In a world where we are bombarded with an overload of information, it becomes hard to decipher distinguish between what is true and what isn’t. The current times have ushered in an era of not only pandemic but also ‘infodemic’. Day in and day out, we receive information through different sources on how to keep the virus away and stay healthy. People suggest different admixture of concoctions that can work wonders. There are those who posit themselves as ‘experts’ and proclaim authority on a particular field of interest. The word ‘expert’ too has gained a dubious distinction, which has made us question the trust in experts.
The credibility of the source is of utmost importance as it helps build trust not only between the scientists and the communicator but also between the communicator and the audience/reader. The two factors of trust and credibility are complementary to each other and built over a long period of time. The communicator, hence, must ensure that the expert on a particular field should have relationship with the issue concerned rather than his/her representation in the media. For a disease of the respiratory tract, the advice of a cardiologist does not hold much ground. In the first wave of the pandemic in India, the TV channels invited renowned doctors even though they were not essentially ‘experts’ on virology. Instances like these question the credibility of the source. Similarly, a journalist working on science communication has to be extremely cautious with what he or posts on Twitter, Instagram or even Facebook. A mere disclaimer on Twitter that “RTs are not endorsements” does not absolve a tweeting journalist from its responsibility.
As a lay consumer of the media, one must look at the source and the credibility of the source. In a world of information, misinformation and disinformation, one is more likely to fall into its trap. The only way out is to be critical of where your information is coming from and it must be verified with other sources of information too.