Campaigns by parties or companies are not about facts and truths, but about turning public opinion. Election campaigns often bring out the worst in our political leaders and create a particularly challenging situation for journalists who consider facts sacred. What leaders say during elections are largely kernels of truth that are puffed up so that they can claim superhuman qualities, or engage in scaremongering, or slander their opponents. When these statements are abstractions, such as someone is communal or good or bad for the country, there is nothing a journalist can do or perhaps needs to do, other than merely reporting it.
In the pre-digital era, falsehoods and misinformation had a short, localised life. Now, technology enables falsehoods to travel across continents, and remain eternally alive. What can journalism do in this scenario? How can journalists report a speech that contains falsehoods? Is it okay to merely reproduce what has been said? Is it okay to ignore the leader who is making the false statement? Can a leader’s speech be fact-checked real time?
Indian elections: Tracking misinformation, AI misuse and safeguards
