We Each Owe Ourselves the Truth
Part of what makes our society vibrant is our freedom to have disagreements about politics, ethics, spirituality, and meaning. But never in our history has a single debate been more consequential:
What is true and what is not?
Finding truth in modern public discourse is a struggle. We are most often at the mercy of proxies; we are rarely witness to the global events that shape our society, nor can we do our own follow-up investigation at the scene to prove that certain claims are true.
Instead, it is often in the interest of something else—our own feelings, for example, or simply a lack of time—that we take information at face value and even reiterate it, at times to audiences of thousands. Sometimes we get it right, but far too often we get it wrong.
It’s therefore up to each of us to first (1) choose the truth, then (2) seek the truth every day of our lives. While this sounds exhausting and isn’t always possible, the authors of this guide believe choosing and seeking the truth are much like any other good habits we develop as responsible adults. Much like obeying traffic laws and flossing, we get better with practice until these habits become routine.
The Purpose of This Guide
With this in mind, it’s not our goal to persuade you, the reader, one way or another concerning any particular subject, debate, or media entity. Our goal is to help you hone your skills as both a media consumer and a media participant, so you can better ascertain and share the truth yourself.
In this guide, you will learn:
A brief history of misinformation in Western culture
How to identify bias in others, the media, and yourself
How to identify fabricated content, deepfakes, and “fake news”
The steps you can take to get to the truth in any story
How we can each take responsibility for the truth in the future
It’s in these interests that we highlight several use cases and examples from the full spectrum of public discourse, including media entities of all political leanings. The truth, after all, does not “lean left” or “lean right,” nor does it obey one single person or party. The truth is not created or managed, but discovered.
We hope these tools will help you discover it.
Table of Contents
< Introduction: We Each Owe Ourselves the Truth
A Brief History of Truth in the United States >
Understanding Bias and Why Misinformation Prevails >
How to Identify Bias and Lies in the News and on Social Media >
How to Identify Fake News and Fabricated Content >
How to Avoid Spreading Misinformation >
A Brief History of Truth in the United States
“The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”
— Thomas Jefferson, 1807The United States has a long and well-documented history of misinformation. Still, history texts often describe a past that makes perfect sense to us, perhaps at the expense of our truly grasping how chaotic and fearful past events were for everyday people.
The media has played an outsized role in both the shaping and retelling of past and current events. It is the media’s role in shaping the truth that we wish to address with the following examples.
Misleading the Public with Good Intentions
The first and increasingly acknowledged example we’d like to share is the true history of Christopher Columbus. Long celebrated as the famous explorer who discovered America, Columbus was not a “good person” by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, his journals reveal him to be racist, genocidal, and self-interested. [1]
He single-handedly laid the groundwork for the slave trade to the Americas. And for those who defend him as a “man of his time,” it’s worth noting that he was ultimately deemed a failure, jailed, and stripped of all his titles and credibility during his lifetime. [2]
Christopher Columbus was not a stand-up guy. (Source: History.com)
In the United States, Columbus Day is among our country’s greatest ‘lies by omission’—we teach our children to celebrate the man for introducing Europeans to the New World, but ignore all the ugly truths associated with his beliefs and behavior.
The famous 1938 Orson Welles radio broadcast, which featured a fictional story about a real-time Martian invasion, is another favorite historical example of misinformation. At the time, radio was considered a high-tech source of news about real-world events. Welles’ fictional story was meant to be audio theater, but many believed the events were real, becoming convinced the country was under attack by creatures from outer space.
What is perhaps a humorous anecdote today was terrifying for some at the time. One need only look at the frightening uncertainties of the early-to-mid 21st century and the public confusion around those events to grasp how some listeners might have felt as they listened.
(Source: Slate.com)
Yet even those real events of confusion were hyperbolized. Some argue newspapers at the time exaggerated Americans’ fears and reactions to the broadcast in efforts to discredit radio as a legitimate news source. [3] American audiences are a rich tableau of different backgrounds, after all, and no single summation of a national event can capture the public’s full response, despite how interesting it becomes when we squeeze that summation into a single anecdote.
We find a much different but equally revealing example in the months preceding our formal entry into World War II (WWII). We often take for granted that the United States entered WWII to defend herself and her allies, when weeks before the bombing of Pearl Harbor there were plenty of well-intentioned Americans and media figures still opposed to entering the war at all.
(Source: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum)
It was the isolationist “America First Committee,” in fact, that leveraged the media preceding America’s entry into WWII to persuade the public against U.S. involvement, based on their general belief that Europeans needed to sort out their own problems and leave Americans out of it. [4] But harsh, undeniable realities tend to disrupt high-minded arguments. The bombing at Pearl Harbor thrust the U.S. into the conflict in both the Pacific and in Europe nonetheless.
Before Pearl Harbor, everyday Americans were working with only limited information due to the low bandwidth, one-directional nature of media at the time. The message of the isolationists didn’t offer the now-obvious counterargument, which went something like this: A conflict with Axis powers is inevitable; the only question is, will the conflict take place in Europe and the Pacific, or later, on U.S. shores?
In hindsight, this argument is clear—you would be hard-pressed to find a similarly well-intentioned American today who does not acknowledge our involvement in the War was the right move for our country.
Within public discourse about difficult situations—especially those situations that invoke fear in everyday Americans—the arguments put forth through media that simply seem “better” or “safer” hold substantial weight among groups who seem most at risk of being hurt. They can, in fact, shape our perceptions about the authenticity of those messages if they make us feel safer and more affirmed in our pre-determined beliefs—a psychological concept called confirmation bias, which we will discuss later.
In the case of WWII, that group consisted of American families for whom an “isolate and protect” approach was more palpable—even if it meant cold-shouldering and alienating our European allies, and ignoring the distinct possibility of future Axis attacks on U.S. soil.
Misleading the Public with Bad Intentions
Reflecting on the Welles and America First Committee examples paints a picture of good intentions gone awry, whether it was to entertain or to protect. We find similar good intentions in the positive media surrounding the War effort later, nudging public opinion towards the constant state of support we needed for the War effort to succeed.
However, there is a darker side to this acceptance of media as an appropriate means of persuasion rather than as strictly a tool to inform. Propaganda, which often consists of information or depictions that are misleading or outright false, was used among both the Axis and Allied forces to persuade their own people and dissuade their enemies in the names of their individual war efforts.
Italian Anti-American Propaganda (Source: Imagur.com)
American Anti-Japanese propaganda (Source: National Archives Log)
The use and success of propaganda are well documented, and its potential is not lost to arbiters of information today. Scholars often describe propaganda as something to which the public is “susceptible,” in much the same way one describes a drug. [5] Propaganda provides us with the shortcuts we need to affirm our beliefs—to rally around a single perceived truth and erase from our minds any uncertainty or fear about alternatives—if we choose to accept what propaganda offers.
You and the Modern Media
“It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
— Fabricated quote, falsely attributed to Aristotle by Lowell L. Bennion in 1989. [6]Media, by definition, is a neutral term that doesn’t “lean” in any direction—neither left nor right, up nor down. In theory, it is comprised merely of channels and delivery methods—figurative “tunnels” through which information flows from the observer of a fact or event to the recipient. Those delivery methods might be in print, radio, or digital; driven by nationally recognized news publications or, increasingly, opinionated individuals.
The problem, then, lies in all the stuff that happens to information between the fact or event and the recipient—and increasingly, between each recipient and that recipient’s collection of personal networks among whom they choose to share. The truth can be obfuscated by those that first deliver the information; misinterpreted or dismissed by those that receive it; misdelivered to, or misunderstood by, members of those individuals’ personal networks; or outright contradicted by other sources that might be more palpable to recipients.
Misinformation, propaganda, and even fake news have been prevalent throughout human history. But because the media landscape has only gotten faster and more complex, discerning what’s true, whom we should trust, and whom we should ignore or even proactively discredit has become more complicated than ever.
Are you equipped to handle it?
Although we deliberately misquoted Aristotle above, it’s in that approach of entertaining multiple ideas before honing in on the truth that we can find our strategy for moving forward as media consumers. And while we cannot necessarily persuade each other to believe one source or piece of information over another, we can each become better discerners and sharers of information ourselves.
Key Takeaways
A close look at history reveals that the routine omission of facts and contexts has created widely accepted misconceptions about past events.
Media of all types are inherently unbiased channels designed to inform consumers; unfortunately, they are often manipulated to persuade consumers instead.
Stopping the spread of misinformation starts with each of us taking responsibility for how we consume and share the information we learn through media.
Understanding Bias and Why Misinformation Prevails
“Bullshit is a consequential aspect of the human condition. Indeed, with the rise of communication technology, people are likely encountering more bullshit in their everyday lives than ever before.”
— Gordon Pennycook, et al. [7]In 2019, about eight-in-ten U.S. adults got news on their mobile devices either sometimes or often. [8] Mobile news channels with the highest traffic—Apple News and Flipboard—allow users to personalize the types of content they receive.
Similarly, many everyday Americans turn to only a select few news sources—not necessarily because they are more trustworthy, but because conflicting messages are so common that they are compelled to pick some sources over others. [9] There is even a correlation between which news sources you trust and what you believe. [10]
If we turn to only a few select sources every week for our news, we may be left with an imprint of the world that is tailored to our belief systems. We may not have a clear motivation to determine if what we’re seeing is true or false. We may not get the full picture—by someone else’s intent. We may fail to access reputable sources and consume information that challenges our beliefs in a healthy way.
In other words, the validation we feel when we see our opinions in print may prevent us from ascertaining the truth. This makes us more prone to misinformation, and misinformation causes harm.
How Misinformation Causes Harm
Misinformation can lead to deaths and violence. [11] It can sway public opinion. It can shape the outcomes of our elections. [12]
Here are some modern examples of how misinformation has prevailed, and the damage it has caused.
Misinformation About COVID-19
Scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that face masks help stop the spread of this coronavirus. [13] Science also shows that going without them can cause cases to surge. [14] Even so, face masks and rules about wearing them have become a flashpoint in the United States. False information has spread online that masks don’t stop the spread of the virus or that they can even cause harm to the wearer. [15]
This is in part because face masks have become a political issue. Some Americans view mask mandates as parts of a draconian hoax to keep them living in fear, an accusation predicated on those individuals’ own misjudgments about the real dangers of the pandemic. Others believe mask mandates are infringements on their personal freedoms.
While Americans do enjoy many freedoms, U.S. citizenship also comes with responsibilities. Arguably, many of those responsibilities apply in this situation. This includes our responsibility to “respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others” as is their argument; but it also includes our responsibility to “participate in your local community,” and to “defend the country if the need should arise.” [16]
Misinformation has led to countless deaths caused by this disease. But misinformation can also kill in more immediate ways as well. According to one August 2020 study of 87 countries published in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, roughly 800 people had died from drinking highly concentrated alcohol because they heard that it could protect or “disinfect” their bodies of COVID-19. [17] Meanwhile, 5,900 people were hospitalized after consuming methanol and 60 people went blind, also because of misinformation.
