Traditional media such as newspapers used to be the most trusted source of information, but the way in which we consume news has changed beyond recognition over the past few decades.
Largely consigned to the annals of time are delivered newspapers and twice-daily TV news bulletins and in their place are 24/7 news channels with a constant rolling ticker of breaking developments so you can digest multiple stories at once. The rise of citizen journalism on social media means that you no longer have to wait for reporters to scramble to the scene of an incident when a passerby can livestream it from their smartphone.
But while developments in technology have democratised the world of news, they have also increased pressure on journalists to fill seemingly never-ending reams of column inches and hours of extended broadcasts. An unfortunate by-product of this squeeze is that time-pressed journalists have more work to do and less resource to do it with.
Correspondents have less time to get out and about to source truly investigative copy or establish a wide network of contacts, triple checking the veracity of each kernel of information they uncover and spending more time at their desks grappling with the Sisyphean task of producing more and more content to satisfy demand. One side effect of this is that corners are sometimes cut in terms of establishing the veracity of the spokespeople they quote in order to add credence to their copy.
A recent investigation by Press Gazette uncovered more than 100 articles that have appeared in various household publications, including Mail Online, The Telegraph, and Yahoo News, based partly on input from fake experts. Upon learning of the Press Gazette dossier, the named publications were quick to amend or completely delete stories altogether, but it begs the question of whether this is merely the tip of the iceberg.
Journalists have long relied on the public relations industry to connect them with genuine experts, but part of the recent problem has been journalist request database platforms that aggregate content from such spokespeople, where verification of contributors is increasingly challenging following the rise of generative AI. While such platforms offer convenience to journalists, ultimate responsibility lies with them to verify their sources and publishers actually have a legal obligation to ensure sources are genuine.
Reclaiming the truth
So, what is the likely future direction of travel for the news media, particularly when it comes to avoiding being hoodwinked by the proliferation of fake experts? One notable recent trend highlighted by Medianet is journalists moving away from the platform that traditional media publications provide in order to transmit their musings directly to the paying public. Whereas before the most coveted columnists were subject to a bidding war between the highest-selling newspapers, today’s top writers are cutting out the middleman and publishing their thoughts straight to the masses independently, earning direct revenue in the process.
Naturally this doesn’t mean they are no longer susceptible to the background hum of fake experts – and as independent publishers the buck ultimately stops with them – but assuming control of their own content schedule means they are less likely to face the same time pressures as their contracted peers, and also gives them freedom from certain commercial obligations that might be incumbent on certain publications. It’s also worth noting that the rise of self-publishing platforms such as Substack, Medium, and WordPress has also come as a necessity for some wordsmiths, with newspaper redundancies a seemingly monthly occurrence.
Another noticeable development of late is the surge in news channels shifting an ever-larger proportion of their output to YouTube. While it would be premature to suggest this represents the death knell for TV news bulletins, it is an acknowledgement of shifting behaviours in how people consume their media and also represents a triumph for fact-checked information in an online format that can often be relatively ungoverned.
Question time
Regardless of how one consumes their news, part of the onus will always fall on the end reader to apply critical thinking to the content they engage with. The line between genuine editorial and paid-for advertorial copy has been blurred at times and is not always immediately apparent, but in the same way that readers have become savvier to political agendas in the articles they read, they must apply the same due diligence to the veracity of what they read from a variety of different standpoints. This assiduity can manifest itself in a number of ways, but a good starting point is to not take any individual article in isolation as the gospel truth and check how a variety of different media outlets report the same story. Or run some simple background checks on the experts quoted to see if they have a social media presence or any relevant qualifications to substantiate their claims.
A recent FT thought piece expressing concern about the seemingly inexorable rise of AI newsletters used the portmanteau ‘slopaganda’ to describe the automated generation of content with questionable authenticity behind its quoted sources. The rise of fake experts and inauthentic behaviour online can give the average person a sense of dystopian dread, but there are still plenty of reasons to be cheerful, not least the convenience with which a glut of informative articles and opinions can be accessed with a click or a tap. Just remember to exercise caution next time you read an article online, as even the most well-meaning authors can sometimes be duped.
