Chinese Whispers

 

This article is based on the game Chinese Whispers, or Telephone as it is known in North America, and not the horrendous disease going around.

 

It’s a late Sunday night back in the third semester of college. My body was just about done coping with the after-effects of weekend shenanigans. Monday was knocking hard on the door, along with the sessional tests about which I was well-informed. I mean they do detail that kind of stuff on the academic calendar you know? Yet, I chose to pay heed to the better judgement of studying one night before the exam, rather than the God-promised alternative of preparing the whole week. Or was it weeks? My memory is a little blurred about the details.

 

So began the one night stand, complete with a lot of procrastination and late-night group texts for clarifications. The syllabus, practice problems, teachers' notes were all gone in the wind now. At that point of time in the dead of the night, the only warriors who were still standing tall were as unprepared as I was - for the mighty ones must have been long asleep after a hard day's toil.

 

"Can you please meet me about half an hour before the exam?", read my morning text to my best friend from class. "Ok" came back the immediate reply. The "I told you so" was hidden, yet inferred by me. Thanks to them, I did learn a few parlour tricks before the exam. The first paper was Mathematics, yet none of the questions seemed to have an arithmetic answer. There was this one about deducing the probability distribution function. I remembered coming across those words while studying, trusted my instincts, and went on deducing, albeit in my own creative language. Complete with a Q.E.D (Quite Easily Done silly!) at the end of my answer. It took all of five minutes for my grin to fade post the exams as I opened the textbook and came to terms with the realization that what I had written was a theory for some other rule.

 

In our bid to get the answers out fast, and of course showcase how we know it all, legitimacy has become a second-class citizen. Kind of like the game we used to play as kids. Standing in a circle, one person would start the chain and whisper something to the next person, the act repeated over by the others until the originator completes the chain. And then we would all laugh at how the answer got transformed somewhere along the journey, all thanks to cumulative error. The only difference here is that the game, Chinese Whispers, is a reality now with actual consequences.

 

My morning routine generally follows this pattern - check the news online on BBC's mobile app to get a gist of the major happenings of the world, then a quick scroll through my Google Discover to check up on anything local that BBC might have missed, and alas I land on my Facebook feed. I will share a funny incident here. Once the Indian Government uplifted the ban on the sale of liquor, there were long lines of people outside shops selling alcohol. Majority of those in line were thirsty souls who had been deprived of their manna dew for a long time now. But there were also those queuing up who feared that this upliftment was temporary. Where did they get to know about this, you ask? From speculations of course! There were plenty of posts about this online by media houses and concerned netizens, complete with explanatory notes how trusted sources had confirmed to them that the upliftment was temporary and that people had to act. And swiftly so! The queues ultimately became a headache, both for the administration as well as from the point of view of disease containment. The Government had to step in. The ban was imposed again by local authorities in major cities such as Delhi and Mumbai. Whether the Government actually intended to do so in the first place, we will never know. Information - 0 , Speculation - 1.

 

Our need to know it all has given rise to an increased sense of putting out reactions - and no I am not just talking about the Haha, Love, and Care reactions. Most posts one would come across on social media outlets is a reaction to something or the other:

 

"Oh, this incident! You know what, let me post about it too with my own thoughts and reaction, because of course, I know better!"

 

There is another story making the rounds of late - known as the Bois Locker Room. I don't want to comment on the incident itself, as long as the matter is actively being investigated. If something of the sorts truly occurred, the culprits must be punished. There are no two ways about it. But after the incident grabbed the limelight, what transpired first was an instant reaction to how women are treated by the society in general, and there was another wave of secondary reaction to this aforementioned reaction. There was some breakthrough on the case - one of the stories part of the investigation was confirmed to be faked. Around this, I read an interesting post on a "friend's" Instagram story. Having shared the news about the new developments, the said person wrote: "Thank God I did not join the bandwagon earlier". One breakthrough was enough to deem that the whole episode was in fact untrue. I mean, if one related incident is a knock-off, the whole story must be, right? You might ask, do I agree with the first reaction or the second? Neither. Good journalism, which previously relied on genuine stories and water-tight sources, has given way to mass-produced information by civilian reporters who neither have the qualifications nor fact-checked data to fall back upon. Creating awareness about an incident is one thing, stamping speculation as genuine and gift-wrapping them as facts is another.

 

But alas, information credibility is not as important now as its popularity is. So much so that Facebook had to put in place fact-checking mechanisms to debunk false claims that are effortlessly circulated online nowadays. Before a case even lands in court, social media trials ensure that a speedy (and sometimes erroneous and biased) verdict is attained.

 

Surfing through my Facebook feed also makes me realize how opinionated we are to opinions themselves. Here I am referring to personal opinions, not the ones passed as news. Let’s say you come across a post saying "I like black cars", is it really hurting you in any way? All right, I will assume you have a white car and felt infuriated by this declaration. Do you know the person well enough to change their opinion? If not, why react at all? I have been guilty of this crime too. Just last week, someone I do not know very well posted their personal opinion about something. I don't know that person very well, yet went on to the comments section to express my opinion. On their opinion. My reaction would in no way alter the other person's thought process, nor will it bring some kind of justice. All it did, I realized later, was created a mockery of Your Truly. Sometimes we take part in arguments only for the sake of arguing, and not to come out with any noteworthy deductions. No doubt why people are more pleased when presented with the following three words - I was wrong, and not I love you?

 

We as netizens have become both sensitive and insensitive. Sensitive to the stories we consume on the internet. One comma out of place and we will jump on to it with all the munition we have, completely insensitive to the creator. More often than not, we do so with a false identity. Verifying correct information in itself is an uphill task, imagine the pain of confirming the identity of those amongst us who hide behind fancy aliases such as RockstarStud101 and Princess Angela!

 

To not say something can create damage. But to say something without having the facts right, or without having the least amount of sensitiveness to the story as well as the teller, surely does more.