NEWS V/S VIEWS: DISCERNING DISINFORMATION

We live in a world of so much news that it often becomes difficult to distinguish between noble ventures of information, amidst poorly masked disinformation masquerading as the truth. Here is a simple manual to distinguish the two, with examples for some extra punch..EVERYBODY’S PROBLEM, OR SOMEBODY’S PROBLEM? One man crying about milk does not equal the entire village crying about milk. Watch out for headlines that generalise a small-scale issue into a national firestorm. Here’s a simple example. When a blast occurred at a factory in Sigachi, Telangana, one report said… The incident has raised new concerns about industrial safety in India’s booming pharmaceutical sector. When it was an isolated incident, in a single plant, in a single state, how does it raise concerns for the entire country? News outlets can very easily make mountains out of molehills - and choose which molehills to make mountains as well. IS IT AN INCIDENT OR AN ALLEGATION?The following words must be familiar to most of you from newspapers: ‘alleged terrorist links’‘accused of practising a divisive ideology’‘seen as the ideological fountainhead’ The question is: who is alleging? Who is accusing? Who is seeing? Such language is often used as a mask to portray the editor’s/author’s views as the views of the general public, which can easily mislead people. At the same time, the inverse is also true—incidents are incidents, and cannot be alleged! DO YOU KNOW THE FACE BEHIND THE INFORMATION? ‘anonymous source’‘former insider’‘sources close to XYZ’ All of these look like authentic backers—they have an insider source, after all! Here’s the problem: I can tell you tomorrow that unicorns have been discovered in Ireland, and claim that I got the information from an anonymous source. Unless you can trace and find the source yourself, it’s not a good idea to blindly believe it. DOES IT MAKE YOU THINK OR FEEL? There are two kinds of vocabulary in news: informative vocabulary and emotive vocabulary. Here’s the same phenomenon reported two different ways: X Is Speaking Like Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini.X said Hitler ‘did some good things’ and wanted generals like the Nazis, former chief of staff Y claims. While the second one makes clear assertions about X, the first makes you want to pelt stones at him in disgust. The purpose of news should always be to inform - if you’re feeling the news, you’re being nudged without knowing it. DOES IT USE THE RIGHT TERMS? Seven years back, an article covered grooming gangs in the UK. The article mentions the criminals using the following words: ‘older Asian youths’‘100 Asian men’‘older Asian taxi drivers’ Yet, the same article also has the following sentence: During a trial lasting more than eight weeks, the jury heard the men, who are all of British Pakistani heritage… So, when all the men were Pakistani, why use the word Asian? And while Pakistani was mentioned once, ‘Asian’ was mentioned thrice! Specific terminology is important. If it’s missing, that’s most likely manipulation at play. At the end, truth is not what we are told, it is what we find out for ourselves - with a clear intellect and ruthless adherence to facts and reality. Satyamev Jayate!

NEWS V/S VIEWS: DISCERNING DISINFORMATION

Related Stories