By Jun A. Alindogan
I was born in the early 60s. While growing up, I was surrounded by various forms of communication, such as television, radio, magazines, and newspapers. My dad would often read newspapers at night while continuing his bookkeeping tasks at home. His favourite was a traditional broadsheet, as he held conservative political views himself. Due to my Catholic education, I was not exposed to any socially progressive publications during my childhood.
As far as I knew, the existence of alternative media outlets were kept hidden. Even if they were covert, I still believed that their function was to provide a unique perspective on social issues. Since publications were limited in volume and space, it was perhaps relatively easy to separate the truth from lies. Fake news was not as rampant as today’s offline and online mechanisms.
I started freelancing in the late 80s, but it was quite intermittent. My first published piece focused on a televangelist’s downfall due to financial and physical corruption. He had manipulated followers for many years. The case was well-documented in the US, with substantial verified evidence of a money trail and sworn testimonies of victims. The couple confessed to their sins as all proof pointed to their exploitation. With the advancement of technology, it has become increasingly difficult for societies to discern if a particular event is truly authentic or artificially staged. Most individuals find written and moving images appealing, regardless of how extreme, insensitive, foolish, fake, or clever the presentation may be, as long as clickbait has continuously increased.
The sheer volume of YouTube channels offering every type of content makes it exceedingly difficult to determine whether a presentation is shallow and misleading or thoughtful and authentic. For instance, I know there are those who unquestioningly believe all videos circulating online about the country’s political climate and presents them as indisputable truth to those who have not examined the broader context, often making sweeping statements without any credible supporting evidence.
Video diaries of common occurrences are repeatedly presented in different settings, with varying characters, sequences, and incidents. This is not inherently wrong; however, it becomes manipulative when such episodes are portrayed as the standard for everyone. Personal and professional experiences are inherently relative and may vary at any given time; however, this does not mean that there are no socially, spiritually, morally, or intellectually agreed-upon standards or conventions. Some online discussions are staged solely to bully individuals, spread disinformation, and provoke unhealthy conflicts and tiresome quarrels.
Wouldn’t it be better if we could see more spontaneous video presentations online that depict real-time behavioral reactions? This would be a lesson on psychosocial framework and practice.
A friend posted online a random reaction from an elderly man who claimed that every time this former government official ran for public office, she lost, despite her previous victories. Not all spontaneous reactions are truthful.
Online celebrity channels have an advantage over other internet personalities, as they possess greater credibility based on their body of work in television or film. However, these channels may also be deceptive, as they can become overly performative.
How, then, do we determine whether the presentation is authentic or merely staged? Patterns provide clues or indicators. If they are consistently misleading in both volume and content across production after production, this suggests that the episodes are not trustworthy and exist solely for clickbait.
A collage of spliced, unrelated videos presented as proof is essentially a red flag. This tactic is related to ad hominem arguments, which are common among YouTubers seeking to drive a point but, upon legal, philosophical, and semantic examination, tend to crumble. Investigate the videos to see if they have been removed due to inappropriate content. It’s important to note that just because a video has been taken down doesn’t necessarily mean the content was inappropriate, as online judgment can be inaccurate at times. However, the frequency with which the videos have been removed is a factor to consider.
In print, biases or personal and professional agendas must be identified to assess the validity of a piece. Although we all have biases, they must be supported with facts from diverse perspectives so that the work can still be perceived as fair and objective.
We live in precarious times, both offline and online. Danger lurks at every threshold and confronts us at every turn. Vigilance must be exercised and maintained if we are to thrive; otherwise, the world will judge the videos as perpetually peddling lies.
Manuel A. Alindogan, Jr. or Jun A. Alindogan is the Academic Director of the Expanded Alternative Learning Program of Empowered East, a Rizal-Province based NGO in the Philippines and is also the founder of Speechsmart Online that specializes in English test preparation courses. He is a freelance writer and a member of the Freelance Writers’ Guild of the Philippines (FWGP).
.
PLEASE NOTE: ARTICLES CAN ONLY BE REPRODUCED IN OTHER SITES WITH DUE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BORDERLESS JOURNAL
Click here to access Wild Winds: The Borderless Anthology of Poems
Click here to access the Borderless anthology, Monalisa No Longer Smiles
Borderless 