DICT spreads the very misinformation it claims to fight

DECODED: TECH, TRUTH, AND THREATS

The Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) violated the basic standards of accuracy that journalists are expected to uphold.

As a rule, journalists must verify information and seek confirmation from at least one independent source. Newsrooms may rely on a single source in limited circumstances, particularly when the information appears in an authenticated official document or comes directly from an authorized agency spokesperson speaking within that person’s mandate.

Even then, this is not an exemption from verification. An official document establishes what the government formally recorded, while an authorized spokesperson establishes the agency’s official position. Neither automatically proves that every claim is factually correct. If the information is controversial, surprising or involves another institution, journalists should still obtain confirmation from the institution concerned. Information should be cross-checked whenever possible, and two or more sources are preferable to one.

That is what makes the DICT information fiasco so serious.

The DICT initially announced that the House of Representatives had called on Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to “face the DICT” during a House hearing on social media safety. Because the claim came from the department’s official channel, several news organizations, including TechWatchPH, reported it in good faith and treated the DICT as the authoritative source.

During the deliberations, according to a reliable source, it was suggested that Zuckerberg should meet with the DICT or appear at a congressional hearing. But a suggestion from an individual lawmaker is not an official decision of the House. The House did not pass a resolution formally requiring Zuckerberg to appear, nor did it authorize the DICT to issue a statement on its behalf.

The DICT then posted on its official Facebook page a proposal or suggestion as an official action of the entire House. It effectively spoke for a separate branch of government without the formal authority to do so.

The information was later found to be inaccurate. The DICT deleted its original post and issued a clarification.

The error was not merely a poorly worded social media post. It misled journalists, news organizations and the public. An official government channel carries institutional authority. When it publishes a statement, newsrooms reasonably expect that the information has already been checked against official records and coordinated with the other government institution involved.

The DICT should explain where the claim came from, who verified it, who authorized its publication and why it was released without confirmation from the House. Deleting the post does not erase the reports it generated or restore the credibility damaged by the error.

Government agencies frequently demand responsible journalism from the media. They must hold themselves to the same standard. If the country’s lead information and communications agency cannot verify its own information before publishing it, how can it credibly lecture the public about misinformation and fake news?