Blog post
100
min read

Faqcheck Insights - Roundup #7

Published
August 16, 2024
Share

Hello again from Faqcheck Insights!

We publish this blog every two weeks to help companies in Malaysia gather valuable knowledge on trends and possible informational threats to a brand’s reputation.

Companies can proactively identify and address potential threats with the help of this blog to ensure they are well-prepared to navigate the complex content environment and safeguard their brand reputation.

Misinformation or disinformation may not directly affect brand trust, but being linked to fake news or dubious information sources will tarnish clients’ attitudes towards brands, with potential financial loss. Consumers on the other hand face confusion, doubt and vulnerability when making purchasing decisions.

In this edition, we cover examples of misinformation and disinformation occurring in the past few weeks, and its potential effects on brands.

Photo by Flavio on Unsplash

Southport, X and Musk

The Southport riots, which occurred late July were a significant and violent upheaval incident that shook the UK coastal town of Southport. 

How did it all begin? Three young girls were killed in a knife attack by a 17-year-old boy at a summer dance class in Southport, northern England.  

Misinformation on social media falsely suggested the suspect was a radical Islamist migrant and that triggered a host of reactions online and offline.  

As with X.com’s nature of messaging, information spread fast, far and wide. Reactions turned into violent protests, which then affected communities not only in Southport but several parts of the country as these clashes between protesters and authorities happened across towns and cities in the UK. 

X’s nature of short and concise messages often removes context, allowing for misinterpretation and abuse. Modern readers have increasingly short attention spans and messages are read and shared quickly without any verification or fact checks.   

Unfounded speculation resulted in a slew of Islamophobic and anti-immigrant posts on social media.  

With the absence of information from police or local governments, and eventually a slow response to the misinformation, local authorities struggled to contain the situation, with the UK government calling for several emergency meetings to address the issues.

The impact of the riots and violence forced authorities to name the suspect as a measure to quell the protests but it was too late.

What was key here is that the riots triggered a wave of disinformation, further polarising public opinion and complicating efforts to restore peace and order in the affected cities.

False accusations, scapegoating had led to hostility and fear as seen with the looting of Muslim businesses and attacks on mosques or targeted communities. 

A vicious cycle erupted, with AI generated misinformation fuelling online conversations to overt calls for violence. 

How social media channels are used are important, as certain individuals will find opportunities to spread their cause or malicious agenda to influence public opinion.  

Elon Musk was criticised for posting about an inevitable UK civil war, in turn stirred strong reaction from the UK government. At the same time, far right and anti-Islam campaigner Tommy Robinson also used X as a platform to reach his 800,000 followers to champion anti-Muslim sentiments. 

At the time of writing, sentiment analysis of Southport still featured negatively at 70.3%. This was measured over the last seven days with 70.7 million unique reach across a host of social media platforms. 

Corporations who rely on X for information and as a public communication channel must be cautious when using the platform - particularly when spreading information about brands, services or any other messages that affect their reputation. 

Issues of hate speech, spreading of misinformation or targeted harassment could be some of the risks of using this platform. 

False information on social media about a specific topic can persist indefinitely unless interest wanes or it is countered with factual evidence.

Imane Khelif and Algeria punch back

Algerian boxer Imane Khelif faced significant controversy at the heart of the 2024 Paris Olympics. Her participation in the games set off conversations about gender and identity  - some of which were driven by actors promoting misinformation and disinformation.

It began with Imane’s 2023 disqualification from the New Delhi International Boxing Association Women's World Boxing Championships, especially around the reasons for her elimination. The IBA later clarified that the decision was based on medical evaluations and the organisation's strict gender eligibility rules, which include assessments of hormone levels and other factors. 

Following that, Imane fought her Italian competitor Angela Carini in an Olympics bout and broke her nose, causing Carini to end the fight in just 46 seconds. The fight sparked a tirade of arguments about Imane’s eligibility and qualification. That kicked off machineries that generated a host of negative narratives, even with allegations of Russian involvement. 

As expected, many parties attacked Imane and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), but what was interesting was that her supporters included the Algeria FC Twitter account, who went on a spree of counter arguments in solidarity with her.

Algeria FC put up sarcastic and humorous posts, along with interviews and videos to counter claims of Imane’s gender and qualifications. 

Constant and updated posts like this criminal complaint provided the latest context and reporting to keep the issue alive, with the intention of combating falsehoods and controlling the narrative.

A variety of credible content can present different sides of the story, so the audience is not stuck on one narrative. This swift action illustrates how quickly the harmful claims can be contained - either through humour, official photos, interviews and news reports. 

Failure to liftoff

Disinformation and misinformation can trigger a whole host of negative events, and as shown in the Southport riots, spreading of false news can exacerbate divisions within communities, turning groups against each other while amplifying existing tensions.

But what’s noted is that hijacking narratives isn't as straightforward as it seems. 

While some may attempt to leverage emotive events to shift public opinion, it doesn’t always work out as planned. 

Take, for instance, the recent developments in Gaza, where despite the intense emotions surrounding the rising death toll and the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, many people actively countered conspiracies and calls for boycotts, particularly related to the claim that WhatsApp was used in the assassination.

This reflects a broader truth: when brands become deeply embedded in society they’re incredibly difficult to dislodge unless something truly monumental occurs. 

Bata is another example. Despite heightened emotions, people fact-checked misinformation because Bata is a staple in Malaysian society, even with its past controversies, like the 2017 issue over the use of the word "Allah."  

And recently the main narrative was questioned when some actors tried to call for a boycott of this shoe brand but instead were told off for confusing the issue. 

Quick accurate reactions, cultivating fact-checking habits and critical thinking, can be effective remedies to disinformation. Social media monitoring is a round the clock job. Corporations with teams managing content and monitoring social media conversations must be aware of content that appears to be provocative or that plays on emotion. They must be ready to dissect and proactively engage with it before it gets out of hand.

Companies are encouraged to use reliable counter-disinformation organisations like Faqcheck who provide tailored solutions to help your organisation monitor, counter and mitigate threats to your organisation and brand’s reputation.   

Let’s talk about how we can safeguard your brand—reach out to us on LinkedIn, Instagram or email liyana@faqcheck.org to start the conversation.

© 2024 Faqcheck. All rights reserved.
https://www.faqcheck.org/stories/faqcheck-insights---roundup-7
www.faqcheck.org
CC-MAIN-2024-38
33302
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:OU3ZGUUXPQAJDGF4CMJEJZFRJR4BVREP
<urn:uuid:c30f339d-ca88-4fea-b4fa-ee7b8d8f84a3>
2024-09-18T22:26:56Z
34.234.52.18
text/html
sha1:4XONE75KKU6Q2FYN4AVBQUYCKJ4RN5Z5
<urn:uuid:4b0ce151-7d58-476d-b7db-a6b26ee7b3ab>
https://www.faqcheck.org/stories/faqcheck-insights---roundup-7
response
<urn:uuid:fbf27041-1cc0-460d-967a-f946a4cefdb4>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-38
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-192
software: Apache Nutch 1.20 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/