Deepfakes underline editorial validation

Deepfakes underline editorial validation

Channel 4, a broadcaster in Britain, has delivered an unusual Christmas present: its own version of the Queen’s Christmas address to the nation, in which she says some things definitely lèse-majesté and dances a gig. Obviously, Her Majesty did not stoop to this parody of herself. Channel 4 used a technology called deepfake, which can take any person’s image and animate it, mouthing whatever the user of the software wants it to say, in that person’s voice. The technology is notorious for its misuse against women, portraying them in pornographic acts. But its potential to spread misinformation and discredit reputations is huge. Channel 4 sought to draw attention to this potential of modern technology.

At one level, the spread of deepfake technology might appear to have the effect of blurring the distinction between the real and the surreal, between genuine and fake, and between trust and distrust. This appearance misleads. Yes, ubiquitous deepfake videos would create confusion about what is authentic and what is not. But that does not undo this basic distinction. What prevalence of deepfakes would do is to overturn the notion that seeing is believing. A viewer would no longer be able to authenticate what is purported to be as genuine merely based on appearance. That authentication would need to be carried out by those whose job is to validate information before it is put out in the public domain. Deepfakes, in other words, raise the relevance of editorial validation, something that comes naturally to professional news organisations, but is absent, more often than not, on social media posts.

The greater the level of public awareness of their vulnerability to fake news, the greater the public’s appreciation of editorial validation.