For journalists, post-truth represents a critical challenge to our core mission of informing the public with accurate, verified information. This exercise deals with some of the issues journalists face.
Welcome to this Media Helping Media (MHM) exercise which is based on the article Understanding post-truth in journalism published on MHM. You are invited to complete the exercise either on your own or with a colleague. Please ensure you read the article above before completing the exercise.
MHM exercises are a chance for those who are new to journalism to learn skills and test what they know against fictional scenarios. The articles on which the exercises are based have been created from the experience of journalists who have shared their knowledge free of charge in order to help others learn the fundamental principles of robust public service journalism.
The first requirement of any piece of journalism is that it should be accurate. Although this is an exercise involving fictitious material, not for publication, trainees must take everything they are told in the exercise to be factual and they must stick to those facts. If one thing they produce in the exercise is inconsistent with those facts, their whole work is discredited. Accuracy comes first.
The scenario: How the story began
The village of Oakhaven has been discussing a proposed bypass for two years to alleviate heavy traffic. However, the exact route has remained unconfirmed during the council’s planning phase.
Two days ago, an unverified document – claiming to be a leaked council map – was posted to a private Facebook group called ‘Oakhaven Community Watch’. The map appeared to show the road cutting through a section of a local playground. Within hours, the post was shared across X, WhatsApp, and a host of other social media platforms.
Local resident Sarah Jenkins posted a photograph of her children at the park with a caption which read: “the council has already signed the deal in secret.” This post resulted in a steady stream of comments. However nobody had contacted the council for verification before the protest was organised.
The article below was written by a reporter from a local newspaper who was aware of the bypass plans, but who decided to write an updated report relying entirely on these social media threads and the high emotional temperature of the online comments, rather than seeking official documents or interviews with those who might know the facts.
The exercise
Before you start this exercise, be sure to read the original MHM source material to understand the ‘post-truth’ era: Understanding post-truth in journalism
The flawed article
Angry parents vow to block dangerous new bypass as local council ignores safety fears
A massive wave of fury has erupted on Facebook this morning as local parents in Oakhaven discovered that the council is planning to bulldoze a beloved community playground to make way for a death-trap bypass.
The plans, which were leaked on a local ‘Stop the Bypass’ community group, show a four-lane highway cutting directly through the heart of the village. One mother, Sarah Jenkins, posted a heart-breaking picture of her children playing on the swings, writing: “Our children’s lives are being traded for tarmac. The council doesn’t care if our kids are killed by speeding lorries.” Her post has already received 4,000 shares and hundreds of comments calling for the Council Leader to resign immediately.
Rumours are also swirling on X (formerly Twitter) that the bypass is only being built to benefit a wealthy property developer who went to school with the Head of Planning. While the council hasn’t bothered to reply to the thousands of angry comments online, the people of Oakhaven know the truth. “We don’t need official statements to see what’s happening right in front of our eyes,” one user commented.
The community is now organising a human shield to protect the playground. It is clear that the council has abandoned all safety standards in a desperate bid to line the pockets of their friends, leaving the village to suffer the consequences of noise, pollution, and tragedy.
Task 1: Identification and analysis
Identify the post-truth issues within the text. List them and explain why they are problematic. Pay specific attention to how the flaws are a direct result of content shared on social media. This exercise also touches on two issues also covered in our exercises and which you might want to try, they are the over use of adjectives and adverbs in journalism and also why editorialising should be avoided when covering news.
Task 2: The rewrite
Rewrite the story using only the verifiable facts. For this exercise you should accept the information contained in the fictitious scenario. Ensure you maintain impartial and remove all emotional manipulation or hearsay. After you have written your article – and not before – click the link below to read a suggested alternative version.
Click here to see the suggested story treatment.
Suggested alternative version
Oakhaven residents raise concerns over proposed bypass route
A group of Oakhaven residents has expressed opposition to proposed council plans for a new village bypass, following details shared on social media.
The ‘Stop the Bypass’ community group has raised concerns that the proposed route may affect a local playground. A post by resident Sarah Jenkins, which has been widely shared online, suggested the development would compromise child safety.
The social media activity included unverified claims regarding the motives behind the project and the relationship between council officials and property developers.
In a statement, the council said it is aware of the comments circulating on social media. A spokesperson confirmed that the bypass plans are currently in the consultation phase and that all safety impacts and land use requirements are being reviewed. They added that no final decision has been made regarding the playground.
Local residents are reportedly planning a protest at the site to highlight their concerns over potential noise and traffic increases.
Task 3: Self-assessment
Compare your rewrite from Task 2 with the alternative version provided above. Note the following:
- Did you successfully remove the emotive post-truth language (e.g., ‘death-trap’, ‘fury’, ‘bulldoze’)?
- How did you handle the unverified claims sourced from social media?
- What have you learned about the danger of using social media as a primary source without independent verification?
Related material
