It is a time of considerable ignominy for The Wire. The organization was compelled to make not one but two retractions of major news stories it broke. The first withdrawal was a series of reports where The Wire claimed that the chief of the BJP’s Information Technology Department, Amit Malviya, holds special privileges that enable him to have posts removed from the social media website Instagram owned by Meta.
Meta summarily rejected the claims and called the evidence
presented by The Wire, baseless and fabricated. After some back and
forth, The Wire formally
retracted its Meta stories. They apologized to its reader and claimed to be
deceived by a “member of our Meta investigation team”. Yes, they claimed to be
victims. Surprisingly or perhaps unsurprisingly, The Wire did
not issue a public apology to the BJP or Amit Malviya about whom they made a
spurious claim.
The second withdrawal was a three-part report that The Wire carried in
January alleging that the BJP’s Information Technology Department
used an application called Tek Fog to automate the retweeting
of posts on Twitter, store a database of private citizens for targeted
harassment and hijack inactive WhatsApp accounts. The Wire retracted the articles about Tek Fog On October
23, along with its stories about social media company Meta.
To adapt a famous quote by Oscar Wilde – To err once could be
regarded as a misfortune, but to err so gravely twice is most definitely
suspicious.
So What Went Wrong?
The Wire may not officially accept
this, but its ideological and political stand is perfectly obvious to those
consuming the content by the personnel they employ, and those who advocate for
them.
It is this partisanship that is the core of the problem.
In the case of both Tek Fog and Meta stories,
they were victims of confirmation bias. The story about the BJP being able to
remove posts (critical of the government) from Instagram, engaging in targeted
harassment, and spreading propaganda fits the narrative that The
Wire has been pushing since its founding. This is the narrative that
India under the BJP turning into a totalitarian state where there is no
press freedom, any criticism of the government is censored, and there is
targeted persecution of dissenters and rampant propaganda.
These are the kind of stories they dream of.
When they are presented with such stories, they were so
overcome by the desire that it be true that they abandoned, whatever editorial
standards they may have. One assumes they have a multi-level review of content
that is published on their website, especially ones where such serious claims
are being made.
But a multi-level review is meaningless when individuals at
every stage of the review are also consumed by confirmation bias such that
abandoned their primary instincts of skepticism. Hence they nodded at
every juncture, patted each other on their back for the fine job they think
they are doing, and pressed ‘Publish’.
The fact that they got two big stories so disastrously wrong
certainly raises questions about the motives.
The impact of fake news
Mark Twain famously said that a lie will
fly around the whole world while the truth is getting its
boots on. Doubtlessly stories about Tek Fog and Meta were picked up by several
news outlets around the world.
These organizations were also victims of confirmation bias and
hold some responsibility for amplifying the bogus by abandoning journalistic
rigor. A news organization is responsible for every word they publish, even
if they attribute it to other organizations
Most news organizations who are ideologically and politically
on the same plane as The Wire has lavished blandishments
on The Wire, for their stories. Some continue to do so even
now while they engage in whataboutery.
So what is the impact?
Perhaps reports such as the ones retracted by The Wire contribute
to the periodic indices and rankings that are released about democratic rights
and press freedom in India. There will be scenarios where some casual regular
consumers read the stories but miss the retractions and hence presume them to
be true. The loss both reputationally and economically caused by such stories
can hardly be measured and is irreparable.
This is not to say that the media should not carry stories
that show their country in a bad light, but they are obligated to be factual.
The question remains should there be consequences for The Wire and other news
organizations for getting things so disastrously wrong?
The Subscriber Model
This also brings up serious questions about the subscriber
model.
The proponents say that this model is superior to the sponsor
model. They say that corporate sponsors could be arm twisted by the powers that
kill certain stories, hence the subscriber model gives them freedom because the
paying public can never apply pressure.
But what about an outfit such as The Wire which
has taken a political stand already?
They have developed a subscriber base of like-minded people
who tune in to have their biases confirmed. They probably only want to consume
content that demonizes the BJP and the right. If the new organization were to
adopt a stance of fairness and carry stories about some of the successes that
the Modi government they will receive backlash and could be branded as ‘bhakts’
and traitors to the cause.
Soon there will be total abandonment.
