TABLE OF CONTENTS
THEME: MISINFORMATION, ACTUALLY, IS ALL AROUND US
YOUTUBE INCENTIVIZES MISINFORMATION
NEW SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES AND THE ELECTION BIG LIE
DEREK CHAUVIN TRIAL AND VERDICT
J&J VACCINE PAUSED, UNPAUSED
FUN WITH FACT CHECKS: ROLLER COASTERS AND HAMBURGERS
THEME
Each Prism Newsletter will be organized around a single theme. For this inaugural volume, the themes are going to be very straightforward, modest even, in the takeaways we hope to communicate.
The first thing you need to know about misinformation is that misinformation, actually, is all around us. You probably have noticed it. Many people, though, underestimate the scope of the problem. To be the kind of consumer and interpreter of news that makes consistently good choices about what information to take in, you have to first grasp that there is a lot of false information out there — in the world, in your social media circles, and maybe even in your text messages or your church book club. It isn’t always obvious, and it isn’t always small. But it isn’t always a huge conspiracy theory, either. And it isn’t just one side or the other that falls victim to it. Misinformation is pervasive precisely because we do not suspect that what we and people like us engage in could be entirely false.
To be clear about what we mean by “misinformation,” here is what we don’t mean:
ideological spin;
partisan takes;
any opinion, political or otherwise;
or expressions of religious or spiritual beliefs.
We are also careful not to conflate misinformation with media bias — though bias is also completely unavoidable, omnipresent, sometimes pernicious, and often gets paired with deliberate amplification of misinformation. Defining any of this as misinformation, however, does more harm than good.
At Prism we draw a clear line; we’re not going to focus (as much) on those other things, because in fact we fairly need them to make sense of the world. They have the power to weave narratives, sharpen your thinking about issues, and help you connect with others who want the policies you want. They give your brain a break from having to do all the sensemaking, all the time, all on your own. This is a valuable kind of social good in a complex civilization.
When we say “misinformation,” on the other hand, we mean it strictly: a person or news source has claimed something to be a fact which is, objectively and observably, not factual. It is a thing that can be known to be true or false — and when you bother to find out, it’s false. This is the kind of garbage we completely do not need in our lives or in society. It is harmful to individuals and serves no common purpose. The number of bad actors who benefit is very small, and they are parasites exploiting the good instincts of virtuous, though unsuspecting, people.
We’re here to tell you: even with this most cautious, narrow definition, YOU, WE, and ALL OF US are surrounded by misinformation every day. There is no shortage of people trying. There is no shortage of people buying. Just how much? We haven’t come up with a way to quantify its levels across the infosphere yet, but it is a lot more than zero. And there is significant variability at the individual level. We will have more to say about information diets next time; for now, just know that if you consume mostly memes, you are in far deeper than if you read a selection of full articles that have been published by reputable outlets.
In the face of this reality, you must be able to stand on your own. The answer to the presence of misinformation in the world isn’t to glom on to one personality, or one show, or one news source that you think is the most accurate. It isn’t to read and just uncritically accept the links a trusted friend sends you. To know what is real requires building muscle to judge for yourself, to take inputs from many sources and weigh them against one another. This can be daunting to ponder, as we at Prism sometimes feel when we think about how much we still have to learn. Don’t worry, though: you’re going to do great, and so are we.
THIS MONTH IN MISINFORMATION
How Misinformation Works #001: YouTube Incentivizes Extreme, False, Emotionally Manipulative Content
This week saw a New York Times feature on how YouTube’s promotion and recommendation algorithms reward hateful speech, false but controversial-sounding assertions, and other extreme and polarizing content, as explained by a man who formerly created all of these things for a living as the producer of an alt-right channel. The user-generated “independent news creator” programs on the video-sharing platform that so many have turned to are thoroughly — maybe hopelessly — riddled with falsehoods because lies can help those creators make money. This is a problem because YouTube has become a major source of information for millions of Americans, as Pew Research Center recently documented at length. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the study found that consumers of such news content did not seem overly concerned about misinformation on the platform.
Misinformation on YouTube carries with it all the ill effects you might expect. Videos are easy to access, easy to digest, and easy to roll from one to the next on autoplay. The video format is more powerful than almost any other media to evoke strong emotions . And the sheer volume of false content on YouTube has led to the sharing of YouTube links to frequently feature in sad stories across America. Many families have been torn apart by a loved one who has followed YouTube’s algorithms down a conspiracy theory rabbit hole. To take one example, though many others exist, NPR reported this week that a father’s newfound enthusiasm for YouTube conspiracy videos estranged his daughter from him, and vice versa.
