In the end, I didn't have much time to think about solutions to the problem of misinformation and the fake news. So unfortunately this was a topic I didn't include in the comic, which makes my work more like an introduction to Alex Jones rather than something more profound. That is not to say I didn't read anything on the topic.
I feel like this idea of centrism is very present in today's media discourse. One example is the recent comments by the main reporter from Yle, who said that he would like to bring more climate denialists for interviews, just to bring their views on display. Many have disapproved the comments, saying that bringing denialists to the same level with researchers gives a dangerous sense of "balance" or uncertainty on the issue, where there already is a scientific consensus.
I have to agree with these people. Putting non-experts on the same level with experts is not helping discourse, but rather normalising misinformation. Journalism should be about aiming for the most truthful information, not making noise.
And by the way, Helsingin Sanomat recently mentioned a study that says climate denialism already has more media attention than climate scientists (in Finnish). Whopee.
The article mentions tests, where readers were given different documents that handled scientific consensus regarding climate change. To put it short, peoples' views on the matter changed depending on what document they read first.
What this would mean regarding to fake news, is that if the fake news was somehow debunked before it reached people, they would likely be more critical of it. This is of course difficult, since it's impossible to predict and debunk every new piece of misinformation that is spreading.
The article mentions a more doable way to do this, however: educating people about the strategies that people working with misinformation use through a game that simulates the process:
Not that that was my initial goal, I did everything out of pure curiosity. So as much as I would love to say it, my project hasn't saved us. But if nothing else, it's got the right idea.
Stop the centrism
In my comic I mention briefly that Jones has been banned from Twitter, Facebook, Apple, YouTube, and Spotify, and that the less Alex Jones has platforms the better. This might seem like an odd statement considering Jones' followers: if the followers already think there is a conspiracy against them, does it help to silence Jones? Should we instead try to bring Jones to our level to have discourse and try to change his views through other methods?
I feel like this idea of centrism is very present in today's media discourse. One example is the recent comments by the main reporter from Yle, who said that he would like to bring more climate denialists for interviews, just to bring their views on display. Many have disapproved the comments, saying that bringing denialists to the same level with researchers gives a dangerous sense of "balance" or uncertainty on the issue, where there already is a scientific consensus.
I have to agree with these people. Putting non-experts on the same level with experts is not helping discourse, but rather normalising misinformation. Journalism should be about aiming for the most truthful information, not making noise.
And by the way, Helsingin Sanomat recently mentioned a study that says climate denialism already has more media attention than climate scientists (in Finnish). Whopee.
Illusory truth effect
Another reason why I'm for banning Jones, is a phenomenon called the "Illusory truth effect". In short, it is a psychological term meaning the tendency of misinformation to seem more believable upon repetition.
In Jones' case, it is the reason limiting his exposure should be acceptable: he is known to fabricate the truth and to be harmful, so his "media privileges" should be reduced so that he can't repeat his lies.
In 2011, when Jones was to be featured in a primetime interview in NBC, people got worried that putting Jones on pedestal would make give his views repetition, making them seem less crazy than they are. In the end the segment started with the host making it clear that Jones' conspiracies are lies, and Vox's Brian Resnick approved of this:
Kelly (the host) was right to clarify this. Psychological science consistently finds when a lie gets repeated, it’s slightly more likely to be misremembered as truth. It’s called the “illusory truth effect.” It’s a tendency the whole news media — as well as consumers of news — should be wary of. And it’s a reason not to give notorious bullshitters such a substantial spotlight. Especially bullshitters whose lies hurt others and whose lies have a track record for virality.If it wasn't clear already, this is the reason fake news is not an issue to leave completely on the shoulders of the public's media literacy. Fake news thrives on repetition and manipulation. Even if I find it absurd, it always plants a seed of doubt to the public.
Inoculation
“If you try to debunk it, misinformation sticks with people.”
A BBC article from 2018 titled Could this be the cure for fake news? talks about inoculation as a method against fake news. The main point is that since people's minds have limited capacity and they work with mental shortcuts, people are quick to accept information at face value, if it is somehow represented in even a remotely trustable manner. The article names the Oregon Petition as an example of a misinformation campaign:
"Take climate change. More than 97% of climate scientists have concluded that humans are responsible for global warming, but large groups of society still have trouble believing it. When asked what percentage of climate scientists agree that human-caused global warming is occurring, only 49% of Americans thought it was more than half – and only 15% answered, correctly, that it was more than 91%. The confusion reflects sophisticated campaigns aimed at sowing doubt among the public.
The difficulty is that once doubt settles, it is hard to dislodge it."
The article mentions tests, where readers were given different documents that handled scientific consensus regarding climate change. To put it short, peoples' views on the matter changed depending on what document they read first.
What this would mean regarding to fake news, is that if the fake news was somehow debunked before it reached people, they would likely be more critical of it. This is of course difficult, since it's impossible to predict and debunk every new piece of misinformation that is spreading.
The article mentions a more doable way to do this, however: educating people about the strategies that people working with misinformation use through a game that simulates the process:
"Navigating the online game takes less than 15 minutes – but it is a surreal experience. You launch a fake news site, become its editor-in-chief, purchase an army of Twitter bots and direct your followers against a well-meaning fact checker."Yle has a game with a similar idea called Troll Factory that we played in class. I got 14574 shares and 1672 followers, which makes me a Director Of Disorder. Lovely.
 |
| Or is it "Director You are Of Disorder"? |
To summarize
Considering all this, I see some value in my final task topic: it's important to examine sites like InfoWars and people like Alex Jones, so that we may know their strategies and prepare for the future. It's also alright to be openly critical of their actions, since putting their views on the same level of view as the the more objective truth, it validates lies through repetition.Not that that was my initial goal, I did everything out of pure curiosity. So as much as I would love to say it, my project hasn't saved us. But if nothing else, it's got the right idea.
Comments
Post a Comment