In theory, the proliferation of cameras should aid in the documentation of the truth. Smartphones are everywhere, ready to be used to capture and upload photos and videos with a few clicks. This accessibility represents a turning of the tables in surveillance, allowing the public to keep the authorities honest. But people are people, and we always figure out ways to use technology to deceive.
I recently read this piece by Joe Hagan, which predicts the upcoming presidential election will be the dirtiest in history. Super-PACs are injecting unprecedented amounts of money and resources, including scores of researchers assigned the task of recording opposing candidates 24/7, tagging and cataloguing the footage, and preparing clips to be deployed at a moment’s notice. Compared to still images, which we’re now programmed to believe have all been Photoshopped, video carries a significant presumption of authenticity. Clever editors can craft negative ads out of quotes taken out of context, and by the time an opponent can respond to set the record straight, the news cycle will have moved on with the damage done.
In the future, as we’re exposed to more and more video will we become more skeptical of the authenticity of the message being conveyed? I think it’s already happening. The myth of “reality” TV is quickly eroding. But the problem of context continues to creep up. It takes effort to go back and verify a video clip’s authenticity and the context in which it was taken. There is opportunity in the cataloging and archiving of both video and still images. Systems which can analyze content quicker and more accurately will be developed, creating an easier way to parse the onslaught of content to find what we’re looking for, making it easier to keep up with the truth. Or not.