Author: phoebehewertson

A4: Final Artefact

#1: Reflecting on Documentary as a Consciousness-raising Tool

#2: Reflection on Collaboration

#3: The Emergence of AI and Disinformation (500 words)

#4: Consideration of the Final Artefact (500 words)

Dr Meg Elkins is alarmed by the toll the internet is taking on all of our minds. When we see disinformation online, we tend to believe it for a variety of psychological reasons. As one of the pioneering minds in the fields of disinformation and psychology, Meg empowers ordinary citizens with the tools to approach information critically. THE RIGHTEOUS GENE is a five-minute documentary that illustrates the intricate workings of the human mind when confronted with disinformation and underscores the need for caution when navigating the internet.

Overall, I think our piece was really polished for the amount of time we made it in and I feel that the effort we put into fixing things, even if it required reshooting, re-editing and finding new audio, paid off. The core things I would want to change would be how we set-up the experiment (black and white scenes) in the story, and the animations throughout the film. If we were to adapt this film into a different kind of work, I would like to have the piece be a longer film set up as a “how to guide” on navigating disinformation online. 

The animations were a necessary element in our piece to add texture, and to link Dr. Elkins remarks with visual representations. The platform of Vyond, as a video animation creator, allowed us to do this in the amount of time which was required of us, however, if we planned to enter the work in a festival or work on it further, I would want to recreate these segments ourselves. I think with the affordance of extra time we could have shot the scenes ourselves during subsequent shoots, or we could have customised the animations more towards the film’s aesthetic. Additionally, due to cost we opted in for the lower quality animations, but if we were to be entering the work in festivals we would have paid the excess. 

One of the biggest issues we had was a lack of introductory and varied footage from the experiment interviews. This meant that we had to go back to the studio multiple times to try and emulate the setting of the initial shoot. If we had extra time, it would have been beneficial to do a second shoot with the participants to capture more establishing shots, rather than editing together separate shots to create a scene. It would also mean that we would be able to slow the pace down through longer shots, and create a more totalising introduction. Additionally,  we would not have had to explain the experiment through text on the screen, instead we could have used a real shot where Abby explains it to the participants and we see their reactions in realtime. As well as looking better, I think this alternative would have conveyed the message more seamlessly and professionally. 

In adapting the work, I think this piece would be a good base for making a “how to navigate disinformation online” short film guide. Dr. Elkins through line message was to equip viewers with tools to protect themselves online, but I don’t think the documentary format explicitly communicates that, instead it poses more questions to the viewer to inform their own reflections and actions. As a short guide, the film could be more formulaic in sections, such as: what is disinformation, how to analyse sources, what clues to look out for, credible platforms to use, conversations to have, etc. I think it would be really good to have a user-friendly guide that is communicated through one professional, to make this new and rapidly adapting topic understandable. This is a simple approach to helping users online, by explaining and thus establishing media literacy, and making a clear action plan forward.

The TRUTH BE TOLD course has opened my eyes to the emergence of Artificial Intelligence and the prevalence of disinformation, something I was blissfully ignoring before. I chose this class because I knew that, even though the topic unsettles me, it is something that we all should be aware of, especially as media makers — creating media at the time that it is all developing. 

Recently, AI art has emerged online in relation to the genocide in Palestine. Instagram users have been sharing to their stories an AI generated image of a Palestinian mass displacement camp, in which nondescript bodies in bags spell out “All Eyes on Rafah”. Although it is important for people to be talking about Palestine and spreading awareness, I think there are problems associated with linking support to an AI image. There have been so many videos, photos, and stories that have been shared by Palestinians and journalists that show the real horror of what is happening in Palestine, and yet the image that has gained the most traction is one that does not depict any of it. An image that shows no humanity, nor reality, one that is palatable to all. It is scary to know that people would rather sterilise this situation to an AI image when Palestinians have to see the real, traumatising scenes all day, everyday. Hence my fear with AI is that it will remove humanity from news sectors and online spaces. Which would have an impact on people’s opinions and attitudes towards things that do not immediately affect them, thus negatively impacting our society as a whole.  This emergence of AI into political spaces would also affect the credibility of news sources, which could result in a lack of public trust (something I feel is already declining). 

I predict that the effects of AI and disinformation will only get worse before they get better, as AI is still rapidly evolving and there is no cease of progression in sight. I predict that the worst of the negative effects will be in relation to politics, public matters, pop culture, and scamming.  These predictions are in relation to disinformation and AI content that has already been published and had real world effects. Think: The Voice Referendum, Trumps claims and the effects on the American Democratic processes, COVID, the genocide in Palestine, and even novel examples like the Kate Middleton ‘disappearance’. 

I predict that the prevalence of AI online will result in more regulation online by means of public disapproval. I think it’s so easy to get lost and confused online, and I think these effects on public trust will become apparent over the next few years, especially as AI video and audio generators become more user-friendly, advanced, and readily available. 

In her lecture, Sushi Das shared that one of the issues with fact checking online is the scope of information/posts being published. I predict that, through a desire to use AI for good, there will be more human and AI collaboration. My hope with this is that AI could be used as a tool to mass fact check online platforms and alert users to posts that do, or could, contain misinformation, disinformation or AI. Using AI to negate AI, that’s the dream. 

