Misinformation

Fake News went viral in 2016. While fake news is not a new phenomenon it seemed to reach unprecedented levels in 2016. One of the biggest fake news stories from this time was that the Pope had endorsed Donald Trump. According to a Buzzfeed article, the Trump article had 960,000 Facebook engagements (Silverman, 2016). What is even more interesting is that fake news stories during the election outperformed the real news stories (Silverman, 2016). These Facebook posts generated more engagement than major news outlets, including NBC News, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. 

But who is responsible for all of the engagements with these types of stories? A study by Guess, Nagler, and Tucker aims to shed some light on it. To investigate this, they linked an online survey with behavioral data on respondents’ Facebook sharing history during the campaign. Posts that had external links were then cross-referenced against known fake news sites and publishers. They did find some evidence to argue that more conservative users, most being pro-Trump, were more likely to share this content (Guess., et al, 2019, p. 1). Their most notable finding was age, that “the oldest Americans, especially those over 65, were more likely to share fake news to their Facebook friends” (Guess., et al, 2019, p 1). People 65 and older share 7 times more articles than the youngest age group in the study did. 

Paz’s article argued that the people who were most likely to read and believe misinformation were those who were the most politically engaged. Additionally, it was the most educated people who had their own personal ideology and were “amenable to narratives that aligned with it” (Guess., et al.). This aligns with Klein's article which argued that the more media people consume, the more mistaken they are in their perceptions of members of the other party (Klein, 2020). People are becoming more wrapped up in their own beliefs and do not want their pre-existing beliefs challenged. 

So, how difficult is it for people to distinguish between real and fake news? According to Pennycook and Read, people are capable of discerning between the two, but most people are willing to share the content even if they would have been able to identify it as inaccurate (Pennycook & Read, 2021). However, it appears as though it is getting harder for some people to differentiate between real and fake. Some stories are so plausible that some news sites such as the AP have articles entitled ‘NOT REAL NEWS: A look at what didn’t happen this week’ to explain to readers which stories are fake. 

It’s not just readers who can fall victim to fake news but journalists too. A piece written by the Irish satirical newspaper, ‘Waterford Whispers’ entitled ‘Dozens Injured in Stampede after Second Checkout in Lidl Opens’ featured in the German newspaper, Focus under the headline ‘Unnerved customers cause mass panic in Lidl store’. They even argued that “this accident has again raised the pressure on Lidl to open more than one cash register during peak times in its stores”. (Freeman, 2015)

Therefore it is crucial for people to be able to determine the credibility of a source. Thanks to the internet, misinformation can spread rapidly with just the press of a button. However there are also various initiatives highlighted by Pennycook and Rand to help combat the spread of fake news, these included “automated detection of problematic news via machine learning, natural language processing, and network analysis” and “attaching warnings to content that professional fact-checkers have found to be false” (Pennycook & Read, 2021, p. 395). 

---

Freeman, M. (2015) Waterford whispers just fooled one of Germany’s biggest news magazines, TheJournal.ie. Available at: https://www.thejournal.ie/waterford-whisipers-focus-lidl-2098550-May2015/. 

Guess, A., Nagler, J. and Tucker, J. (2019) ‘Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook’, Science Advances, 5(1). 

Klein, E. (2020) Why the media is so polarized - and how it polarizes US, Vox. Available at: https://www.vox.com/2020/1/28/21077888/why-were-polarized-media-book-ezra-news.

Paz, C. (2022) Latino voters are being flooded with even more misinformation in 2022, Vox. Available at: https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/23329139/latino-voters-misinformation-2022. 

Pennycook, G. and Rand, D.G. (2020) The psychology of fake news. 

Silverman, C. (2016) This analysis shows how viral fake election news stories outperformed Real News on facebook, BuzzFeed News. Available at: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook#.bp90yKJ1W.