Unfortunately, it is not just the fake news that occupies digital space, but many unverified facts are pushed into the system knowingly or unknowingly. Speaking at the DNPA Conclave senior journalist Shekhar Gupta stated that The Searchlight, a newspaper from Patna, faded away. This, to an extent, is incorrect as this paper was transformed overnight into Hindustan Times without any transition or discontinuation since both the newspapers had common ownership. Had this been an offline event Shekhar’s words would have been soon forgotten but in its digital version his words would continue to live forever and mislead people.

Recently, we also heard Jyotiraditya Sindhia, Union Minister, say that India never crossed a tally of ten medals in Asian Games prior to Modi regime which is far from true. With people having free and easy access to such misinformation on their mobile device day in and day out, they tend to believe what they see and hear without bothering to cross check and confirm. In fact, they become part and parcel of such misinformation by disseminating it to groups which may not have access to this misinformation otherwise. Thus, they become part of the misinformation campaign.

Speaking to the audience at DNPA Conclave, Rajiv Chandrashekhar, Union Minister, said, an aircraft is grounded once it is faced with a security issue. The same should be followed in case of digital platform. However, things are much different. Whereas in print, an incorrect fact would die its own death as the newspaper finds its way into the hands of ‘raddiwalah’, or a fake content on the audio-visual channel may not be repeated and forgotten soon, but when it comes to a digital content, it stays there and resurfaces time and again. Even if it is pulled down, it reemerges in a new avatar.

A newspaper has definite checks and balances as its content passes through a series of editorial levels, from reporting to subbing and copywriting but a digital platform seldom follows this procedure. Even if its content goes through technical editing, the facts are hardly checked as persistently as in the conventional media. The so-called research, if at all, is done using the internet that itself is responsible for fake content. The conventional AV media does have levels of fact checks and editing but in this fast-paced era of news delivery, many a news sneak into the system unchecked.

In digital space, content is rolled out to grab eyeballs. More viewership translates into more money. Monetization drives much digital content creation, incentivizing sensationalism over accuracy. It is indeed a lucrative proposition, and we see content developers eager to do anything so as to have a substantial viewership that makes them eligible for monetization. And as Tanmay pointed out, maximum attention is grabbed by spurious content. So, if money can come through so easily via absurdity. nudity and fallacy, then why should one invest on meticulously crafted substance and tedious fact check?

However, not all actors in the digital space are there to make money. Many others are there for agenda and motive other than making money. As Rajiv Chandrashekhar rightly pointed out, today India faces challenge of fake news and misinformation more than that of war or terrorism. He admitted that we are surrounded by people wanting to unsettle India. For them, war and terrorism are no more good options. They would rather disrupt growth by spreading falsehood and misinformation.

Unfortunately, those with the intention of creating lawlessness and disorder in the country and those responsible for maintaining order in the society share this very space to spread hatred and discord alike. How is the behavior of Anurag Thakur, Union Minister with his controversial “Maro Salon Ko” chants different from that of separatists trying to exacerbate societal divisions? Incidentally, Thakur was also there to give away the awards.

With almost ninety lacs of people in India using the internet for passing digital content either way, where lies the solution?  Moreover, this poses a global threat and is not limited to India alone. The problem becomes more complex as the digital platforms and its publishers are two different entities and not one as in the Print or TV journalism. With single ownership of the platform and the content, conventional media has a better sense of responsibilities whereas the digital world or the new media is dominated by issues that remain largely unregulated.

In Analog media contents can be characterized as fiction and non-fiction, feature and documentary, but in the realm of digital narration, there is no steadfast characterization or classification. The line between fact and fiction is blur. Spurious content easily passes off as true and real. A solution could be reached by incentivizing accuracy over sensationalism.  Addressing misinformation in the digital age is imperative for safeguarding societal harmony and democratic discourse.

If the Government makes it mandatory to mark all digitally published contents as verified and non-verified content, there could be a ray of hope for us in distinguishing the real from the fake but with heaps of digital garbage being spilled into the universe day and night, this would be the most daunting task. To start with, we may have a governance system in which monetization is enabled only when the content is marked as verified.

Ranjan Kumar Singh