YOUR AD HERE »

Newmann: Truth or consequences

A few days ago, Meta — which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — decided to end its fact-checking programs.

Meta had implemented fact-checking to reign in misinformation spread by posts on its apps. To replace fact-checking, the company will now ask the users of its apps to weigh in on the validity of the posts. Ironically, the users are now supposedly policing themselves.

“The reality is that this is a trade-off,” according to Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive. “It means that we’re going to catch less bad stuff, but we’ll also reduce the number of innocent people’s posts and accounts that we accidentally take down.”



Meta is following the lead of X (formerly known as Twitter), which is also “self-policing” through its users.

The decisions of both companies revolve around access to free and uninhibited speech. And their positions are laudable … until they’re not.

Support Local Journalism




The internet, in its inception, opened up immediate access to information. As the net became more utilized, the scope of that information grew. But it was still generally legitimate information.

With the advent of social media, commentary became a staple on the net. You could find out what your friends were wearing, what they had for dinner and see pictures of their dogs. Lots of innocuous — and boring — stuff.

But some of the commentary went in a different direction, down the path of disinformation. And folks started posting conspiracy theories, hate speech and violence. The posts of cute dogs started sharing space with the not-so-cute posts that spread more and more disinformation. With no filter. Until social media companies started using fact-checks.

If, at this point, you’re still reading this column, you’ve also leafing through a newspaper (whether in hard copy or online). Every word in the paper — including this column — has been screened for accuracy by the editors. The integrity of the paper rests on the accurate rendering of the “who, what, where, when, why and how” of any story. Any inaccuracies in reporting skew the integrity of the paper — and, if inaccuracies occur and are not subsequently corrected, trust in the publication begins to deteriorate.

The same attention to detail has not been as prevalent in social media. And now, with the end of actual fact-checking on the two major platforms, we’re open to a world of virtual confusion where reality and fantasy comingle … and where “alternative” facts can supplant those that are real.

Meanwhile, real live journalists are under increasing fire — and even vilified — for reporting on events that are steeped in truth … but that may run counter to prevailing political whims. Ironically, the claims of fake news are often made against the very institutions that actually check — and verify — the facts.

So who and what to believe?

Seems like we have so many “sources” to choose from that we can believe whoever or whatever we want if we choose to go down that route.

Or, maybe, we can just look at any of the sources with a healthy dose of skepticism — coupled with a bit of sleuthing and some common sense.

And, in the process, start to become our own fact-checkers.

Tom Newmann splits his time between Edwards and Queenstown, New Zealand. He has been going winter-to-winter since 1986. He was also a journalist in Missoula, Montana, at the Missoulian for quite a few years. Email him at tsnnz12@gmail.com.


Support Local Journalism