LOCAL MUSINGS - Fact Checking

by Doug Patterson

2025 is an election year, but this time the traditional debates between political parties over policies and performances is threatened to be lost in a ‘Tsunami of Misinformation’ driven by deregulated social media platforms.

Once, we only had to worry about politicians selectively using some of the available information to misrepresent the truth. Now, with the increasing capacity of AI and the involvement of powerful stake-holders and conspiracy theorists, apparent ‘facts’ can be created and supported by AI images and voices. 

Fact-checking will play a critical role if we are to have an election based on democratic principles and truth. 

Sometimes, fact-checking can be relatively straightforward. If the majority of scientists and our National Science Authority, the CSIRO, agree on a matter, then it is reasonable to assume it is a fact. 

Unfortunately, this sensible logic can be overwhelmed by unverifiable conspiracy theories and hidden political agendas, as has happened in the climate warming debate and the nuclear energy debate. 

Fact-checking becomes more difficult for us when the professionals in a field are divided on their opinions on emotionally-charged issues. This is most evident in the cost-of-living debate and the immigration/refugee debate. 

The cost-of-living debate is particularly complicated because it is tied up with the whole climate and energy issues and because governments in a capitalist-based democracy have very little control over the price of goods like milk and bread or cars and homes.

Governments can, and at times do, provide cost-of-living relief by intervening in the markets of fuel and electricity – two of the biggest elements of cost-of-living pressures, and continue to play an important role in the housing market.

Similarly, emotive language has almost derailed the whole immigration debate.

Immigration has not caused a housing shortage; it has just highlighted it. The housing shortage is the result of demand outstripping supply as a result of a shortage of building materials and building workers; neither of which the government has a lot of control over.

In much the same way, the focus of refugees ‘swarming’ our northern coastline hides the reality that most illegal immigrants fly to Australia on commercial flights; and while these could undoubtedly be better policed, compared to refugee movements and illegal migration in the USA and Europe, Australian problems are minor.

However, social pressures lead political parties to make promises that they should know they can’t deliver. Any party that offers over-simple fixes to complex economic issues like cost-of-living pressures, or social issues like youth crime, is preying on the vulnerable who are most susceptible to these cruel, vote-grabbing techniques.

Just as dishonest are the catchy political slogans that imply a ubiquitous better future. A product of advertising, slogans don’t ask you to read the fine print; they don’t come with health warnings; they don’t offer guarantees. 

‘Back-to-the- Future’ slogans that appeal to a sentimental, nostalgic view of the past are particularly deceptive. Australia of 2025 is a much different society than it was 100 years or 50 years or 25 years ago and even if some might feel it might not be as ‘good’, going back just isn’t feasible.

Much of any disinformation campaign hides behind the notion of “Free Speech” which is itself an oxymoron. Freedom of speech has always been conditional and has a whole string of moral, ethical and legal obligations attached.

The obligations of people in power to speak the truth could be enforced by law. Politicians, reporters, news readers and influencers who deliberately and knowingly lie should be called out, and in serious offences, prosecuted.

Fact Checking is not particularly difficult or time consuming. It is usually simple to check the authority of a person espousing a fact; although determining agendas and conflict of interests is not always as easy. If there is no authorship provided, forget it.

After verifying the credibility of the author, the next step is to verify the veracity of the claim. What evidence is given to support this position? How many others agree with it? Does it seem likely or credible? 

If it seems a bit extreme, it probably is. If it is too good to be true, it probably is. It’s a scam, a political scam to con you into voting in a way you wouldn’t normally.

Do yourself and the country a favour. As the election campaigns power up, fact-check the claims and promises political parties make. There is a marked difference between election campaigns and advertising campaigns.

You are not buying a political party; you are selecting a government with the best policies and most competent people to govern Australia for all Australians.

You really shouldn’t turn off and have a cup of tea.