- Strengthening ‘fact-checking,’ critical to restore faith in mainstream media
In many countries, media institutions are joining hands with fact-checkers to debunk misinformation, especially during elections, war and similar periods of tension when society is likely to be divided on opinions or there is a high chance of misinformation spreading. However, sadly, in many Asian nations, fact-checking is yet to become a mainstream practice and too often is perceived as a fringe operation. There is an urgent need to support and initiate fact-checking endeavours, as the challenges posed by inaccurate or misleading information are great and are detrimental. In the case of Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, where religious and ethnic divisions, social polarisation, authoritarian politics, partisan media and low media literacy create fertile breeding grounds for misinformation.
Explaining the status quo of fact-checking in the South Asian region, the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), in its latest report on the matter titled “Managing the Misinformation Effect: The State of Fact-Checking in Asia,” noted that that a wide range of stakeholders should contribute to strengthen fact-checking efforts in the region.
In the report, it added that while mainstream media houses should integrate fact-checking into standard journalistic protocols and rapidly correct their own mistakes, fact-checks should sit high on daily news agendas and articles should be shared widely enough to undo some of the damage done by erroneous reports. Noting that fact-checking groups need stability and longevity, built on reliable funding and solid organisational foundations, the report read that they also need to look inward and protect their fact-checkers from harm, with an awareness of the threats to their physical safety and mental health that this type of work can entail.
Sri Lanka’s situation
The report highlighted achievements of fact-checking initiatives across Asia: “In Indonesia, fact-checking initiatives have reached thousands with digital literacy programs and, unlike in other countries, mainstream media outlets have embraced fact-checking. In India, fact-checks are published in many regional languages. In Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, fact-checkers are working hard to protect their politically and religiously/ethnically divided societies from misinformation. In Nepal, fact-checking is holding mainstream media, social media influencers and the powerful to account.”
The report discussed Sri Lanka’s situation under the title “fighting polarisation in public discourse,” and the country’s section had been authored by Deepanjalie Abeywardana and Mahoshadi Peiris. Noting that Sri Lanka’s media and political landscape have been marred by two significant problems that have also posed numerous challenges to the democratic discourse in the country, the authors identified what they described as “the problem of polarisation” and “the problem of information disorder,” as those two issues. They expressed concerns that the media in Sri Lanka is divided along ethno-linguistic and ideological lines, and often features polarised framings on national issues.
“The problem of information disorder manifests within this polarised media and political landscape. Political statements that contain factual inaccuracies are uncritically disseminated and amplified by local media in a way that limits the ability of the public to engage in democratic discourse and make informed electoral decisions. As a result, such statements not only have negative social, economic, and political ramifications, but also reinforce polarisation in the country,” the report noted.
As per the authors, in Sri Lanka’s case, four dominant and recurring patterns are identifiable in the political and media discourse, and these patterns tend to exacerbate the polarisation of the local political landscape along ethno-religious lines and political ideologies. At the same time, they hinder citizens’ ability to make informed choices in a democracy, and in this context, the work of fact-checking platforms is to impede and disrupt these negative patterns.
These four patterns were named by the authors as “playing into prejudice”, “the blame game”, ‘false sense of security”, and “misconstruing rights”. With regard to the first pattern, they noted that Sri Lankan political figures often make claims that run the risk of promoting and perpetuating prejudicial and harmful narratives that work against the country’s ethno-religious minority groups. In addition, regarding the second pattern, they explained that most often, politicians currently in the government and State officials attribute blame for issues concerning economic mismanagement to the politicians who were formerly in government, while pointing out the blame games that were observed in the context of the prevailing economic crisis.
Explaining the pattern pertaining to security, it was noted that this pattern, which emerged primarily at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, involved government officials creating a false sense of security through their communications, such as in relation to the status of the country’s Covid-19 transmission rates, by falsely assuring the public that the level of transmission in the country had not reached the level of “community spread” at the time. Moreover, discussing the pattern of misconstruing rights, it was explained that politicians and public officials misinterpret the law in a manner that serves their personal or political interests, and that they do this by exploiting the difficulty that a layperson would face in interpreting legal texts in written laws and regulations.
