By<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Francis Sowa, Ph.D.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lecturer 1,<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone, Sierra Leone<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Email: fsowa2007@yahoo.com<\/a>, francis.sowa@usl.edu.sl<\/a>, <\/p>\n\n\n\n The study examines the means and challenges of correcting Information Disorder. One of those means of correcting the menace is through the broadcasts and publications of traditional\/mainstream media institutions. Journalism has been described as the greatest ally in combating Information Disorder and the best vaccine against disinformation. As seen in the literature, mainstream media news is expected to be based on facts and investigation with a focus on values such as authenticity, accountability, and autonomy. But, the reverse, as some studies point out, is that some mainstream media institutions have been complicit in disseminating misinformation and disinformation. The main research question for the study is: can the media be a \u2018virus\u2019 or a \u2018vaccine\u2019 in the information disorder ecosystem? <\/strong>The study\u2019s objective is, therefore, to find out what role the media can play in correcting Information Disorder. Data were collected using in-depth interviews, surveys, and documentary\/archival search analysis. The design is a mixed method or triangulation. The theoretical anchorages are Technological Determinism and its resultant constructs on misinformation and disinformation discourse, and Solutions Journalism. The study argues that any attempt to depend on the media as a means of overcoming information disorder will be fraught with the challenge of first inoculating the media to build immunity against the very virus called information disorder. The study concludes that the media can be both the virus and the vaccine in the information disorder ecosystem. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Keywords: Media, Vaccine, Virus, Information Disorder, Inoculation.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Since the emergence of the media, members of society have largely depended on the media for information. The media perform the role of information dissemination based on certain ethos guiding their operations. The media\u2019s presence and reach spread as technological inventions break new ground. That birth of the media, which was largely influenced by the invention of the printing press, has witnessed several other developments. From the analogue means of producing and transmitting information, the media institutions migrated into the digital arena. The transition was and is still made possible by the advent of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs). The internet and the corresponding technologies have enhanced the flow of information and communication beyond mainstream media platforms. Through the advent of the internet, the \u2018new media\u2019 emerged. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The new media showed no sign of relenting in terms of the change it has brought to the information and communication ecosystem. As a sign of its commitment to stay, the new media paved the way for the creation of social media platforms. With this, members of society then got an alternative means of accessing and exchanging information. It was no longer exclusively the mainstream media or, in the African context, indigenous communication channels, that controlled the information ecosystem. There were now alternatives in terms of getting information. As the USAID (2011) Disinformation Primer has observed, digital technology has supplanted many of the forms from which people traditionally obtained information. Consequently, the information ecosystem expanded and changed completely. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The social media platforms were and are still intended to provide forum to articulate social issues. But, the power of the social media platforms were spotted and utilised within the information ecosystem for several other purposes. No sooner than expected, people realised that social media platforms had largely polluted the order which the information ecosystem once enjoyed. With the emergence of Information Disorder, complaints started growing about the \u2018Information Disorder.\u2019 The threats of Information Disorder have worsened as social media and internet use become more ubiquitous. While social media platforms may be widely accessible, they continue to be channels for disinformation, misinformation, and mal-information to spread (USAID, 2020). Powerful new technology makes the manipulation and fabrication of content simple, and social networks dramatically amplify falsehoods peddled by States, populist politicians, and dishonest corporate entities, as they are shared by uncritical publics (Ireton & Posett, 2018). The current situation runs contrary to what proponents of the internet imagined; an information utopia, in which information freely and easily shared, would yield tremendous benefits to society (Negroponte, Being Digital, 1995 cited in Helm and Nasu, 2021). