But then again, Fact-Checking has its Inimitable Downfalls too!
The power of information is vast and significant. Those who have access to the source of information about us also hold the key to our feebleness. Our data’s possessors can pry in our lives and habits so that what we do benefits their missions. But on the other end of the spectrum, others believe the power of information is only partial. The same people believe that we greatly benefit when we have the information, we use to share that information. We also help others to use the information to satisfy themselves. Still, sharing does not eliminate the fact that some benefit more from the power handed through information. The determinant of quality and related power of information is a multifaceted one. Even those who strongly believe in sharing information for many reasons may not believe in the conveyed necessary evidence. The same people may be confused as to what the essential information is all about. One reason for the confusion is that they are not used to formulating the distinction between information and knowledge. Such confusion in semantics around the “raw data” has led to another controversy; info fact-checking.
Power of Information amidst the Digital Era
Amid the expansion of information technology into the digital world in the 1990s, computer illiterates’ internet utility promotion has played an extensive role in shifting power players. Today the core factor that steers the digital society is digitized data. The message conveyed within is the key to how the digital community adds value and redistributes power. In a connected realm, information gains power through a permanent repository and wide dispersion. The exact data that initially prevailed in the analog’s kingdom can exponentially increase in strength once shared on digital schemes. Digital information is metaphysical. Yet once recorded, it can survive permanently. While it is prevalent in centralized data silos or databases, it is also subject to manipulation and meddling under various warnings. Some strongly believe Raw data’ is a bad idea, and data should be simmered with care. And that, like raw food, in meddled information can be hazardous unless appropriately prepared. Journalists are among those turning raw information reporters. However, if the intended raw data is to be ready by the 3rd party, it would merely resemble, thus possibly summons a chef who also wants to poison the crowd.
“What if we may be the most suitable cook of our food, even though not perfect?” But, in the end, what is “the Raw Information”?!
Raw Information, and the primary data, are nothing but the collection of characters, instrument readings, figures, etc., poised from an outlet. In the context of analyses, the raw data might be described as a raw score. Raw data is the one that has not been interpreted, analyzed, or recorded. Hence, Fresh information is what it is; and transparent. What we make of the in-interrupted data is based on our perceptions and educational background. Yet again, based on the prevailing rhetorical notions, some believe someone must, indeed, refine and cook every information before we have access to them. And those in support of the call mentioned above the process “fact-checking.”
Why Validate or fact-Check Information, or should we?
Today, one can find numerous resources claiming to be the legitimate resource of validating necessary information in the digital arena. But not many know how unbiased are those resources. Examples of confirmation bias are found in news reports, academic research, and interpersonal relations. For instance, journalists would be committing confirmation bias when they merely question those wizards who provide their story’s perspective. Furthermore, it is not whether necessary information is valid but if Patterns for Presenting a given Information are not pivoting. Like, you are Discussing Raw Data in a non-textual form, such as a table, graph, figure, or illustration. In the latter context, such data’s dialog may be as brief as the version of the data presented in any event. The rise of the fact-check partly responds to distortion inundation accompanying the internet and social media: never before could dubious claims be shared so easily, widely, and quickly. Misinformation is indeed the epitome of our modern epoch, but it does not debunk that raw data is our time’s free speech and expression. And censoring necessary information irrespective of what the underlying reason is prejudice.
“The motive behind fact-checking is to thwart false information; still, false information is not the same as raw information, just the same way that free speech doesn’t imply to falsehood.”
The Credibility of Fact-Checker of Information carries the Controversy of its Own Traditionally fact-checkers are inclined to concentrate mainly on discrediting false assertions made by political leaders. But recently, the same people have ordained themselves as umpires of the news outlet credibility. But The dilemma is that fact-checkers themselves can be unreliable resources.
“Fact-checkers of raw information are probably predisposed themselves.”
The checkers of the facts every so often amend ratings based on new evidence. Or they make fortitudes based on random ideas that can change from one critique to another. Some advocate for checking the fact-checker for bias; however, having fact-checkers surveyed on both sides of the aisle by the opposing party fact-checkers, according to some sources, may potentially lead to an endless regression toward a precarious validity. “All-in-all, the information milieu will not rally through fact-checking exercise; as an alternative, it will merely shift the untruth from the font to the fact-checkers dominion.”