upworthy

fake news

Education

Tired of arguing with misinformed people? Experts say there’s an easy way to change their minds.

It turns out we’ve been talking about facts the wrong way.

via Canva/Photos

Two young men arguing.

The downside to living in the Information Age is that we also live in a time when misinformation runs rampant. Studies show that fake news stories spread farther than those that are true, and people tend to believe information because it suits their worldview rather than because it happens to be correct.

It would be fine if most information was about things that are inconsequential in 2024, such as Bigfoot conspiracies or who killed John F. Kennedy. Unfortunately, a lot of misinformation affects people’s everyday lives, whether it’s vaccines, technology, or fluoride in our water supply. We saw it happen in real time when misinformation made it very hard for the average person to make sense of the COVID-19 pandemic, as it killed millions of people across the world.

That’s why it’s so important for people to respond correctly to misinformation. Knowing how to do so could mean the difference between life and death.

argument, misinformation, newsA woman who is confused by conflicting information. via Canva/Photos

A new paper in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General by researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center shows that many people have been using ineffective tactics when fighting misinformation. Most people think the best way to counter misinformation is to make a counterargument that refutes the incorrect person’s claim.

For example, if someone says that fluoride in the water supply is a way for companies to dump their toxic waste. Most people would do some Googleing and respond that, actually, that was a conspiracy theory that took hold in post-war Europe. However, researchers note that correcting people is an uphill battle. “People don’t like to be contradicted, and a belief, once accepted, can be difficult to dislodge,” the Annenberg Public Policy Center writes.

What’s the most effective way to counter misinformation?

Researchers suggest a more effective countermeasure to fighting misinformation: “bypassing.”

“Rather than directly addressing the misinformation, this strategy involves offering accurate information that has an implication opposite to that of the misinformation,” the Annenberg Public Policy Center writes. Instead of countering the incorrect opinion on fluoride, you bring up another positive point about fluoride that may cause them to reconsider their beliefs. Simply put, you counter the “negative implication of the misinformation with positive implications, without taking the difficult path of confrontation.”

So, if someone says, “Flouride is toxic waste,” you can respond with, “The Centers for Disease Control says Flouride is one of the 10 Greatest Public Health Achievements of the 20th Century, reducing tooth decay by approximately 25% in children and adults.”

One of the study authors, Granados Samayoa, says that “bypassing can generally be superior to correction, specifically in situations when people are focused on forming beliefs, but not attitudes, about the information they encounter.”

argument, misinformation, newsFriends having a friendly debate.via Canva/Photos

What is the ‘backfire effect’?

The “bypass” strategy also makes sense because of the “backfire effect,” a psychological phenomenon that says when people are introduced to credible information that contradicts their firmly held beliefs, they reject it and hold onto their beliefs even more strongly. Considering this, countering someone's misinformation with contradictory evidence may even worsen things for both parties involved.

The good news is that you don’t have to be a super-hero fact-checker to combat the spread of misinformation or have to get in someone’s face and start a heated argument. Using strategies like bypassing, you can help tackle misinformation in a non-confrontational and effective way. It’s all about shifting the conversation and planting a seed of truth that could grow into greater understanding.

From Your Site Articles
misinformation
Democracy

Trump blames 'The Media' for mass violence. That's not just utter bullsh*t—it's dangerous.

Donald J. Trump/Twitter

In the wake of three U.S. mass shootings in one week, President Trump is trying to place blame on "The Media."

Let's see. Where to start?

First, the media is not responsible for life and safety in our country. The government and law enforcement are. The press has a responsibility to report on what the government is doing, and to be as accurate as possible in its reporting. "The Media" that the president is referring to—generally reputable news outlets—do that. They are not responsible for people getting angry over what they're reporting, and they're definitely not responsible for anyone's violent actions.

Second, let's remember what "fake news" actually is. During the 2016 election, around 140 websites were discovered as being completely fake sites purporting to be U.S. political news outlets. They published false and misleading stories, fabricated off of headlines coming from the U.S. Some of them were run by teenagers in Macedonia. Many of them manufactured fear-mongering stories about Muslims and immigrants. They also made the website owners rich, because millions of people—the vast majority of them Trump supporters—bought it.

Those sites actually published "fake news." But the president quickly began applying the term "fake news" to real news outlets, and has succeeded in convincing his base to repeat that garbage for two-plus years.

When the president attacks "The Media" or refers to the "Fake News Media," he's made it clear he's not referring to actual-fake-news sites. He's also not talking about extremist, unreliable media outlets that in a reasonable era would be considered fringe, like InfoWars or Breitbart. No, he's referring to the most reputable, Pulitzer-winning journalistic outlets. He calls the New York Times fake news. He calls the Washington Post fake news. He even calls the right-leaning Wall Street Journal fake news.

Related: Obama's latest tweets consoled a grieving nation in a way that Trump never could

Any media outlet that does not fawn over him and praise his every move is deemed "fake news."

