Protecting reality is Malaysian communicators new job

LETTERS: A rather extraordinary image came across my WhatsApp recently. It purported to show an SUV involved in what looked like an almost unbelievable accident on the PLUS highway — the vehicle apparently lodged against an overhead highway sign.

Like many Malaysians receiving something dramatic on WhatsApp, my first reaction could easily have been to forward it and ask, "Betul ke ni?"

Instead, I checked. There was no credible Malaysian media or official report I could find corresponding to what the pictures supposedly showed. Then I came across something even more revealing.

Earlier this year, an almost identical scenario had circulated in India: a black Mahindra Thar seemingly stuck high up on an overhead sign along NH-48. People shared it as an extraordinary road accident.

It wasn't. Fact-checkers traced the video to an AI content creator. The original material had actually been identified as AI-generated.

And this is where I think Malaysian PR and communications practitioners need to pay attention. We have spent years talking about fake news. AI has changed the game.

Previously, fake news often required a fabricated story, a misleading headline or an edited photograph. Today, someone can create the "evidence" itself.

The accident that never happened. The speech that was never made. The CEO who never said those words. The photograph from a place where the person never stood.

The document that looks sufficiently official for someone to forward it into ten WhatsApp groups before breakfast.

Malaysia is particularly interesting because WhatsApp remains deeply embedded in the way information travels through families, workplaces, communities and professional networks.

And all of us know the familiar behaviour. Someone receives something shocking.

"Forwarded as received." That phrase may absolve the sender psychologically. It does absolutely nothing to protect the reputation of the organisation or person being falsely represented.

There is a PR idea provocatively described as the "Stupid Majority Strategy". I wouldn't interpret that literally as saying the public is stupid. That would itself be rather stupid public relations.

But there is something worth considering beneath it. People are more likely to accept information when it fits an existing belief, grievance or expectation.

If I already distrust Company X, an AI-generated image apparently showing Company X doing something wrong has a head start.

I may want it to be true. That is precisely why fact-checking matters.

And it is why I believe verification should now be treated as a professional discipline within Malaysian communications.

Before we react, verify. Before we forward, verify. Before the CEO responds, verify. Before somebody writes the holding statement, verify. And importantly, before the board is briefed, verify.

This isn't merely about protecting corporate image. Imagine synthetic content depicting a major highway accident, chemical leak, bank failure, product contamination, hospital emergency or security incident.

False information can affect human behaviour. People change routes. Customers panic. Families call emergency services. Investors react. Employees become anxious. Journalists start asking questions. Authorities may need to respond.

At that point misinformation has moved beyond reputation. It has become operational risk.

Malaysia is already recognising the scale of the problem. Thousands of pieces of deepfake and manipulated content have been subjected to takedown action this year. The Government is also developing AI governance standards and frameworks around digital trust.

But regulation alone will never be enough. Neither will an AI detector. This requires an ecosystem.

PR practitioners, journalists, corporate affairs teams, public affairs specialists, regulators, technology professionals, risk managers and boards need common verification habits.

Every organisation should know what happens when suspicious content involving its brand emerges.

Who verifies it? Who contacts Operations? Who checks with the authorities? Who monitors its spread?

Who decides whether silence or correction is appropriate? Who preserves evidence? Who speaks? And how quickly?

For those of us who keep arguing that communications deserves a stronger voice at board level, here is an opportunity to demonstrate why.

Don't merely tell the board that reputation matters. Help the board govern reputation risk.

Understand AI. Understand misinformation and disinformation. Understand verification. Understand cyber risk. Understand how synthetic content can migrate from social media chatter into an operational, regulatory and financial issue.

That is how communications moves beyond publicity. And perhaps we also need a simple Malaysian cultural reset.

The next time something unbelievable arrives on WhatsApp, resist the temptation to become the fastest person to forward it.

Be the annoying person who asks: "Source mana?"

In the age of AI, that may turn out to be one of the most valuable questions a communicator can ask.

SYED MOHAMMED IDID

General Manager

Strategic Communications and Stakeholder Engagement

West Coast Expressway

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times