Excuse the Among Us reference in my title, I’ve been playing it a little too much haha
The proliferation of misinformation and disinformation related to the environment is a prevalent problem in digital media.
During the US Presidential Debate this week, President Trump asserted that the wildfires in California are caused by poor forest management when asked about his beliefs on the science of climate change. He has ignored the influence of climate change in causing more severe and frequent wildfires multiple times previously. (see this tweet)
During the Australian bushfires, a video claiming that “arsonists were responsible for about 50% of the bushfires. Not climate change.” went viral. This false information that arsonists were solely to be blamed for the bushfires was used by Donald Trump to further his agenda that climate change does not have any effect on these fires. However, only about 10% of the bushfires recorded were caused by arson, not 50%. Moreover, studies have already shown that increased temperatures due to climate change worsen the bushfires in Australia.
Similarly, disinformation claiming that the wildfires in the West Coast of the US were caused by arsonists was all over social media and distracted the police from handling the bushfires.
This spread of misinformation and disinformation is dangerous as it can distort the views of people on the severity of climate change. For deniers, it will strengthen their belief that climate change is a “hoax”. For others, it could decrease their concern for climate change. This will hinder meaningful and collective action from being taken.
I came across this article while researching for this post and was surprised to find out that what I thought was true from this Instagram post, is actually not fully accurate.
Instagram post from @mothershipsg
I conducted a survey to find out people’s reactions to this article that reported a similar story that a local in Kerala deliberately fed the elephant “a pineapple laden with explosive firecrackers”. The 40 respondents were balanced between BES students and other friends/acquaintances. The article uses loaded language like “horrifying act of cruelty” and such acts “put society at large to shame”. This could have made many respondents feel strong emotions like anger, shock and sadness.
It has been found that fake news is more likely to go viral due to the emotions evoked, so the rapid spread of misinformation about this incident could have been due to the language used.
Many respondents found the article quite reliable/accurate, which is worrying since it contains misinformation.
1 being untrue, 5 being true
The elephant was not “targeted” but had accidentally consumed an explosive fruit that is often used by farmers to deter wild boars from their crops. However, this is illegal and the culprit has been prosecuted.
This misinformation was widespread on social media, with 70% of respondents having heard of this incident from social media.
This shows how social media fuels the spread of misinformation and disinformation. It even led to people attacking Muslims since the alleged place of incident (which was misreported) has a majority Muslim population.
The spread of misinformation and disinformation is a serious problem as it not only decreases the effectiveness of digital media in raising environmental awareness but also skews our views and distracts us from tackling environmental issues.
So, what can we do? Stay tuned to find out!
chanyeeqi October 5, 2020
Hello Si Ying!
Thank you for sharing the truth on the Kerala incident, I can’t believe I fell prey to misinformation without even realising it! I wanted to ask for your opinion on the use of loaded language in invoking strong emotions in the readers, do you agree that this is a form of effective and powerful writing?
I ask about this because in my opinion, I feel that using loaded language to deliver greater impact on readers is effective use of language. That’s why I think such language should be used when writing about environmental issues because it creates a stronger impact on the readers that helps to increase the likelihood of them taking action.
Plus, if loaded language makes readers think and feel a certain way and create bias in their perspectives, is it necessarily a bad thing when we are trying to advocate for environmental issues? Or does the problem only lie in the sensationalisation and exaggeration of facts?
I would love to hear what you think about this!
Si Ying October 5, 2020 — Post Author
Hi Yee Qi!
Thank you for stopping by!
I do agree with you that loaded language can be useful to encourage action, however, I think it also depends on where it is used and the purpose behind it. I think the use of loaded language in advertisement campaigns advocating for environmental issues is effective in pushing for action as long as it is not overdone. However, in the case of news articles, I believe the purpose of the press is to inform the public about events/issues happening. Hence, using loaded language may not be appropriate as it tends to exaggerate the facts and manipulate people into thinking a certain way. This takes away the freedom for people to formulate their own opinions on issues, which can be harmful as it can sway people’s views towards an undesirable side such as thinking climate change is not a serious issue. As mentioned in my post, the use of loaded language is common in misinformation and disinformation which is one of the reasons why they spread so fast. By stimulating strong emotions in us using loaded language, it decreases our ability to think rationally about whether the information is accurate. This is probably why the misinformation on the Kerala incident had spread so quickly.
Moreover, using too much loaded language when advocating for environmental issues may make us seem less credible and people may not take us seriously. One example is Greta Thunberg who used lots of loaded language in her speech at the UN Climate Action Summit. She was criticized for being too emotional and people ended up making jokes and memes about her speech, as seen from the comments under this video of her speech, and when you search for “Greta Thunberg memes” on google images.
