4.1 Article

Deepfakes and documentary practice in an age of misinformation

期刊

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10304312.2021.2003756

关键词

Deepfakes; synthetic media; misinformation; disinformation; documentary practice; documentary designers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paragraph discusses the impact of deepfakes on documentary making, pointing out that they disrupt traditional documentary genre while also continuing trends in software culture, enhancing possibilities in practice. By referencing relevant frameworks, it highlights the complexity of documentary forms and challenges posed to audiences.
The emergence of deepfakes is the latest form to prompt anxieties over the wider implications of misinformation. This chapter explores possibilities for how these technologies extend the repertoire of modalities available for documentary makers. While these 'synthetic media' offer a disruption of the documentary genre, they are also a continuation of long-standing trends within software culture and also clearly augment practices which are deeply embedded within the documentary genre. This discussion draws upon Wardle and Derakhshan's 'misinformation' and 'disinformation' framework to highlight the increasing complexity of documentary's forms and the challenges they pose to audiences. The limited experiments in integrating synthetic media into documentary media in a productive way suggest especially the possibilities for using these to develop more openly reflexive content. The proliferation of synthetic media forms prompt a wider need within documentary practitioners for critical data practices, software literacy, and ethical practices embedded within a broader understanding of automated, networked and entangled media systems. And they challenge documentary designers to strategise the nature of their content, and engage more directly with their audiences on questions around evidence, trust, authenticity and the nature of documentary media within an era of misinformation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据