Media, messages and the deepening search for trust

I’ve never been able to comfortably understand Marshall McLuhan’s famous dictum “the medium is the message.” It seems to me a quaint way of saying “the medium defines the message” or “the nature of the medium distorts the message,” ideas that seem valid enough, though they might not have the mental staying power of McLuhan’s more ambiguous expression.

But, however you parse the phrase, it can’t help but come to mind as we see what is happening during the rapid emergence of so-called artificial intelligence, and contemplate its impact on the most important quality linked to communication, trust.

Whether we are speaking one-on-one with someone in person or listening to a speaker addressing millions of people simultaneously, our understanding of the messages being shared is inextricably linked to our trust that the person speaking is who we think it is and the words we hear are coming from him or her. Now, we are getting regular reminders via social media of just how tenuous that contract is in the modern age.

Few examples could be more telling than Elon Musk’s post Friday on his X platform of a video using images from an actual Kamala Harris political ad under the words of a “speaker” that convincingly, though falsely, mimics her voice. Musk did not originally acknowledge that the video was originally produced as a parody on YouTube, though, truthfully, it wouldn’t take a mental giant to question its veracity.

“I, Kamala Harris, am your Democrat candidate for president because Joe Biden finally exposed his senility at the debate,” the AI-produced voice says . "I was selected because I am the ultimate diversity hire. I'm both a woman and a person of color, so if you criticize anything I say, you're both sexist and racist."

No reasonable person would accept such a statement from Harris without a challenge. There is no reasonability test for voters, of course, so such a post still could have a chilling effect on plenty of Musk’s 130 million followers on X. But the viability or potential misuse of this one piece of electronic manipulation is not the most significant point here.

What’s truly pertinent is what this parody implies about the future. We’ve already seen plenty of distortions whereby a speaker’s image is merged with edits of his or her voice to suggest things entirely contradictory to the actual message. Now, the capability of creating entire messages and making it look and sound like they are authentic is only more ominous. The need for increased regulation is obvious, but in a free society, no amount of regulation is going to eliminate the possibility for underhanded and misleading manipulation of technology to mislead audiences.

All of which points to a future in which views, listeners and even readers must be more critical than ever in analyzing what they see and hear - whether it be in politics, product advertising or even parody. And this further impresses on me the importance of knowing the sources you choose for getting information on the topics and issues you care about.

Traditional news media like the Daily Herald - and legacy broadcast news sources, as well - are of course not immune to error in their presentation. But we establish and insist on standards that are founded first and foremost on trust.

Keep that in mind as you try to distinguish between a medium and its messages in this election year or any other time.

• Jim Slusher, jslusher@dailyherald.com, is managing editor for opinion at the Daily Herald. Follow him on Facebook at www.facebook.com/jim.slusher1 and on X at @JimSlusher. His coming book “Conversations, community and the role of local news” is available for pre-sale at eckhartzpress.com.