The Wayfair Child Trafficking Conspiracy Theory
Adherents to the conspiracy theory flooded human trafficking hotlines with calls in August 2020 because they thought the online furniture company Wayfair was engaged in a plot to traffic children through their website; a belief that is undeniably false. [18] This diverted critical resources from trafficking victims and whistleblowers who truly needed support. [19]
The conspiracy adherents even co-opted the hashtag #SaveTheChildren, which caused Facebook to block it temporarily.[20] This jeopardized awareness campaigns launched by Save the Children, a real humanitarian organization that helps children in need and also fights child trafficking. Now, the organization is worried that QAnon believers could undermine their bipartisan credibility.
It turned out that the Wayfair incident started because of an Arizona couple’s confusion about an overpriced cabinet on the website. [21] As the couple were social media influencers and self-described “red-pillers,” they were not only receptive to the idea of Wayfair taking part in a conspiracy, but also had their own well-established platform from which they could spread the lie.
Most of us believe we can tell truth from fiction. But misinformation prevails not only because of the delusions of a handful of individuals. It prevails, in part, because of the subconscious thought processes and cognitive biases we all possess, which are emboldened by consistent exposure to falsehoods like the examples above.
With practice, we each can recognize our own thought processes, disrupt them as necessary, and embrace a rational state of thinking. Unfortunately, one of the most difficult thought processes to identify—confirmation bias—is one of the primary drivers of the spread of misinformation.
We are All Guilty of Confirmation Bias
Confirmation bias is a human tendency to align ourselves with information that confirms our individual beliefs and preconceptions, often at the expense of grasping the truth. When something we don’t understand frightens us, for example, we are more likely to align ourselves with information that depicts a reality we find favorable or that offers a “solution” we consider achievable. (Ironically, the more we truly understand about uncomfortable realities, the more prepared and less afraid we become, especially as time goes on.)
Information distributors can take advantage of our biases by only publishing information that fits their own brand of reality. Too often, that brand of reality is aligned less with the truth than with a profit motive, often shaped by the biases of their audiences.
The larger the crises (real and perceived), the more pervasive and powerful the fear, and the more likely everyday people are to grab onto and share bad information that supports a false reality or “solution” to the perceived problem. In the worst cases, that “solution” means demonizing or even hurting people we perceive as a threat, without a truly valid reason for doing so.
TV pundits, radio hosts, and even otherwise legitimate journalists are frequently guilty of “playing off” the biases of their listeners, albeit to varying degrees. Even in the absence of outright lies, their generalizations about a certain political group, nationality, or race can solidify audiences’ existing beliefs about those groups at the expense of a more complete understanding of the individuals described.
When media figures describe all “liberals” or “conservatives” as being of a single mindset, for example, they are robbing their audiences of a more honest understanding of the diverse individuals who ascribe to those political mindsets, whether those media figures realize it or not. It’s therefore each of our responsibilities to question those descriptions in a healthy and informed way, even giving our perceived enemies the benefit of the doubt early on—as per the fake (but wise) Aristotle quote above.
Cognitive Dissonance and the Availability of Misinformation
When we fail to challenge our own bias, we begin aligning ourselves with only a single or a handful of preferred sources of “truth”—that is, a preferred brand of reality. We tend to stick with those sources, even if we may know ourselves those sources are questionable. Rather than questioning them, we may look for more sources that align with our biases instead.
Similarly, if those original sources appear to change their brand, we’re often inclined to find new sources that ascribe to our bias and their original, abandoned message. There is no more public example of this than Donald Trump’s embracing of One America News Network (OANN) over his longtime-favorite Fox News when he began to perceive Fox News’ coverage as unfavorable:
(Source: Twitter)
What had changed in this example? Had the reporting at Fox News become dramatically and objectively worse, forcing the President to abruptly abandon his favorite news source? Or did an unexpected message simply conflict with the President’s worldview, leaving a bad taste in his mouth?
His abrupt dismissal of a news media entity he had supported for years suggests his preference for Fox News was predicated on its alignment with his personal worldview, not the objective quality of its reporting.
By definition, cognitive dissonance is a “state of discomfort” where we’re unable to reconcile two different modes of thought. [22] We tend to reject the mode of thought that does not align with what we are most comfortable thinking and believing—even if that means rejecting the truth. The availability of conflicting news media, “alternative facts,” and misinformation means we can almost always find a new source to confirm our biases and relieve us of that cognitive dissonance, without the messiness of genuinely questioning our worldviews.
Before the internet, that irresponsible behavior might have caused only limited collateral damage to public discourse. That’s because our networks often consisted of only friends, family, and colleagues, with whom we each have varying, “earned” levels of influence. In this environment, there are perhaps more opportunities for truth to intervene and prevail, even in these limited circles.
The Internet, and most notably social media, have forever changed the information landscape. Thanks to these media, the thoughts and inclinations of any single person on any given day can literally span the globe in minutes. The validity of those claims and the trustworthiness of the individuals making them are often obscured by the anonymity the internet provides.
In these cases, we’re left with only our bias and internal thought processes to decide what to do with the information. This is especially problematic with regard to largescale conspiracy theories, which are, by nature, impossible to disprove.
We should acknowledge what is actually taking place here: a dramatic shift in who is responsible for the truth. Traditional and evolving news sources remain critical, but individuals are increasingly responsible for determining, confirming, and disseminating the truth themselves. And like any other true responsibility, taking this one seriously is critical to not only our wellbeing, but the wellbeing of our acquaintances, friends, loved ones, and future generations.
Favoring Contemporary Tribalism Over the Truth
It’s in our ignorance or outright denial of that new responsibility that much of the tribalism around ideas takes shape today. In a contemporary sense, “tribalism” can be defined as behavior or attitudes that are derived from strong loyalty to one’s social group, or the passionate, often blind allegiance to one’s partisan political group (i.e., liberals vs. conservatives, Republicans vs. Democrats, or even progressives vs. liberals).
It’s easier to justify our beliefs when we build a coalition of like-minded individuals around us, either online or in our daily lives. It’s easier for news organizations to achieve success by catering to those strong-minded coalitions. And, it’s easier for individuals, organizations, and even government officials to build an air of legitimacy around those beliefs as they are monetized and given a public platform, whether those beliefs are accurate or not.
More importantly, it is easier for outright liars—who know themselves to be liars—to take advantage of those groups and spread falsehoods. Naturally, many of the most egregious, popular lies in public discourse today are built around “hot-button” issues with some kind of perceived threat—vaccines, immigration, and even simple health precautions—where the rights and safety of everyday people are made to appear at greater risk than is true.
Although the problems here are enormous, what’s most critical is that each of us takes responsibility as an arbiter of the truth ourselves. The broader challenge then shifts from “silencing the liars” to “encouraging and empowering everyday people to choose and seek out the truth,” which represents a valid, more achievable goal.
Much like training ourselves to look both ways before crossing the street, it’s simply a matter of confirming its importance, then ensuring these good habits take hold.
Key Takeaways
Conflicting messages in the media are so common, we turn to some sources over others—a trend that encourages, facilitates, and even monetizes media bias.
Unlike facts, misinformation gains power and ubiquity not from its origins but from the entities that consume, spread, and profit from it, usually because of confirmation bias—our tendency to believe sources that validate our own beliefs.
Our individual cognitive biases are strongest when they stem from fear or anger. People who create and spread misinformation for personal gain use our fear, anger, and biases to their advantage.
The internet has caused a shift in who is responsible for the truth, where individuals are increasingly responsible for determining, confirming, and disseminating what’s real in public discourse.
How to Identify Bias and Lies in News and on Social Media
“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.”
— ConfuciusThe term “fake news” gets kicked around a lot these days. As a term, it is often weaponized against legitimate news; more rationally, it describes the type of perpetuated information we described in our section about tribalism above—that is, news stories that are actually fake.
Fake news stories are lies. Much like propaganda, they are fabrications meant to persuade audiences by stirring their emotions rather than informing them.
As a phenomenon of modern discourse, fake news is nothing new—it has simply intensified because of the Internet and, most notably, social media. We will discuss social media’s role shortly, but we will note here that social media has both good and bad qualities in its own right. Like other media, the ways in which we use it are what’s important.
In this section, we’re speaking specifically about the broad use of social media and other channels to perpetuate the bias that exists in all media.
Bias in Established Channels and Major Networks
Many of the most established media channels don’t necessarily deal in outright misinformation or fake news, but they do deal in bias. Bias is inherent in news reporting. It’s something we as Americans have grown to accept; and indeed, we all should expect it.
However, bias doesn’t always imply a news story isn’t true. Often, bias is revealed in what gets covered rather than how the topic is covered or how the topic is qualified (i.e., whether it is “good” or “bad.”) Here’s an example of bias from AllSides, an organization that identifies and tracks media bias:
(Source: Allsides.com)
Above, you can see a screenshot from The Epoch Times’ homepage at 1 p.m. EST on September 6, 2019. The marked news stories include a piece about the completion of a segment of President Trump’s border wall and a story about ICE arresting immigrants accused of human rights violations.
The Epoch Times is a U.S.-based newspaper that regularly publishes stories critical of China’s Communist Party. It also runs pieces promoting far-right politicians and has funded pro-Trump Facebook advertisements in the United States.
Now, compare this image to the homepage of ThinkProgress, a left-leaning progressive news site that shut down in 2019. The following screenshot was also snapped at 1 p.m. EST on September 6, 2019:
(Source: Allsides.com)
ThinkProgress frequently published stories on its homepage covering LGBTQ issues, as well as stories that are critical of the Trump Administration.
None of the stories in either of these outlets qualify as fake news, but the two websites conflict in terms of which news stories they highlight as most important that day. Both sites publish true articles they believe will be of interest to their readers. But in doing so, they’re often only telling parts of each story that align with the publications’ respective biases, and omitting those that do not.
We each have a responsibility to recognize this bias and understand that our favorite media outlets may provide only a limited perspective, often at the expense of information we might otherwise find valuable.
For those of us who want more nuanced information, we may consider accessing the same story from multiple media groups that lean differently. There is a simple way to do this—run a Google search upon reading a story for the topic at hand, and identify other publications covering that topic in the same timeframe. It may take a few minutes, but it can aid us in our personal understanding and help us decide whether or not to share. This activity becomes easier and faster as we begin to make it a habit as well.
Recognizing Rhetorical Appeals
Bias also exists within news stories themselves, shaped by tone, language, and rhetoric.
The term “rhetoric” is frequently used to describe the language of modern politicians. Often the term is used in a cynical way: “That’s just rhetoric!” implies their language is empty of meaning or represents a baseless attempt to persuade.
In truth, Rhetoric is a field of study that originated in Ancient Greece around 600 B.C., in the school of pre-Socratic philosophers known as Sophists. It was a discipline used to train those hoping to persuade and inform audiences, so it was often taught to scholars, philosophers, lawyers, and politicians.
You can take courses in the field of Rhetoric at universities today, but the modern version is a bit different from the ancient version. Modern Rhetoric examines how certain messages and modes of communication convey meaning and move audiences, and it’s often taught alongside Semiotics, a philosophical theory dealing with signs, symbols, and how language functions as a conveyor of meaning.
