Concept of Too Much Information
Too much information means there is a lot of data fed to the people more than they can digest or understand. Therefore, it leads to a state of confusion where data cannot be confirmed as either true or false. The supply of information comes from fact-checkers who present their ideas as facts (Andrejevic 102). However, there is a need to scrutinize the authenticity of the information shared by these individuals. Besides, there is a gap between the people who produce the data and those that consume it. Consequently, the difference limits the news from being digested by the general public because there is no accountability and trust in the people who report them.
Reporting of data might be out of one’s opinion, and the consumers might take this as the truth and thus tampering the entire chain. Not all the information shared on social media is genuine, and not all of them are false. There is so much misleading information that spread around various social media platforms. In this case, Twitter was on fire following the rise of the pandemic in Wuhan, China. Many things were mentioned, and others proved even though they were lies. According to a research examination, too much information would lead to unethical and unprofessional research outcomes (Renjith 73). The concept by Andrejevic about too much information closely relates to the discussions postulated by Renjith (73), on his work, “The effect of information overload in digital media news content.”
Analysis and Discussion
The spread of covid-19 from China took some time before entering other countries, but many people neglected the fact that the virus was dangerous. At first, there was so much discussion concerning the impeding illness in various social media platforms such as twitter, which made it even more confusing to handle and comprehend. Some of the countries believed that the case was a biological weapon formed to destabilize other countries. However, it is still a mystery about the cause, the spread, and the fate of the pandemic. The pandemic is a serious threat to life, social life, economy, and all other spheres of life, including the psychological aspects of the individuals.
A considerable number of arguments indicated that the virus has many forms and target specific countries, especially the superpowers, and that the virus that got to Africa was weak. Such information lack accuracy from scientific proves as they originate from individuals who hear it from elsewhere, manipulate it, and later spreading false information. All these sources are individual thoughts the fact-checkers provided to the public. The public has too much information that they have nowhere to prove them (Renjith 75). In a real sense, the media should have concentrated on enlightening the people on how to stay safe and find relevant information that helps the familiar people. But instead, they give a lot of fake news, others really, but all in all, it is difficult to analyze which information is correct or which one is not.
Fig. 1: Coronavirus pandemic alert
When the whole world welcomed the year 2020, people across the globe had different reactions and feelings about the New Year. People in Wuhan China, including the scientists and researchers, were terrified concerning dangers posed by the Coronavirus outbreak. Globally, people regarded the virus as a Chinese-virus, and many did not consider its risks. Over time, the virus spread across the world, creating panic, closure of borders, and collapsing international travels. The pandemic rose many questions that the fact-checkers circulated at the time the virus spread in China. The information presented in the picture is alarming, and there is a lot of misrepresented data. In the wake of the pandemic, many people have lost their lives while others are still sick.
Misinterpretation of Information in Digital Media
There are plenty of research studies done on the pandemic that does not add up. With the available medical research, it is questionable how media and other journals provide misguided data to the general public. Everyone would love to hear that the pandemic gets its vaccine or cure by studying those who are sick and the behavior of the virus. Hence, the world would recover from the epidemic’s threats due to the reduced effects of the illness. However, many misinforming contents on the internet do not have a clear research basis that makes it possible to trace the information’s validity. Many research papers are reworked, decontextualized, spun, or twisted. The data cannot be used for further research by other researchers who wish to get informed and educate the public about what they learned (Renjith 80).
The analysis of the misrepresentation of information on coronavirus (covid-19), comes in different sources, styles, and proclaims many different cases. There is little or no fabrication of the actual report but rather a reconfiguration of the real truth to suit the readers or the fact-checkers (Anderson and Lee). Nonetheless, independent fact-checkers and media houses help facilitate the right information to the people on the importance of maintaining hand washing hygiene, reducing interactions with others through avoiding handshakes, kissing and hugging, and ensuring that people stay safe from the covid-19 pandemic. Simultaneously, observing sanitization, social distancing, and reporting any symptomatic cases as soon as they appear. It is funny how the misrepresentation of information can be simple or can get editing with simple tools as possible (Renjith 80). The machines are easy to use and give information that has a particular direction of perspective best directed by the fact-checkers.
The proof of information should be the solemn responsibility of the government; however, many other issues could arise if they try to provide explanations on every fake news. There is little that government and other related departments can do on matters that deal with misinformation. Each sector has failed, and in that failure, there is nothing they can do to help. Scrutiny of false and truth in information cuts across all necessary sections, be it the government, private sectors, and others. All this representation comes with the possibility of false information propagated by propagandists that intend to lure people to believing their opinions as content (Anderson and Lee). However, there is no time people can come to terms with the right information until they are proven from the misrepresentation of knowledge, like covid-19. There is a need for more funders to provide private and independent fact-checkers to improve information validity.
