Lost in the fake-real news morass

People told you to beware of fake news. Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha in particular has been so concerned he seems to have made a campaign against fraudulent or misleading information his personal crusade.

The PM has just made it clear that he did not say people could go and fill their tanks with water if they think petrol is too expensive. The statement sounds incredible anyway. What kind of man in a position of power would make such a callous remark?

For the record, what Gen Prayut did say earlier was that rubber growers could try to sell their produce on Mars if they want to fetch higher prices.

Maybe it’s not that simple to distinguish real from fake news?

Let’s see, one characteristic of fake news is it must appear too good to be true — too hilarious, too dramatic, too twisted or too biased. Against that yardstick, this news item would seem to stand out as a plausible candidate.

Late last week, a Facebook page in support of Gen Prayut conducted an unofficial poll of public opinion to mark the fourth anniversary of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO).

The page, entitled “Give Us a Million Likes to Support Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha as Prime Minister”, asked people to vote “yes” or “no” to the question of whether they still want to see Gen Prayut run the country.

The poll drew a large number of participants. By Friday, May 25, more than 500,000 people had logged in to vote, according to a report on Matichon Online. The result, however, offered a bit of a twist as more than 90% of voters said they did not want to see Gen Prayut in the top seat again.

Could the outcome be true, as this unofficial poll was conducted on a Facebook page that was obviously pro-Prayut?

The surprise did not last long as government spokesman Sansern Kaewkamnerd quickly said the premier was not perturbed by the unofficial poll results. Many opinion surveys have been conducted on this subject and the prime minister believed the voters would finally make their own decision, Lt Gen Sansern said, according to the Matichon report.

Despite the comment, the Facebook page disappeared briefly on Friday after showing that only about 10% of voters wanted Gen Prayut to return to lead the country. It returned on Sunday without the astounding poll and said it had fallen victim to an attack by internet trolls.

Judging by the unexpected twists and turns, it seems the public must be especially discerning before it can distinguish what is real and what is fake these days.

And we haven’t even entered the start of the election campaigns yet. Imagine what kind of a fake news mess would emerge when candidates storm out in the field in search of votes. Will there be any benchmark strong enough to tell the truth from lies, or organic information from that which is manufactured?

Most importantly, will there by any way for people to pinpoint half-truths and recognise they are not the whole truth despite what politicians claim?

Must law and order be built on authoritarianism only? Is an example of reform considered progressive because a large number of committees have been appointed to study each and every issue, and hundreds of reports have been written about it? Is the so-called Thai-style democracy any form of democracy at all?

What is generally regarded as fake news — and its many shades from tall tales and one-sided information to downright propaganda — has underpinned Thailand’s political landscape and fuelled numerous conflicts including the latest, prolonged one that led to the 2014 coup with no end in sight.

There must be something in the Thai psyche and behaviour that makes us susceptible to misinformation. It could be because the past few years have divided people so completely that each group no longer sees the point of the other. Pro-military groups often see activists, whether they are human rights supporters or pro-election campaigners, as a nuisance. At the same time, pro-democracy groups usually paint people who support the military as elitist and backward. These biases glaze over most of the news and information they produce and consume.

Ironically, while the military government is seen as despising “fake news” the most, and actively seeks to suppress what it deems to be false information, it could very well be accused as being one of its producers thanks to its inability to embrace the whole truth, or simply to keep a promise.

So the election will be held in February 2019? Who can tell whether the news is real or fake?