We share what we are
The tweet from Manisha Pande got me reading the article and it is indeed a wonder of sorts. What Manoj Malyanil states is the crux of things
“Nobody runs the entire videos if it is 40–45 minutes long. People who work in the television industry know it. When they want to give an idea of the video to the audience, they take a small bit of the entire video and telecast it.”
The weaponization of social media and its current form as a relentless stream of fake news is based on cognitive ease. We revel in the simple and joyously share the most reductive form of an issue or, a discussion. So, that the “5% GDP” would get to be a keyword when attempting “expose” the bias of a well known journalist who was recently recognized says more about journalists in India than specifically the fake news factory. As would be obvious from the quite flimsy responses in the article, none of those interviewed seem to have the inclination to justify or, hold a righteous position. In a way, this demonstrates a supremely pliable and cowardly approach to intellectual honesty — that they cannot bring themselves to explain why they thought it was correct to deliberately use their large platforms and wide audience to give credence to what is absolutely a doctored clip intended to pander to one specific thought — “Ravish Kumar is biased and not exactly the beacon of integrity that everyone thinks he is”.
A few days back, through her article, Priya Ramani made a strong case why it is on us to be fighting fake news. She provides anecdotes which illustrate how easy it is for even experts (or, the highly educated/knowledgeable) to fall victim to innocuous forwarded messages which are seemingly official. The ground level tactics to address this overwhelming stream of fake news needs to include us ie. individuals. However, the cognitive overload and the emotional stress of the constantly doing pushback is often debilitating. The associated costs are also something which one needs to factor in. These could include a break-down in family and societal relationships; being left out of interactions and likely impact to the entire family as children are also dragged into these as collateral damage.
In his recent book The Truth About Us: The Politics of Information from Manu to Modi; Sanjoy Chakravorty draws on a wide ranging set of disciplines in order to walk the reader through the creation of perceived truths and how simplification and categorization have enabled a gigantic industry of fake news to emerge. In India, the targets of these fake news stories are obvious and the narrative is always a hark back to our glorious past. This revisionist approach themed around a “civilization of eternity” also lends itself to the easy association of the audience. A recipient is often unable to discern the truthiness factor when reading a message that at face value seems factual and plausible enough.
The politics of information require that it be simple, pithy, catchy and worthy of a meme. And all charismatic social/political figures craft their presence based on that. Which in turn feeds into the (re)writing and (re)creation of “history” in order to bring about an emotional attachment to the glorious present. Rahul Matthan writes about the ease of dissemination of fake information due to the technical architecture of the social media platforms.
The rise of fake news is being attributed to the anonymity messaging platforms provide. It is being argued that because users know they can’t be identified and that their messages can’t be traced back to them, they have no compunctions in breaking the law. It is, therefore, being suggested that these platforms be stripped of the anonymity they offer so that no one can hide behind a fake identity any more. This, it is believed, will prevent the spread of malicious lies and alternative facts and all the ancillary consequences that will follow.
As much as the structure and design of the social media systems allow unfettered peddling of fake news, it is also important to attempt and understand the eager audience and recipients. This is the super-set of the group which in turn becomes the amplifier and rolling thunder of trolling when a fact-check and fact-based response is provided to something that is obviously and blatantly false. Who Falls for Fake News? The Roles of Bullshit Receptivity, Overclaiming, Familiarity, and Analytic Thinking concludes “that belief in fake news may be driven, to some extent, by a general tendency to be overly accepting of weak claims.”
And even though the steps required to debunk fake news are reasonably simple (see here as an example) it requires a mindset which is skeptical of information that flows in via “like” groups. That is, personalized and curated information streams which get created on social media platforms through algorithms that process the data generated through individual activities and shared content. This creates “tribes” and within a tribe, the individuals tend to veer towards other-ing as a means of bonding. Seeking external validation, affinity and alignment of values are the key elements towards formation of a tribal culture. Any form of reality check or, fact-based counter narrative has to not just create a tribe, but also address the warped cultural norm which makes it safe to attack in groups and use anti-social techniques to overpower what is seen as “resistance”.