These are topics that can fill entire textbooks. We only want to draw your attention to one topic within Rhetoric: rhetorical appeals, also known as rhetorical strategies. Writers and speakers use rhetorical appeals to make their arguments more persuasive, and they do so by appealing to inherent characteristics within all members of their audiences, and themselves.
There are three types of rhetorical appeals. In the Greek, they are commonly known as Logos (an appeal to logic), Pathos (an appeal to emotions and values), and Ethos (an appeal based on one’s character or ethics).
Logos
Logos is a method of persuading an audience with logic and reason. It often relies on facts and figures like statistics to make a point. Much of the writing you’ll see here could be construed as Logos, as we regularly cite sources and rely on statistical studies to back up our claims.
For example, within the first paragraph of our chapter, “Understanding Bias and Why Misinformation Prevails,” we wrote the following: “In 2019, about eight-in-ten U.S. adults got news on their mobile devices either sometimes or often.”
Here, we’re using a figure from a study by the Pew Research Center to make the point that the ways in which people receive information have changed. We could have simply said, “most people receive their news on their smartphones these days,” but it may not have been as convincing. Without numbers to back up the claim, we would be guilty of generalizing rather than stating a provable fact.
For example, the following statement is true: “Most of the people who get killed by police each year in the U.S. are white.” [23] But it is misleading when used as a counterargument to complaints that the African-American community suffers more from police brutality than white people. Although most of the people who get killed by police are white, white people also make up a much larger segment of the population.
According to a study by Northeastern and Harvard Universities, Black people make up about 25% of the deaths in police killings but represent only 12% of the population. [24] Meanwhile, white people make up about 54% of the deaths in police killings but represent 62% of the population. As a result, Black people are killed by police at a much higher rate than white people.
Pathos
On July 7th, 2020, President Trump and the First Lady, Melania Trump, spoke at the White House about the prospect of opening America’s schools despite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. In her speech, the First Lady said, “When children are out of school, they are missing more than just time in the classroom. They’re missing the laughter of their friends, learning from their teachers, and the joy of recess and play.” [25]
Here, she’s making an emotional appeal to Americans based on our shared love of children. Anyone who has children in their lives is likely to identify with this statement. After all, it’s true: children miss out on opportunities for growth, socialization, and learning because they aren’t in the classroom, and they suffer emotionally when isolated from peers.
In a Guest Column in The Tennessean, Larisa R. G. DeSantis, an associate professor of Biological Sciences and Earth and Environmental Sciences at Vanderbilt University, said, “What is your number? How many children, teachers, and staff are you willing to let die a preventable death from COVID-19? When one child dies, is that okay? What about your child's teacher? How many parents of school-aged children? These questions are morbid, and my answer is simply zero.” [26]
Ethos
For example, Dr. Anthony Fauci is one of the most widely respected infectious disease experts in the world. In an appeal to young people to convince them to take precautions against the spread of COVID-19, he used his authority as a scientist and public official as a method of persuasion: “You have to have responsibility for yourself but also a societal responsibility that you’re getting infected is not just you in a vacuum. You’re propagating the pandemic.” He then went on to say, “I just want to do my job. I’m really good at it. I think I can contribute. And I’m going to keep doing it.” [27]
Dr. Fauci has been the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease since 1984. His research has led to treatments for HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and various other diseases. Because of these credentials, he is an authority on topics relating to infectious disease, and any statement he makes about them carries significance and value.
Ethos can be convincing with the right speaker, but it can also be overused or misused. If the persuader is not an expert and has no authority on a subject, or if they have overused their authority as a persuasive factor, Ethos can damage their argument.
Arguably, President Trump has overused Ethos in his speeches by repeatedly making claims without credible evidence, following them only with the statement, “believe me.”
(Source: YouTube)
Although no president is above criticism, each has a significant amount of authority because of his or her position. This authority comes in the form of what many refer to as “political capital,” which is a conceptualization of power accumulated through relationships, trust, goodwill, and influence.
Political capital can be overspent if a politician, pundit, or any other public-facing party relies on it too heavily to make claims or push their agenda. In theory, political capital must be replenished through maintaining consistent positions on policy and ideology, by following through with promises, and by committing acts of goodwill, among other proactive methods that yield ostensibly positive results.
Rhetorical Appeals and Misinformation
Plenty of legitimate news stories, speeches, and other types of information contain rhetorical appeals. Some of the greatest and most meaningful speeches in history, such as Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, contain moving rhetorical devices that strike at our very core as human beings and appeal to our better natures.
In 2008, Chicago experienced an increase in violent crime. On Fox News’ Your World, commentator Floyd Brown used news of killings in Chicago as a rhetorical device to attack Barrack Obama, comparing Chicago to the city of Baghdad, which was reeling from frequent terrorist attacks: "In Chicago, we saw six people killed and over 31 injured. People were stabbed. This is, you know, like Baghdad. And [Obama] was the state senator there, and he didn't do anything to clean it up, and I think it's a legitimate issue." [28]
Brown’s comparison of Chicago to Baghdad is a clear appeal to his audience’s fears and values, those of terrorism and patriotism, respectively. Brown implies that an American city has devolved into a state similar to that of a foreign city consumed by violent conflict, and that Barrack Obama is at fault because he failed to reign in the violence when he was serving as a senator of Illinois.
The clear failure here is Brown’s. It’s true that then-senator Obama was in many ways responsible for protecting the lives of his constituents. However, Brown fails his audience in that he does not address the responsibilities that all other public officials had to Chicago’s constituents at the time; nor does he address any measures Obama did take to address the problem, if any.
Brown does not directly address any of the root causes of the violence or the violent offenders themselves, either—a tenet of responsible journalism. He instead leverages Pathos alone—in this case, our shared horror of violence run amok in American cities—to attack a single elected official.
Punditry vs. Reporting
The word “pundit” originates from 17th-century India, where pundits were highly respected teachers and leaders. Indeed, one of the definitions of pundit is “a learned person or teacher.” [29]
In the U.S. today, punditry is a specific type of open expression that takes the form of spoken opinion via a public platform, usually through mass media. Pundits may speak authoritatively on a given subject, whether or not they are truly experts. Modern punditry is often sensationalized and opinionated, which contrasts with authentic reporting—the act of providing or relaying information.
In a way, punditry can be construed as a form of theater rather than news. In a courtroom deposition, the lawyer of far-right pundit Alex Jones had even insisted that Jones “plays a character” on his controversial show. [30]
Unfortunately, it can be difficult to tell the difference between reporting and punditry and to determine whether punditry is valuable, overly speculative, or even malicious and dishonest. Many news platforms mix their news broadcasting with their opinion broadcasting, and pundits generally comment on news stories. In other cases, an individual might realize they are viewing punditry but engage with it like a regular news story nonetheless.
There are popular pundits on both right-leaning and left-leaning news platforms. Fox News is perhaps the most recognizable news network for punditry, as it hosts several highly popular opinion shows in addition to its regular news broadcasting.
Some of the most popular right-wing pundits include:
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Laura Ingraham
Tucker Carlson
Alex Jones
Meanwhile, some of the most popular left-wing pundits include:
Rachel Maddow
Ed Schultz
Chris Matthews
Bill Maher
Keith Olbermann
Punditry can be valuable for some, but it is almost always inherently biased. People often criticize pundits because they effectively tell their audience what to believe and how to feel instead of presenting the audience with facts and allowing them to form their own thoughts, opinions, and feelings.
Personal Blogs
Personal blogs can be a reliable source of information, but not always. Blogs usually cover niche topics. They may serve as the writer’s public diary or they may serve as a platform for punditry. It is often difficult to tell if an author has any real credibility based on their personal blogs alone, unless they provide documentation of their credentials or they are a public figure.
For example, a scientist might maintain a personal blog to keep her colleagues and other interested parties updated about her research. This can help start meaningful dialogues about her research topic and foster collaboration. The blog may be a starting point for readers to transition to more professional channels, like scientific journals. The scientist may have established authority through other means as well, such as professional publications.
Likewise, a political figure might maintain a personal blog about their opinions and experiences. Businesses often maintain blogs as marketing tools and to show off their ideas. With the right information and supporting evidence, there is no reason to think these are bad sources of information.
Still, there is one thing you should keep in mind:
Anyone can create a blog.
There are generally no editorial guidelines for publishing a personal blog. Some blogging sites, like Medium, have a robust system of ratings and commentary that can help you understand specific posts in context, but others allow bloggers to post with no accountability. This enables them to present their blog as a site for legitimate information, even if it is not.
Some of the most popular conspiracy theory “news” sites are, in fact, blogs. They have no legitimate editorial process or standards, no partnerships, and little funding, so they have almost nothing to lose by posting false information.
For example, “The Daily Stormer,” an American neo-Nazi, white supremacist commentary site, is in fact the blog of Andrew Anglin. [31] Anglin’s blog has been kicked off multiple web hosting platforms, and the location of Anglin himself is unknown.
If you suspect you’re reading a personal blog, skim the rest of the website to determine if anything you’re reading seems off. Check if the blog links to trustworthy sources in its text and ensure it does not do so in a dishonest context. If this proves too difficult, you can also do a quick Google search to determine who publishes it and why. (Later in this guide, we will provide more specific suggestions for checking the validity of certain sources.)
Opinion
Many news sources also publish opinion pieces alongside their regular reporting. An opinion piece may be honest, but it is still categorized differently than reporting. Most major newspapers have “Opinion” or “Op-Ed” sections. Like punditry, opinion pieces are guaranteed to be at least somewhat biased; but also like punditry, they can be valuable in certain contexts.
On October 17, 2019, Scientific American published an opinion piece by Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., about the possible health risks of “wireless radiation” from 5G (fifth-generation cellular wireless). [32] The piece was entitled, “We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe.”
Later that same month, Scientific American published another opinion piece entitled “Don’t Fall Prey to Scaremongering About 5G,” this time by David Robert Grimes, Ph.D. It was a direct rebuttal to Moskowitz’s opinion piece. [33]
In neither case is Scientific American insinuating that one perspective is absolutely true. Instead, they are presenting the articles to produce meaningful discussions about the potential safety issues and benefits of 5G technology.
Joel M. Moskowitz is director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. David Robert Grimes is a cancer researcher, physicist, and prize-winning science writer who is a visiting researcher at the University of Oxford. Both are established scientists, so which one should we trust?
If you check other sources, you’ll find numerous, sometimes harsh rebuttals of Moskowitz’s opinion piece. Alex Berezow, Ph.D., a microbiologist, wrote, “Dr. Moskowitz disgraces the University of California-Berkeley in precisely the same way Dr. Oz and Mark Bittman disgrace Columbia University: They are charlatans who wrap themselves in the prestige of academia to peddle foolishness to anxious parents. He is a blight upon academia and a nuisance to public health.”
