As social networks have grown in popularity, the way information spreads throughout a network has become a hot topic for exploration. Most of this has focused on how content can be made to go viral (it can’t), but there has been a growing number of studies looking at how misinformation spreads through a network.
For instance, a study from last summer that looked at the issue in relation to health scares. The researchers raise the example of the swine flu outbreak in 2009 and the way panic quickly spread online, causing peculiar behaviors across Asia driven by the misinformation posted online.
They suggest that the degree of connectivity within a network is a strong indicator of how rapidly misinformation may spread.
A second study from earlier last summer showed the influence of certain ‘nodes’ in the spread of information. It explored political discourse online, and found that certain influential voices would be incredibly influential in the general online discussion, with many people simply regurgitating what those influncers said on a topic.
You might imagine that news organizations fit the bill as such an influencer, and that was the finding of a recent study that cast blame on the media for failing to do their part in ensuring the accuracy of the information they share.
“Rather than acting as a source of accurate information, online media frequently promote misinformation in an attempt to drive traffic and social engagement,” the authors say.
The report, published by the Tow Center for Digital Journalism, suggests that poor practice by various online publishers is accelerating the spread of fake news.
“Many news sites apply little or no basic verification to the claims they pass on. Instead, they rely on linking-out to other media reports, which themselves often only cite other media reports as well,” the study concluded.
The clamor for readers is at the heart of the practice, as fake stories are usually sexier than their more accurate peers. This has been particularly obvious in reporting of the Ebola outbreak.
The authors say that whilst much of this fake information is spread by less reputable sources, the quality outlets nevertheless sit by and let the rumors spread, doing little to quell them.
“When (fake) information is out there and websites are covering it, there is an imperative on the part of news organizations to look at it, flag it for readers and tell them what we know and what we don’t know,” the authors say.
This is perpetuated by the usual failure to follow up on a story that is later debunked. Analysis revealed that around 20 percent of news outlets followed up on a story with more accurate information after the initial output had been debunked.
It suggests a rather worrying trend, especially given the crucial role media outlets play as nodes in the network. With the pace of news so rapid, there is a tendency to assume anything online is true.
With the web a social place, there can be a tendency to believe something to be true if it’s repeated often enough. It’s like Goebbel’s famous quote about repeating a lie often enough and it soon becomes the truth.
Previous studies have found that the more something is repeated, the more believable it becomes. The web has only accelerated that process.
Of course, there have also been attempts to use the web to improve matters. Last year for instance, saw the launch of a site called Grasswire, which is a site that allows users to verify the validity of things they are reading online. The site, which focuses specifically on breaking news, allows users to vote on topics in a style similar to that found on sites such as Reddit.
The research highlights how challenging it is for these efforts to overcome the misinformation online.
“Over time the truth emerges, but the corrections don’t tend to be as viral or get as widely distributed. And they don’t always reach the same people,” they say.
“I am a believer in the value of the crowd, but the truth is often far less interesting and shareable than the lie.”
As Abraham Lincoln famously said, 85 percent of the things online are probably made up. It seems that if the media aren’t going to fact check for us, then we’re duty bound to do so ourselves to ensure the validity of what we’re reading.
It's interesting that the fake news does so much fact checking. At least it produces comedy so we can laugh at all the craziness. We need to add critical thinking to the 3Rs.
I didn't know about Grasswire, but Snopes can debunk most of those urban legends out there.
It's true, the truth is less interesting than the lie.
Basic fact checking goes a long way. Sadly, few sources are provided when it comes to misinformation i.e. bunk. Most people don't bother and take it prima facie…
It is not the media as such. It is more the economics of media. In the days before digital, a significant factor in the success of print or TV was reputation. It was one of the elements that drove circulation. High circulation drove advertising which in turn drove profits. Now with circulation measured in clicks or views, the dynamics of gaining views as opposed to building circulation have changed. Now you revenues are generated by views and the need for truth in reporting is no longer as strong as it once was. Things will change when a significant number of consumers tire of "click bait" and look for balanced reporting. Until then we are stuck with what we have.
Of course, Google is making an effort to suppress bunk and list factual sites in the search results, so that's something positive.
In today's world, anyone and everyone who has access to the internet can be considered as a journalist (regardless if the information is true or not). And because of this it creates difficult cases to solve.
After decades of passively consuming content from print, radio, and television, this new found ability to interact with the media has opened the floodgates of audience participation in what before was the exclusive realm of media practitioners. However, the amateurization of journalism did not necessarily come with the same editorial and vetting standards. This has resulted in a lot of erroneous, misleading, misinformed, malicious, and otherwise dubious content being published on-line. Couple this with the insatiable desire for new information, and you have the recipe for a lot of new, crazy ideas being born.