Latest news with #media literacy
Malay Mail
04-08-2025
- Malay Mail
That voice isn't real: Why media literacy matters in the age of deepfake and AI scams
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 5 — Misinformation has become a growing threat across societies, and the rise of deepfake technology has made it even harder to tell what is real and what is fake. From fake news to AI-generated scams that mimic familiar voices or faces, false content is now more convincing and more dangerous. While these tools have evolved, the public's ability to detect manipulation has not kept pace. This is where media literacy becomes essential. 'People often think media literacy is just about spotting fake news, but it goes much deeper than that. It's about understanding how messages are made, why they are made, and how they can shape what we think or believe,' said David Chak, co-founder and director of Arus Academy, who leads the Media Education for All programme. According to Chak, teaching media literacy starts with three basic questions: What is the message? How is it being framed? And why does it exist? He said that understanding the motive behind a message is crucial, especially in emotionally charged situations. 'We encourage people to look at the content, the language, and the intention behind any message. Sometimes, misinformation is shared with good intentions, like the belief that drinking hot water can prevent Covid-19. But disinformation is different. It's created to deceive, and that intention makes it far more harmful,' he said. Citing the growing trend of AI being used to mimic real voices, Chak said several scam cases in Malaysia have involved victims receiving phone calls that sound exactly like a friend, parent, or employer, often asking for urgent help involving money. He explained that scammers often collect voice samples from WhatsApp voice notes, Instagram stories, or public videos to recreate someone's voice. Once they have enough data, the tools to generate convincing audio are widely available and inexpensive. 'Imagine getting a call from someone who sounds just like your mum, saying she's in trouble and needs money fast. She's fine but the voice is convincing because it was cloned using AI. 'That's why we tell people not to trust the voice alone. If something feels off, verify it using a method you trust. Call back through a saved number or use a video call,' he said. Scam calls can now even use generative AI to mimic someone you know. — Picture by Firdaus Latif Scams work because they push panic Scams succeed by creating emotional pressure. Chak said AI-generated content is designed to stir panic, urgency, or hope and that's what scammers count on. Whether it's a fake romance, an unbelievable prize, or a voice call from a loved one in distress, he said the goal is the same, which is to trigger a reaction before the brain can assess what's happening. 'If something makes you panic, that's a red flag. Media literacy teaches people to pause, breathe, and ask: Does this make sense? Would this person really say this? Is this typical behaviour?' he said. He added that warning signs include strange language, sudden contact through unfamiliar platforms, or a tone that doesn't match the person it's meant to come from. Younger people are more digitally fluent due to their reliance on social media whereas older adults remain vulnerable due to limited awareness of how technology can be used to deceive. — Picture courtesy of Arus Academy Teaching students to use, not fear, AI Chak believes schools must prepare students for the digital world they are already navigating and that includes understanding AI and its ethical use. He said educators should not avoid these tools but teach how they work and how they can be misused. 'We shouldn't be banning ChatGPT or AI technologies. Instead, we should be teaching students how to use them responsibly. Media literacy includes ethics. If we want students to think critically, we have to show them how these tools work and how they can be misused. 'If we tell students not to copy, but teachers use AI-generated materials without being transparent about it, it sends the wrong message,' he said. He also called for more emphasis on ethics in digital education, including values like empathy, responsibility, and integrity. Chak highlighted the rising use of AI to clone real voices, noting that in several Malaysian scam cases, victims received calls that sounded just like someone they knew. — Picture courtesy of Arus Academy Protecting those most at risk While younger Malaysians tend to adapt quickly to new tech, Chak said the older generation are often the most vulnerable to scams. He added that the younger generation has a role to play in protecting their families. 'A lot of scams target the elderly, especially those unfamiliar with new apps or digital trends. That's why we still need to use TV, radio, and newspapers but with updated messaging that feels relatable. 'When students learn something in school, they should bring it home and explain it to their parents or grandparents. That ripple effect is powerful," he said. To protect against AI voice-cloning scams, he suggested families establish 'safe words', simple phrases known only to close relatives that can help confirm identity during suspicious situations. Besides scams, deepfakes and AI-generated misinformation can also divide society or influence public opinion. — Picture by Firdaus Latif The deeper risk beyond money While scams can cause serious financial damage, Chak warned that the greater threat lies in how deepfakes and AI-generated misinformation could divide society or influence public opinion. 'Imagine a deepfake video showing someone disrespecting a mosque. Even if it's fake, the emotional impact could be immediate and serious. 'People tend to believe first and ask questions later. If trust in the media and institutions breaks down, it's very hard to recover,' he said. He also explained that younger Malaysians, despite being more digitally fluent, are more easily influenced due to their heavy reliance on social media for information. Meanwhile, he said older adults remain vulnerable in different ways, often unaware of how these technologies can be used in scams. 'Young people are not watching Public Service Announcements on TV anymore. They are on TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram. That's where education needs to happen,' he said.