According to a report by Nature about a study by Professor Andrew Wood from the multi-institutional Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research (ACEBR), “Wood’s team have yet to see major red flags at, or below, the commonly accepted electromagnetic radiation limit in the current international standards that apply to mobile technologies.” [34]
Further study is certainly needed to determine if there are any long-term health effects from the electromagnetic radiation of wireless networks, which are still relatively new. But most studies indicate 5G poses little to no risk to human health. [35] Although 5G operates in the highest frequencies of the radio wave spectrum, it’s still lower on the electromagnetic spectrum than infrared and even visible light.
(Source: The New York Times)
However, the CDC says it does “not have the science to link health problems to cell phone use. Scientific studies are underway to determine whether cell phone use may cause health effects.” [36]
In short, Scientific American is a reliable news source for science information, but it also hosts opinion pieces. When it comes to 5G, there are dissenting opinions about its safety from a few fringe scientists, but the current evidence tells us it’s safe and further studies are needed to prove otherwise.
More to the point: The fact that prominent scientists are debating the subject suggests we should be skeptical of anyone who claims 5G is or is not a health hazard—especially if that person is a media pundit and not an established expert. But the consensus among most established experts is that 5G poses no real threat to human health, and it’s clear why this is the case.
Hyper-Partisan Media
They are present on both sides of the political spectrum, but far-right hyper-partisan outlets have become much more prevalent in recent years. Outlets like Natural News, David (Avocado) Wolfe, Infowars, and News Punch occasionally or regularly publish highly biased reports and false information (i.e., fake news). [37] They commonly mix conspiracy theories, hoaxes, and misinformation with real facts to give their content an air of legitimacy.
A discerning reader can often tell that a news outlet is hyper-partisan simply by reading the headlines, which will consist of harsh rhetoric, smears, opinions without fact, and noticeably outlandish claims. Many hyper-partisan media outlets and conspiracy websites are simply personal blogs. Or, they may be staffed by amateurs who lack ethics and editorial processes. Their stories may be sensationalized or based solely on conjecture and assumption. Fortunately, a simple Google search like “Is [source] reliable?” can provide some clarity on a media outlet’s legitimacy almost of immediately.
FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan, nonprofit fact-checking organization, has created a list of websites that have posted deceptive content, many of which are hyper-partisan. Known as the Misinformation Directory, this list isn’t exhaustive, but it can give you a good idea of which websites and content aggregators to avoid altogether.
Today, anyone can create a fake image using editing software, and “deepfakes”—fake videos or audio recordings that look and sound like they are real—are already raising serious concerns among security professionals. [38] (We will discuss deepfakes in a later section.) We can only prepare ourselves through a better understanding of fake news, misinformation, and fabricated content.
Internet Memes and Other User-Generated Content (UGC)
You might think of a “meme” as a funny image on the internet. More accurately, a meme is an idea, concept, or style that spreads through a culture from one person to another through imitation. Memes are often symbolic representations of a subject or theme, and they are often humorous.
Internet memes are memes presented as illustrations, images, video clips, and texts that are created by users, although they are sometimes created by companies, non-profit organizations, political campaigns, and other sources. As a type of user-generated content, internet memes can’t be construed as news, but they do often provide commentary on relevant news stories and other types of information.
Internet memes can be problematic in that they often dilute complex topics into a simple, sharable, and easily digestible format that doesn’t include evidence. They can be fun and entertaining, but they can also contain misinformation, bias, generalizations, and even racism or bigotry.
More importantly, memes don’t usually contain any context as to who created them or why; although experts are getting better at tracking their origins, their creators have virtually no accountability.
(Source: Facebook)
Above is a meme that makes several claims without evidence. It also makes several assumptions about the audience, such as their acceptance of the idea that Save the Children and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are involved in human trafficking. It is virtually impossible to trace the origins of this meme, so there’s no reason to assume it came from an authoritative source.
There is no evidence that either is funding or involved in human trafficking, but multiple conspiracy theories claim that Bill Gates and his foundation are both engaged in it and funding it. [39] This is false. Philanthropic organizations already face intense regulatory scrutiny over where their money comes from and how it is used. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation even posts its financial information online for everyone to see, and anyone, including the IRS and FBI, can scrutinize the accounts to determine if money is being used for nefarious purposes. [40]
Which News Sources Should You Trust?
Today’s information landscape is shrouded with rhetorical appeals, opinion, punditry, and bias. It can be difficult to know which sources to trust and where your favorite news sources stand. But most news sources can be positioned on a spectrum based on two categories: reliability (or reputation) and bias.
Naturally, determining both bias and reliability can be difficult given the number of news sources in the media. Lucky for us, Ad Fontes Media, a news rating company, created a handy, interactive Media Bias Chart®. The version used in this guide was released June 2020.
Thanks to the publisher’s thorough methodology, it’s a useful resource for determining where your favorite and other news sources fall on the spectrum of both right to left, reliable to unreliable [41]:
Experts also suggest wire services like The Associated Press and Reuters are some of the most unbiased news sources available as they provide only fact-based findings from direct sources. All types of news organizations across the globe republish or source their content from these two providers, among others, for their own stories.
Social Media as a News Source
There is an ongoing debate over whether social media is “good” or “bad.” [42] There is, however, no debate about how effectively information can spread on social media platforms. As such, social media can help groups of people organize, share big ideas, and disseminate important news stories. It’s so powerful that it can even help save lives during a crisis. [43]
But in recent years, the role of social media has grown and changed. Facebook was at first a platform for connecting college students online, but it’s now a primary news source for millions of people.
According to the Pew Research Center, more Americans now get their news from social media than from print media like newspapers, and a plurality of Americans aged 18 to 29 (36%) get their news primarily from social media. [44] More recently, studies by the Pew Research Center and the RAND Corporation (no relation) found that twice as many Americans are getting their news from social media since before the pandemic started. [44a]
This makes social media a powerful tool for staying informed, but also a dangerous tool for spreading misinformation. What some fail to understand is that, while social media users frequently share links to news content, social media platforms are not news sources themselves. Almost anyone can publish information on a social media platform, whether they are a legitimate news organization or an individual.
This is especially problematic during a crisis when misinformation abounds. The most prominent social media companies have promised to clamp down on misinformation on their platforms, but they have only been marginally successful. It’s also impractical for the public to rely on social media companies to faithfully police content on their platforms. [45]
Although social media companies have a responsibility and incentives to protect their users from misinformation, doing so is a huge and costly task. Remember, social media platforms are not public spaces; they are owned by private-sector companies that leverage their users’ behavior and attention for profit. They make most of their money by selling ads, not by combating misinformation. Arguably, fighting against misinformation is necessary for their survival; but it’s unlikely any will defeat this ongoing problem alone, even on their own platforms.
Information on Social Media is Dynamic, Interactive, and Driven by User Data
The important thing to recognize about social media is that the information you receive isn’t static. On platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and others, users actively participate in the sharing and telling of stories, thereby altering their context. Unless you’re receiving information directly from a reliable news source, what you see may not be the information as it was originally reported and published. As such, you must maintain a healthy level of skepticism about the veracity of any information you see on social media.
Through commentary and alteration, a straightforward news story containing facts and statistics can be transformed into a type of user-generated content shared for a specific purpose. If you see a meme that references a news story, you might assume the claims within the meme are accurate. But keep in mind that everyone interprets information through the spectrum of their own biases. A meme that references a news story may contain false contextual information, hearsay, conjecture, and other biased elements that alter or obscure the original information.
Much like mobile news apps, social media algorithms also tend to serve us information and content that already align with our beliefs and interests. Every time a user “likes” a page, comments on a post, or otherwise expresses interest in a group, product, company, or topic, that person sends a signal to the algorithms that drive the social media platform in question. These data are then automatically analyzed to determine which posts and ads that user is most likely to engage with—those posts and ads are subsequently “pushed” to the user automatically as well.
In this way, social media platforms can provide companies with high-speed, highly targeted advertising campaigns—in theory, they allow advertisers to engage only users who might be interested in their associated products, services, or causes. But this is also how social media platforms create the so-called “echo chambers” that continually re-affirm their users’ biases rather than challenge them, often at the expense of their really grasping the truth.
Should You Stay on Social Media?
Many social media users also find that engaging on the platforms tends to make them angry, upset, or frustrated. Although it is a “recent and insufficiently investigated phenomenon,” as one study puts it, some believe social media is addictive. [46] Some find their use of social media is problematic as it seems to interfere with their their personal relationships, their daily lives, and even their mental health.
These experiences have caused many to question the overall value of social media, and some users have decided to abandon the medium altogether. This can be a difficult personal choice. There are advantages to social media, such as the ability to stay in touch with loved ones, the ability to organize, and the ability to share important information. But there are broad risks as well, many of which we have highlighted above.
If you decide to remain on social media, you should stay conscious of the prevalence of misinformation on the most popular platforms. You should also take steps to avoid spreading misinformation, so you don’t contribute to the problem.
Key Takeaways
We each have a responsibility to recognize media bias and acknowledge that each media outlet provides only a limited perspective, often at the expense of information we might otherwise find valuable.
After reading a news story on a controversial topic, run a quick Google search for the topic and see how other media outlets are covering it differently. You may learn something new about the topic and improve your ability to recognize bias.
Acknowledging which type of rhetorical appeal is at play in media content—Logos, Pathos, or Ethos—helps us better understand the intentions of the person or entity distributing information.
In American media, reporting is based on facts, sources, and causality; punditry is based on opinion, observational commentary, and speculation. It’s difficult—but critical—that we recognize the difference.
Hyper-partisan media outlets are almost always unreliable. You can recognize them quickly by reading their headlines, which will consist of harsh rhetoric, smears, opinions without fact, and noticeably outlandish claims.
Bookmark these two sources: FactCheck.org and Ad Fontes Media’s Media Bias Chart®. They can help you quickly determine if a news story, claim, or publication is reliable or not.
None of today’s social media platforms is a legitimate news publication. Most of the content on social media is created by users we don’t know. Users may share legitimate news content on social media, but its presence on social media alone does not mean the content is trustworthy. Social media companies may push personalized ads and content to us that are not reliable, either. More often, that content simply confirms our existing biases.
How to Identify Fake News and Fabricated Content
“The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.”
— Garry Kasparov
First Draft, a project founded in 2015 to fight misinformation, identifies 7 types of misinformation and disinformation, each of which can be considered fake news. [47] These are satire and parody, misleading content, manipulated content, imposter content, fabricated content, false connections, and false contexts.
Because there is some overlap between these types of misinformation, we’re going to focus exclusively on 5 of them:
Satire and Parody—Humorous content that could be confused as real news.
Misleading Content—Facts used misleadingly to frame an issue, event, or individual.
Manipulated Content—Genuine information or imagery that has been altered to deceive.
Imposter Content—When genuine news sources are impersonated to spread misinformation.
Fabricated Content—News content that is 100% false and designed to deceive.
Satire and Parody
Satire and parody are types of humorous content that mimic real news stories. They are technically “fake news,” but there is usually no ill intent behind them; rather, they are artistic expressions. Most of the publishers that deal in satire and parody deal in them exclusively, so you can always expect their news stories to be fake. They do not claim to be anything other than satire or parody, either, and often go out of their way to identify themselves as such so as not to deceive.
Two of the most widely shared satire outlets are perhaps The Borowitz Report (from The New Yorker) and The Onion.