Overall, the context matters and we should be careful about using loaded language!
-Si Ying
amira amani October 6, 2020
Hello Si Ying! Thank you for the interesting read :0 I was just wondering, for example the post by Mothership, was the information purposely altered in order to ‘seem more interesting’ or due to miscommunication/negligence on their part to conduct proper research about the incidence? Thank you and hope to hear from you soon!
(btw, love the title!!)
Si Ying October 6, 2020 — Post Author
Hi Amira!
Thank you for reading! I’m glad you found it interesting :’)
I’m not very sure but I think it is likely that it was not intentional. The staff of Mothership probably assumed the information was accurate since so many news outlets were reporting the same thing. The article linked to that Instagram post was published on 3 June, 12.08pm. I found another article by Mothership that was published on the same day, about 11 hours later. It reported more accurate information that the elephant had “allegedly bit into a fruit stuffed with firecrackers” instead of being “offered the firecracker-stuffed pineapple by locals” as reported in the first article. Hence, I believe they did not purposely alter the information. However, they did not edit the first article and the title is still misleading. Plus, the second article has a hyperlink to the first article… so I’m a bit confused, did they not realize they had misreported the incident in the first article?
There was another news outlet that misreported the incident but later edited the article and corrected themselves.
But I do think that there are media outlets that report inaccurate/fake news on purpose to gain more readers/shares or for political reasons.
-Si Ying
Joanna Coleman October 7, 2020
Hi Si Ying,
Another very strong post.
That said, I invite you to work on your tendency to jump to conclusions, which, by the way, isn’t that unusual for people still in their bachelor degrees.
Here, you say “The article uses loaded language like “horrifying act of cruelty” and such acts “put society at large to shame”. This “successfully” made many respondents feel strong emotions like anger, shock and sadness. And then you say “It has been found that fake news is more likely to go viral due to the emotions evoked, and this incident has proven this true.”
But here’s the thing – you only asked people what their reactions were – you have no way of knowing whether these reactions were attributable to the language. And this incident doesn’t prove that fake news is MORE likely to go viral than accurate news. The way to prove that would be to experiment with fake and real news and measure the tendency to go viral.
The other question that comes up for me is uncertainty about how ppl would have reacted to the apparently true story that the elephant ate the pineapple accidentally (as opposed to being deliberately fed). Meaning, maybe people would have been just as upset by this news, i.e., upon learning that this method is used to deter wild boars and that it indiscriminately kills wild animals.
This (carefully weighing evidence) is a key subset of critical thinking skills – I hope you can reflect on this and grow in that direction.
jc
Si Ying October 7, 2020 — Post Author
Hi Dr. Coleman,
Thank you for your feedback, I have made some changes with regard to the parts you quoted. I will work on being more careful to not jump to conclusions next time.
I actually have thought of that, as personally, I still feel upset that the elephant was killed because people used such a method to protect their crops, although they did not intend to kill the elephant. That is an important point to consider, I should have included it in my post but I didn’t have enough words…
-Si Ying
ENV3102 October 14, 2020
Hi Si Ying,
Thanks for your reply. To be clear, my feedback (again) isn’t meant to incite you to change anything, but rather to get you (and your readers hopefully) to think about these points. If you make changes, then they can’t see what I meant.
For me, it’s fairly normal for yr 1 students to jump to conclusions, so I don’t penalise you folks for that. I’m commenting to help you grow. It’s all part of developing scientific & environmental literacy.
So, the sense of contrition or regret I get from your reply (whether that’s what you meant or not), try to release that. You’re doing a great job with this assignment overall.
Si Ying October 15, 2020 — Post Author
Hi Dr Coleman,
Ah I made changes as I thought that since you quoted the parts you were referring to in your comment, others can still see what you meant. So, to confirm, I should not make changes when you give feedback on my posts unless you state to do so?
mm I tend to be quite harsh on myself/doubt myself when I receive constructive feedback/criticism, it’s something I’m still working on but thank you for the reassurance :’)
-Si Ying
Joanna Coleman October 21, 2020
Well, don’t feel badly – many ppl (myself included) can be very hard on themselves.
Especially depending on your cultural mindset. This can be a harsh, punishment culture that we live in. But I’m used to year 1 students being, well, year 1 students. And my expectations and feedback are in line with that.
But yeah – I don’t want you folks to do unnecessary work changing things unless I detect plagiarism.
🙂
Si Ying October 30, 2020 — Post Author
Alright, thank you, Dr. Coleman 🙂