Chinese Whispers, Eyewitnessing and the Transmission of Fake News
What you think is what you hear.
The first time I played Chinese Whispers was in secondary school. Some of us would sit on a bed as others huddled closely on the tiled floor while the host thought of an intriguing sentence to pass along. Each participant would lean in, their ears straining to receive the information whispered by the other person in the faintest tone possible. The game ends when the last player announces what they heard to the group.
There’s pleasure in numbers. The game of Chinese Whispers testifies to this. The best part of this game is finding that the final sentence usually bears little or no resemblance to the initial statement.
This game is fun. Really! Try it out at the next game night that you attend.
The second time I encountered Chinese Whispers was during a psychology class at the university. The game was used in an experiment which aimed to demonstrate how attention transformed information through retelling.
We can glean several lessons from this game; the power of effective listening, stereotypes, attention, perception, etc. However, one can see how easily information can change when passed from one person to another due to many factors.
Was the person paying attention? Did their brain fail to interpret what their ears perceived?
Whatever the reason, the original message has been tainted and lost.
Eyewitnesses: Yay or Nay?
We have learned that our ears can be deceptive. Shall we treat the eyes with the same scrutiny, seeing that the brain controls both organs?
The answer is yes. Scientific research and real-life events have shown that eyewitness accounts are not entirely accurate and influenced by several factors.
In December 2010, a man was brutally murdered in the parking lot of a bar while terrified witnesses watched. Even though the accounts given to the police had different descriptions, specific details recurred — the murderer was an African American male. The next day, one of the eyewitnesses identified a man who resembled the perpetrator of the crime which occurred the previous day and gave his identity to the detective in charge. The police then conducted a photo lineup (including the suspect’s photo) and asked the witnesses to identify the man they had seen that night. All six eyewitnesses pointed to the suspect, causing him a sentence to life in prison.
Years later, the truth surfaced — all the witnesses were wrong. First, DNA testing pointed to another man who eventually confessed to the crime. In addition, a comparison between the mugshots of the accused and the actual killer showed that apart from their racial similarity, they bore little resemblance. Finally, one of the witnesses confessed later that he hadn’t seen the perpetrator in the lineup. Yet, investigators convinced him that the individual was present and other witnesses had picked him. Another account also states that the detective informed three witnesses that they had selected the right person.
From this case, we can deduce that information presented to an eyewitness after an incident can impact its retelling. Also known as the misinformation effect, this occurs when previous memories are affected by the interference of new facts.
Personal biases and confirmatory feedback from others (especially people seen as authority) can also affect the interpretation of events. Later, Texas passed a law that frowned upon procedures that allowed the investigator to influence a witness.
Eyewitnessing in journalism is a tad different from the legal field. To begin with, the bulk of reporting rests on eyewitness accounts because journalists cannot be present at the scene of action at every point in time. Also, eyewitnesses in legal proceedings are bound under oath and can face prosecution if their accounts prove false. Witnesses can be called upon to testify on multiple occasions if needed. On the other hand, journalists do not have such powers over witnesses.
Like legal witnesses, journalists encounter different types of witness limitations while covering a story. One of these limitations is false memories.
As we process and retain new memories, information that isn’t rehearsed or used often fades away. The brain then creates scenarios to fill in the gaps using new knowledge resulting in people remembering events in a skewed manner. People may even remember events that never existed!
The Transmission of Fake News
Fake news takes on many forms, one of which is satire. In the TV series The Great, in a bid to undermine her intellectual standing at court, Catherine the Great’s courtiers spread a silly story about her having coital relations with a horse. As the show progresses, the tale morphs into photo depictions as the story makes its way to neighbouring countries. Her attempts to quell the rumour fail as even her husband and her political opponents mock her on different occasions.
Another form of fake news is propaganda. It involves distributing factual information to influence the public’s opinion on a particular subject. Usually employed for political reasons, propaganda twists information to suit an agenda. Propaganda is transmitted through media (print, audio, video), fashion, art, gestures, etc.
A recent type of fake news is clickbait. Have you ever clicked a sensational headline to discover that the content isn’t worth your time? You’ve just been click-baited lol. For most of these websites, these misleading headlines aim to generate traffic, thus sacrificing the quality of their reports over the number of clicks. This choice isn’t worth it in the long run.
How Can I Check Fake News?
Fake news is ubiquitous. The existence of social media makes this tougher to control as every user is a little storyteller broadcasting and accessing information from various parts of the world. Like the Chinese Whispers game, facts can be misconstrued as it moves from one individual to another. Eyewitness accounts aren’t any different. Video and audio recordings are now altered to suit a narrative. Podcasters and audio journalists need to be wary of these pitfalls.
Check the sources of the story. Where is it coming from? Who is the author? What website is this info from?
Do reality checks. After speaking to an eyewitness, find at least two verifiable sources and cross-examine their accounts to find similarities. Speak to experts on the subjects.
Employ existing digital skills. Use techniques like reverse image search, smart keywords search (to detect rumour cues) and observational skills to detect false information.
Avoid the Illusory Truth Effect. Maintain a healthy scepticism towards novel facts until proven true. When faced with unverified knowledge, don’t compromise. Stick to your facts.
Monthly Check-In
Curious about what the gang’s been up to? Find out here.
While I spent the past month conducting research and putting together the pieces that now make up this article, Mo was in his corner doing pre-interviews, editing and research for a new podcast.
I also received word that my research paper got published in a Nigerian journal.
In this coming month (Happy New Month by the way), Mo hopes to finish editing some short stories as I am super excited to work on the next issue.
Finally, I recommend that everyone tries Penne pasta because it is God’s special gift to our green earth. Mo also suggests that one of the books you should read before you die is The Book Thief by Markus Zusak. He is reading it for the second time and I will have a look too.
Coming Soon: Voix’s Little Black Book
Every month, we shall curate opportunities for African audio content creators. We hope you find what you seek.
Well, this was fun. Don’t forget to join our online community by subscribing to this newsletter (if you haven’t). Follow us on our social media platforms.
See you in a bit!