(Source: The Onion)
Most satire is easy to spot, but that doesn’t stop some people from believing satirical stories are true. This is a common problem for Andy Borowitz of The Borowitz Report, as his column is attached to The New Yorker, which is a legitimate news source.
If a story you’re reading seems too ridiculous to be real, it could be satire. Satirical news stories may contain bizarre “quotes” from “experts” or “eyewitnesses,” or they may make outlandish assumptions about what’s true in the world. Much like other art forms, satire and parody have an underlying objective of making an indirect statement about a real issue, person, or event; but the statement is meant to be symbolic, as in the example above.
Misleading Content
Misleading content contains real information, but it is often put in an inaccurate context to reframe an issue, event, individual, or story.
(Source: Wired)
While it’s true that the U.S. government worked against the Black Panther Party in the 1960s, membership in the group also declined due to internal tensions, “deadly encounters with law enforcement” (according to History.com), and ultimately the embezzlement charges against Huey Newton, who disbanded the Party after being indicted. [48] Newton eventually pleaded “no contest” in 1989 for the embezzlement of state aid intended for the Oakland Community School. [49] The original Black Panther Party had roughly 2,000 members at its peak in 1968.
The meme also omits the many government actions taken against the Ku Klux Klan, especially actions taken by the FBI. [50]
According to the Anti-Defamation League, the KKK currently has approximately 3,000 members [51]—that’s compared to between 2 million and 5 million members in 1925. [52]
At face value, there is certainly validity to the concerns raised by this meme—the U.S. government should take right-wing extremism more seriously, especially considering its troubling resurgence. [53] But the claim implies the U.S. government has simply “let the KKK off the hook” in a historical context, which is ultimately misleading.
Manipulated Content
For example, Fox News received public criticism from media watchdogs after sharing digitally altered images in their 2020 coverage of protests in Seattle. [54] In one instance, they cut out a picture of a man armed with an assault rifle and pasted it over several other images to make it appear as if there were armed protesters across the city.
(Source: Seattle Times)
Similarly, Fox News misused an Associated Press photo of a burning building from St. Louis, claiming it was a photo taken in Seattle to make it appear as if the violence was more widespread and destructive:
(Source: Seattle Times)
But the claims that armed gangsters were “shaking down” businesses turned out to be false. [55] Most of the destruction that occurred in Seattle during this period occurred over a few days in late May and early June 2020. [56] The so-called “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone,” or CHAZ (later renamed the “Capitol Hill Organized Protest,” or CHOP), created a largely police-free zone, the nature of which may have contributed to a spike in crime rates and even homicides. [57]
However, the claim that it was a conflagration was misleading. Often, it looked like this:
(Source: Seattle Times)
Fox News later apologized for the misleading content.
Manipulated content can be difficult to distinguish at first. It’s effective because most audiences won’t have the time to analyze images and text in the news to confirm they have been manipulated. This inevitably leads to misunderstandings about events that can only be proven false after a story is published and disseminated.
Imposter Content
Many fake news websites attempt to mimic real news sites to trick people into believing their stories. This is what’s known as “imposter content.” Thankfully, there are a few red flags that can give imposter articles and websites away.
In the example from 2016 below, “ABC News” appears to report that President Obama has signed an executive order banning the pledge of allegiance in schools:
Source (Times of San Diego)
The first red flag is obvious. It’s the logo, which has a different font than it should. The real ABC News logo looks like this:
If you think a website looks suspicious, check the site’s “About Us” page or their disclaimer. Every news site lists this information, so if it’s unclear or missing, you probably aren’t looking at a legitimate website. (The fake news website above gave the address of the Westboro Baptist Church—a known hate group—as its physical business address). [58]
If you could look at the URL for this website, you’d see that the domain is “ABCNews.com.co.” If the “.com.co” suffix isn’t a dead giveaway, you’ll need to know a few things about URLs (uniform resource locators, or web addresses) to know why this is probably fraudulent.
Most legitimate news sites will have a “.com” domain. “.co” websites are at least relatively common, but they are much less common and cheaper to purchase than a “.com” domain, as many of the best “.com” domains were taken in the “.com boom” of the 1990s.
Major news organizations almost always have “.com” web address. On the other hand, anyone can spin up a “.co” website on a cheap blogging platform with a few dollars and a little bit of knowhow. If they can trick people into thinking they are a legitimate news site, they can easily spread misinformation.
Keep an eye out for websites that claim to be American news outlets but are located outside of the United States. Many websites outside of the U.S. have country codes like “.ru” (Russia), “.si” (Slovenia), “.bd” (Bangladesh), and so on. If you need to dig further, you can also search for a website’s hosting provider to determine if the website is hosted in another country. Free tools like this one enable you to determine where a website is hosted simply by inputting the URL.
Finally, free websites, which can be spun up quickly, may still have the name of the website platform within them. If you see a “news” site that has the name of the platform (e.g., “.wordpress.com”) in its URL, it’s probably a personal blog or an imposter site, and therefore not a legitimate news source. Real news publications will pay to remove these branded texts, even if they are using the website platforms those texts represent (e.g., WordPress).
Fabricated Content
Fabricated content is false information that is deliberately designed to deceive or push an agenda. It may be presented authoritatively and under the pretense that it is real, or it may be backed up with erroneous sources to give the appearance of a legitimate report or statement.
(A piece of fabricated content. Source: 30secondes.org)
Some online trolls create fabricated content simply to cause tension and chaos, which they do out of hate or amusement. Some create fabricated content to convince others to believe in conspiracy theories. Some have a profit motive. Meanwhile, some groups use fabricated content to sabotage political processes, as Russia did during the 2016 U.S. election.
Fabricated content can come in the form of complete news articles, images, social media posts, and even fake videos. It’s becoming easier and easier to create fabricated content thanks to the availability of digital tools. It’s also becoming more difficult for audiences to distinguish between fabricated content and true information, especially when fabricated content is carefully made to look legitimate.
Technology-Enhanced Fabrication and “Deepfakes”
One of the most concerning types of fabricated content is the “deepfake.” A deepfake is a video that contains fabricated images and audio which makes a person appear to say or do something they did not. They are created using deep-learning artificial intelligence algorithms—hence the name—which mimic patterns of speech and movement in video inputs.
This enables the user to create a new, manipulated, computer-generated video using the original likeness of the source. In essence, a deepfake allows the creator to visibly, audibly, and convincingly put words in someone else’s mouth.
Although deepfakes have yet to be used at scale to effectively deceive the broader public, the AI technology that enables them is becoming more advanced and accessible. The following video by Bloomberg provides a comprehensive analysis of deepfakes, as well as several examples.
(Source: YouTube)
Private companies and security agencies are actively working on solutions to detect and identify deepfakes. In the meantime, it helps to be aware of their existence so we can all scrutinize the videos we see online more closely.
Deconstructing “Plandemic”
Perhaps one of the best and most recent examples of misleading, manipulated, and fabricated content is the viral conspiracy video, “Plandemic.”
In May of 2020, the 26-minute conspiracy video surfaced on YouTube and Facebook. It was shared so widely and rapidly that the platforms had a difficult time removing it, and it reached almost 2.5 million interactions on Facebook in less than two weeks.
(Source: The New York Times)
Judy Mikovits
In truth, Mikovits’s 2009 research paper was retracted from the journal Science because its findings couldn’t be replicated in other labs—a standard to which all medical and scientific research is subjected. [59] Researchers determined that the study’s conclusions were inaccurate because lab samples were contaminated during the study.
Not only are retractions exceedingly rare in the scientific community—only about four in every 10,000 scientific papers are retracted—but it can be a career-ending occurrence, especially if a researcher was found to have acted incompetently or deceitfully. [60]
Mikovits was terminated from her position at the Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI) in Reno, Nevada, and absconded with some lab equipment and data that didn’t belong to her. [61] She was later arrested and jailed for doing so. [62]
None of this is disclosed in the Plandemic video. Instead, Mikovits paints herself as a martyr for truth, maintaining that the scientific establishment conspired against her to sully her research. She even claims she was confronted at her home and arrested, when in fact she turned herself into police. [63]
Other Contributors
The video also depicts a chiropractor telling viewers to “drink tonic water” to fight the virus, as well as two doctors from Bakersfield California downplaying the severity of the outbreak.
Chiropractors are not medical doctors. Unlike medical doctors, chiropractors provide hands-on, alternative spinal treatments that studies indicate can reduce pain but also originate from holistic medicine.
The two doctors depicted in the video are emergency care physicians, but they are not epidemiologists or infectious disease experts. They own a string of urgent care clinics—a type of private business you might find in your local strip mall—and their statements have been widely condemned by health experts. [64]
The Claims in Plandemic
However, the creators of Plandemic attempt to exploit this tendency of ours using Mikovits’ and the other characters’ stories; then—through Pathos—they attempt to capitalize on our trust and convince us that several widely disproven conspiracy theories are true. [65]
There is no evidence that Fauci will profit from any of the 70 current COVID-19 vaccines in development at the time of this writing. [66] It is unclear what “fraud” Mikovits is referring to.
Fauci did help develop patented treatments to fight AIDS, for which he originally refused royalties. [67] He was then told he legally had to accept royalties, so he stated he would give the money to charity. The royalties received since 1997 for the AIDS treatment was $45,072.82—a substantial sum, but not even a year’s salary for someone in Fauci’s position. [68]
Anecdotally, some conspiracy theorists believe Gates wants to outfit everyone in the world with a tracking microchip by implanting it through a syringe. [69] Some even believe Bill Gates engineered the pandemic. [70]
In truth, Gates has pledged $125 million to help find a COVID-19 vaccine. [71] Gates is also a proponent of improving access to vaccines in developing countries and his foundation supports the fight against malaria to the tune of $323 million annually. [72]
He mentioned “digital certificates” on March 18th, 2020 when speaking about how we could determine who has recovered from COVID-19 or who has received testing. [73] This statement was misinterpreted by conspiracy theorists.
The original Plandemic video was produced by a filmmaker named Mikki Willis, who said the film cost him less than $2,000. [74] The video looks like a professional documentary complete with interviews, brooding music, and B-roll footage. But like any effective conspiracy theory, Plandemic tries to bolster its fallacious premise with a mixture of half-truths and outright falsehoods.
Why Was Plandemic Made in the First Place?
The reason this documentary was made in the first place is anyone’s guess, but a few things are clear.
First, everyone in the film has something to gain financially from people believing the COVID-19 pandemic was planned, was falsified, or is not as serious as the public has been led to believe. Already, Judy Mikovits, the disgraced microbiologist, has seen a significant windfall.
Since the video was released, Mikovits’ book, Plague of Corruption, became the #1 seller on Amazon’s print best-seller list. According to the publisher, Skyhorse Publishing, the book now has over 100,000 copies in print, but that number is likely higher today. Mikovits has a previous book, entitled Plague, which has also become a best seller on Amazon.
