Many of us remember the national English dailies of the past decades and their celebrated editors. Our fathers insisted that we read them daily, seeing it as a prescription for both knowledge of current affairs and intellectual development. These editors wrote opinion pieces that shaped national discourse on issues of great importance. They were highly educated, groomed by the experts of their time, and had extensive real-world experience. Known for their integrity and honesty, they commanded the respect of both their readers and the broader public.
These editors were the chieftains who controlled the flow of information through their news outlets. They represented specific political and economic ideologies and built large followings around them. Their credibility was undeniable because they were not directly involved in politics or motivated by commercial interests. The reputation of a newspaper was closely tied to the credibility of its editors.
They had advantages that others did not have. They were well-connected to global sources of information on political and economic trends. They regularly socialized with influential people and had access to real-time news and developments through exclusive channels—information that the public often received only a day later through them.
In this sense, they were the major influencers of public opinion.
Because of the trust they had built, their opinions were highly influential in shaping how the public formed its own views. They were seen as the conscience keepers of the nation. The governments of their time could not ignore their opinions and often sought their support during critical moments. As the gatekeepers of knowledge for the public, these editors understood the weight of their responsibility and the importance of maintaining their reputation.
However, this equation began to change in the 1990s with the rise of private news channels that broadcasted 24/7. Newspapers, once the dominant source of news, began to transform into trade papers, often packed with advertisements rather than hard-hitting journalism. Electronic media, and social media in particular, have contributed to this shift. The advent of influencers with millions of followers has replaced the editorial authority once held by traditional editors. In the process, much of what made journalism credible has been eroded.
Social media, the most disruptive force in modern information-sharing, has altered the media landscape. It has connected anyone with a phone and an internet connection to a global audience, bypassing traditional news filters. Now, anyone can voice their opinion with a post or a comment, bypassing the old system of submitting a letter to the editor and waiting for publication.
While social media has had positive effects—such as ensuring global connectivity, facilitating information sharing, and providing a platform for self-expression—it has also had negative consequences. The addictive nature of social media, combined with its ability to distract and reduce productivity, has reached epidemic proportions. This global issue, which affects people across all social, economic, and age groups, doesn’t yet have an immediate solution.
One recent tragedy that underscores these dangers was the case of a young girl who took her life because she couldn’t reach her self-imposed target of one million followers. Social media monetization programs have prompted individuals, particularly women, to create and share content that caters to the baser instincts of the public. This has led to the creation of shallow, often vulgar content designed solely to gain followers and, by extension, money. The degradation of standards is a growing concern, one that is rarely discussed.
When society defines success solely in terms of money, it inevitably loses the moral courage to question the means by which that success is achieved.
But these are the choices we make as individuals. What is more troubling, however, is our vulnerability to manipulation. Social media platforms have the power to influence our thoughts and decisions, often numbing our common sense and blocking our imaginations by creating false perceptions of reality. The ability to spread misleading or false information, paired with tools that can make such information go viral, is a significant threat. The lack of editorial oversight on these platforms allows misinformation to spread unchecked. The recent advancements in AI and digital rendering have only compounded the issue, enabling even more sophisticated forms of disinformation.
The recent war serves as an example of how this issue plays out in real time. Some reputable news outlets created war-room scenarios in their studios, using AI-generated images and videos to depict heroics on the battlefield. These dramatizations were so convincing that many influential individuals took them as truth, sharing them widely. The outlets later deleted these posts, but by then, the damage had been done. People still believe these fabricated stories to be true.
The motives behind this are multifaceted. News outlets compete for higher TRPs, governments seek a psychological advantage over their enemies, and politicians use these narratives to bolster their own image. The result has been the creation of carefully crafted opinions that reflect tactical agendas. Even when evidence is presented to challenge these narratives, those who question them are often met with hostility and abuse.
This is not a new phenomenon. Strategic efforts to shape mass opinion have been underway for some time, using tactics like fake IDs, troll armies, and content manipulation to influence public perceptions. Opposing views are often silenced by relentless online harassment. The rise of “neutral” users who join in the trolling frenzy further amplifies the chaos, with many convinced they are performing a patriotic duty.
This, in many ways, is the worst thing that could happen to a civil society. Those who perpetrate these disinformation campaigns, especially during times of national crisis, do so without any shame or remorse. Yet, in an age of information overload, who holds them accountable?
Open access to information and the democratization of voices on social media has resulted in what some are calling an “opinion deluge.” Exposure to an overwhelming amount of content—both verified and false—has significant effects on mental health, leading to stress, anxiety, and even depression. People often express their agreement by liking or sharing content, while disagreement can result in negative comments or even personal attacks.
The situation in Pahalgam illustrates how quickly anger and grief can be misdirected. Following the tragic event, many people directed their outrage toward our neighbouring country and an entire community, fuelled by inflammatory content shared on social media. Those who called for restraint, such as Himanshi Narwal, were met with vitriol and harassment. Similarly, Vikram Misri, who announced the understanding of a halt to military actions between two countries, faced severe trolling, including threats to his family.
Who were the perpetrators of this online abuse? Ordinary people like us—some acting out of malice, others simply reacting to content they disagreed with without considering the bigger picture.
This brings us to a crucial question: How are our thoughts and behaviors being shaped by the opinions we encounter on social media? The transformation this has caused in society is something we must seriously reflect on.
