Basil Jarrett | Statistical distractions: Why we must read beyond the comment section

TWO INTERESTING developments occurred last week in the world of statistics and data analysis. The first was US President Donald Trump’s dismissal of the head of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, just hours after the agency reported that job growth in the US had slowed to a near halt. True to form, nothing that The Donald does is ever without controversy, and so that single act sparked ongoing debate about the credibility of US data.

The second incident was our own Statistical Institute of Jamaica’s (STATIN) announcement that the agency would be making special provisions to access gated communities ahead of the launch of its latest Jamaica Survey of Living Conditions, scheduled to commence on August 4. Explaining that restricted access to certain residential areas could complicate national data collection, STATIN’s Director of the Field Services Division, Philone Mantock, indicated that proactive measures have been implemented to ensure seamless access for interviewers conducting fieldwork in gated communities islandwide.

NUMBERS DON’T LIE

Both events underscore the importance of numbers and statistical data in making key decisions for government. Surely, the wisdom of basing decisions on empirical evidence and statistically sound, reliable data cannot be understated, but what struck me as curious was the widespread scepticism that many social media commenters posted under STATIN’s announcement.

If you read the feedback without a critical or discerning eye, you might mistakenly assume that many Jamaicans either do not believe in the work that STATIN is doing or do not support the agency. But as any seasoned communications professional who toys around in the world of social media will tell you, social media commentary must be taken with more than a grain of salt. Several grains, actually, and in some cases, several pounds.

DON’T WATCH THE NOISE IN THE MARKET

You see, it is common practice to stumble upon a news item and then jump straight to the comment section for the rest of the story, rather than going to the media house’s website for a deeper understanding. And this is where the trouble lies. Often, the most inflammatory opinions are the ones most likely to be posted, not because they’re popular, but because they provoke. Ninety angry comments under a post don’t equate to 90 per cent disapproval, but many people often misread these numbers as being statistically valid and indicative of what the wider population thinks.

But in my practice, I’ve come to realise that there are individuals who will dedicate large chunks of their day to commenting on news and social media posts, just for likes, follows, and shares. Conversely, people with opinions that are less explosive may simply read, form a view, and keep scrolling. Unfortunately, those persons don’t often get counted, and incorrect conclusions are drawn about prevailing public opinion. Worse yet, many of these commenters aren’t even real people, as AI-generated chatbots, fake profiles, and deepfakes, add to the quagmire.

So how does the untrained eye, without 20 years of experience collecting, scrubbing, and analysing data, make sense of what the public really thinks about issues? Welcome folks, to the modern battlefield of influence.

PROTECT YOURSELF

In today’s information battlespace, how do you avoid being emotionally manipulated by a fake account operating from a bedroom in Nigeria, or a verandah here in Kingston? It’s not easy, but it starts with being able to first spot these impostors before they get inside your head.

Start by checking the profile. If there’s no photo or only a generic image, perhaps a cartoon, a flag, or a suspiciously attractive model, with a username that looks like a licence plate number, you’re likely dealing with a fake account. If the timeline is devoid of personal content and is instead filled with reposts, political rants, and recycled comments, then what you’re looking at is not your cousin Marlon. Worse if Marlon only joined the platform this morning and only has three friends. It’s likely a burner account masquerading as a real person.

Another dead giveaway is a one-track mind. Bots and fake profiles often speak in soundbites. They use specific, carefully crafted, emotionally charged language designed to lead you down a specific path. If a profile obsesses over a single issue, such as crime, religion or the situation in Gaza, it’s likely programmed. Real people have a range of interests. We talk about sports, family, food, and Elephant Man’s latest antics. But no real person only ever shows up to talk about one topic, especially under unrelated posts. If they do, you’re likely dealing with a profile that’s been sent on assignment.

Pay close attention too to engagement patterns. If a profile is posting every few minutes, active 24/7, and replying instantly to every post, then you’re not witnessing human behaviour. You’re seeing automation at work. And if several accounts begin commenting at the same time, agreeing with each other or attacking a particular comment in rapid succession, you’ve likely stumbled into a coordinated campaign, manufactured to create the illusion of consensus.

STAY VIGILANT

All of this matters more than we think. Bots and fake accounts are dangerously influential. Research and recent experience have shown that these coordinated digital actors can distort public opinion and spread dangerous disinformation. And here in Jamaica, where public trust in institutions is already fragile and political discourse is often tribal, fake profiles can fuel real division and deepen the rifts in our society. It’s a massive problem that will only get worse as technologies improve.

For this reason, we must be careful not to mistake noise for national consensus. We must also be vigilant, discerning and wary. But above all, we must ensure that we protect our minds and our conversations from being steered by fake profiles, agenda-driven actors, and automated bots whose goal is to mislead and misdirect. Because, as my grandmother Carol Ruby of blessed memory used to say, “Idle donkey follow cane trash go a pound.”

Major Basil Jarrett is the director of communications at the Major Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Agency and a crisis communications consultant. Follow him on Twitter, Instagram, Threads @IamBasilJarrett and linkedin.com/in/basiljarrett. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com