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.

In order to gain a better understanding of manipulation first-hand, we completed a social experiment on some friends. Alex wore a t-shirt saying ‘I am telling the truth’ whilst telling lies, Nadia wore a t-shirt saying ‘I am telling a lie’ whilst telling the truth.
In order to run the experiment, we had to start up a conversation with someone and steer it towards pre-determined topics. We discussed some everyday issues, including new P-plate driver laws and petrol prices – topics that were relevant and commonplace to the demographic. Before starting the experiment, we worked out the details of each issue making a list of true points for Nadia and a list of lies – varying in scale – for Alex.
We carried out the experiment on four people. Of those, two were by themselves and the other two were together as a group. Overall we ran the experiment three times. While we were hoping to learn how someone perceives information to be true and what influences that perception, what we actually found was a lot more interesting.
After the conversation had been exhausted, the test subjects were told that they had been part of an experiment and that we would like to ask them a few questions about the experience. Each had the exact same initial reaction: shock. All the test subjects were very surprised and a little upset that they had been purposely lied to.
We asked them about their impressions of the conversation, if there was anything they did not believe and what had influenced them to believe particular things over others. All the test subjects believed everything we said to be true, as they thought it was just a normal conversation. They didn’t think to question anything, because we were friends and they thought we were trustworthy. General knowledge and prior observations were the factors that influenced the test subjects to believe the things we said. We also noted that when the lies had a basis in truth, they were unable to tell the difference.
One of the great strengths of this research method was learning how easy it was to be the manipulating party. We were also able to cross-reference some of the data we gained from the survey with this experiment.
The main weakness was that we were limited to running the experiment on a fairly small scale. It was a time consuming process, and it relied on us knowing the test subjects so that a conversation could be started up in the first place.
Overall, the experiment was successful, and although the test subjects were a little upset that they were lied to, they all commended us on it. It made them think about what had been said, and even in conversation after the experiment, they would check that we were not lying to them anymore. The realisation that information may not be credible is something that we want to achieve on a larger scale with our outcome.

Here is the raw data:

A key part of our proposed outcome is to provide non-biased source of information. We intend to do this by sourcing information from a variety of places and displaying it together. We completed a content analysis of the leading newspapers in Melbourne to get a firm understanding of the different biases each holds.
On April 29, we bought or collected The Age, The Herald Sun, The Australian and The Mx.
We then completed a two-stage content analysis on each.
Stage one involved analysing the three top stories in each under the following categories: topic, headline, position (location and relationship to other articles), pictorial and captions, angle and tone of article, degree of background information and newspaper format. We also looked at key portions of the articles that best demonstrated the angle the newspaper took.
What we found helped us to understand how each newspaper ran the stories, the importance they gave them and the angle they took. We found that overall, the tabloids (The Herald Sun and The Mx) gave less background information and wrote in a more colloquial manner. In contrast, the broadsheets (The Age and The Australian) had more detailed accounts of what happened, took more political views and wrote in a more educated and academic way. For example, the Age and the Australian both ran a story on the Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan as their front page stories.
However, this method had its limitations. As we only did it on a small scale, it was difficult not to generalise when describing the approaches the newspapers take to important stories. Had we had more time, it would have been beneficial to complete a large-scale audit spanning more articles in more newspapers on more dates.
In order to counter this, we decided to add a second complementary stage to this research method: completing an audit of the newspapers’ opinion pages, as this is the section where newspapers present their own views and slants.
We discovered that almost all the opinion columns in the Herald Sun are written by ‘experts’ and not journalists (all except one). Each writes on their own specific pet subject and has a very strong point of view on it. It is clear that the Herald Sun has an acute awareness of their readership, with their articles written in easy-to-understand language. The subject matter of the opinion articles also support this; for example, the article ‘Drawn Out’ on draws in the AFL is very trivial, but shows that sport is as important (or more important) to their readership than major news stories.
The Age aims to have an intellectual and educated readership and focuses largely on important news issues. All the opinion articles require a degree of background knowledge on the issues. Each is written by an Age staff member (except one) and therefore it can be concluded that these definitively reflect the opinion of the newspaper as a whole. The Age displayed a slight anti-Liberal bias and expressed the need for serious issues to be treated seriously.
The Australian is written in a very academic, complicated way, so the readership is expected to be highly literate. The articles in this particular paper were mostly linked to government and world issues; there were no articles that covered general interest or sporting topics. The opinion articles were written by a combination of staff writers and experts, providing some balance to the readership. Articles regarding politics took a slightly pro-Liberal stance.
The Mx had no opinion articles in the issue we collected, preferring to draw on readers’ opinions.
Out of this analysis, we have achieved two key outcomes. Most important was learning about the biases that each newspaper holds. Secondary to this was learning how these biases influenced the way stories are represented. This manifests itself in a variety of ways, from the placement of stories within the newspaper and on its pages, the prominence of stories, use of photography, use of sensationalism and language-use. One of the more unexpected results we found was that there is not just news or political bias, but a bias towards a particular group of people. For example, the way in which The Australian directs its articles to its readership is highly exclusionary to many people as some simply do not have the literary skills to read it. This sense of exclusivity is a form of bias in itself.
This was a highly interesting research method, revealing a multitude of issues we had not fully considered about the ways a newspaper presents and regards its stories, itself and its readership.

