Celebrating Lies
In his 2017 book “The Death of Expertise”, Thomas M. Nichols highlighted the paradoxes of a digital society. The abundance of information in this digital era is, apparently, not accompanied by people’s maturity in taking actions and making decisions.
The relative ease of communication that the digital era brings does not necessarily improve people’s critical reasoning, investigation into facts and rationale in making decisions.
An epidemic of irrationality
Instead, the abundance of information and the relative ease of accessing it has plunged societies into an epidemic of irrationality. The epidemic is marked by a loss of rational reasoning and a waning awareness of the importance of data verification before arriving at conclusions. People are often too hasty and spontaneous to react, and constantly feel like they need to be the first to say or do something without thinking about principles of authenticity or propriety.
We call this an epidemic as it does not involve just one or two people, but so many people indiscriminately. It is not just the common people who have lost their critical reasoning capability, willingness to investigate and carefulness in behaving. Intellectuals, public figures and national leaders have also contracted this disease.
The moment they are face to face with information technology, everyone seems to be transformed into das man – to borrow Martin Heidegger’s term. Most people, with a lack of reflective awareness, have simply become ignorant and shirked responsibility. People no longer feel the need to differentiate between the fake and the authentic; between lies and truths.
Limited knowledge on a topic does not stop people confidently voicing their opinions about it, sometimes in anger. We have become total strangers to one another. Because of our perceived anonymity, we feel we are free to talk about anything we want. Ratna Sarumpaet’s (RS) lies should be observed from this perspective. What is more important to study is not why RS lied, but how people chose to respond to those lies. We may even need to thank RS for helping us to identify this epidemic early, amid the mass hysteria on the digitalization of everything, with its various impacts.
Hoaxes are nothing new for Indonesians. However, it needs to be acknowledged that no lie has been as stormy and dramatic as RS’ lie. Even in the next 20 years, it may be difficult to find another hoax with such a high level of absurdist idiocy.
In only 24 hours, people completely reversed their position from affirming the lie and sympathizing with RS as a victim while condemning the so-called violence against her, into condemning RS for her lies and retracting their feelings of sympathy, while publicly apologizing for having spread lies.
RS herself openly admitted to her lies only one day after the lies first spread.
These were truly shocking and baffling theatrics. It would be difficult for people to forget the press conference on Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2018. Many elite politicians gathered at the event: a former House of Representatives speaker, a presidential candidate, former ministers and other figures. They all conveyed their sympathy for RS and condemned the violence against her – all of which was later revealed to be nothing more than a fabrication. In the media, many important national figures did the same.
The question is: why did none of these figures suspect RS’ confession, even if for just a little bit? They seemingly approved of all of these lies and even used them to criticize the government, put pressure on law enforcement and corner political opponents. They did not consider the possible impacts at all if RS turned out to be lying.
Even more dramatic was the subsequent barrage of public apologies on social and online media. The same people who had previously given their opinions, harsh criticisms, insults, curses and condemnation in relation to RS’ lies are now publicly apologizing in droves. It truly looked like a religious holiday with elite politicians asking the people for forgiveness.
Waning communications capability
We are grateful that the lies have now died before causing any more damage. What will it be if the lies are not immediately torn down, and then amplified in such a way that many perceive them as truth with systemic political impacts?
Therefore, the absurdities, lies and all the brouhaha that surrounded RS’ case must serve as a wake-up call for us all to deal with the thing that has infected our social life today: an epidemic of irrationality.
In the context of communication studies, our society is currently facing a waning of intrapersonal communications capability – namely the ability to communicate with oneself. The thing that differentiates mankind from animals is that animals act purely on instinct while man acts on the considerations of conscience, norms and ethics. Man is a creature capable of delaying actions to think about impacts and consequences.
In today’s age of social media, this intrapersonal communications capability has disappeared among many people. As social media users, regardless of their education background and social status, people can easily spread information without first verifying it and finding out its propriety for mass consumption.
Indonesians are currently drunk on everything digital. Instead of maximizing their positive values, we are constantly amplifying their worst characteristics. Social media is here with the creed of “everyone is a talking object” and “everyone is a reporter”. Social media has truly brought forth the democratization and deliberation of these matters. However, one often forgets that talking in a public space has its own set of ethics and responsibilities.
People forget that they have to adhere to journalism ethics if they wish to be citizen journalists. This explains why social media has developed to be a medium for not only discussions but also for rejecting obvious truths and for displaying intolerant behavior toward others.
The strength of social and conventional media has overwhelmed many people, who can gain popularity, followers and “likes” so easily on these channels. People like RS may have been too pampered by the media, in this sense. Whatever she says, netizens will read and online media will quote. The harsher her statements are, the more attention from netizens and reporters she enjoys.
Many politicians undoubtedly have this same mindset. Every day, they have certain targets that their public statements must spread on social or online media. For some of them, it no longer matters whether they are saying truthful or positive things. The most important thing for them is to reaffirm their presence in the public space with attention-grabbing statements.
This razzle-dazzle of the media has made many think in particularistic ways in handling media and the people. The moment something happens, all they think is how to hold a press conference as soon as possible to use the incident for personal publicity. The press community is also deeply involved in perpetuating such a situation. As endless waves of fake news hit society, many (online) journalistic outlets are choosing to just go with the flow. Many journalists are also social media users that may spread news without checking their accuracy and properness. Journalistic media have yet to present themselves as better alternatives to social media.
In this context, we should really anticipate a nihilistic state in the public space. This is a situation marked by the collective inability to differentiate truths from lies, and authentic news from fake news. In a public space flooded by so much conflicting information, the people have truly lost their references that can help them understand issues with clarity. People have difficulties in differentiating between gossip, speculation, information and news. What occurs next is that lies are considered as truths, truths are considered as slander, and so on. This is a habitat truly conducive to provocateurs and political speculators. AGUS SUDIBYO, Head of New Media Research Center, ATVI Jakarta