From “Don’t believe everything you read in the papers” it’s now
Don’t (readily) believe you see, hear or read online.”
We’re now told to assume first that the news media we consume is fake.
Advised to verify the source, get the context before we trust the news or information.
They say, Don’t ever believe quickly the narrative being peddled.
Pinch and tell yourself, “Istoryahi!”
NEWSPAPERS and broadcast stations made and make mistakes but mostly “honest ones.” Generally unintentional and they have mechanisms such as self-correction and self-regulation. They answer to the laws of libel, contempt and sedition.
It used to be that you trust the media you consume. You trust it because you have known it, tried it and were satisfied. If it erred, mostly it corrected the error and even apologized.
Regular news media put the names of authors up front, with the reports, features and opinions by-lined. Remember the bylines? They’re largely about responsibility: owning up the work and answering for it if it is wrong or, worse, evil.
You cannot say that now of most of the stuff that you scroll down the phone screen, from sources that hide their identity and you can’t readily complain to or seek redress against.
Suspending judgment is the alternative to being “deceived or hoodwinked by generative AI and deep fakes.” No longer just printed mistakes but “engineered by code to manipulate emotions and go viral instantly.”
Pausing judgment is like being tossed in the wind, with no belief to embrace because you are not sure of the facts that support it.
Yet that would be safer obviously than rushing to judgment based on false or distorted news or information.
“Outdated photos and mislabeled videos.” Stand-alone clips or screenshots, “recycled from past event, in a different year or country, to fit a current narrative.” How can you be comforted by a decision supported by falsehood?
Still the core task of an individual or group, the tough decision to make by you, consumer of news media, remains the same: Which to believe, which course of action if one must take. Whether to resist or accept, even defend, an act of governance or duty of citizenship.
Or if one pauses action or response and takes sides only in the privacy of the mind or circle of friends, where’s the truth for its shelter and support?
■ Marcoses vs. Dutertes: The Dutertes and the Marcoses both see themselves as being threatened with extermination if one camp prevails over the other.
An existential battle that the Marcoses wage with the Hague prosecution against the father and the Senate impeachment trial against the daughter.
If VP Sara would survive the trial, she might be the next president and the balance would shift.
To many news media consumers who’ve decided to root for one other camp, falsehood in media content won’t matter, as long as it favors their side.
The confusion from false content occurs among the undecided or independent-minded who are bombarded with false propaganda. They are befuddled, pissed off, or both.
■ Pam Baricuatro vs. anti-Pam forces. Since Day One – or even before that when Pamela Baricuatro wrested the governorship from multiple-term Gwen Garcia in a stunning election upset – all sorts of brickbats have been thrown at the new chief executive at Capitol.
Some were true; most were prematurely unfair. Governor Baricuatro has responded, but often with refusal to engage (“I’ll just work for Cebu”) and some ad hominems.
The exchange hasn’t reached yet the level of vitriol that fills the national stage. Still the media content doesn’t provide clarity to a public that obviously needs to get their news and information right and straight.