Finally, the documentary also plays into multiple “deep state” conspiracy theories that work to portray the Trump Administration as a heroic defender of liberty, assailed on all fronts by the remnants of previous administrations. Right-wing groups, and even some right-wing news outlets, have endorsed these conspiracy theories because they cater to their audiences and demonize others; its within this context that they paint genuine efforts to combat the virus as parts of a plot to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency. [75]
Why Was Plandemic So Dangerous?
It can also be difficult for audiences to tell the difference between legitimate information and misinformation on social media, especially when misinformation has been cloaked in a recognizable format like that of a documentary. The creators of Plandemic seek to exploit this widespread problem: In one PBS survey of Americans, 59% of respondents said it was difficult to identify false information on social media. Only 37% said it was easy to identify it. [76]
(Source: PBS)
In years past, a video like Plandemic would have been almost impossible for someone to make without a film crew, a studio, and access to high-end recording equipment.
Now, almost anyone can create such a video if they have the right skills, store-bought equipment, and a few thousand dollars to invest. They can then infuse their video with any message they want, making half-truths and outright lies seem like legitimate evidence.
These facts are frightening. Dishonest people can and will create more videos like Plandemic and upload them to YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. But these nefarious efforts will fail if we’re each able to recognize these fabrications for what they are. To be responsible consumers of media, we must pay critical attention to viral videos, especially those that are created by sources we don’t recognize.
With this in mind, our next section will guide you through some steps you can take to avoid spreading misinformation on social media and beyond yourself.
Key Takeaways
Misleading, manipulated, and fabricated content are the most common and widely spread forms of misinformation because they have a specter of authenticity. Some simple inspection of a URL, an ‘About Us’ page, or resources like FactCheck.org can help you identify this type of content.
Deepfakes are shocking and damaging when we spread them. Fortunately, a single, responsible individual can detect them with relative ease. If a video seems too good (or too bad) to be true, investigate. [77] If it is a deepfake, a responsible party may have already discredited it.
Some works of misinformation are so comprehensive they feature multiple types of misinformation—misleading content, manipulated content, and fabricated content—as is the case with Plandemic. Researching the parties responsible for the content can help you confirm whether or not the content is trustworthy.
How to Avoid Spreading Misinformation
“During the flames of controversy, opinions, mass disputes, conflict, and world news, sometimes the most precious, refreshing, peaceful words to hear amidst all the chaos are simply and humbly, ‘I don’t know.’”
— Criss Jami, Killosophy
The authors believe the most effective and realistic way to combat misinformation is for each of us to educate ourselves so we can recognize it and refrain from spreading it individually. Here are a few things you can do to identify misinformation before you disseminate it.
Recognize Your Confirmation Bias
Much of Plandemic’s success is attributable to confirmation bias. As we discussed, this is our tendency to search for information that confirms what we already believe. It’s especially important we recognize that confirmation bias occurs subconsciously while we’re making decisions. To combat it, we need to disrupt our decision-making so we can get a clearer understanding of the information in front of us.
Confirmation bias plays a role in both the creation of misinformation as well as its spread. Sometimes, conspiracy theorists may search for “clues” that appear to confirm what they believe, then create content piecing those “clues” together (i.e. “connecting the dots”) to fabricate a compelling argument.
In other cases, misinformation is published to boost an agenda with the knowledge that is it is false, but with the assumption that those who read it will spread it because of their own confirmation bias.
We each have our biases. Sharing an article, video, or image that supports something we believe is a constant temptation, and it’s easy. Although search engines can become tools for confirming bias or falsehoods, as we’ve described, they have also made confirmation bias even more pervasive. If you search for the right terms, you can find a page on the web that will appear to confirm almost anything you want to believe.
For example, if a “Flat Earther” argues with someone he doesn’t know on social media and that person won’t acknowledge the Flat Earther’s rationale, all the Flat Earther needs to do to confirm his belief is search for the term, “evidence that the earth is flat” on Google. The Flat Earther will need to scroll through and ignore all the first-page, legitimate sources discrediting his argument, but he will eventually find something that (incorrectly) confirms it.
Don’t be like the Flat Earther. If you do find an article that confirms something you want to be true, you can do the following to combat your own confirmation bias (even if your belief proves legitimate):
Don’t jump to conclusions.
Take time to read and/or consider the veracity of the information.
Check for language that suggests opinion or speculation.
Seek conflicting information from other sources.
Discuss the information with someone else.
A good rule of thumb is this: if you see something online or in the news and it gets your blood pumping—through anger, righteous fury, or an “I told you so” mentality—it’s probably bias, and might even be misinformation. Go through the steps above and you’ll have a better idea of whether the coverage is fair, or whether the story is even true.
If something sounds too good or bad to be true, you can also check fact-checking sites like the following to make sure it’s not a hoax:
And if you don’t have time to do a deep analysis of the information you’re looking at (who does?), do a quick Google search to see if there are conflicting sources of information. You can even send the content to a trusted, different-minded friend or family member and ask for their perspective.
Acknowledging these emotional reactions within ourselves and taking cautionary steps of this kind make us better media participants. We are less likely to engage in nefarious behavior ourselves, also, such as “cherry-picking” facts that support our beliefs while omitting facts that do not.
Don’t Just Read the Headline
“You didn’t even read the article, did you?”
A study of people’s interactions with their Facebook News Feed indicates that people who only skim headlines and article previews are overconfident in how much they understand about news stories. [78] One study from Columbia University revealed that 60% of the URLs shared on social media weren’t clicked before they were shared. [79]
In one (accidental) experiment, a writer created a news headline, but no story was attached to it. Over 2,000 people commented about the “article” and thousands shared it. [80]
To combat the spread of misinformation, you must determine if what you’re reading, hearing, and seeing is misinformation to begin with. That means going beyond the headline. To understand the gist of an article on a time crunch, try reading strategically; but if you plan to share the content, you should read the whole thing.
How can we read strategically? Most news stories will lead with the most important information: Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? Often, this is where people leave off. This is a mistake. This only roughly applies to all news stories, but journalists often rely on what’s known as the “inverted pyramid”:
(Source: The Ohio State University Pressbooks)
As you can see, articles often do not delve into more detailed information until “The Body.” This is usually where you’ll find the real story that’s associated with the headline and where you’ll encounter evidence, background information, quotes from authoritative sources, and the human connection—what makes the story significant to the people involved and why it is important in the greater context of society. You might also find conflicting arguments that add important context to the story. That’s why, arguably, “The Body” is the most important part of the article.
The end of the article might contain extra or background information that’s relevant to the story or that provides more context. Generally, you should try to at least get through the body of a story before you assume you understand it. This way, you’ll be exposed to the evidence and, more importantly, to what makes the story important.
Check the Source
Much of modern discourse involves scenarios like this: A viral Twitter post misinterprets an article, which had generalized the findings of a survey, whose findings are not statistically meaningful. In these cases, there are several layers of mistakes or even malicious behavior of which we need to be aware.
Fortunately, a lot can be done in a short amount of time to realize these missteps. When reading someone’s social media content in which they share an article, first acknowledge that you are reading a single person’s opinion, not the news content itself. Then, check the original story before interpreting it or sharing it. This usually requires that you click on the link the person shared and view the article in your web browser.
In most cases, the article will have quotes and evidence from legitimate sources. If it brings you to a personal blog, another social media platform, or anything else that isn’t an actual news site, you may need to keep digging by clicking links that (hopefully) appear in the article.
If the claims in the social media post don’t align with the article, or if either the social media post or the article makes claims that (perhaps) get your blood pumping but cannot be validated, the claims in the social media post are probably untrustworthy.
This is why social media platforms are such a poor source for news. If you don’t have time to keep digging into questionable content, you’re better off moving on to a different piece of content on the same subject, starting with a legitimate news source.
Meanwhile, we should only attribute content on social media to the person posting the content, even if the person makes claims about legitimate news. This applies even if the person in question is an expert, whom we are (rightly) inclined to trust.
Dr. Anthony Fauci earned a medical degree from Cornell University Medical College, has received 30 honorary doctorates from universities around the world, has published or helped publish thousands of medical papers, has received numerous awards, and is one of the most respected infectious disease experts in the world. It’s fair to say he is a good source of medical and scientific information, even if he shares that information in a social media post.
Even so, what Dr. Fauci posts on social media comes from him personally, and no one else. In this way, social media content is a starting point for further exploration, whether the social media post in question is accurate or not.
Check Other Sources
According to NBC News, “They said they came with shotguns, rifles, and pistols to protect their downtown businesses from outsiders. They had heard that antifa, paid by billionaire philanthropist George Soros, were being bused in from neighboring cities, hellbent on razing their idyllic town.” [81]
While the original protesters chanted “George Floyd,” the group of people across the street chanted things like “USA” and “go home,” according to NBC’s report.
Antifa never showed up.
If you aren’t familiar with antifa, it stands for “anti-fascist.” It refers to a loose ideology that has its roots in World War II Europe and centers around combating fascism “by any means necessary,” which sometimes means violence. As a concept, antifa began when people in Germany and elsewhere started standing up to the Nazi Party.
There’s also little reason to believe antifa is in any way funded by Hungarian-American billionaire investor and philanthropist George Soros, though some (incorrectly) claim this to be the case. [82]
Anti-fascists usually protest what they perceive as fascism, racism, sexism, and bias within public institutions and government. They sometimes get into street brawls with police, white nationalist groups, and neo-Nazis, and they have caused property destruction in some cities.
(Source: Lipstick Alley)
This tweet wasn’t created by an anti-fascist group. It was created by a white supremacist group known as “Identity Evropa” (which has since rebranded itself as “The American Identity Movement”). [83] Their intent may have been to incite violence at protests and further damage the movement for racial justice and police reform. However, they may have also viewed this tweet as parody, evident by the misspellings and the “IE” (for Identity Evropa) visible in the flag image on the top left.
However, one confrontation between protestors and a militia led to a shooting in Albuquerque. [84] In recent history, many instances of violence and murder have been linked to far-right militia groups, including the murder of police officers. [85]
Some media outlets have linked other instances of violence to “Antifa,” although there is no clear evidence of a sustained or unified “Antifa” movement posing a national threat. [86] Eventually, many media outlets began to use “Antifa” to describe almost anyone in attendance at racial justice and police brutality protests.
Barring that, a Google search would have revealed at least some information countering the rumor. After May 31st, several media outlets released stories about why the supposed threat of antifa was both overblown and inaccurate. [87]
Instead, the rumor spread quickly and easily, most likely because of confirmation bias. Adherents to militia movements of this kind spend much of their time engaged in training to fight against a government crackdown or a leftist coup d’état, some have been doing so for decades. The arrival of such a conflict may have seemed inevitable to these parties, so they were less likely to question it.
Few of us adhere to these particular ideologies, but we all have confirmation bias. If you see information online that feels off base, phony, or too good (or bad) to be true, check other sources before sharing it. Don’t assume someone’s personal statement on social media is accurate unless they also post evidence from reliable sources to back up their claims.
It’s easy to manufacture fake content and put it online. It’s much harder to prevent the damage caused by that content once it’s been spread across social media.
