We’ve lost the ability to verify data

Trial by social media and news websites has become the disturbing norm

By Christos Panayiotides

The biological urge to reproduce is the mechanism that nature has provided to secure the survival of the human race. Our very survival is directly dependent on this impulse, and it is no bad thing. However, society sets very strict boundaries as to how it manifests itself. For example, directing this urge against minors is quite rightly condemned as a despicable crime. Similarly, sexual intercourse between non-consenting adults and the exercise of physical or psychological force to overcome resistance is also a dreadful crime. You will understandably wonder why I’m saying all this. My concern stems from the heated debates that have been taking place recently around this issue and the feeling I have that the sense of moderation, which should dominate such discussions, has been completely lost.

To ascertain whether a particular behaviour meets the necessary conditions for being classified as an onerous crime – leading to a court to impose heavy penalties such as up to life imprisonment – is a difficult task. These crimes are usually carried out in private, without reliable testimony and away from the spotlight of publicity. This makes it imperative to leave justice undistracted to exercise its judgement, because convicting an innocent person is as bad as acquitting a guilty one.

This is why it is surprising to see that nowadays many people – young and old, educated and uneducated, rich and poor – casually accept data and information that is suspended in mist, while completely ignoring the need – which was undoubtedly recognised in earlier times – to crosscheck the validity of the information before disseminating it themselves.

Clearly, this trend of irresponsibly reproducing information has been encouraged by the opportunity to do so anonymously both on social media and news websites. The situation is aggravated by the ease of communicating at no cost, by the huge volume of information in circulation and by the impunity enjoyed when it ultimately becomes evident that the information provided was unsubstantiated.

A similar level of superficiality is encountered in respect of the television ‘trials’ that are regularly staged, with plentiful references to fig-leaf type gestures of the type “the 24-year-old” and the “54-year-old”. In these trials, which are often served up as the main story, the concept of a fair trial and the presumption of innocence are totally lost. It is not uncommon to see the person, whom the complainant alleges to be a rapist, to be branded a rapist, irrespective of whether the accused has been charged with committing such a revolting crime. But the most repulsive aspect of this behaviour is the attempt to influence and pre-empt the judicial verdict, thus making it particularly difficult to conduct a fair trial.

Unfortunately, this tendency to disseminate information irresponsibly has also been adopted by many journalists, newspapers and magazines in their relentless struggle to climb the ladder of popularity. The more eye-catching or ‘ear-catching’ the news, the better. And if something is said or shown that is not quite accurate, it’s not the end of the world!

Some may rush to point out that this concern can easily be bypassed, if you qualify your statement with the extensive use of the adverb ‘possibly’ (in Greek, ενδεχομένως–endechoménos). Indeed, I have lately noticed that ‘possibly’ is used by an increasing number of people. When this word is mechanically and light-heartedly used, it downgrades the level of public debates, without generating the slightest added value.

Here we have an oxymoron. In the times of our parents, cross-checking the validity of information was a duty invariably complied with, even though the task almost always entailed the investment of considerable time and effort to research the issue. Today, however, the information disseminated on the internet may be readily available at the mere press of a button, but it often turns out to be unreliable and misleading.

In which schools are young Cypriots trained to distinguish the trustworthy and valid information from the garbage, which often contains propaganda and concealed advertising messages? I really do not know if those in charge of our education system have ever addressed this crucial question and, if they have, how effective such efforts are? If you believe my conclusion that the reliability and trustworthiness of the information made available today is inversely proportional to the speed and the ease with such information is extracted, is wrong, I can only hope you are right.

In the past, I have publicly expressed my dislike to Facebook likes. They are an invention of convenience in the sense that with a quick press of a button we ‘participate’ in a discussion, without running the risk of disclosing our intellectual laziness. The price we need to pay – namely the unconditioned acceptance of what we end up ‘liking’ – is a small price we are happy to pay for the sake of convenience.

My experience has taught me that there is only one way for minimising the risk of drawing an incorrect conclusion. It is a simple but not an easily implementable process. It is based on reducing in writing (a) the real facts, (b) the conclusion reached and (c) the rationale supporting the conclusion. Once this process is completed, the text should be re-read two to three times and it should be re-subjected to a vigorous reasonableness test. Any other approach is not only conducive to the commission of errors but also undermines the democratic foundations of public life. Democracy is one thing; ochlocracy (mob rule) is another.

Christos Panayiotides is a regular columnist for the Sunday Mail and Alithia