Hence they give their subscribers who are actually their
paying customers what they expect. They drive further and further in one
direction and facts become the casualty. News outlets view their subscribers
just as makers of horror slasher filmmakers view their fans. These fans expect
to see blood, gore, and inventive ways to eliminate humans, and that is what
the maker gives them. When an organization takes a political position, they
have to break ‘shocking’ news to remain in the headlines. It broadens their
subscriber base and increases donations.
Like horror fans who become desensitized by the relentless
gore, the subscribers become desensitized by relentless breaking news, they want
more sensationalism and shocking news. Hence news organizations go further and
further in one direction until they fall flat. News has become a commodity from
which where the paying customer expects predictability of content and this is
deeply problematic.
Since funding is the bloodstream of any organization,
irrespective of whether the fund emanates from corporate sponsors or from
thousands of regular subscribers.
The organization will have to cater to those who supply the
funds to run their business.
Perhaps subscribers prefer a false story that confirms their
bias to factual news that goes against bias.
Will The Wire lose subscribers after being
proven wrong?
Most likely not.
How it should be
When matters devolve into such chaos it is worth stating the
obvious basic facts. The function of any news organization is to report facts
and carry educated opinions about facts. Facts are undebatable, while opinions
could be subjective. The hope is opinions are based on facts and are insightful
because of the perspicacity and the domain experience of
the author.
Let’s consider an imaginary situation.
Fact 1: The Chief Minister launched a welfare scheme in his
state four months before election day.
Fact 2: Some polls show CM’s political party leading by a wide
margin and some show the party trailing for the elections to be held in a
month.
Opinion 1: The CM sees his flailing poll numbers, and launches
a welfare scheme in a desperate move to bribe voters, and prevent a humiliating
routing at the polls.
Opinion 2: This scheme is linked to another hugely popular
scheme previously launched by the CM. The CM had promised this scheme four and
a half years ago when his party won the elections. The revenue collected by the
state due to a boom in tourism has enabled this scheme. The CM is merely
fulfilling a promise. It helps that it is near the elections. Many polls show
the CM leading his opponent.
Both reports are based on fact and both are valid.
It is essential that the news outlet explicitly differentiates
between reports and opinions.
Reports must be meticulously reviewed to ensure that they are
not colored by opinion. Numbers and statistics must be preferred over
adjectives. In fact, adjectives must be avoided.
Alas, most news organizations blur this difference even in their
reports. Their reports are tainted with bias based.
They either state facts without context or state facts
selectively to drive a political point or resort to complete fabrication or
ignore inconvenient facts.
Most reports are provocatively headlined especially by online
portals to attract audiences.
The Solution
So is there a solution to the mess that The Wire finds itself
in?
Ideally, any news organization that claims to be neutral must
employ individuals from all political and ideological persuasions.
The group that opposes any story for ideological or political
reasons must be assigned the task of reviewing and fact-checking. They must
then be compelled to present their reasons for debunking a story before the
editorial board.
But that will never happen in current times because news
organizations have chosen already their political side. Some may be upfront
about it, others may hide under a cloak of neutrality.
Most newsrooms have devolved into echo chambers where total
surrender is perhaps explicitly or implicitly demanded.
Perhaps the employees and even external consultants feel that
going against the groupthink by expressing doubts will hurt their career
prospects and pecuniary gains.
So hush up and nod obsequiously when they are asked about any
‘sensational’ story that fits their narrative and a spurious story makes it to
their website.
A practical solution is to promote a culture of skepticism
within a newsroom, and perhaps hire people of some variance within the
ideological spectrum.
There could be an individual who is perpetually loyal to both
the party and the ideology. There could be another who is committed to the
ideology but skeptical about the party.
Every individual, within the newsroom, even a junior intern,
must be empowered to speak and take an adversarial position against groupthink,
especially for stories that fit the narrative and present ‘sensational’.
Einstein described Insanity as doing the same thing over and
over and expecting different results.
It would be insane for news organizations to expect matters to
improve without instituting drastic changes immediately
For the Reader
The quest for unvarnished facts hence becomes a very expensive
and challenging pursuit for newsrooms.
Consumers have no choice but to assume that the news they
consume is false until proven factual. They will have to apply effort and
verify the same claims from myriad outlets before they develop an opinion about
the facts. Sadly most people do not have much time and neither do they have the
interest.
Consumers have no choice but to assume that the news they
consume is false until proven factual.
Also appears on opindia
Comments
Post a Comment