional media'. By that I mean news organisations. For example, Reuters, Associated Press, Press Trust of India, BBC, Fox News, NYT, The Hindustan Times, The Times of India, etc. I am using the term 'institutional media' to differentiate it from 'social media'. Earlier, by media, we understood it as only 'institutional media'.
The professional-amateurs
Having said that, one should remember that sources of information need not be only professional organisations or professional individuals. One can't be biased against amateurs, just because their chosen field of specialisation is not their professional field.
For example, there could be a bank executive who is a great fan of movies. Or a professional dancer who is very knowledgeable about West Asia (why not?) Or a student who is a cricket enthusiast. They could be actually authorities on those subjects. They might be posting on social media about their favourite topics. More importantly, they might also be ensuring that what they post is factually correct, and might even go to the extent of attributing information to sources, like a professional journalist is expected to do.
Such people have come to be known as 'professional amateurs'.
So, let us not be totally dismissive about social media, with the comment that all that appears in social media is wrong and fake news. Actually, some of the big stories have broken on social media. A few that I can remember are:
- In 2009, the story of a plane landing on Hudson river broke on Twitter.
- In 2011, when action on Osama bin Laden's hideout was ongoing, there was a person, who was tweeting about the unusual sight of aircraft flying overhead, and thereby becoming the first in the world to report the incident.
- In 2010, in Bengaluru, when a multistory building Carlton Towers caught fire, many people who sought refuge on the top floor tweeted about it with pictures, even before any journalist or news photographers or TV journalists reached the spot.
There are plenty of such examples. In fact, journalists get tipped off by tweets and Facebook posts.
To err is human
Not that "credible" sources can't go wrong. There have been cases of people occupying official positions like a Prime Minister, and media having got their facts wrong. But those are famous exceptions rather than the rule. One famous example:
- In March 1979, Prime Minister Morarji Desai announced in the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) that Jayaprakash Narayan (the architect of opposition unity against Indira Gandhi) was dead. All India Radio and news agencies put out the news. But JP was still alive. He passed away in October that year.
How to check fake news
Today, thanks to Twitter and Facebook, in a sense everyone is a journalist. So, just as professional journalists are expected to fact-check information, all of us too have to fact-check what we see and read on WhatsApp or Facebook.
And, please don't forward any information (especially those that are of critical implication) that you haven't verified yourself.
It's better not to have an unverified information passed around, than to spread wrong information.
(This post is a part of the "Blogging from A to Z Challenge April 2018.")