Think Before You Share
When we have successful social interactions, such as when we identify with what someone else is saying, our brains get a shot of dopamine. [88] From an evolutionary standpoint, this chemical is produced to motivate certain types of behavior that help with survival and reproduction. That’s why you get a dopamine reward when you eat, socialize, or have sex.
Unfortunately, digital media has a way of manipulating our brains to trigger dopamine, too. Chamath Palihapitiya, former Vice President of User Growth at Facebook, believes these “short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we have created are destroying how society works.”
(Source: YouTube)
When we see content on our phones and laptops that we identify with, our instinct is to share that content with others. Misinformation and its creators take advantage of this instinct by manipulating our emotions and encouraging us to share.
Furthermore, many people live for the “gotcha” moment online—that is, they want to win arguments. If they see content that paints a politician they don’t like in a bad light, they share it. If they see content that affronts their value system, they share it with others who share their value system and who will join them in their distaste.
Just as we must think before we share, another good way to combat misinformation is to recognize when a piece of content is triggering our dopamine. When you’re about to share, ask yourself some simple questions:
What is motivating me to share—my feelings, or my desire to inform?
Do I truly trust the content I am about to share?
Who published this content, and what was their motivation for doing so?
What would the people I trust, but often don’t agree with, say about this content?
Is sharing this content self-serving, or will it do good for others?
Key Takeaways
Think Before You Share. It’s the authors’ belief that the best way to stop the spread of misinformation is for each of us to educate ourselves so we can recognize it and refrain from spreading it individually. Be aware that misinformation takes advantage of your biological processes to fulfill its creators’ motives.
We can each learn to disrupt our decision making, investigate content, and recognize our own biases before spreading or sharing information—much as we each learn to look both ways before crossing a street.
We can take simple, rational steps to combat our own confirmation bias, such as refraining from jumping to conclusions; avoiding acts of anger; and talking about our thoughts, feelings, and beliefs with others.
When dealing with news content, don’t just read the headline or trust others’ assessment of the content. Read or view the content and be your own judge. If you want to get the gist, read strategically (see above); if you plan to share, read the whole thing.
Taking these steps may not give us a dopamine rush, but it gives us some satisfaction knowing we’re being responsible arbiters of information in modern media. And that’s a much greater satisfaction—and service to our friends and loved ones—in the long term.
Securing a Future for Truth
“Misinformation is not like a plumbing problem you fix. It is a social condition, like crime, that you must constantly monitor and adjust to.”
— Tom Rosenstiel, Director of the American Press Institute and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution
The rapid spread of misinformation is an enormous contemporary problem. There are unavoidable differences among us that misinformation seeks to exploit. Still, humans all have an innate desire to live safely, to live happily, and to discover and share the truth. The authors believe it is those innate traits, combined with good habits, that will cripple bad actors and usher in a new, healthier age of modern media for our children.
Imagine what it was like when the mass-produced automobile was introduced to Americans at the turn of the century. Our modern understanding of traffic safety, now ubiquitous, was virtually non-existent. Unsurprisingly, traffic fatalities soared. [89]
Today, understanding the many risks of automobile travel and the good habits that protect us are second nature for most Americans. This is despite the fact that, much like modern media, automobile travel and the national infrastructure that supports it are highly complex.
It is out of individual responsibility that we embrace these good habits, and yet abiding by them keeps us collectively safe. It is our understanding that our children must learn them that keeps them safe and solidifies those protections for generations to come as well.
That’s why it’s our sincere belief that, just as we collectively embrace safe driving and pedestrian habits, we can each embrace the safe media habits outlined in this guide. Like traffic fatalities, misinformation may never be snuffed out—but our collective acknowledgement of its dangers will ensure it is not the norm.
It is by each of us acting as responsible media participants that we will secure a collective future for truth.
Glossary of Terms
Works Cited
[1] Stone, Edward T. “Columbus and Genocide.” American Heritage, October 1975. https://www.americanheritage.com/columbus-and-genocide.
[2] History.com Editors. “Christopher Columbus.” History.com, September 1, 2020. https://www.history.com/topics/exploration/christopher-columbus.
[3] Memmott, Mark. “75 Years Ago, 'War Of The Worlds' Started A Panic. Or Did It?” NPR, October 30, 2013. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/10/30/241797346/75-years-ago-war-of-the-worlds-started-a-panic-or-did-it.
[4] “The Great Debate.” The National WWII Museum. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/great-debate (last visited September 2, 2020).
[5] Anderson, Janna and Lee Rainie. “The Future of Truth and Misinformation Online.” Pew Research Center, October 19, 2017. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/10/19/the-future-of-truth-and-misinformation-online.
[6] Bennion, Lowell L. Religion and the Pursuit of Truth. Deseret Book Company, 1959. https://books.google.com/books/about/Religion_and_the_Pursuit_of_Truth.html?id=2HPUAAAAMAAJ (last visited: September 2, 2020).
[7] Pennycook, Gordon et. al. “On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit.” Judgement and Decision Making, Vol. 10, No. 6. November 2015. http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf
[8] Walker, Mason. “Americans favor mobile devices over desktops and laptops for getting news.” Pew Research Center, November 19, 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/19/americans-favor-mobile-devices-over-desktops-and-laptops-for-getting-news.
[9] Holmes, Kristen and Kaitlan Collins. “Trump and FEMA chief contradict each other on Defense Production Act.” CNN, March 24, 2020. https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/24/politics/defense-production-act-trump-gaynor-fema/index.html.
[10] Jackson, Chris and Mallory Newall. “Most Americans hopeful COVID-19 will be under control in six months, yet see federal government as making things worse.” Ipsos, September 1, 2020. https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/axios-ipsos-coronavirus-index.
[11] McLaughlin, Timothy. “How WhatsApp Fuels Fake News and Violence in India.” Wired, December 12, 2018. https://www.wired.com/story/how-whatsapp-fuels-fake-news-and-violence-in-india.
[12] Crawford, Krysten. “Stanford study examines fake news and the 2016 presidential election.” Stanford University, January 18, 2017. https://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/18/stanford-study-examines-fake-news-2016-presidential-election.
[13] McCabe, Caitlin. “Face Masks Really Do Matter. The Scientific Evidence Is Growing.” The Wall Street Journal, August 13, 2020. https://www.wsj.com/articles/face-masks-really-do-matter-the-scientific-evidence-is-growing-11595083298.
[14] Stunson, Mike. “Coronavirus cases surging in states where face masks aren’t required, analysis shows.” Miami Herald, June 25, 2020. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article243787217.html.
[15] “Wearing a Mask: Myths and Facts.” University of Maryland Medical System. https://www.umms.org/coronavirus/what-to-know/masks/wearing-mask (last visited: September 2, 2020).
[16] “Citizenship Rights and Responsibilities.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship-resource-center/learn-about-citizenship/citizenship-and-naturalization/citizenship-rights-and-responsibilities (last visited: September 2, 2020).
[17] Islam M.D., Saiful et. al. “COVID-19–Related Infodemic and Its Impact on Public Health: A Global Social Media Analysis.” American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, August 10, 2020. http://www.ajtmh.org/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.20-0812;jsessionid=hgjJvHZ1SinrUBliZHm9cTs0.ip-10-241-1-122.
[18] Roose, Kevin. “QAnon Followers Are Hijacking the #SaveTheChildren Movement.” The New York Times, August 12, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/technology/qanon-save-the-children-trafficking.html.
[19] Greenspan, Rachel E. “Wayfair conspiracy theorists are overwhelming the National Human Trafficking Hotline.” Insider, July 21, 2020. https://www.insider.com/wayfair-human-trafficking-conspiracy-theory-national-hotline-call-2020-7.
[20] Gray News Staff. “QAnon uses anti-human-trafficking hashtags, campaign to promote conspiracy theories.” WSFA 12 News, a Gray Media Group, Inc. station. August 13, 2020. https://www.wsfa.com/2020/08/13/qanon-uses-anti-human-trafficking-hashtags-campaign-promote-conspiracy-theories.
[21] Robinson, KiMi. “How an Arizona couple helped fuel a Wayfair sex trafficking conspiracy theory.” USA Today. July 16, 2020. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/16/wayfair-human-trafficking-conspiracy-arizona-couple-spread-instagram-rumors/5449777002.
[22] “Cognitive Dissonance.” Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/cognitive-dissonance (last visited: September 4, 2020).
[23] Statista Research Department. “Number of people shot to death by the police in the United States from 2017 to 2020, by race.” Statista, August 31, 2020. https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race.
[24] Thomsen, Ian. “THE RESEARCH IS CLEAR: WHITE PEOPLE ARE NOT MORE LIKELY THAN BLACK PEOPLE TO BE KILLED BY POLICE.” Northeastern University, July 16, 2020. https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/16/the-research-is-clear-white-people-are-not-more-likely-than-black-people-to-be-killed-by-police.
[25] Trump, Melania and Donald J. Trump. “Remarks by President Trump on Safely Reopening America’s Schools.” A Transcription. The White House, July 7, 2020. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-safely-reopening-americas-schools
[26] DeSantis, Larisa R. G. “How many children and teachers are we willing to sacrifice to open schools again?” The Tennessean, July 15, 2020. https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2020/07/15/reopening-schools-williamson-county-middle-tennessee-coronavirus/5437767002.
[27] Lovelace Jr., Berkeley and Noah Higgins-Dunn. “Dr. Anthony Fauci pleads with young people: ‘You’re propagating the pandemic.’” CNBC, July 16, 2020. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/16/dr-anthony-fauci-pleads-with-young-people-youre-propagating-the-pandemic.html.
[28] Gossett, Stephen. “How And Why Chicago Violence Became Conservatives' Favorite Talking Point.” The Chicagoist, August 29. 2016. https://chicagoist.com/2016/08/29/how_and_why_chicago_violence_became.php.
[29] “pundit.” A definition. Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pundit (last visited: September 4, 2020).
[30] Concha, Joe. “Alex Jones ‘playing a character,’ says lawyer.” The Hill. April 17, 2017. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/329071-alex-jones-playing-a-character-says-lawyer.
[31] “Andrew Anglin.” A profile. Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/andrew-anglin (last visited: September 5, 2020).
[32] Moskowitz, Joel M. “We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe” Scientific American, October 17, 2019. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe.
[33] Grimes, David Robert. “Don’t Fall Prey to Scaremongering about 5G.” Scientific American, October 28, 2019. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-prey-to-scaremongering-about-5g.
[34] Swinburne University of Technology. “What 5G means for our health.” Springer Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d42473-019-00009-7 (last visited September 6, 2020).
[35] Broad, William J. “The 5G Health Hazard That Isn’t.” The New York Times, June 16, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/science/5g-cellphones-wireless-cancer.html.
[36] “Cellular (Cell) Phones.” American Cancer Society. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html (last visited: September 6, 2020).
[37] “Natural News.” A profile. Media Bias Fact Check. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/natural-news (last visited: September 6, 2020).
[38] Porup, J.M. “How and why deepfake videos work — and what is at risk.” CSO, April 10, 2019. https://www.csoonline.com/article/3293002/deepfake-videos-how-and-why-they-work.html.
