Social media spurs fake reality on the Internet: What defence do we have?
In December 2012, a clip was posted on YouTube showing a golden eagle swooping down on a family in a park and snatching a toddler. It caused a wave of concern among parents, even when they didn't know where the footage was taken. Others were simply horri
The clip grabbed the world’s attention and drew millions of hits on YouTube alone.
In stark contrast, the videos uploaded by the United Nations featuring the world’s most powerful people talking about life-and-death policies concerning violence in Syria, the refugee crisis and global warming have drawn fewer than 100,000 views each.
Here are the viewing figures (as of Sunday) for this year’s just-concluded UN General Assembly:
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s address: 1,708 views.
US President Barack Obama’s speech: 44,037 views.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech: 20,424.
Unicef Goodwill Ambassador Shakira’s performance: 72,828.
Even with Twitter and Facebook, Ban Ki-moon’s messages reach a tiny fraction of the world’s population. Which is sad when you consider that he is the global leader best-placed to broadcast news of the challenges humanity is facing, including endless violence and climate change. Here are my two of my favourite Ban quotes:
“The global humanitarian system is not broken; it is broke,” he said, during a plea for more international humanitarian assistance. “Why is it easier to find the money to destroy people and planet than it is to protect them?”
I assume that most people today are so deep in the rut of their busy personal lives that they use the Internet – accessible from anywhere and any time – as a tool to entertain themselves and peek into the lives of others.
That was how they fell in love with a girl who called herself Debbie. In June 2011, a YouTube clip of “Debbie” weeping as she described her passion for cats and her desire for a date went viral.
According to Wikipedia, the five most-viewed YouTube clips are all entertainment videos – top is Psy’s “Gangnam Style” with 2.4 billion hits, followed by Justin Bieber’s Ludacris (1.2 billion), Taylor Swift (1.17 billion) and Katy Perry (1.1 billion).
The latest evidence for a trend away from television to Internet viewing comes in a recent survey by Nielsen, which showed that about 2.6 million of US households are now “broadband only”. Though that figure still only represents 2.8 per cent of households, it has almost tripled from the 1.1 per cent of last year. The survey also showed that US viewers spent an average 12 minutes less watching TV than a year ago.
Meanwhile Thais spend an average 2.6 hours a day online via mobile devices and 90 minutes hours via personal computers, according to a recent survey by marketing insight company TNS. It also found that we watch a daily average 2.30 hours of conventional TV but spend less than five minutes reading newspapers or magazines.
This trend away from traditional media is being fuelled in part by online platforms that give people the ability to showcase their personal lives.
The viewers seldom care whether such clips are fake or real.
Take the “eagle” video, for instance: even after a university in Canada quickly unmasked it as a hoax, it went viral. The visual-effects students, looking for 100,000 views for an “A+” grade, must be thrilled with 3.5 million hits so far received.
Meanwhile the “Debbie” video has over 30 million viewers and climbing despite its star having confessed it’s a fake. The success has encouraged her to switch careers and become a comedian. YouTube reportedly awarded her a portion of the advertising fees made from the popularity of her video.
Few viewers care to check whether what they see online is fake or real before sharing it with “friends”. This in turn only encourages fame-hungry Netizens to concoct stuff that will gain them attention.
The show “Caught on Camera” recently featured a video in which staff of a TV channel faked an accident that destroyed a “valuable sculpture”. The sculptor – also a fake – was furious, as the unknowing producer looked on in disbelief. “I didn’t think a lot about putting the TV station on the line,” said the prankest-staffer. “I don’t take myself seriously. People loved it.”
A world in which people watch passively, seldom read and hardly ever bother to check facts is a world that will inevitably descend into an echo chamber of confusion.
And while many viewers do remain sceptical, choosing to verify Internet “reality” via TV, radio and newspapers, how much of this traditional media will survive in, say, 10 years from now? Radio stations are dropping like flies as their audience declines and advertisers desert them. Newspapers are withering fast as readers migrate to online services. And how many of online newspapers will prosper when most of the audience prefers to surf for what they like, not what they should know?
We certainly can’t believe everything we see on the Internet, yet in 10 years’ time, who will be there to verify whether what you are watching is fake or real?