The report discussed the challenges faced by fact-checkers in Sri Lanka, adding that local fact-checking platforms and independent fact-checkers face many challenges and that two of them stand out: “First, there is the difficulty in penetrating partisan audiences, which are a negative outcome of the polarisation of Sri Lankan society. The audiences are divided sometimes along ethno-religious lines and sometimes along political ideologies. Audiences that are strongly polarised tend to be less receptive to the counter-narratives offered by fact-checkers to factually incorrect statements by the political figures and other key decision makers who represent their respective positions. In addition, politicians in Sri Lanka often dismiss and delegitimise fact-checked counter-narratives. In doing so, they label organisations or individuals who challenge their statements as a part of the “NGO mob” working with “Western interests” in mind. This type of labelling, which resonates with the political ideologies of the partisan audiences, tends to further exacerbate the problem of polarisation. Second, there is the difficulty of sustaining fact-checking, especially financially. Fact-checking efforts require time and resources and are often supported only by international development organisations, not local organisations – especially as local organisations tend to fear punitive political action against them for supporting narratives that are critical of powerful figures. Despite the importance of fact-checking, especially in polarised societies such as Sri Lanka, it has become increasingly difficult to sustain the fact-checking effort.”
With regard to the above-mentioned situation, the report noted that while the problems of polarisation and information disorder are contributing to the erosion of Sri Lanka’s democracy, they increase in momentum during elections and political contestation. Therefore, they must be combated by a larger group of organisations and individuals to effectively reach and inform a wider audience.
Recommendations
According to the IFJ, tackling the above-mentioned issues requires a number of steps, and that is a responsibility that is shared by all relevant stakeholders, including media outlets, journalists, unions, educators, funders, donors, and fact-checkers themselves. Noting that fact-checking has established itself in the international media and journalism community as a critical truth frontline, the report in its recommendations added that it is vital in defending democracy by fighting misinformation, encouraging media literacy, and restoring public trust in independent media.
Media outlets should consider establishing fact-checking units, regularly publish fact-checks, correct misinformation, and promptly and publicly correct their own errors. In addition, it was recommended that media outlets and journalists support independent fact-checking institutions and the expanding network of fact-checkers regionally and globally. This can be done by encouraging their work, republishing their content and giving full attribution when quoting their findings in reports. Media operations were further recommended to consider providing fact-checking skills workshops and training to all journalists and media workers in order to help mitigate the chances of unintentionally publishing misinformation in media reporting.
IFJ noted that journalists’ unions too have responsibilities in this regard: “Journalist unions should explore and expand efforts to support and represent fact-checkers’ ‘rights to publish’ and express solidarity with them by acceptance of their participation as media workers. Unions may also consider extending memberships to the fact-checkers.”
With regard to fact-checking organisations, it was recommended that they protect fact-checkers from any threat to their physical and mental health, including defamation, harassment, abuse and vicarious trauma. Fact-checking initiatives should adhere and remain committed to impartiality, accountability, transparency, and correct methodology, while they should also consider looking beyond short-term funding models in order to ensure long-term viability and sustainability through industry and network support and collaboration.
IFJ’s recommendations further said that fact-checking initiatives should expand their reach by using various communication formats and channels to improve media literacy and also actively seek support from media outlets, civil society and human rights defenders in publishing their findings. This, it explained, will promote fact-checking – as a layer of democratic defence and discourse. In addition, fact-checking initiatives were recommended to attempt to publish reports in local languages wherever possible, despite the technological barriers.
Meanwhile, social media platforms were recommended to ensure that fact-checks are given the same level of visibility as the online misinformation they seek to correct. Funders and donors were recommended to continue to support fact-checking initiatives by supporting their training, startup, and sustainability programs. In addition, universities and schools were recommended to teach skills in critical reading of official information, mass media, and social media in order to encourage media literacy.
“Media and information literacy are important aspects of fighting misinformation,” the report read, noting that in such a context all stakeholders, including media, journalists, unions, and fact-checkers, should promote media and information literacy through programmes, training and resources.