[39] Reuters Fact Check. “False claim: Bill Gates traveled to Epstein’s island multiple times.” Reuters, May 15, 2020. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-bill-gates-epstein-island/false-claim-bill-gates-traveled-to-epsteins-island-multiple-times-idUSKBN22R2C4.
[40] “Who We Are: Financials.” A non-profit organization financials statement. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Financials (last visited: September 6, 2020).
[41] “Methodology Summary.” A company statement. ad fontes media. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/how-ad-fontes-ranks-news-sources (last visited: September 6, 2020).
[42] Brown, Jessica. “Is social media bad for you? The evidence and the unknowns.” BBC Future, January 4, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180104-is-social-media-bad-for-you-the-evidence-and-the-unknowns
[43] Gomez, Luis. “Hurricane Harvey: 5 ways social media saved lives in Texas.” The San Diego Union-Tribune, August 28, 2017. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-hurricane-harvey-5-ways-social-media-helped-rescue-efforts-20170828-htmlstory.html
[44] Shearer, Elisa. “Social media outpaces print newspapers in the U.S. as a news source.” Pew Research Center, December 10, 2018. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/10/social-media-outpaces-print-newspapers-in-the-u-s-as-a-news-source/
[44a] Gadsden, Taylor. “Twice as many Americans are getting their news from social media than before the pandemic.” Allconnect, July 20, 2020. https://www.allconnect.com/blog/where-are-americans-turning-for-their-news-during-the-time-of-coronavirus
[45] Convertino, Jesse. “Social media companies partnering with health authorities to combat misinformation on coronavirus.” ABC News, March 5, 2020. https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/social-media-companies-partnering-health-authorities-combat-misinformation/story?id=69389222.
[46] Pantic, Igor, MD, PhD. “Online Social Networking and Mental Health.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, October 1, 2014. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183915/#
[47] Wardle, Claire. “Fake news. It’s complicated.” First Draft, February 16, 2017. https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/fake-news-complicated.
[48] History.com editors. “Black Panthers.” History.com, June 6, 2019. https://www.history.com/topics/civil-rights-movement/black-panthers.
[49] Whiting, Sam. “A timeline of the rise and fall of the Black Panthers,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 14, 2016. https://www.sfchronicle.com/art/article/A-timeline-of-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-Black-9967597.php.
[50] “The FBI Versus the Klan.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. February 26, 2010. https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2010/february/the-fbi-versus-the-klan-part-1.
[51] “Tattered Robes: The State of the Ku Klux Klan in the United States.” Anti-Defamation League. https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/state-of-the-kkk (last visited: September 7, 2020).
[52] Rothman, Joshua. “When Bigotry Paraded Through the Streets.” The Atlantic, December 6, 2016. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/second-klan/509468.
[53] Jones, Seth G. “The Rise of Far-Right Extremism in the United States.” Center for Strategic & International Studies, November 7, 2018. https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-far-right-extremism-united-states.
[54] Brunner, Jim. “Fox News runs digitally altered images in coverage of Seattle’s protests, Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.” The Seattle Times, June 14, 2020. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/Fox-news-runs-digitally-altered-images-in-coverage-of-seattles-protests-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone.
[55] Seattle Times Staff. “Seattle-area protest updates: No police reports filed about use of weapons to extort Capitol Hill businesses, Best says.” The Seattle Times, June 11, 2020. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-area-protests-updates-for-thursday-june-11/
[56] Bush, Evan. “Timeline of demonstrations over the police killing of George Floyd.” The Seattle Times. June 6, 2020. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/timeline-of-demonstrations-over-the-police-killing-of-george-floyd.
[57] King 5 Staff. “1 teen killed, 1 injured after 4th shooting near Seattle's CHOP.” King 5, June 29, 2020. https://www.king5.com/article/news/crime/seattle-shooting-capitol-hill-chop-chaz/281-48392a9e-d760-42f3-9469-c99466ed7a9f.
[58] “Westboro Baptist Church.” A profile. Anti-Defamation League. https://www.adl.org/resources/profiles/westboro-baptist-church (last visited: September 7, 2020).
[59] Shepherd, Katie. “Who is Judy Mikovits in ‘Plandemic,’ the coronavirus conspiracy video just banned from social media?” The Seattle Times, May 8, 2020. https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/who-is-judy-mikovits-in-plandemic-the-coronavirus-conspiracy-video-just-banned-from-social-media.
[60] Brainard, Jeffrey and Jia You. “What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’.” Science Magazine, American Association for the Advancement of Science, October 25, 2018. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/what-massive-database-retracted-papers-reveals-about-science-publishing-s-death-penalty.
[61] Cohen, Jon. “Lawsuit Filed Against Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Researcher by Former Employer.” Science Magazine, American Association for the Advancement of Science, November 14, 2011. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/11/lawsuit-filed-against-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-researcher-former-employer.
[62] Gever, John. “Chronic Fatigue Researcher Jailed Following Controversy.” ABC News, December 2, 2011. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/chronic-fatigue-researcher-jailed-controversy/story?id=15076224.
[63] ________. “Judy Mikovits Turns Herself In.” News 4, November 29, 2011. https://mynews4.com/news/local/judy-mikovits-turns-herself-in.
[64] CNN Wire. “Dubious COVID-19 claims made by 2 Bakersfield-area doctors condemned by health experts; YouTube removes video.” KTLA 5, April 29, 2020. https://ktla.com/news/california/dubious-covid-19-claims-by-made-2-bakersfield-area-doctors-condemned-by-health-experts-youtube-removes-video.
[65] Neuman, Scott. “Seen 'Plandemic'? We Take A Close Look At The Viral Conspiracy Video's Claims.” NPR, May 8, 2020. https://www.npr.org/2020/05/08/852451652/seen-plandemic-we-take-a-close-look-at-the-viral-conspiracy-video-s-claims.
[66] Funke, Daniel. “Facebook posts falsely claim Dr. Fauci has millions invested in a coronavirus vaccine.” Statesman/Politifact, https://www.statesman.com/news/20200416/fact-check-does-anthony-fauci-have-millions-invested-in-coronavirus-vaccine.
[67] Solomon, John. “Report: Researchers mum on financial interests.” NBC News, January 10, 2005. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6809390/ns/health-health_care/t/report-researchers-mumon-financial-interests/#.X1vA-GhKhPY.
[68] ________. “NIH Implements Royalty Disclosure Policy Five Years After Promise.” Kaiser Health News, June 11, 2009. https://khn.org/morning-breakout/dr00027580.
[69] Huddleston Jr., Tom. “Bill Gates is the top target for coronavirus conspiracy theories.” CNBC, April 17, 2020. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/17/bill-gates-is-top-target-for-coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-report.html.
[70] Gilbert, Ben. “A bizarre conspiracy theory puts Bill Gates at the center of the coronavirus crisis — and major conservative pundits are circulating it.” Business Insider, April 19, 2020. https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-conspiracy-bill-gates-infowars-2020-4.
[71] Al-Heeti, Abrar. “Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation pledges $125 million for COVID-19 vaccine, therapy.” CNET, May 4, 2020. https://www.cnet.com/health/bill-melinda-gates-foundation-pledges-125m-for-covid-19-vaccine-therapy.
[72] Press Release. “Gates Foundation Commits $258.3 Million for Malaria Research and Development.” Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, October 2005. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2005/10/Gates-Foundation-Commits-2583-Million-for-Malaria-Research.
[73] Spencer, Saranac Hale. “Conspiracy Theory Misinterprets Goals of Gates Foundation.” FactCheck.org, April 14, 2020. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/conspiracy-theory-misinterprets-goals-of-gates-foundation.
[74] Rottenberg, Josh and Stacy Peprman. “Meet the Ojai dad who made the most notorious piece of coronavirus disinformation yet.” Los Angeles Times, May 13, 2020. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2020-05-13/plandemic-coronavirus-documentary-director-mikki-willis-mikovits.
[75] Darcy, Oliver. “Meet OAN, the little-watched right-wing news channel that Trump keeps promoting.” CNN, May 8, 2020. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/08/media/one-america-news-trump/index.html.
[76] Santhanam, Laura. “American voters worry they can’t spot misleading information, poll finds.” PBS, January 21, 2020. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/social-media-disinformation-leads-election-security-concerns-poll-finds.
[77] Helm, Burt. “Pizzagate Nearly Destroyed My Restaurant. Then My Customers Helped Me Fight Back.” Inc., July 2017. https://www.inc.com/magazine/201707/burt-helm/how-i-did-it-james-alefantis-comet-ping-pong.html.
[78] Anspach, Nicolas M. et. al. “A little bit of knowledge: Facebook’s News Feed and self-perceptions of knowledge.” SAGE Journals, February 4, 2019. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053168018816189.
[79] Gabielkov, Maksym et. al. “Social Clicks: What and Who Gets Read on Twitter?” HAL-Inria, ACM SIGMETRICS / IFIP Performance 2016, Jun 2016, Antibes Juan-les-Pins, France. https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01281190/document.
[80] Reneau, Annie. “I wrote a news headline that didn't even link to a story. Over 2,000 people commented on it anyway.” Upworthy, August 1, 2019. https://www.upworthy.com/comments-didnt-read-the-article.
[81] Zadrozny, Brandy and Ben Collins. “In Klamath Falls, Oregon, victory declared over antifa, which never showed up.” NBC News, June 6, 2020. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/klamath-falls-oregon-victory-declared-over-antifa-which-never-showed-n1226681.
[82] Associated Press. “As George Floyd protests swept the country, so did George Soros conspiracy theories.” Los Angeles Times, June 22, 2020. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-06-22/george-soros-conspiracy-theories-surge-amid-george-floyd-protests.
[83] Collins, Ben et. al. “White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter.” NBC News. June 1, 2020. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/twitter-takes-down-washington-protest-disinformation-bot-behavior-n1221456.
[84] Blest, Paul. “A Right-Wing Militia Showed Up at a Statue Protest and a Protester Got Shot.” VICE, June 16, 2020. https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/jgxpzx/a-right-wing-militia-showed-up-at-a-statue-protest-and-a-protester-got-shot.
[85] Mossburg, Cheri. "Police link Calif. cop killing suspect to ‘Boogaloo’ movement." Fox 5. June 17, 2020. https://fox5sandiego.com/news/california-news/police-man-suspected-of-gunning-down-calif-officers-linked-to-boogaloo-movement/
[86] Seth, Jones G. “Who Are Antifa, and Are They a Threat?” The Center for Strategic & International Studies, June 4, 2020. https://www.csis.org/analysis/who-are-antifa-and-are-they-threat
[87] Perez, Evan and Jason Hoffman. “Trump tweets Antifa will be labeled a terrorist organization but experts believe that's unconstitutional.” CNN, May 31, 2020. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/31/politics/trump-antifa-protests/index.html.
[88] Haynes, Trevor. “Dopamine, Smartphones & You: A battle for your time.” Science in the News. Harvard University, May 1, 2008. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/dopamine-smartphones-battle-time.
[89] ________. “Automobile Safety.” National Museum of American History. https://americanhistory.si.edu/america-on-the-move/essays/automobile-safety (last visited: September 12, 2020).