In an unprecedentedly childish waste of time, the President of the United States—the supposed leader of the free world—even pulled together a "Fake News Awards" in 2018. His team actually took the time to find the small fraction of errors in mainstream media reporting—most of which were quickly corrected and acknowledged as corrected, as is the journalistic standard—and ranked them for these bogus "awards."

In any reasonable era, all of this would rightly be considered loony tunes.

Errors in news reporting is and has always been a thing. Newsrooms are made up of humans and humans make mistakes sometimes. Reputable sources issue corrections when that happens. That's what has always happened. That's what still happens with the major news outlets.

Meanwhile, the president himself shares and praises questionable and unreliable sources all the time. He shares extreme right-wing media outlets with questionable credentials like Judicial Watch. He tweets fake, racist (yes, objectively racist—take a look) statistics from fake sources without ever correcting them. He tells more falsehoods than any other political figure in the history of fact-checking—and that's not even an exaggeration.

He knows, because his intelligence agencies have told him so, that white supremacists have become more active in the past few years. He knows that white supremacists make up the majority of the domestic terrorism arrests (again, his own intelligence agencies). He knows that he shut down federal programs designed to counter extremist violence and removed funding from programs that help people leave racist hate groups. He knows that the shooter in El Paso drove nine hours to kill immigrants because the guy wrote a manifesto about white replacement. He knows that while he's tried to ban Muslims from entering the country, American-born white supremacists have walked into churches and synagogues and killed fellow Americans while they worship.

And today, he dares to blame the media for mass violence? No, sir. You don't get to do that.

Freedom of the press is enshrined in the first amendment of our Constitution, and yet the U.S. ranks 48th in the world in the World Press Freedom rankings. We've now dipped into the "problematic" range for press freedom, which is ridiculous. We are supposed to be "the land of the free" and yet journalists face daily attacks from the man who took an oath to uphold their constitutionally guaranteed right to report on what he does and says.

Related: I wrote a news headline that didn't even link to a story. Over 2,000 people commented on it anyway.

These attacks on the media matter. They not only sow distrust in journalism, but calling them "the enemy of the people" invokes in gullible people a patriotic duty to protect Americans from journalists. American journalists have been killed on our soil for doing their jobs, and according to Reporters Without Borders, the danger is growing: "Never before have U.S. journalists been subjected to so many death threats or turned so often to private security firms for protection."

The dangers that journalists face is unacceptable, but what frightens me more is the methodical drip, drip, drip of the president's words creating more and more distrust in legitimate reporting. Conspiracy theories about mainstream media have not only taken hold, but are being actively pushed by the President of the United States. Fear-mongering, calling the press "the enemy of the people," and sowing distrust for reputable sources of information is exactly how despots seize power. It's how atrocities are not only allowed, but encouraged. It's how great nations fall.

It's also classic gas lighting, and we cannot let it slide. The message is this: If you report on what I do and people don't like me because of it, you are 'fake news' and telling lies. If you report my exact words and people think I'm horrible, it's your fault that people think my words are horrible and therefore you're attacking me. If you aren't praising me for the things I'm claiming to have done, you are against me, which makes you against America, which makes you an enemy of the people.

It's like we're in a psychologically abusive relationship with our own president.

I can see that people are growing weary of fighting this battle all the time. I know I'm tired of it. If we were to call out the president every time he makes a false claim and attacks the wrong people, we'd burn out. The relentlessness is by design, to either make us give up or look like we're constantly overreacting. That's how gas lighting works. We can't give up.

The mainstream media is not the enemy. And history will not look kindly upon a president who uses the power of his platform to constantly attack the free press.

Related Articles Around the Web
Most Shared

If you must interview Sean Spicer about his new book, the BBC has shown how to do it.

Hey! Remember Sean Spicer? He just wrote a book.

Spicer was President Donald Trump's first press secretary before resigning just 182 days into the administration. He became a bit notorious for his poor word choices (he accidentally called concentration camps "Holocaust centers") and easily debunked lies (such as his claim that the crowd at Trump's inauguration was the "largest audience to witness an inauguration, period" or the time he defended Trump's voter fraud claims by citing a study's non-existent conclusion).

Since his time in the White House, news networks dashed Spicer's hopes of landing a high-paying contributor role, he completed a Harvard Fellowship that led one student to publicly call for the end of the program in its current form, he showed up at the Emmys for a tongue-in-cheek joke about his crowd size lie, and has started developing his own TV talk show to pitch to networks.

He's been a busy guy, which maybe explains why his book didn't quiteget the care it needed, based on some early reviews.

Sean Spicer posing with wax figures of Melania and Donald Trump, which is somehow not the weirdest thing he's done since resigning. Photo by Cindy Ord/Getty Images for Madame Tussauds.

Media figures could press Spicer on so much during his book tour. But for the most part, they haven't.

