Management of misinformation necessary but difficult

The present global growth paradigm is powered by information. It has replaced knowledge as the main driver of economic development. ICT and digital technology have accelerated innovations and given a new direction to the world economy, but these are not without disruptions. The management of information is too complex. Skill barriers in the collection and analysis of data are obvious, and data science and digital technologies are changing too fast.

Misinformation or disinformation, though different, are a reality and can play havoc if not managed judiciously. Joan Donovan from Harvard University, US, distinguishes misinformation as spreading false information and disinformation as the creation and distribution of intentionally false information, usually for a given motive. However, the overabundance of information — some accurate and some not, makes it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance when they need it, which is termed Infodemic by the World Health Organisation.

Fake and wrong information existed from times immemorial, but ICT and social media have enabled its spread at a speed that sometimes infringes fundamental rights. Technology does not guarantee the veracity of information. Both the providers and users can go wrong and miscommunicate. Media communications are also not always free from errors, and growth is not as equitable as it should be.

Digital tech created information web

The proliferation of media after the expansion of ICT and digital technology has created an information web, with different people interpreting and using the same information varyingly. It may be because of competition or a lack of contextual relevance. A media report sometimes becomes news, even before it is a piece of news. Some debate it as investigative reporting, while others call it intrusive reporting or breaking news.

Both print and electronic media, however, ensure transparency in the business conduct at various levels, more importantly, the government business and actions. As the fourth eye on public affairs in a democratic country, the media secures the right public policies and actions than what would have happened otherwise. The interpretation or judgment errors in communication impact its credibility. The out-of-context application of information makes even justice elusive, as discerning disinformation is often too cumbersome.

In a democracy, expression of anguish or opinion should be welcome if based on correct information, interpretation, and genuine apprehensions. The success of farmers’ agitation is a case in point. The apprehensions of agitators were justified, and as a result, the laws were repealed. However, motivated and misinformed agitations should be prevented through appropriate administrative or legal measures. Censorship should not be allowed. The suppression of information through administrative or financial profligacy makes misinformation more pronounced. The greater thrust should be on improvement in the content quality and ensuring that misinformation does not become a business.

Some media and non-governmental organisations have self-governing codes of conduct. The government establishments also have their specific rules. These aim to prevent and contain misinformation and disinformation, but it is easier said than done. Transparent and effective governance and a more aware society are its two prerequisites.

Ensure information discipline

Mediapersons, maybe with a few exceptions, hesitate to carry unevidenced information, and media reports are ordinarily close to the truth. The canons of justice expect that information on matters subject to judicial scrutiny should not be examined by the media, particularly if it impacts human rights. It does not mean that the mediapersons cannot express their opinions. They can and should do so based on logic and evidence but without bias. The counterviews should also be respected if these are well-grounded. But, the privacy of individuals and organisations should be protected, following safeguards in the existing laws and international conventions to ensure information discipline.

Management of misinformation is a necessary but difficult task. It is more so in the case of social media, which remains unrestrained and often distorted. The interpretation of right and wrong can be subjective, and it may not be feasible to explain the context of information every time it is communicated or exchanged. The socio-economic barriers such as linguistic and cultural diversities, poverty, and biases emanating from ethnic divisions also impinge upon transparency, authenticity, and interpretation of a piece of information and need careful consideration from the government.

Transparency is misunderstood

The transparency movement worked well in our country. It culminated in the Right to Information Act of 2005. The Act envisages the provision of information to a person who wishes to access such information on actions or decisions of the government and the public-funded organisations other than those specifically exempted. It has, however, caused a different kind of crisis. Apart from misuse and privacy infringement, personal aggrandizement has become more pronounced.

Transparency is, perhaps, misunderstood. It does not mean that everybody should have access to every record of the government or other organisations. It should imply that if a person is affected by an order, action, or decision of the government or an organisation, he should know the reasons for it so that he can seek a remedy if required.

To prevent or contain misinformation, though a comprehensive law on data privacy protection is required, the provisions of existing laws and rules that disable scrutiny and exchange of information should be omitted. The compliance and interpretation monitoring should be made more stringent but less burdensome through appropriate legislation. The orders or decisions based on uncodified instructions or laws should be discouraged. Public policies should not provide for discretion as these can be harmful with varying interpretations. In exceptional matters and situations, empowered joint forums of the executive, judiciary, legislature, and media should take decisions, and no public authority should pass orders beyond the statute book. Social media should comply with public policies that are explicitly stated and codified.

TO PREVENT OR CONTAIN MISINFORMATION, THOUGH A COMPREHENSIVE LAW ON DATA PRIVACY PROTECTION IS REQUIRED, THE PROVISIONS OF EXISTING RULES THAT DISABLE SCRUTINY AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION SHOULD BE OMITTED. THE COMPLIANCE AND INTERPRETATION MONITORING SHOULD BE MADE MORE STRINGENT