ABC News
21-06-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
As the media works to win trust, people say they want the truth
Why are people turning away from mainstream media and seeking alternative sources of news? Last week, the University of Canberra released its annual survey of trust in the media, which made fascinating reading. Among its results, it found Australians' concern about misinformation was the highest globally. It said Australia "urgently needed" a national media and digital literacy campaign to help news consumers feel confident about their ability to spot misinformation. But what would that campaign look like? Let's take a very quick look at the news-gathering model, think about what makes stories "true", and consider some of the pressures journalists face to stop them telling certain stories. It's a huge topic, but it's necessary to talk about. Journalists are taught that news stories should contain the "Five Ws": If a news outlet covers an event, its coverage should contain those basic elements. Who is this story about? What has happened? Where did it happen? When did it happen? Why did it happen? (And why is it important?) The first four Ws can be simple enough. They're the building blocks for basic stories like this: There is a huge flood (what) in outback Queensland (where) right now (when) and more than 100,000 head of livestock are estimated to be dead or lost (who). The last W in the model — Why — can be more complicated, because that's how you apply "meaning" to an event. Why has something happened? Why is it important? Because we're human, the interpretation of events can be hotly contested and lead to accusations of bias and everything else. But according to the way it works in theory, journalists are trained to gather the facts and seek expert opinion to help them make sense of the facts, to tell us what they mean. When you put those elements together, you'll hopefully have a decent story. Now, that's an oversimplified description of the way the news-gathering model works in reality. The conceptual boundaries between the Five Ws aren't always clear-cut. There's a lot of interplay between them. For example, depending on the type of story you're covering, you might need an expert's help to know what the facts of certain phenomena are before you can even start writing about them (re: the science of climate change). But you get the gist. If you wanted to teach someone how news was generated, you'd start with a bare-bones, idealised model like that. Then you'd take the next step. You'd say we always need to remember that they're just stories, at the end of the day. They're trying to turn the chaos and confusion of reality into a comprehensible "story" that helps the human brain to make sense of a very complex world. And what sets the media's stories apart from other kinds of stories (such as fairytales, or novels, or films) is they're supposed to be "true", or an honest attempt to "tell the truth" about reality. That's the implied social compact. And given that assumption about the media's stories, people who consume "the news" are more willing to let the media's stories shape their perception of the world in ways they wouldn't dare allow for other kinds of stories (like fairytales). So, cognitively, readers let their guard down a little. And that makes the media's stories uniquely potent. It's why there's a global multi-billion-dollar industry dedicated to capturing, controlling, and confusing the "trusted stories" the media tells every day. Or better still, stopping the media from telling certain stories at all, by harassing, intimidating, and killing journalists in their hundreds. Is everyone in the media industry a good person pursuing a noble cause? Of course not. It's like any industry. If you work in the media long enough, it's unsurprising to learn that the "father of apartheid" in South Africa, Hendrik Verwoerd, was a former newspaper editor. Some media companies behave like the media-arm of their preferred political party, do hit jobs on their enemies, and always seem ready to manufacture consent for the next war. That's been the reality of the industry for hundreds of years. Who owns the world's media companies? But there are plenty of journalists and editors that really try to tell the truth. In independent media and the legacy media. They appreciate that they have to keep demonstrating to their readers that their stories can be trusted. They know if readers start to notice that their stories are omitting crucial facts, including basic facts of history and law, while downplaying some voices and elevating others, their readers will lose trust in their ability to tell truthful stories. And that would be dire for their news outlet. They know if they allow the powerful to dictate how stories are told, they'll be allowing the powerful to kill their stories and their audience. So they really try to stop bad-faith actors from confusing their Five Ws with waves of misinformation and intimidation: We're living in a dangerous moment in history. In the last 12 months, arms and weapons manufacturers, and cyber intelligence and security companies linked to the global war machine, have been making extremely handsome profits. The share price of Palantir Technologies has exploded by 447.57 per cent (to $US139.96) in the last year, and the value of Elbit Systems shares has surged 144 per cent (to $US438.47). Australia's sovereign wealth fund, the Future Fund, is making multi-million-dollar returns from its investments in such companies. Governments, militaries, and different lobby groups are trying to stop people speaking up about the atrocities they're witnessing and the concerns they have about the future. How should journalists report on these events? When it comes to media literacy, Australian audiences might be shocked to learn how difficult it is for the media to write about the world in plain language sometimes, given how strict defamation law is in this country (among other laws). They might be shocked to learn about the orchestrated bullying that goes on, which is designed to discourage editors and journalists from reporting on certain topics and framing stories in certain ways, even speaking to certain people. Would it improve media literacy if the media wrote about these issues openly and regularly? Do we want the media to speak matter-of-factly about propaganda too? Every military engages in it, including the Australian Defence Force. Governments and lobby groups engage in it. They use different propaganda strategies for different audiences (whether domestic or foreign), and apply different tactics to try to control the media narrative at different times. Consider Australia's public relations efforts in the Asia-Pacific. Our government is spending a lot of diplomatic effort cultivating relationships with our island neighbours and encouraging their people to come to work in Australia on special working visas. It would like them to think Australia is a trustworthy ally, one they can trust more than other countries in the region. But one wonders what the people of Timor-Leste think about that. Have a read of Hannah Arendt's famous essay from 1971, on the Pentagon Papers, where she expressed amazement at the degree to which the United States government deliberately lied to its citizens about the reality of the Vietnam War, and about its reasons for invading and bombing Vietnam. Or have a read of the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe's most recent book, Lobbying for Zionism on both sides of the Atlantic, which goes into great detail explaining the tactics used by pro-Israel lobbies in the US and UK, including their campaigns against the BBC and the Guardian, and their campaign to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming Britain's prime minister. The former Israeli minister Shumalit Aloni, in an interview in the United States in 2002, stated plainly that pro-Israel lobbies used accusations of antisemitism to stifle criticism of Israel. "Well it's a trick we always use. When in Europe somebody is criticising Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country people are criticising well, then they are antisemitic," she said. These are all things the media has to navigate. In last week's media survey, respondents said they wanted journalists "to be more courageous and ask tough questions". They wanted the media to "report the facts" and "tell the truth". But let's raise some adjacent issues. Do we want journalists to have morals? Do we want their work to be guided by their morals and ethics? Do we want them to speak up about the injustice they see around them, or do we want them to stay quiet? Is it courageous to sit in silence? George Orwell is considered one of the greatest journalists and writers of the 20th century. In 1940, he wrote a book review of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. In his review, he was scornful of the British elite for their earlier support for Hitler. He was objective. He said he understood Hitler's charismatic appeal and he could see that Fascism and Nazism were tapping into something primal in the human brain. He also shared a personal opinion about Hitler: "I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him." Was that OK for a journalist to write that he would like to murder a public figure? It would probably be difficult to find many people who'd have a problem with that opinion of his, given he was talking about Hitler. But what did it mean for Orwell's journalism? One might argue that it showed it was possible to write with objectivity while feeling a deep moral disgust at the same time. Let's wrap things up with a final question. Sometimes you'll hear people saying journalists shouldn't be activists. But what they're really saying is: "Journalists shouldn't be regularly writing and talking about the issues I don't want them to be talking about, but I'm happy for them to campaign on the issues I personally think are important." All journalists are activists, in a sense. An editorial decision to run a story (or ignore a story) is based on multiple decisions, but many of those decisions relate to what they think is important. But "important" is a dangerous word. Why? Because it's impossible to define the word "important" without referencing human judgement. If you say something's important, it begs the question: important to who? At the moment, some of Australia's major news organisations are reporting very critically on the Albanese government's superannuation plan. There's an obvious media campaign going on. What's motivating the campaign? Why isn't that considered a form of activism? If we embarked on a national campaign to improve media literacy in this country, it would be fascinating to see how these topics were tackled.