NPR's Mary Louise Kelly allowed Spicer to sidestep a tricky question about Paul Manafort, who ran the Trump campaign for three months during the summer of 2016 and is credited with selecting Mike Pence as Trump's running mate. When it started to become clear that Manafort — who was indicted on a number of charges — was about to find himself in some legal hot water, Spicer claimed that Manafort "played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time." Despite this being untrue, Kelly pivoted away from Manafort-related questions as Spicer stumbled.

Meanwhile, NBC's Megyn Kelly began her Spicer interview with a laugh at Melissa McCarthy's portrayal of him on SNL and later allowed him to wriggle his way out of questions on his crowd-size lie.

Fox Business host Lisa Kennedy Montgomery asked, "How important is the book to changing the perception and the legacy that you have right now?" This allowed Spicer the chance to play up its importance as a "behind-the-scenes" look at the Trump White House.

Of the three, Kelly's interview was probably the hardest-hitting, which is ... not great.

Photo by Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images.

American journalists could learn a lot from how BBC Newsnight's Emily Maitlis handled her interview with Spicer.

Spicer tried to brush off a question about his crowd-size claim. But unlike other interviewers, who let Spicer downplay its importance, Maitlis wasn't having it.

"It was the start of the most corrosive culture," Maitlis fired back. "You played with the truth. You led us down a dangerous path. You have corrupted discourse for the entire world by going along with these lies."

In continuing to press the issue, Maitlis was able to get a bit of actual news out of Spicer: He seemed to believe that because the campaign felt like it had been treated unfairly by the press, that telling a lie — though he refuses to admit it's a lie — was justified.

Spicer explained his reasoning:

"We had faced a press corps that was constantly undermining our ability in the campaign to run an effective ground game, an effective data operation. Everyone was saying 'Yours isn't good enough. Hillary Clinton's running a better operation, is a better candidate and campaign. There's no way that you can compete with her.' Time and time again, through the campaign, we heard that. Then we heard similar kind of things during the transition. ... And so, if you constantly feel under attack, then you feel at some point you need to respond and say 'Enough of this.' And when you hear the president and other supporters constantly see this narrative where we are being maligned and undermined and maligned in terms of the validity of our thing, it wears on you."

That's a pretty big admission! Deciding whether or not a government official should tell the truth shouldn't depend on whether or not they're happy with "the narrative" they see playing out in the media.

Maitlis is right — that is a dangerous path, and it's not something that should be rewarded with lucrative book deals and TV shows.

Spicer at a January 2017 press conference. Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images.

Public officials don't get to write and re-write their own history — or at least they shouldn't.

Whether it's Spicer doing chummy interviews to promote his book, Tom DeLay bouncing back from a money-laundering scandal to appear on "Dancing With the Stars," or any of the many other examples of times where the public is asked to more or less forget the lasting effects politicians have on our lives, this really isn't something we have to do as a culture.

There's no law that says that every former administration official is entitled to a nationally televised book tour nor that they're even entitled to a book or TV show at all.

Serving in government is just that: service. In Spicer's case, from that lie on his first day in the job and on, it was a disservice. If journalists must interview Spicer about his new book, they should look to Maitlis and the BBC for how to best serve their audiences.

More

She was a White House stenographer for 5 years. Working with Trump made her quit.

Beck Dorey-Stein found her job as the White House stenographer on Craigslist. Now that job is at the front line in the fight for truth and democracy.

Recording and transcribing the president's conversations with the press wasn't supposed to be a glamorous job. But when Dorey-Stein wasn't allowed to do it properly, the impact was profound.

She said she quit her job after White House officials made it difficult to record President Donald Trump's conversations with the press, which therefore led to inaccurate or incomplete transcripts.

That's bad both for the history books and for the present time, when the debate over what a president has or has not said can dominate the day's news and affect public policy.

"That's really important, to have an accurate recording at all times, especially when the press is involved, just to make sure that we are recording the truth and that no one has complicated that," Dorey-Stein said.

Accurate records are vital for everyone — not just Trump critics.

Accusations of "fake news" are prevalent across the political spectrum. One of the few things most Americans might agree on is their belief that the "other side" is distorting the truth.

When it comes to her old job, Dorey-Stein is clearly placing the blame with Trump and his White House. In a recent op-ed, she wrote, "It's clear that White House stenographers do not serve his administration, but rather his adversary: the truth."

However, having accurate records is something she says Trump supporters should care about just as much. "All of that leaves him quite vulnerable to being misquoted," she said about a lack of an authoritative transcript.

What did the president say and when did he say it?

It's wrong for the administration to block such a basic but fundamental task — recording the president's words for the official record.

Stenography isn't the flashiest of professions, but it's become more essential than ever in the White House.

Ensuring the public has a reliable and factual account of what the president did or didn't say to the media will go a long way toward restoring faith in our institutions and those who work to hold the powerful accountable.

Trending Stories