A recent study found that people over 65 are far more likely to share intentionally false or misleading information on Facebook than all younger age groups – a somewhat counter-intuitive finding if you’re like me and your parents spent your pre-teens reminding you – daily – of ‘stranger danger’.
It’s safe to say that the ‘baby boomer’ generation has matured with all the grace of a B&M Bargains Shiraz when it comes to their ability (or willingness) to evolve with an ever changing, technologically reliant world, but how can you really blame them? We’ve gone from the introduction of Technicolor to portable Virtual Reality in less than half a century and the majority of boomers, as well as the first of the subsequent Generation X, are lucky enough to remember a time when dubious, mass reported news stories were seldom seen.
The modern war of clicks, followers and ad revenue are all alien concepts to those accustomed to news and journalism being synonymous with integrity. Still, it’s both strange and saddening to see a considerable number of the generation that initiated the anti-establishment and counterculture movements single-handedly exchange their own ‘free love’ legacy for an anti-intellectualistic, sensationalist stereotype.
Of course, It’s incredibly easy for someone that has grown up with the internet to know which virtual alleys to avoid and even easier for my generation to simply label its technophobic predecessors as ‘stupid’ or ‘irrational’ as many of my peers do. Yet, millennials are really the first generation who’ve had to manually connect consumption with correct information and, more specifically, authenticity of presentation.
‘Informed consumption’ is very much a new conviction and a required life skill which, understandably, is incredibly hard to adopt after a lifetime of not needing to. The older generations understood that something had been checked and was trustworthy before it ever made it on the front page of a national newspaper, meanwhile my generation was taught that Wikipedia isn’t a reliable enough source for secondary school homework. Because of this, a significant portion of my elders were left without a conceptual framework for how to critically consume media. Or rather, their ‘framework’ became simply a result of their education, distinct experiences, and personal biases.
The trust instilled by decades of reliable institutions has led to millions thinking that any news source, such as Guido Fawkes, The Canary or the United States’ Breitbart has the same reputational clout as established media distributors. Embroider that with the knowledge that humans in general are much less likely to scrutinise something if it conforms to their worldview and you’ve got all the ingredients for an anti-climate change rant from your Nan on Boxing Day.
More often than not, they’ve read and shared an opinion piece incorrectly billed as fact but other ‘official’ Fake News outlets can be incredibly dangerous. Fresh off the back of European and local Elections, and with the potential for a General Election before the year is out, political campaigners will be amping up their hyperbole even more so than usual.
What is the answer though? When the Daily Mail website uses an interface ten years out of date for fear of losing its audience, you can’t force digital literacy. Moreover, defining ‘fake news’ is like asking someone to think of a ‘dangerous animal’ – we’re almost certain to have different interpretations (unless you’re also picturing my ex?).
To me, there are several key things to consider when dissecting the legitimacy of a story or link you’re reading. Being able to analyse a piece of digital media can help supersede any political leaning and in a world of hyperbole and click-bait, the seeker of truth is king.
Firstly, understand click-bait. Almost all online publications earn money from ad revenue and they’ll do their damnedest to simply get you to click through to their site – getting emotional over the first viewing of a headline is exactly why it’s there. 59% of links shared on social networks are shared without actually being clicked on – don’t be that guy.
Emotional language is always used for a reason. Americans call it “waving the bloody shirt”, which was a phrase used to ridicule opposing politicians who made emotional calls to avenge the blood of the northern soldiers that died during the US Civil War – It’s a rhetorical strategy to hijack a reader’s logic. People who intentionally do this are trying to make you feel about an issue instead of thinking critically. This works because human psychology places a disproportionate value on emotion. It is particularly insidious because the truth of our emotional opinion often seems self-evident to us. That is to say, simply feeling anger makes your position feel more factually accurate. Always consider the perspective of the speaker/writer. You see this a lot in issues of ‘morality’. Often times, a person presents a moral idea as though it is an absolute, immutable truth. In reality, this often simply reflects their perspective.
Video editing is another biggy. Remember that video cuts only occur because a person made a conscious decision to include one. It could be for a mundane reason like “it was too long and we needed to shorten it”, However it could also be for more nefarious reasons like a forced perspective of someone saying something controversial, without further context.
Whilst stats are harder to manipulate, sites such as Full Fact and Snopes exist solely to cut through political discourse and present the truth in clear terms when a political figure, regardless of affiliation, twists the truth – Boris’s recently quashed GATT 24 claim being a great example.
Paid ads, specifically on social media, are a relatively new addition to the political wheel but are immensely powerful, precisely because of it’s recent introduction and ambiguity surrounding it. It’s role in the 2016 Brexit referendum is well documented but the level of information available to advertisers about you is always a terrifying realisation – For example, have a look at your own Instagram ad interests to see how the app defines you based on your search and view history. Whilst too complex to cover in one meagre WordPress piece, sites like Who Targets Me will help you understand when you’ve been served a paid advert and why. Education around paid advertising, particularly it’s complexity and invasiveness, is a necessity.
Being interested in politics during the technological revolution should be a joy – never have we had such readily available information at our fingertips. Yet, human nature and the desire to control and manipulate is an ever present threat.
When recently watching a Vietnam War documentary I was taken aback during a segment where an overseas soldier was interviewed – “We were probably the last generation of American kids who believed America never lied to us” – unfortunately i would have to disagree. The global realisation that ‘not everything you read is true’ is, unfortunately, at least one generation behind schedule.
Matt Adkin 