false truths

Manipulation of language is common practice for politicians and the media. Euphemisms, rhetoric, spin and lies are all tactics employed to sway public opinion on particular issues. This practice is unethical when it restricts people’s opinions.
Without proper awareness and knowledge of these issues, the public may digest the information they receive without questioning it. There is a great need for public awareness of language manipulation and for people to be able to discern what is true.
With different messages being put forward by different media outlets and politicians, people may become unsure of what is true and what to trust. We aim to make news more credible and relevant by empowering people with the tools to consider the source of news and to make their own judgements on the truth.
We hope to encourage a better informed society in which individuals are better equipped to understand and evaluate the information and issues presented to them; a society whose actions are informed by the truth and in which people can form and share their opinions.
Initially, our research consisted of reading books, journals and articles to compose a literature review, which exposed gaps for further research. We went on to conduct a survey, a social experiment and a content analysis to further inform our direction and solution.
The answer to the problem is empowerment with knowledge and getting people enthusiastic about the idea. We aim to inform people about manipulative language and the agendas that those in authority may have. We aim to show them where they can find truthful and accurate information. In the absence of such information, we aim to better equip people to judge truth from lies. We also aim to get people involved in a dialogue on important current issues, including the manipulation of language.
A society whose actions are well informed and not influenced by negative manipulation is what we want to achieve. Encouraging people to speak up, to voice and share their opinions and to understand how language manipulation takes place are the implications of our solution.

After researching a variety of areas within the broad topic of language, many directions were uncovered for further research and exploration. Within this, language manipulation was chosen as an area of interest as it is something that could affect all members of society. We set out to find who does the manipulation, how it is done and when it has been done before.
Our interest in the topic was sparked by Steven Poole‘s book Unspeak, which opened our eyes to a multitude of issues. We started to learn about words used to cover up a message or meaning; using the term ‘climate change’ instead of global warming, ‘ethnic cleansing’ instead of mass murder, and ‘waterboarding’ instead of partial drowning. This led us into other areas within the topic.
We were particularly interested in how people perceive language from figures of authority and what lead them to believe certain things. The ‘Children Overboard’ affair in 2001 is an example where language manipulation influenced the public to re-elect a government. The important thing we are discovering is that language manipulation can have massive consequences depending on the issue at hand.

Our main objective is to create public awareness on the issue of language manipulation in media and politics. As part of this we aim to empower people with the tools to identify language manipulation, discern what is true and discuss and share opinions. We want to encourage a better informed society, and for people to question the information presented to them. Currently, the issue is mainly brought to the attention of the public through satire. However, it is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with in a serious manner.
Secondary objectives include creating dialogue on the issues of language manipulation and on news in general. We want to encourage a forum environment in both the digital and physical realms so people can speak out and discuss various issues.
Overall, we hope to help people feel better for knowing they are equipped to understand, decipher and discuss the information they receive in their daily lives.

After completing the literature review, we identified the gaps in our knowledge, which we would need to fill in order to realise a solution. The methods we chose to employ are a survey, a social experiment and a content analysis. We chose these methods because they would all achieve different outcomes, but at the same time we hoped to be able to cross-reference some of the results in order to gain a better understanding of the topic.
Initially, we chose to run a survey to gain a greater understanding of people’s use and levels of trust for various information sources and authority figures. We also asked a few questions to help inform the format for our final outcome.
A social experiment was devised so we could learn first-hand what it was like to be the manipulating force when it comes to passing on information.
Finally, we chose to conduct a content analysis on different newspapers’ lead stories and opinion pages to gain an understanding of the different biases portrayed. We wanted to learn how these manifested themselves to help inform us on the way we set up content for our final outcome.

The survey was conducted online and received a total of 53 respondents. Questions ranged from asking respondents what sources of information they would first turn to (in general, and specifically in relation to the previous Australian Federal Election), the level of cynicism or trust for particular information sources or authority figures and how they felt about the truth and the creation of a truthful information source.
Other questions established what medium our proposed outcome would be in by asking a series of questions about the habits of our demographic in relation to street press and online forums. In addition, the information on their preferred information sources also shaped the decision.
40 per cent of people said they rarely read newspapers, however 60 per cent of people said they were the most trusworthy mass media form overall. 19 per cent of respondents rated newspapers as being ‘very trustworthy’ (all other information sources received six per cent or less). Only 21 per cent of respondents listed newspapers as being their ‘first source’ of information.
The most popular ‘first source’ was the internet (33 per cent), with a further 7 per cent listing it for each of third, second and fourth sources. However, no respondents rated the internet as being ‘very trustworthy’. When asked what the most trustworthy mass media form was overall, the internet received only 13 per cent of the vote.
These results shaped our end outcome in terms of confirming our thoughts to make a website which borrowed elements from the way a newspaper works.
Respondents definitely felt a need to know the truth and expressed a genuine enthusiasm about the idea of an information source that gave the truth on important issues, with 88 per cent supporting this idea. However, most were skeptical that any information source could actually provide the truth. A recurring theme in the results was the respondents’ desire to form their own opinions. From this, we established the need to present the story from different angles and to aid people in making up their own minds and to not just present ‘the truth’.
This clearly shows there is a need for an information source for this demographic, since they are turning to sources they would not otherwise use and do not find very trustworthy for an important decision like for whom to vote. That 76 per cent of respondents felt moderately to very cynical towards mass media also supports the idea of a new independent information source.
The major strength of this research method was the ability to reach a large number of people and gain their unaltered opinions on specific questions. Asking a number of people the same questions allowed for statistical analysis to be completed, which is a simple method of data interpretation. Particularly important to our collection of data was that we allowed respondents to express their own personal opinions wherever possible, and not just give a ‘tick a box’ type answer. However, there were some weaknesses, we were not able to reach a huge number of respondents, and almost all the respondents we did reach were from a common demographic (similar age and mainly studying the same course).

Further information on the types of questions asked and the response we received will be posted here shortly.