Effects of Too Much Information
At the time of the covid-19 pandemic, social media was filled with a lot of information on how dangerous the virus is, how fast it can spread, and the number of people who succumbed to it. Twitter was filled with much information regarding the virus from credible organizations such as the World Health Organization to individuals spreading rumors. As a result, people were subjected to panic and confusion, not knowing what to trust or not. Famous individuals such as President Trump shared information on his twitter account, which many journalists, researchers, officials from the WHO, among others, have distanced themselves with the claims. Such details coming from a president of the United States would, more likely, create data misrepresentation leading to more panic. The WHO issued guidelines to help reduce the spread of the virus, whereby they recommended easing tension among both mainstream and social media by restricting sharing unverified information.
World health organization tried to reduce panic across the world because the panic attacks accounted for more spread than how it should have been. The picture shared increases more panic attacks than help that could enable people to understand how to prevent further spread of the virus. The availability of too much information in the social space creates a scenario where Andrejevic argues as “representation without understanding” (Andrejevic 106). The picture displays a young woman who is scared by the pandemic. She is holding the newspaper, which primarily explores more on the panic mode than helping humanity ease the tension and control further spread of the virus.
Too much information flows in the social space. The consumers of the same data might be misled to believe in a piece of information that is not true or a scenario similar to representation without understanding. An analysis of the picture creates an imagination that the pandemic is a death sentence where one would surely die when they contract the virus. In reality, the image fails to highlight the scientific possibility of containing the virus, how best to help people reduce its spread, such as keeping the social distancing and working from home, avoiding touching the face. As much as the virus is dangerous, stimulating panic attacks is making the situation more dangerous. The arguments of Andrejevic (128) prove to be accurate as Renjith attests to his work that it is empirical to control the amount of information collected or shared in the digital media as it has adverse ramifications to the understanding of the data (71).
Renjith focuses on too much information and how it affects research ethics. As per Renjith, too much information has a significant impact on the quality of the research as generated through uncertain social media (77). It is essential to understand the ethical principles that apply when digital data come to play. Moreover, online information is more prone to the inaccuracy that renders its consumers into wrong data. Social media offers a platform where information can be manipulated to fit one’s interest and objective; this can make the information provided false and unreliable as it is based on an individual perspective and self-interest. Besides, the online platform is open to anyone who can access and, in the process, making some information lack credibility since any person can post any raw data without seeking confirmation.
The study centers on applying too much information in the research ethics in four major sections: mobile health, visual ethics, grey literature, and ubiquitous computing from applied or market research (Renjith 79). Primarily, the study found that there are changes to traditional notions, especially in how visual research was done. Advanced technology has the following challenge: maleficence, beneficence, privacy, confidentiality, anonymity, and informed consent (Renjith 82).
Furthermore, Renjith discusses the importance of protecting research participants and generally improving the research ethics frameworks. Hence, not all information provided and available through social media should be considered. However, there should be specified sites where accurate and proven information concerning critical issues like the issue of covid-19 are accessed to avoid misleading rumors that could worsen the situation. With the ever-increasing advances in technology, research development and research principles should keep the pace because things are changing fast.
Renjith concludes by recommending the potential solutions to too much information as it would lead to what Andrejevic argues that the problem of “too much information” leads to information that Jodi Dean describes as being “representation without understanding” (Andrejevic 162). Some of the recommendations include the following: limiting the details, scope, and retention of captured data, including its accessibility. Secondly, the study recommends formulating an ethical approach that considers anonymity, confidentiality, and contextual judgment. Thirdly, developing a strong regulation outside academia on whatever research is conducted and, lastly, engaging the general public in the development of ethical guidelines.
In conclusion, information flow is becoming too much with little or no proof of truth; thus, leading to unprofessional and unethical research outcomes. False information poses a significant danger to consumers as it might lead to destruction, depending on how it is tackled. There is a correlation between the works of Andrejevic on too much information to that of Renjith, which illustrates the various effects associated with excess digital media evidence. Therefore, it is essential to restrict information on Twitter because many rely on the social network platform for news. Moreover, individuals have no time to confirm which is the accurate information to rely on, hence, ending up in misleading reports that might pose significant repercussions.