In an age where AI has taken over, social media is king, and fact-checking is simply ignored, it is very hard to accurately tell what is going on in the world. While reading is encouraged, reading alone will not affirm the current events of the world. How can readers tell the difference between the truth and biased opinions?
Trust is an important aspect of journalism, and trust is earned through truth. But what happens when the truth is warped? If history is any indicator, the result of distorted truth is propaganda, and in its most extreme case, propaganda leads to war. With recent talks of an imminent World War III, let us look into a series of articles relevant to this point.
In February 2026, Amnesty International released an article describing the events of the US’s military attacks in Venezuela and its implications on the Venezuelan people. The article went even further to describe the US’s political standing in a global context. This article clearly says, “Amnesty International unequivocally condemns both the unlawful use of force by the United States and the multiple crimes by the Venezuelan authorities against the people of Venezuela.” The article explains the history of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and his crimes against his own people, which provides the reader with a neutral, balanced perspective by offering context.
Another article released by The Conversation in January 2026 speaks on the same event and tries to understand its motives. The article acknowledges the pro-war rhetoric of the Trump administration. However, certain phrases, such as “the Trump administration is effectively debating its model for succession”, and the mention of Trump’s self-identification with founding American presidents like Abraham Lincoln (who is known for his contribution to abolishing slavery in the US) paint Trump in a somewhat positive light in a way that seems to take away from the gravity of his actions. Factors like word selection separate news from propaganda, and the difference between the two articles mentioned lies in their stance. It is up to the reader to compare sources and verify where they stand in relation to them, given the current state of the world and the evidence provided to us.
There are different reasons for journalism that spreads bias, and one includes the desire to make money, as referenced in the Wellington Times. Social media has been used as a tool to spread information, and due to the rising trend of platforms paying for interactions, it seems as though anyone can take the opportunity to cover a money-making opportunity with the mask of information. This is known as clickbait. The US Department of Health and Human Services released an article titled “President Trump, Secretary Kennedy Announce Bold Actions to Tackle Autism Epidemic”. Firstly, this title refers to autism as an epidemic, which, by definition, is a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease. Secondly, it further increases the negative bias surrounding autism and the people that have been diagnosed with it. Autism is a neurodevelopmental condition which has existed for many years and consists of a community who has fought for the debunking of negative stereotyping. This article was released shortly after President Trump made unfounded comments about a connection between autism and the pain reliever Tylenol. This topic has caused a lot of discourse about the pain reliever and its connection to autism, opening up the floor to discrimination and negative stereotyping. The question that should be asked is whether the misleading title was worth the smear campaign against Tylenol.
In the spirit of asking questions and rising trends, let us dive into AI’s influence on journalism. With original writing and traditional research becoming less conventional, popular news outlets such as Associated Press and The New York Times have been open about using AI technology, according to International Business Machines (IBM). AI used to be used as a tool to analyse audience engagement and social monitoring. But now, it is being used to draft headlines, proofread articles, and come up with their outlines. Although this can be seen as eliminating back-end work, one could also argue that this takes away from the originality of a journalist’s work, especially when it comes to language-use – a very important aspect of journalism. When one is given the responsibility to report to the masses, it is imperative to avoid the lazy route.
If there is one thing to take away from this article, it is to not believe everything you read. If you care about forming an educated opinion on a matter, try to seek out as many sources as you can and read with comprehension. Allow yourself to learn the difference between an occurrence and a campaign.