I think there is real importance in Dr. Elkins simple message to ask ‘why’ and to be open to different points of view through having difficult conversations (personal communication, May 8 2024). My hope is that more conversations surrounding the effects of AI and disinformation would result in public resistance to AI and disinformation, leading towards a social shift. I hope that this shift would involve enhanced media literacy, more regulation on social media platforms, distinct labelling of AI contributions/creations, and a movement towards humanism within online spheres. 

Sources

@Shahv4012 (2024) All Eyes On Rafah [AI generated image], Instagram website, accessed 30 May 2024.

I played an important role in my group by doing the sound design, camera operating, having the music composed for our film, consistently showing up and putting in extra hours, and by being amenable throughout the whole process. This assignment gave me the opportunity to take on more of a collaborative rather than leadership role, as there were people with stronger visions than me in regards to the style and story of the film, as well as more experience. That’s not to say that I did not have an input but more so that I feel I contributed through showing different perspectives and possible avenues to take, which as a result meant our group was more confident in the path we did follow. 

I’ve always found the creation of a final film the hardest aspect of studios, which is usually a result of the challenges of creative differences — as creating media is generally artistically driven — clashing schedules, differing strong points/experience in media making and technical limitations; it is difficult to share and co-create on software like premiere. I think I found throughout this project that I didn’t have the same level of experience on PremierePro or understanding of all the editing processes on there. This is obviously an omission in my media making skills and I will need to work harder to teach myself PremierePro conventions outside of class times, or team up with people with similar levels of experience — so that my team members don’t have to teach me. It was very valuable having someone like Dani in our group, as she really knew all the technical aspects and maintained a vision throughout the whole making process. I want to be more proactive in my contributions through having a better understanding of the software, the role I will be fulfilling and investing in tools that make content sharing easier. 

In the future, I want to have more of a role in the editing, to learn better habits with big edits and because I think that group work flows better when everyone is together putting in the same amount of time, rather than taking separate parts home to work on (which vary in size). I feel like this was also a result of a lack of defined roles when starting our project together; we rarely stuck to set roles and I feel like this made completing the assignments harder due to a lack of clarity/accountability.  Therefore, next assignment I want to allocate more time to working within the editing suites as a group, which would also mean that one person isn’t having to navigate the whole piece off the bat — Thankyou Dani. To aid this, I think it would be good to have a more defined conversation before starting a group project about what set times weekly people can spend together editing outside of class time. 

Documentaries are valuable modes for exploring, explaining and combating disinformation by means of presenting factual information in an easily consumable format. The documentary format directly relates to the films made in this course in that the necessity for truth, and exposing the truth, is central to their content, and similarly to the existence of documentaries. 

In the first reading for this course, Lee McIntyre (2018) outlined the importance of viewers’ interrogation of the information they consume, and to look at facts shared from within their context, not as they are presented to you. Through this piece, McIntyre (2018) deduced that the root of the problem was that facts are hard to distinguish in the modern, globalised world. His writing sought to bring attention to the necessity of truth and the ways in which truth can be contorted. Our interview with Dr. Meg Elkins turned out to be a direct response to this observation. Without knowing it, McIntyre’s writing had pathed the way for our documentary to take place. 

We wanted our documentary to be an exploration on the effects of disinformation on the psyche, and through this initial prompt our documentary dove into how disinformation confirms biases. Dr. Elkins defined the origins of disinformation and sought to explain the ways in which we, as consumers of information, are susceptible to it. Through this exploration and explanation, Dr. Elkins humanised a problem that feels so distant and scary to many. She removed the barrier of the screen through explaining social contexts that influence the ways in which we respond to information, cementing McIntyre’s (2018) point that facts are more emotional than we imagine. I think the use of a professor discussing a topic that is foreign, through clear use of research and relation to human experiences, achieves the goal of explaining disinformation and goes further to make the content less confronting. This last point is important because a lack of information relates to the fear surrounding disinformation, and directly relates to the dissemination of disinformation. As Dr. Elkins remarked “Anger and fear are much bigger motivators to make us click, share, read, [and] like” (personal communication, May 8 2024) . 

She goes on to say that “asking ‘why’, and going deeply into the ‘why’” is how people can distinguish truth from lies (Elkins, personal communication, May 8 2024). These assertions of advice are helpful for the viewer; through posing direct questions she is placing the onus on the individual watching the documentary to assess their own circumstances. In such a digital world, I think everyone would benefit from watching our film, but maybe more specifically younger people who are chronically online and susceptible to disinformation.

Through education we are taught to assess our sources and question the information we consume, but not everyone is afforded the privilege of education or have not yet gone through said education. That is to say that anyone online, who consumes information, or anyone who is marginalised from/inexperienced with technology, would benefit from understanding the causes and effects of disinformation. Additionally, students and educators within the Communications realm can benefit from this film by learning to analyse the content they publish for misinformation, disinformation and bias. As up and coming content creators and educators, we have to be aware of the current problems within our sphere and learn ways to negate perpetuating harm. 

Sources

McIntyre L (2018) Post-Truth, MIT Press, Cambridge.