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Society later realised that there had always been a channel within the information ecosystem that largely maintained \u2018order\u2019 in the dissemination of information. Society turned again to the media. Alas, the media, it seemed, had also been affected by the same information disorder largely enhanced by the internet penetration and the utilisation of social media platforms. But these platforms are not a replacement for the institution of a democratic, free media (USAID, 2020). <\/p>\n\n\n\n This study, therefore, chronicles the current debates on Information Disorder with specific reference to the argument on whether the media can be one of those means of correcting Information Disorder in a society, in which the media are already accused of being complicit in contributing to the very information disorder. The article\u2019s objective of further illuminating the role the media can play in correcting Information Disorder is significant to enhancing efforts to reduce the havoc from information disorder. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Information Disorder according to Claire Wardle, an expert on misinformation and disinformation refers to the current media climate and the ways in which the media ecosystem is polluted (Wardle, 2020). Information Disorder is a condition in which truth and facts coexist in a milieu of misinformation and disinformation\u2014conspiracy theories, lies, propaganda, and half-truths. It has impacted nearly all facets of society as people of all ages are spending a significant amount of time-consuming and sharing content online (USAID, 2021, p. 7). Inherent in the term Information Disorder are the following concepts: misinformation and disinformation. The three overarching types- misinformation, disinformation and mal-information- are called information disorder (Wardle, 2019; Helm and Nasu (2021). Fake news overlaps with other information disorders (Lazer, D. et al, 2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Different people have opposing views about the meaning of \u201cfake news.\u201d There is a real possibility that it means nothing and it is doing great harm (The Conversation, cited in Habgood-Coote, 2018). In the words of assistant director-general of communication and information at UNESCO, Frank La Rue, fake news is a bad term primarily because it is a trap. It is not news. Just the term generates mistrust of the press and of the work of journalists (Dema, 2017). It is fabricated information that mimics news media content in form but not in organizational process or intent (Lazer, D. et al, 2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n As argued by many authors, the term \u2018fake news\u2019 has been coined and promoted for political purposes. Political leaders have started using the term to discredit and attack professional journalism. When journalists use \u2018fake news\u2019 in their reporting, they are giving legitimacy to an unhelpful and increasingly dangerous phrase ((Dema, 2017; Wardle, 2019, p. 7) \u2018Fake news\u2019 is not used in this article. Information Disorder (and its types) offers an alternative to the term \u201cfake news\u201d and those terms are used throughout the article. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Misinformation<\/strong> is false or misleading information (Lazer, D. et al, 2018; Helm & Nasu, 2021). It is a type of information disorder in which the false information is not intended to cause harm. The individuals spreading the information may not realise that it is false or misleading. They may even think that they are helping by sharing the information (Wardle & Derakshan, 2017; Wardle, 2019; Shorenstein Center, 2018). The person disseminating the misinformation may believe that it is true (Ireton and Posett, 2018). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Disinformation<\/strong> is false information that is deliberately created and purposely disseminated with the specific purpose of deceiving people. It is intentionally false and designed to cause harm (Wardle, 2019, Shorenstein Center, 2018); Lazer et al, 2018; Helm and Nasu, 2021). The person who is disseminating disinformation knows it is false. It is an intentional lie and targets people being actively disinformed by malicious actors (Ireton and Posett, 2018). Producers of disinformation typically have political, financial, psychological, or social motivations (Wardle & Derakshan, 2017). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Mal-information<\/strong> describes genuine information based on reality that is shared with the intent to cause harm to a person, organisation or country (Wardle, 2019; Ireton & Posett, 2018). It is a type of information disorder that is about the deliberate publication of private information taken out of context for personal or private interest, as well as the deliberate manipulation of genuine content. Such information is based on reality but is usually disseminated to cause harm (Wardle & Derakhshan, 2017, USAID, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The definitions show that while the three concepts are forms of information disorder, they are different in terms of the purposes they seek to achieve. The major distinction revolves around falsity, knowledge and intent. For instance, disinformation has all three elements falsity, knowledge and intent. The person spreading knows that it is false and seeks to achieve a particular purpose. With misinformation, the information is false, but the person spreading it may not know that it is false, and has no intent to create any harm. While mal-information is not false, it can be spread with the intent to cause harm. