＞ MISTAKE

 

Mistake

Items in which originally correct information is used in the wrong context, etc. News that uses facts to give the reader a false impression is classified under this category.
This category is similar to other categories such as "misleading" in that it uses facts as the basis for its argument, but it is characterized by the fact that it is more intentional than other categories and aims to manipulate the reader's impression to conform to the author's opinion.

Japan case

In today's Japan, we often see "clipped reporting" being condemned. The term "clipping news" is not an official word, but it mainly refers to news reports that cut out a part of a statement or announcement without conveying the context before and after, thus misleading the reader. Of course, it is natural and important to omit statements and other content when reporting, and to edit them to make them easier to understand and shorter. However, sometimes editing can lead to artificial manipulation of impressions.

< A case of manipulating impressions by editing a trivial conversation after a press conference to make it seem as if it was an important issue.>

　It is fresh in our minds that the "Cherry Blossom Viewing Party" issue became a hot topic in 2019. The main issue was the ambiguity in the handling of expenses and official documents related to the "Cherry Blossom Viewing Party," a cherry blossom viewing event to which distinguished individuals in various fields were invited. In response to this, the public, especially the media, took refuge, and press conferences were often held to deal with the issue. This time, I will focus on one of them, a press conference held in December, which was attended by Mr. Hiroshige Seko, the then Secretary General of the Upper House of the Liberal Democratic Party. The program that covered it was called "News Station" on TV Asahi.
　In the program, this press conference was introduced through the VTR. In response to a question about the issue, Mr. Seko made a statement that could be interpreted as "the prime minister explained it, so have a good new year. In response, the commentators in the program accused him of putting off the issue until after the new year. In fact, watching the VTR, it appears that Mr. Seko himself said "I have explained" and "Have a good New Year" in succession, and when he said "Have a good New Year", he was smiling with a drink in his hand. It seems to me that Mr. Seko and the LDP do not have a sense of crisis and do not want to take this issue seriously.

　However, Mr. Seko objected to this report on Twitter. In the first place, the comment "the prime minister has given a full explanation" and the comment "have a good New Year" were answered in the course of a different question. Furthermore, the comment "Have a good New Year" was made after the press conference. Mr. Seko criticized the news reports for making it seem as if he was trying to make the issue go beyond the year by tying it to the "cherry blossom viewing party" when it was not a press conference answer but a general conversation or greeting. It is not easy to decide which is worse, but at least it is true that the news station tried to manipulate the impression of the viewers by malicious clipping. 　We usually watch TV news and its VTRs, believing them to be true as a matter of course. Even on the Internet, we often see people questioning the comments of the commentators and other actors, but rarely do we see people questioning the VTR itself. In the first place, the opinions of those who criticize the opinions of the actors are almost always based on the contents of the VTR. This is natural, because the images in the VTR are nothing but "facts" if they were shot in reality, and therefore there is no reason to doubt them. However, even though the video is factual, the "VTR" can be edited. At the very least, if you have any intention of expressing an opinion on a cutout of the facts, you need to see the video before it is edited.

Abroad case

In this case, I think it is a little far from being fake news. It is a common practice, and is not the cause of the damage. However, there are people who are acting on the issue of what they consider to be the norm and the lack of adequate reporting. And even though we are a little far from fake news, we need to think about what is not reported in the news and what is behind the news, which is the same as the "Imposter contest" section.

Examples of conflicts in developing countries that have not been reported enough to create a image.

　For example, if there is an incident that kills or injures dozens of people in Japan today, all the major media companies will report the news. There is nothing wrong in reporting the incident, and it is an act to be proud of, because the incident is a serious one that affects the lives of the victims, and the role of the media is to convey the feelings of the victims and the aftermath of the perpetrators. However, it is also important to remember that many times more people are suffering from conflicts and other problems in the world, and it is quite natural to think that this should also be reported.
　However, there is a tendency in developed countries that the current image of the conflict is not accurately conveyed. In fact, the mass media in developed countries such as Japan and the U.S. have little, if any, coverage of developing regions. It is not easy to find them on major search sites. Even in junior high and high school history textbooks, conflicts in Europe and Asia, which contributed a lot to the formation of today's society, are covered extensively, while civil wars in Africa are often limited to column length. That is how small the image of conflicts in developing countries is in developed countries. However, contrary to this image, the current conflict situation is causing serious damage.

　So why is there such a discrepancy between image and reality? Associate Professer Virgil Hawkins of Osaka University came up with two reasons. One is that it is difficult to feel close to them. There are many differences, including racial differences, and one of the biggest differences is that for people in developed countries who use public transportation and electronic devices every day, it is easy to imagine a terrorist attack on a train in a developed country, but difficult to imagine an attack on a village in a developing country. The second reason is the home-centric reporting. For example, in the news about conflicts in developing countries involving their own citizens, the damage to a few dozen of their own citizens is much more widely reported than the injuries to tens of thousands of local citizens. Of course, the situation of the people is important to the rest of the population, and it is not wrong to report the most important information about the people they know who have been affected. However, taking out a part of the facts and reporting it could be fake news, a "mistake" if you make a mistake. Of course, if the media tries to convey more information, other necessary information may be buried, and it would be unreasonable to expect more from the media. Therefore, it is important for those who receive information to at least research and learn about the current situation that is not discussed in the news.

Summary

　

It is too much of a gross oversimplification to assume that what is being reported is true without checking the facts on which it is based in depth. There are many cases, such as "cases in Japan," where the evidence used is apparently factual, but in fact it is a contrived VTR that has been altered. In addition, even if there is no malicious intent on the part of the disclosing party, there are many facts that should be conveyed, such as "overseas cases," but are not being reported. The opinions currently being reported are only a small part of all the facts, and there are often many more hidden facts behind them. Therefore, it is important to examine and think about the whole picture of the information first, rather than just believing what you are given.

Related articles

• GRADE
• MISREADING