Is Accurate Information the Cure for Disinformation?

Justice K.V. Viswanathan: the Remedy for False Speech is More Speech

Newsreel Asia Insight #250
June 13, 2024

In a speech, Justice K.V. Viswanathan of the Supreme Court put forth a proposition that a disinformation law similar to that of Singapore might offer a partial solution to the spread of false information in India. Singapore’s law empowers the government to instruct publishers to place correct information alongside false reports, adhering to the notion that the remedy for false speech is more speech. This principle may seem straightforward, but it fails to take into account the intricacies of Indian politics and society.

“There is a theory that instead of suppressing free speech, you must have more speech. And I always wondered … that apart from handling hate speech by law, why can’t it be done by harmony speech. Why cannot good Samaritans (come out with more harmony speech) … The law can take its course – incitement to violence, that should be curbed. But I think if the answer to false speech is more speech, the answer to hate speech, apart from legal sanction, should also be harmony speech,” said Justice Viswanathan at the inaugural Justice T S Krishnamoorthy Iyer Memorial Oration at the Kerala High Court Auditorium on June 12, as reported by Bar and Bench.

During his speech, Justice Viswanathan also acknowledged a critical drawback of the Singaporean system: the concentration of adjudicative powers within the government. He suggested that the creation of an independent body could potentially mitigate this concern, offering a starting point for India to develop its framework for combating false information. However, this adaptation faces substantial challenges within the Indian political and social landscape.

We need to examine the motives behind the spread of false information. Further, we must consider the consumers and their appetite for false information. It would be simplistic to assume that the spread of disinformation and misinformation is solely facilitated by information technology, predominantly social media, which has made it easier for certain politicians and vested interests to produce and disseminate various kinds of information. Disinformation is deliberately false information spread to deceive, while misinformation is false information shared without the intention to mislead.

In India, the spread of false information appears to be primarily aimed at facilitating distraction politics. The media’s focus on polarising topics such as Hindu-Muslim relations and the status of religious minorities largely reflects the actions and statements of politicians. Consequently, whether these issues are reported with a bias towards Hindu nationalism, incorporating elements of disinformation, or from a secular viewpoint aiming to counterbalance this bias, the political objective remains clear: to maintain the prominence of communal issues, thereby overshadowing more critical governance and policy concerns.

If the response to false speech is simply more speech, then politicians are likely to increase their actions and statements against religious minorities, further emphasising emotive issues in public discourse. Consequently, journalism may become even more reactive, focusing primarily on these escalations rather than proactive, investigative reporting on underlying issues.

Moreover, disinformation itself is not as significant a threat as the widespread confirmation bias—a cognitive bias where individuals favor information that confirms their preexisting beliefs and ignore information that contradicts them.

A 2013 study by Garrett, R. Kelly, and Brian E. Weeks, titled “The Promise and Peril of Real-Time Corrections to Political Misperceptions,” showed that people often choose information that agrees with what they already believe. This confirmation bias affects how people interact with media, especially when it comes to news that is politically charged.

The researchers discovered that corrections given in real-time can help reduce wrong beliefs, but how well they work depends on the person’s political leanings. People with strong political views are less likely to accept corrections that disagree with their opinions.

The study also looked at how people respond to corrections that challenge their initial assumptions. They found that even if people accept a correction as true, they might not change their deeper attitudes or beliefs that matched the original incorrect information.

Another important study by Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B., and Reifler, J. titled “The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs About Politics” (2017), showed that wrong beliefs often come not just from misinformation but from the biases people naturally have when they process information.

A key finding of the study was how much a person’s identity and emotional reactions influence their beliefs. People are more likely to believe incorrect information if it fits with their identity or triggers strong emotions, which makes them less questioning of whether the information is true.

Like other research in this area, these study show that it’s hard to correct wrong beliefs. People usually stick to their incorrect beliefs even when they are shown corrections, especially if these beliefs are connected to their social or political identity.

For those working in media and policy-making, the results show that fighting disinformation takes more than just fixing incorrect statements. It requires an understanding of the psychological factors that keep people holding onto their beliefs and designing strategies that consider how emotions and identity affect how information is processed. This might mean using stories or approaches that connect with what people value and believe, which can help lessen their defensive reactions and open up better ways of communicating.

At Newsreel Asia, we use storytelling, one of our most effective tools, to address people’s confirmation bias. It’s a step towards lasting societal change, encouraging individuals to empathise with others.

India requires not only the creation of an independent adjudicatory body but also strategies to reduce public susceptibility to misinformation through media literacy programs, which should be integrated into school curricula.