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The term media as used in this article, refers to radio and television stations and newspapers in Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone has a long history of media presence dating as far back as January 1801 when George Ross printed the Sierra Leone Gazette<\/em> on Freetown\u2019s first printing press. The country also ranked among the pioneers of radio broadcasting in the continent, with the rediffusion service introduced in Freetown in 1934, the first in British West Africa (Cole, 1995, p.1). There are over 400 registered media institutions, according to the data of Independent Media Commission (IMC) 2021. About half of those media institutions are operational. There is at least one radio station in each of the 16 political districts in the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This article considers all three forms of information disorder highlighted as things the media should guard against in their work, help people to understand and take the necessary precautions against them. This is because one of the reasons information disorder is on the rise includes the erosion of trust in institutions, especially government and media institutions (2020 Edelman Trust Barometer). In addition, the 2021 Edelman Trust Barometer reveals a disturbing level of public mistrust of journalists, with 59% of respondents in 28 countries saying that journalists deliberately try to mislead the public by reporting information they know to be false (Ireton & Posett, 2018). As Lewandowsky et al (2012) put it, although the media seek to inform the public, it is notable that they are particularly prone to spreading misinformation for systemic reasons that are worthy of analysis and exposure. The article fulfils that role by analysing media\u2019s role in the information disorder ecosystem and proffering ideas that will expose them to ways of addressing misinformation, disinformation and mal-information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Deloire (2021), journalism is the best vaccine against disinformation. The \u2018Reporters Without Borders\u2019 Secretary-General added that in response to the virality of disinformation across borders, on digital platforms and via social media, journalism provides the most effective means of ensuring that public debate is based on a diverse range of established facts. <\/strong>Usman (2021), quoting the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres\u2019 statement on the 2021 World Press Freedom Day notes that free and independent journalism can be the greatest ally in combating misinformation and disinformation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the theoretical anchorages of this study is \u2018Technological Determinism (TD). It revolves around the ideas that technology has important effects on people\u2019s lives. In the words of Adler (2006), Technological Determinism is the belief that technology is the principal initiator of society\u2019s transformation. The emergence of this theory is usually attributed to the American sociologist Thorstein Veblen, who formulated the causal link between technology and society. The communications theorist and media scholar, Marshall McLuhan, laid out one famous example of technological determinism in his book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. He asserted that “the medium is the message”(Mardiana and Daniels, 2019). <\/p>\n\n\n\n McLuhan\u2019s theoretical postulation is apt for this study because of the discourse that new forms of media transform (massage) people\u2019s experience of themselves and their society, and this influence is ultimately more important than the content that is transmitted in its specific messages\u2014technology determines experience. He used the term global village to refer to the new form of social organization that would inevitably emerge as instantaneous electronic media tied the entire world into one great social, political, and cultural system (Baran & Davis, 2012, p. 231). This is exactly the point at issue. Technology has played a role in creating or enhancing the platforms for both traditional and mainstream media institutions. They have now become the \u2018medium\u2019 and largely regarded as the \u2018message\u2019 other than the actual contents they produce. In other words, just the fact that a piece of information emanated from a medium suffices- not necessarily the content itself, those changes in communication technology have inevitably produced profound changes in both culture and social order (Baran and Davis, 2012). That is the information disorder society currently suffers from. It is a product of technology. It is for such reason that supporters of technological determinism point out that social changes are controlled by the technology, technological development, communications technology and media (Hauer, 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Owing to the fact that the media are perceived as being part of the very problem, there is a need to find solution to that problem already created. This brings in the concept of \u2018solution journalism.\u2019 Solutions Journalism is \u201crigorous and compelling reporting on responses to social problems\u201d (Solutions Journalism Network 2017) and it is reporting done with the highest of journalistic standards (Bansal and Martin, 2015). It is a concept pioneered by the \u2018The Solutions Journalism Network\u2019 created in 2013. <\/strong>Solutions journalism is reporting about responses to entrenched social problems. It examines instances where people, institutions, and communities are working toward solutions (Curry and Hammonds, n.d.). In the view of Bansal and Martin (2015), the job of journalists is to hold up an accurate mirror to society and if they fail to cover the many ways people and institutions are trying to solve problems \u2014 successful or not \u2014 they fail to do their jobs. Solution journalism fits into the contextual function of journalism because it seeks to add