 |
| Image courtesy of http://www.sjp.com |
It highlights, among other things, how technology has
penetrated society and even poor households.
Use of mobile phones, for example, spiked beginning in 2002, surpassing
all other forms of technologies like television, personal computer, and the
internet, a fact also pointed out in the paper. Its attendant effects were
also highlighted in several studies apart from those mentioned in the book -
about how network coverage impacts positively on employment (Klonner
et al 2008), how ICT helps in achieving economic growth (OECD 2005), and how mobile
banking helped increase remittances (Mendes
et al 2007).
The power of ICT is argued to have more pervasive effects in
information dissemination. For example, studies show that mobile phones bring better prices for fish (Jensen, 2007)
and social media is used to disseminate disaster warnings and post-disaster
response (Shklovski
et al 2008). ICT, especially in the
context of social networking, has significantly revolutionized how people
access and consume news. The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism
based in Oxford University in a study in 2011 (Newman)
pointed out that in the UK, use of social media has become one of the rising
sources of traffic for the websites of news organizations. Facebook and Twitter have become a way to spread
information from a news agency, by the power of the “share” and “like”
buttons and the skilful use of the “hash tag”.
I was in Manila when the earthquake
struck Bohol in 15 October. I got
the news first hand through a text message from our companion in the house. While my family was dealing with fear of a
first-hand earthquake experience in the succeeding hours, I was in a meeting,
browsing through FB posts to get a glimpse of what has happened after the
quake. Right after the earthquake, I
called my wife to hear how things were. Without mobile phones and social media,
I would not have had the information that would help me stay and feel calm
despite the tragedy.
But not all is good news with phones and the internet. Commentaries have pointed out how social
media contributes to misreporting (see Washington
Post, for example). An edited volume compiled by Anne Mintz entitled “Web of Deceit: Misinformation and Manipulation in the Age of
Social Media” (2012), shows how social media can be used to intentionally
misinform. These realities bring in an
important normative question – with information flooding through ICT channels
every second of the day, whose story should we believe in? Whose version of the
truth should we “share” and “like”?
It must be important to point out that even without social
media, the internet, or mobile phones, misinformation and mis-education can
still be widespread. The question
presented here does not absolve news agencies from pursuing a particular story
with a biased frame or the spin doctors who creatively deceive the public
through wilful machinations. But the
power of social media to spread wrong information exponentially is dangerous,
especially in a context where a lot of people are connected through a mesh of
networks using ICT.
I remember very well how text messages sent panic to people
in Tagbilaran City in the recent 15 October earthquake. A text message warned
people that water, presumably caused by an earthquake-induced tsunami, has
already reached J.A. Clarin Street. Two
days after, a post in Facebook escalated the story that an 8.0 magnitude quake
is expected to hit Cebu. A week after, somebody else made the claim that a new
volcano was discovered in Bohol. A ‘forward
message’, ‘like’, or ‘share’ act of one person can send panic to tens,
hundreds, or even thousands of people who have already suffered enough.
Several people have called for greater responsibility in the
use of social media. For example, before
posting and sharing, we must do some fact checking (see Jennifer Dunn)
because the content that we link to our profiles
is our responsibility. Others suggest that we should respect social
media and not treat it as a toy or a medium for our jokes (see Scott
Kleinberg) – by using it we acknowledge our great responsibility. Still others say that what we post builds our
online personality (see Chris
Syme), and thus, posting something that is a hoax, reflects our lack of
time to read and check facts and our propensity to believe anything that comes
our way.
It does seem then, that ethics is social media rests on the
one that reads and shares, and much less on the one that creates content. I remember for example the coverage of Maribojoc
mayor Leoncio Evasco Jr.’s incident with the Philippine Red Cross coming from the
country’s reputable news agencies.
Interaksyon’s story was entitled “Bohol
mayor stopped relief distribution, wanted goods turned over to him”, while that of the Philippine Star was “Bohol
mayor to Red Cross: We don’t need you”. The Philippine Daily Inquirer carried a
similar story line with a lead “Bohol
mayor drives out Red Cross team”. The news went viral in social media and nasty
comments were made by several people who read the news and clicked “share”. Stories and days later, we learned that such
was not the real story and a certain degree of misunderstanding of language,
context, and representation was apparent.
However, the mayor was already cursed, berated, humiliated for days.
If I follow Jennifer Dunn’s suggestion of fact checking, I
might still, like the others, click “share”.
After all, the story was one of the banner stories of three of the
country’s leading and supposedly credible news agencies. The story is not something of a joke and if I
believed that it was true then it is my greater responsibility, as what Scott
Kleinberg would say, to share it. And if
I want to build my reputation as a concerned citizen and a compassionate other,
then Chris Syme would probably approve if I flood all my accounts with that
story. A story repeated several times by different people and sources creates
that illusion of truth.
This is what social media does to a story. The number of times a story gets liked,
commented on, and shared, builds traction and credence. In several instances, a falsity becomes
truth, a half-truth a complete one, and a paid opinion the sentiment of the
majority. But how do we exempt ourselves
from this viscous process when we are limited in our capacity to distinguish
fact from fiction?
I take inspiration from a song I learned in Kindergarten.
“Peepep the small jeep is running down the street.
Stop, look and listen, stop, look and listen.”
Stop. No need to rush to click that button. That somebody who said that he’d rather be first
than right is no longer popular.
Look.....for other sources elsewhere. Verify as much as you
can. If people are saying the same story at the same time, that does not mean
they are right. So look and look. Be mindful of who is saying what.
Listen.....to yourself whether what was said there matches
your philosophy of things and your outlook in life. Ask yourself “what use will it be for me and
for humanity if I comment on this one or share this in my page?”
If content creators are not responsible, we should at least
be.
Comments