|
Presenter: Hi, everyone. On today’s Tech-times podcast we’re lucky to have Sam Wogan, a well-known
digital journalist, with us. So, Sam – what interesting techie-topic would you like to talk about
today?
Journalist: Hi, Brad. Today I’d like to talk about some of the reasons why we shouldn’t automatically
believe everything we read online, and how false information spreads so easily with the help
of technology. One of the reasons for this is a phenomenon known as circular reporting.
Presenter: Circular reporting? What’s that?
Journalist: Well, it’s basically reports which are based on other reports, rather than on the primary
evidence or source. To the reader, it looks like the information is coming from several
different independent sources, which normally means it can be trusted. But, in actual fact, all
the reports are based on each other. Imagine a piece of false information is published, for
example on Wikipedia, and then is referenced in a newspaper article or other publication.
Then, in turn, the original Wikipedia entry references or quotes the article as validation that
the information is true. In a nutshell, it’s the confirmation of false information by more than
one publication.
Presenter: OK, let me see if I’ve understood this correctly. So, someone writes an article on Wikipedia which contains some false information ...
Journalist: That’s right, false information which is not referenced or checked and in no way is obvious as being false.
Presenter: OK, and then this false information is copied from Wikipedia by a journalist and included in a newspaper article.
Journalist: Yes, or other type of article, as if it were true information.
Presenter: And then Wikipedia references the newspaper article, which verifies the information in the original Wikipedia article as being true.
Journalist: That’s right! And sometimes it’s not just one newspaper article that cites the false information. Several publications may include it and so it becomes very difficult to prove that
the original information is false. Let me give you an example. A few years ago a 17-year-old
American student was on holiday with his family in Brazil. He spotted what he believed to be
an aardvark, but which was in fact a type of Brazilian raccoon called a coati. When the boy
got home after his holiday, he went online and changed the Wikipedia entry by adding the
name ‘Brazilian aardvark’ to the information on the article, as a sort of joke, and then he
forgot about it and thought nothing more of it. However, what started to happen was that
articles and blogs began to quote the information from Wikipedia and then those articles
were re-reported as evidence in Wikipedia. Before long, everyone was talking about the
‘Brazilian aardvark’ as if it were factual information.
Presenter: So when information makes its way from a Wikipedia page into a published article, the article could be spreading false information without even realising it?
Journalist: Exactly! It makes you wonder how many hoaxes initiated by people in this way have ended
up as truths in many people’s minds just because people copy and paste vandalised Wikipedia pages. That’s not to say that all information on Wikipedia is false by any means.
There’s a ton of really valid information there and it is constantly being updated – many
people consider it to be the most up-to-date and unbiased encyclopaedia in the world.
However, it is the open structure of Wikipedia, compared to a traditional encyclopaedia,
which makes it a target to be tampered with.
Presenter: So we just have to be aware that there may be a certain amount of inaccuracies on Wikipedia?
Journalist: Yes, and it’s also worth mentioning that circular reporting is not just restricted to harmless information like the ‘Brazilian aardvark’.
Presenter: Isn’t it?
Journalist: No. For example, some time ago, claims that certain vaccines could cause autism in children
were published in a prestigious medical publication by a British surgeon. The problem was
that the unsupported claims were picked up by the media and the news spread like wildfire.
Soon enough the general public were understandably concerned about the risks and huge
numbers of parents refused to vaccinate their children. Consequently, in recent years we
have seen an increase in the number of children suffering childhood diseases such as
measles. By the time the claims were proven unfounded, the damage was done and even to
this day some people still believe that there is a link between vaccines and autism.
Presenter: It just goes to show how difficult it is sometimes for the truth to be heard.
Journalist: Absolutely.
Presenter: So, in practical terms, how can we be sure that what we’re reading is true?
Journalist: Well, we can take certain steps such as checking the original source of the information and, if
at all possible, checking that the original source is reliable and not just taken from either
Wikipedia, Facebook or the media.
Presenter: Right, so we need to be a little more critical and not just believe everything we read online.
Journalist: That’s right, although it’s difficult because we want information quickly and immediately, so
it’s not always viable to spend time checking the sources of information, even though we
should. And we should certainly try and reflect on the information and decide ourselves if we
think it’s true or not. If you feel unsure about the validity of certain information, then there’s
no harm in looking into it further to check how true it actually is.
Presenter: That’s very true. We often take things at face value and don’t really take the time to think critically about them.
|
well-known = terkenal
spread = menyebar
evidence = bukti
source = sumber
in a nutshell = singkatnya
contains = mengandung
several = beberapa
aardvark = tapir
vandalised = dirusak
constantly = senantiasa
prestigious = bergengsi
consequently = akibatnya
|
