The late Queen Elizabeth II is believed to have once famously opined “I have to be seen to be believed.” While Her Majesty’s words were assumed to be referring to the bright-colored clothing and big hats that defined her distinctive fashion style, her wise words are prescient in a modern digital world.
It is a lesson her grandson the prince of Wales and his wife are now likely wishing they’d taken a little more literally. On Sunday, March 10, the prince and his wife released an official photograph on social media of the princess and their three children, to commemorate Mothering Sunday. The photograph, apparently taken by the prince, was the first photograph of the princess released since Christmas Day. The princess has been out of the public eye since an announcement that she was undergoing “planned abdominal surgery” on January 17.
While a number of media outlets republished the photograph uncritically, others opted to do a little more “due diligence” on it. Less than 12 hours after its release, Associated Press announced that after “closer inspection” of the image they would not be distributing it because of unspecified manipulation. Getty Images and Reuters warned news outlets of a “mandatory photo kill.” Evidence of digital editing meant that publishing it would breach the firms’ editorial policies prohibiting publication of images “altered or digitally manipulated images beyond minor photo editing, such as cropping or color adjusting.” The princess subsequently apologized for the editing, noting that like many other amateur photographers, she occasionally used software to touch up images.
The press agencies did not directly accuse the royal family of distributing “fake news.” But given the princess’s long absence from public view, and the paucity of information released about her (in contrast to her father-in-law King Charles III, who has provided much more information while he undergoes cancer treatment), it did not take long for the court of public opinion to raise the possibility—and to “fill the news void” with a raft of theories as to what the palace might be “covering up.”
While it was inevitable that eventually a public figure would be caught this way (and it begs the question as to why this was the first time the press agencies responded in this manner, given that at least some of the previous material they have been provided has likely been equally digitally manipulated), the case highlights the difficulties faced when it cannot be assumed that a photograph or any other digital content can be trusted to “tell the truth.”
However, the risks of “fake news” are not new. And fortunately, a number of economic tools have evolved to reduce the risks of being misled by mendacious messengers.
One is the “credible commitment” that comes from voluntarily putting at risk something significant that is forfeited if it is subsequently discovered that the truth has not been told. The vast sums invested in building a brand are forfeited (in lost sales) if the brand fails to live up to its commitments. As it is now nearly costless to produce and publish “fake news” digitally, the application of artificial intelligence means we will see even more of it, and the tools we have available are not good at filtering the believable from the incredible. We are going to have to rely even more on costly credible commitments in the real world if we are not to be fooled.
Thus, the value of “in person” engagement takes on a new importance in a digitally-mediated world. The price paid to appear in person becomes a credible commitment. It is cheaper to join that annoying meeting online from home. But if you want to signal that you are committed to the cause (or organization or other), then incurring the cost of attending in person conveys new information (alternatively, staying at home might be falsely construed as a lack of commitment). Turning up in person surely avoids the possibility of a false signal being mistakenly inferred! But it costs.
The late queen certainly knew her credibility hinged on being seen in person (the clothes only made it easier to spot her). So too does the king (his untouched photos and videos show him clearly alive but unwell – costly for his image). And maybe the prince and princess are learning: the princess has been snapped leaving Windsor Castle (but can this photo be trusted either)?
See also: European AI Regulations: Real Risk Reduction or Regulatory Theater? | AI-Generated Content, Fake News, and Credible Signals | Regulation, Voluntary Disclosure, and Reducing (AI) Risk in Political Advertising | If Artificial Intelligence Can’t Be Defined, How Can It Be Regulated?