In accepting that a claim is true, people often prefer the shortcut of placing complete trust in the source of the claim, rather than make an effort to verify its accuracy. This is one of the reasons fake news spreads easily: the impulse to believe a piece of information simply because it is coming from sources perceived to be credible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is not to say that the concept of truth can be completely separated from where it is sourced but, for journalists, truth is not absolute. Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel write in their book, The Elements of Journalism<\/em>, that journalistic truth is a \u201cpractical and functional form of truth\u201d that can be reasonably relied upon on a day-to-day basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Put differently, what is true today may not be true tomorrow and, in verifying claims, we have to rely on probabilities based on the evidence available at every point in time. For instance, some sources are more authoritative than others because of the quality of their data gathering and analysis processes, their access to relevant information, transparency, or history of reliability. Also, claims that are sustained by multiple sources are more likely to be true compared to those sustained by a single source of similar weight. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The art of verification is a continuous, never-ending process. There is no Supreme Court of Truth<\/em>. One way to illustrate this is by using a fact-check<\/a> published in 2018, which faulted figures presented by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) and the Federal Ministry of Education. The report proved that the pre-primary school enrolment figures for 2016 were inaccurate and based on unreliable data, and the NBS was made to pull down<\/a> the document from its website.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the first part<\/a> of this article, previously published fact-checks were used to underscore why respected \u201cauthorities\u201d should not be believed only on the basis of their political status, academic achievements, and level of influence wielded on social media. Other red flags are highlighted and discussed below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is easy to assume that everything reported as news must be true, but this would be terribly wrong for a number of reasons. Reporters can make the mistake of misquoting a person or not scrutinising the claims they are presented with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Platforms, including CNN<\/a>, BBC America<\/a>, Independent<\/a> reported in 2019 and previous years that the Amazon rainforest produced around 20 percent of the world\u2019s oxygen supply, when this is in fact not true<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In February, a number of prominent local news websites had reported that the Information Minister, Lai Mohammed, described Nigeria as the freest and safest country to live in. A recording of the minister\u2019s speech later obtained, however, showed<\/a> that his actual statement was \u201cNigeria was one of the freest … to live in the world.\u201d He also did not describe Nigeria as the world\u2019s safest country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Last year, leading newspapers falsely reported<\/a> that a solar panel manufacturing plant established by the Borno State government is the biggest in Africa. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Another relevant example: In May, a broadcast<\/a> went viral and claimed that President Muhammadu Buhari had signed an executive order revoking all gun licences. The statement was signed by an \u201cAhmed Bello\u201d of some \u201cmedia centre.\u201d The House of Representatives reacted<\/a> to the suspicious broadcast, urging the president to revoke the said order. Shortly after, the police denied<\/a> any knowledge of such developments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other red flags to consider are reports resembling news, which are published on or picked from unreliable platforms<\/a> or satire blogs such as The Onion<\/a> and The Babylon Bee<\/a>. In 2019, the News Agency of Nigeria circulated a report claiming that staring at breasts had been found to improve men\u2019s health. Whereas, the study it cited was the creation of<\/a> The Weekly World News, an old satirical tabloid known to publish outrageous articles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Behind every successful man, aside from a woman as the saying goes, is also a large group of fans and supporters ready to believe anything he says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen religious and political figures such as, David Oyedepo<\/a>, Chris Oyakhilome<\/a>, Dino Melaye<\/a>, and Doyin Okupe<\/a> share inaccurate claims about the nature of the infectious disease.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Not only do famous people run the risk of being perceived as well-informed in areas outside their field of expertise, but they are also often victims of misquotations. Some prominent victims include former President Olusegun Obasanjo<\/a>, Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka, and U.S. President Donald Trump<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Speaking at a conference in 2019, Professor Soyinka humorously narrated his ordeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI\u2019ll give you an example, apart from the fact that I\u2019ve been killed so many times, literarily. Last year, I had telephone calls asking me, \u2018Where are you?\u2019 I said, \u2018I\u2019m in hell. Join me here. I know why you are calling\u2026 because you thought I was dead.\u2019 And they laughed,\u201d he recalled<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cYou enjoy that actually, reading about your obituary; but then imagine waking up one day and finding a statement attributed to you in a kind of language which you will never use. For example, during the last presidency, statements attributed to me were saying that I said that it served President Jonathan right for marrying an illiterate woman. I never made any comment whatsoever about that lady, and suddenly there it is steering me in the face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAnd at other times a card is created, and from time to time that card comes out on the internet, is sent to me, and it says Professor Wole Soyinka says anybody who votes for this person, one, must be stupid, two, must be mentally retarded, three, his mother must be a goat, four, his father must be a gorilla\u2026 under Wole Soyinka\u2019s name. And this goes on all the time.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n While we may assess people favourably based on their trustworthiness, past behaviour, or the level of rapport we share with them, that is no reason to take their word as gospel truth, especially when doing so threatens the safety of lives and property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt is not unusual for people to believe someone, even when they have substantial proof that they are being lied to,\u201d notes<\/a> psychotherapist, Diane Barth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n She explained that the reasons for this attitude include denial of reality, desire to avoid pain and anxiety, and wanting to believe that someone perceived to be \u201cemotionally or psychologically important\u201d is not likely to lie to us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Want to overcome the authority bias? Data analyst and economist, Chuba Ezekwesili, has one recommendation: Learn to ask questions. \u201cQuestioning reveals flaws and introduces new approaches,\u201d he says<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAs with any system or person with a claim to expert knowledge, there will be a push back against questioning, but it need not be so. Eliminating authority bias is a mutually beneficial endeavour since it helps the expert sieve out his errors and provides the masses with better answers.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, if someone references a news report of a statement, read the report yourself and, after doing so, see if there is direct (audio-visual) evidence of the speech. And then, even this direct evidence itself must be scrutinised to affirm its authenticity. In seeking the truth, constant scepticism is required and perhaps the best approach remains the independent interrogation of available evidence with guidance from experts on the specific subject. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Notwithstanding, there is often an unwritten hierarchy of credibility and people who occupy certain positions are presumed to be truthful until otherwise proven. When it comes to local elections, the words of the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission would hold up against those of a political candidate; and when it comes to global pandemics, the highest authority is agreed to be the World Health Organization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But as we defer to these authorities with one hand, we must also constantly check with the second hand, to ensure there are no conflicting facts in claims emanating from such prestigious organizations. Such is the cross of genuine truth-seekers.<\/p>\n\n\n\nNews reports<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Successful individuals<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Personality traits\/closeness<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The art of questioning<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Going forward<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n