information beyond the immediate issue at hand. It goes beyond the \u201cwho, what, when, where\u201d that often defines the problem and focuses on trying to point out what are people doing about it (McIntyre, Dahmen & Abdenour, 2016, Lough and McIntyre, 2018, p.33). Solution-oriented reporting pushes journalists to think about the social responsibility of the press and questions whether they consider society\u2019s best interest in their daily thought processes and habits (Lough and McIntyre, 2018). The strongest solutions journalism stories use the rigor of investigative reporting to explore systemic, underlying reasons for social ills and then critically examine efforts to address them (Wenzel, Gerson and Moreno (n.d)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Solutions journalism is apt for this study because information disorder has become an entrenched social problem. Therefore, the approach requires media institutions to work towards providing solutions to that problem. The solution fits into what this articles addresses; the role the media can play in correcting the information disorder. There is also an emphasis on the media performing that role with reference to the highest journalistic standards (ethical considerations). <\/p>\n\n\n\n The study used in-depth interviews, survey and documentary\/archival search analysis to collect and analyse information. The design is a mixed method or triangulation. The population for the study mainly comprised students at Mass Communication Department at Fourah Bay College, CSOs, and civil and public servants estimated at 25,000. Using the sample size calculator, the sample size is 384. For the survey, 380 survey questionnaires were completed out of the 384 administered online. About 30 per cent of the respondents were journalists while the remaining 70% were CSOs, civil and public servants, and students. The questionnaires were administered in October 2021. The data were analysed and presented based on the research questions and objectives. Six key informant interviews were conducted with academics, civil society organisations and senior media practitioners. The responses from the interviewees were transcribed and used to develop into narratives relating to the study. Reports and documents on information disorder were also collected and analysed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The results are based on the study\u2019s research question and objective on whether the media can be a vaccine or a virus in the Information Disorder ecosystem, and what role the media can play in correcting the Information Disorder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The study\u2019s first interrogated the media\u2019s position within the debate on whether they are indeed part of the virus in the Information Disorder ecosystem. The indicators used were to ascertain if the media produce, spread or contribute to misinformation and disinformation are detailed below. The data show that the respondents\u2019 considered the media (radio, television and newspaper) as institutions producing false or misleading information as indicated by 46.6 per cent (\u2018strongly agree\u2019 and \u2018agree\u2019) of the respondents. This percentage may appear smaller as compared to the 51 per cent that strongly disagreed and agreed that the media institutions do so. But it is a worrisome trend that almost half of the respondents held that view. It is the quest of the traditional media to compete with the online news platform in terms of who is first to put out the news that had led to the disruption of the traditional media landscape. Online news platforms have disrupted the traditional media landscape (USAID, 2021). Kallon (2021) pointed out that part of the problem is that the traditional media have integrated with the online media to an extent that line is now blurred between traditional and online media. Konneh (2021) confirmed newspapers have taken contents from her platforms and published without cross-checking them. This is technological determinism at play. The technology has created the new media platforms which have had important effects on people\u2019s lives. The Technological Determinism theory has initiated the society\u2019s transformation (Adler, 2006). The transformation has, however, created negative impacts on society. The danger with the media producing false and misleading information is that it confirms what the 2020 Edelman Trust Barometer notes to be among the reasons information disorder is on the rise and a source of the erosion of trust in media institutions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 1: Media (radio, television and newspaper) produce false or misleading information. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nAbstract<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Introduction <\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Situating the discourse <\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Information Disorder<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Fake news<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Misinformation, Disinformation and Mal-information<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The media <\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Media and Information Disorder<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Theoretical framework <\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Methods <\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Results and discussions <\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Media- a virus<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n