Further information on our results and process will be posted here shortly.

As the project has progressed a number of ideas have passed through our minds for final outcomes.
One of our initial ideas was to run an election, complete with a campaign for a few different candidates. The event would have been held in the Faculty of Design, with a campaign running prior to an ‘election day’. The information gathered from this event would form the basis for a research document analysing why people were influenced to vote different ways. We intended to particularly focus on the language of campaigns, taking cues from political posters and election collateral. We chose not to follow this up as it did not seem viable with the time constraints we had. We also felt it did not adequately address our passionate view that the manipulation of language was a topic that required public awareness.
Another initial idea was to create a street press magazine, which would act as a guide helping people discern truth from lies and create public awareness. The idea was to have two publications, or two sections to a single publication. One would contain the ‘real news’ and the other the ‘true news’. Each would be branded accordingly. The publication was to be publicised with a viral marketing campaign, including stickers, which could have brandished almost anything, branding it a truth or a lie. Although this idea never came to fruition, the idea led to the creation of the t-shirts we used for our social experiment.
The outcome we will actually complete takes elements of each of these, but is a much tighter, more solid idea. The main product of the outcome is a website. This will act as a resource, helping people to identify language manipulation and encouraging them to question the source of the information they receive. It will also act as an information source, providing different sides to current news stories allowing users to form their own opinions. The website will also give the ordinary person the chance to be a ‘citizen journalist’, expressing their own views publicly and creating a dialogue on important issues (including language manipulation) in a forum situation.
To publicise the website, a broadsheet newspaper will also be produced, to be hung in public places (mainly universities) to create person-to-person discussions on issues that the website discusses. The broadsheet will be similar to Is Not magazine, in that it will be large format, largely typographic and designed to be read whilst on a wall in a public place. The idea is to create a dialogue that may then be transferred to the website and to promote the website and its values. The broadsheet would include quotes from the website’s forum, allowing users of the website to have their opinions aired in a variety of situations.

In terms of demographics, the primary audience will be male or female uniiversity or TAFE students aged mainly between 18 and 25 years. We have selected this market as it shows the greatest potential to actually help people.
Our survey suggested that this demographic will be at a stage in their lives when they will be able to understand the concepts we will be presenting and be open to gaining new information. Our outcome will give young adults the tools to shape their futures, which may be crucial to the future of society.
This age group is the most likely to take part in an online forum atmosphere. Our survey showed this age bracket is very interested in expressing their opinions on issues.
A secondary audience would be educated, older people who enjoy reading, writing and learning.
Restraints and considerations
Design considerations are crucial to this project. As the subject is language manipulation and the perception of truth in media and politics, the design outcome must be something that people feel they can trust, otherwise it will simply become what we are trying to discourage.
Colour, typeface, format and tone of message all need to be carefully considered in order to achieve a successful outcome. For example, if we use a lot of black and red in our colour palette, with lots of bold, heavy fonts, the user could immediately be influenced or manipulated by the negative bias these elements promote. While it is not essential to choose an entirely neutral colour palette and font selection, they do need to be used in a fashion that will not encourage a particular bias. The idea of the outcome is to inform the user from a neutral perspective and enable them to judge the issue and come up with their own opinion.
Any content must be easy to read and understand. We do not want to exclude anybody by using academic language that confuses rather than informing.

There are few similar products to our proposed outcome. Some websites, such as New Matilda and Crikey profess to be independent Australian news sources. However, like any news source, they too display their own biases and so differ greatly from our proposed outcome.
Our intended purpose is similar to Steven Poole’s Unspeak book and blog. We also aim to expose the manipulation that the media and politicians deliver. However, our proposed outcome is different as it takes a more neutral approach.
Some elements can be found on other websites, for example, we intend to have a forum – common feature on many websites, allowing for discussion. However, this is not direct competition, as there is no other product offering the same services our proposed outcome will.
Brand vision and personality
Our brand vision is one of an educated future, where actions are properly informed and not a result of manipulation. A neutral, inviting, comfortable, accessible and believable personality is very important, otherwise the outcome will be contradictory to our vision.
Marketing advantages and points of difference and distinction
As our outcome is a free service and not really a product, there is no marketing advantage in the sense of commercial gain. However, in terms of exposure to information and an atmosphere to share and voice opinions, then it could be argued that it is a unique concept. Whilst the idea of a public forum is not new, the functionality of our proposed outcome will be. The key point of difference is that we are not only providing multiple sources of information, but we are trying to educate the user on how these sources could be using manipulative techniques and encouraging them to discuss it.