Monday Column By Hameed M. Bello, PhD
hamdbelo@yahoo.co.uk
Barring any unforeseen circumstance, the 2023 general elections that will produce a new set of leaders to govern the country at the state and federal levels will hold in February. The presidential and National Assembly Election is specifically holding on Saturday February 25, barely 51 days from now. The electoral umpire, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC has declared that there is no going back after it had received the last batch of the election materials last Wednesday, January 4, 2023, including the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, BVAS, the use of which the Commission said is irreversible. The logistics arrangements and the security aspect of the election are reported to be set too, although occasional attacks on INEC facilities especially in the South Eastern part of the country still pose some threats. It was soothing news last week when Imo State Governor, Hope Uzodinma extracted the commitment of President Muhammadu Buhari that technology will be deployed to arrest the security situation in the South East ahead of the poll. We hope that it works out. But one area of concern that worries me, and I suppose many others too, including media practitioners, is the preponderance of infodemics in our polity. It refers to the high rate of too much information from interested parties, the conventional and unconventional media, from media influencers and enthusiasts, including citizen journalists some of whom have little or no regard for factuality, correctness, accuracy, balance and other journalistic ethos.
An infodemic is also understood to be a rapid and far-reaching spread of both accurate and inaccurate information about something, and in the current context, of the forthcoming elections billed to hold in February. Infodemic is a portmanteau of “information” and “epidemic.” As facts, rumors, and fears mix and disperse, it becomes difficult to learn essential information about an issue. In 2020, alongside the COVID-19 pandemic, an infodemic of disinformation raised concerns for information quality in online environment. This effect was demonstrated in a study of news stories shared on Twitter. In the study, news stories rated as incorrect by fact-checking organizations were cited to have spread to far more people than factual articles did.
The huge dose of information bombarded the public, the good, the bad and the ugly, the factual and fictional which they are confronted with daily, have the potential to confuse the people in taking reasonable decisions on the basis of such discredited information. Of concern also is the desperation of state and non-state actors who continue to stir up political controversy on the verge of the election.
Already, we read about the latest highly partisan letter by the former President Olusegun Obasanjo which endorsed presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Mr Peter Obi. Obasanjo is constitutionally entitled to his opinion, just as every other person is too. And we have read about the varied reactions that trailed the former president’s letter, some scathing and others patronizing. As the election day draws nearer, we are going to see even more of volatile and scurrilous partisanship in media content orchestrated by political actors and influencers in the final push to gain an edge in the political contest. Many of these texts are constructed or reconstructed lies or propaganda. The voter must not be swayed by opportunistic content creators or content generators recruited to sabotage the integrity of the elections and the process of choosing credible leaders at all levels. To that extent, there is need for more vigilance and understanding of the many ways in which false information can be manipulated and imported into the media and public space and treated as if they were factual content.
Historically, media reports were upheld with trust on account of their truth worthiness, and communication evolved with a high level of trust until the advent of electronic mass media, and lately of the digital media. Media scholars believe that the most recent phase in the development of media and communication is characterized by a series of interconnected tendencies that make communication faster and over long distances, thanks to the digital era.
Since the 80s when technology started moving from analog to digital, the world of information sharing has consistently evolved, and according to a 2016 study by Excelacom Research Bureau, some 150 million emails were sent, three million Youtube videos viewed, 21 million Whatsapp messages transmitted, 700, 000 logged on to Facebook. The truth value of many of these contents were however suspect. Some were truly true, others half truth and a large chunk of the content were untruth.
In the current age of information disorder (fake news), everyone who comes into contact with information now has the capacity of consuming and at the same time, producing the news. From your bedroom with a data enhanced cell phones, one becomes creator and distributor of content, either rightly or wrongly.
In the media space, it is now a tradition to send stories via mails, make texts, audio and video photograph etc with only one device. Media companies can now be operated at the comfort of our rooms (blogging), and we now break news as it happens thanks to the digital revolution. With digitization however comes plurality of media sources, including the multiplicity of multi media platforms. All these lead to ‘chaos’ where everything and anything goes, leading to more information disorder. One understanding of Information disorder is that it is the many ways our information environment is polluted. Often referred to as ‘Fake News’ but the complexity of this disorder goes beyond news only being fake. In an attempt to properly situate the subject, the Council of Europe in 2017 reportedly produced a report on what it calls information disorder. The authors refrained from using the term ‘Fake News’ for two reasons: One, they believe it is ‘woefully inadequate’ to describe a very complex issue. Secondly, it has been appropriated by politicians to slam any news organisation they find disagreeable, thus becoming a mechanism for repression.
Information disorder comes in different forms. It could take the form of disinformation, misinformation or malinformation. Disinformation is any information that is false and deliberately created to harm a person. This happens when the person sharing the information intentionally put out falsehood. Disinformation is usually fabricated or deliberately manipulated audio/visual content and it involves intentionally created conspiracy theories or rumours.
Misinformation is information that is false but not created with the intention of causing harm. Most of the time, the person sharing the information intends to help, but with a false and unverified information. Misinformation is usually unintentional mistakes such as inaccurate photo captions, wrong dates and statistics, or translations, or when satire is taken too seriously.
Malinformation on the other hand is understood to be any information that is based on reality used to inflict harm on a person, organisation or country. It involves deliberate publication of private information for personal or corporate rather than public interest, such as revenge porn – Sexually explicit media of a person distributed online without the consent of the pictured individual, typically by a former partner or hacker, and often with the intent to humiliate the subject and damage his/her reputation. Malinformation could involve the deliberate change of context, date or time of genuine content.
The question to ask is why are false information spread? The advent of digital technology has allowed agenda setters to encroach the media system leaving them in a state of chaos. In this state, several motivations account for the spread of false information by agents, to divert attention, to cover up lapses, to promote political agenda and to amass popularity.
In a recently published article “Debunking Handbook”, writers believe that misinformation is sticky and it is best tackled in two ways; when it is preempted or when it is debunked. Preempting can be achieved by explaining misleading or manipulative argumentation strategies to the people, while debunking comes often and must be done properly. If you cannot preempt, you must debunk. For debunking to be effective, it is important to provide detailed refutations, a clear explanation of why the information is false or true.