Privacy Policy.
Revoke consent.
© Digitalis Media Ltd. Privacy Policy.
Digitalis
We firmly believe that the internet should be available and accessible to anyone, and are committed to providing a website that is accessible to the widest possible audience, regardless of circumstance and ability.
To fulfill this, we aim to adhere as strictly as possible to the World Wide Web Consortium’s (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 (WCAG 2.1) at the AA level. These guidelines explain how to make web content accessible to people with a wide array of disabilities. Complying with those guidelines helps us ensure that the website is accessible to all people: blind people, people with motor impairments, visual impairment, cognitive disabilities, and more.
This website utilizes various technologies that are meant to make it as accessible as possible at all times. We utilize an accessibility interface that allows persons with specific disabilities to adjust the website’s UI (user interface) and design it to their personal needs.
Additionally, the website utilizes an AI-based application that runs in the background and optimizes its accessibility level constantly. This application remediates the website’s HTML, adapts Its functionality and behavior for screen-readers used by the blind users, and for keyboard functions used by individuals with motor impairments.
If you’ve found a malfunction or have ideas for improvement, we’ll be happy to hear from you. You can reach out to the website’s operators by using the following email webrequests@digitalis.com
Our website implements the ARIA attributes (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) technique, alongside various different behavioral changes, to ensure blind users visiting with screen-readers are able to read, comprehend, and enjoy the website’s functions. As soon as a user with a screen-reader enters your site, they immediately receive a prompt to enter the Screen-Reader Profile so they can browse and operate your site effectively. Here’s how our website covers some of the most important screen-reader requirements, alongside console screenshots of code examples:
Screen-reader optimization: we run a background process that learns the website’s components from top to bottom, to ensure ongoing compliance even when updating the website. In this process, we provide screen-readers with meaningful data using the ARIA set of attributes. For example, we provide accurate form labels; descriptions for actionable icons (social media icons, search icons, cart icons, etc.); validation guidance for form inputs; element roles such as buttons, menus, modal dialogues (popups), and others. Additionally, the background process scans all of the website’s images and provides an accurate and meaningful image-object-recognition-based description as an ALT (alternate text) tag for images that are not described. It will also extract texts that are embedded within the image, using an OCR (optical character recognition) technology. To turn on screen-reader adjustments at any time, users need only to press the Alt+1 keyboard combination. Screen-reader users also get automatic announcements to turn the Screen-reader mode on as soon as they enter the website.
These adjustments are compatible with all popular screen readers, including JAWS and NVDA.
Keyboard navigation optimization: The background process also adjusts the website’s HTML, and adds various behaviors using JavaScript code to make the website operable by the keyboard. This includes the ability to navigate the website using the Tab and Shift+Tab keys, operate dropdowns with the arrow keys, close them with Esc, trigger buttons and links using the Enter key, navigate between radio and checkbox elements using the arrow keys, and fill them in with the Spacebar or Enter key.Additionally, keyboard users will find quick-navigation and content-skip menus, available at any time by clicking Alt+1, or as the first elements of the site while navigating with the keyboard. The background process also handles triggered popups by moving the keyboard focus towards them as soon as they appear, and not allow the focus drift outside of it.
Users can also use shortcuts such as “M” (menus), “H” (headings), “F” (forms), “B” (buttons), and “G” (graphics) to jump to specific elements.
We aim to support the widest array of browsers and assistive technologies as possible, so our users can choose the best fitting tools for them, with as few limitations as possible. Therefore, we have worked very hard to be able to support all major systems that comprise over 95% of the user market share including Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Opera and Microsoft Edge, JAWS and NVDA (screen readers), both for Windows and for MAC users.
Despite our very best efforts to allow anybody to adjust the website to their needs, there may still be pages or sections that are not fully accessible, are in the process of becoming accessible, or are lacking an adequate technological solution to make them accessible. Still, we are continually improving our accessibility, adding, updating and improving its options and features, and developing and adopting new technologies. All this is meant to reach the optimal level of accessibility, following technological advancements. For any assistance, please reach out to webrequests@digitalis.com