What you can do: Use YouTube for its original purposes only, i.e., parody music videos, DIY projects, and cats playing musical instruments. Alternatively, believe nothing you see on YouTube to be true until you have independently corroborated it in the written reporting of multiple reputable news sources.
Election Big Lie Marches On Via New Social Media Platforms
Claims that Donald Trump certainly would win the 2020 election, and that if he didn’t it could only be explained by Democrats’ cheating, were being made by misinformation bad actors even before the November contest had concluded. He didn’t win, though, and when all the votes were counted it wasn’t particularly close. Overnight, and with the defeated President’s encouragement, a cottage industry of charlatans sprang up to harness, for personal gain, the myth that Trump was the rightful winner.
One of these charlatans was Mike Lindell, a pillow entrepreneur and ardent supporter of Donald Trump. Five days before Trump left Washington, DC and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swore Joe Biden in at the Capitol, Lindell was photographed going into a White House meeting with notes appearing to advocate for the declaration of martial law, and he has been a high-profile surrogate for the QAnon fringe of Trump supporters.
To the surprise of no one, Lindell got kicked off Twitter a week after the inauguration for repeatedly violating the platform’s policies against the amplification of misinformation because he would not stop tweeting that Trump actually won. He cried censorship and set plans in motion to start a social media company dedicated to completely free speech, which materialized this week (sort of; it doesn’t seem to work very well) as a site he has called “Frank.” As of the time of this writing, the Frank home page features a 24/7 live stream of launch-related content and an embed of Lindell’s latest film, “Absolute Interference,” which asserts the election was stolen with the help of cyber attacks by China, Russia, Iran, and other countries against voting machines, a variation on a theory that has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked.
We are all victims of this big election lie. For one thing, belief in it was a key motivator for many of the Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol on January 6th. And several dozen Republicans in Congress remained faithful to it even weeks after the attempt to prevent Congress from certifying the Electoral College tallies failed. The companies that make the voting machines, especially, stand to lose everything from the continuation of this narrative, and so have taken Lindell and others to court for the harm inflicted on their businesses. Most recently, Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems filed suit against Fox News at the end of March for amplifying falsehoods about its machines, seeking up to $1.6 billion in damages for the defamatory coverage. Lawsuits such as these, especially if settled or won, could raise the cost of spreading misinformation to the bad actors that traffic in it.
Not to be outdone by the pillow tycoon, One America News Network (OAN) has similarly brought the election fraud hoax back to its internet-based broadcasts in recent weeks. Somewhat unexpectedly, OAN has also launched its own blue bird-themed social media platform by the unsubtle name of “Free Talk24.” Watch this space for updates!
And, finally, remember Parler? The conservative alternative to Twitter — promising to refrain from all forms of censorship or content moderation and of course hosting rampant misinformation as a consequence — was booted from Apple’s App Store weeks ago, but reportedly has come to an agreement with the tech giant to be allowed back on soon. Yippee.
What you can do: Before downloading and logging in, research new social media apps the way you would a new drug your doctor has offered to prescribe. Select what and whom you follow with care. You are considering inviting a whole new set of influences into your modes of thinking and worldview, and many of them are known to be toxic — which you can judge without too much effort.
BETWEEN THE (HEAD)LINES
Jury Finds Minneapolis Police Officer Guilty of Murdering George Floyd
What happened? After hearing arguments from the prosecution and the defense, all of which was televised per the judge’s order, the jury in the Derek Chauvin trial held brief deliberations and voted unanimously for the police officer’s conviction. Chauvin, who is white, was found guilty of the two counts of murder and one count of manslaughter he was charged with for the killing of Floyd, who was Black, last summer. Demonstrations began to gain momentum in anticipation of the verdict, but the announcement largely defused the atmosphere.
How was it covered? Outlets that lean left, along with many that have reputations for neutral reporting, gave extensive coverage to courtroom arguments, testimony, and evidence — particularly a cell phone video of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd’s neck for several minutes. On the right, outlets covered less of the trial as it proceeded, focusing instead on how public expressions of support for Floyd might sway the jurors against Chauvin. Fox News and other outlets, for example, reported on remarks by liberal Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) in which she called for “more confrontational” protests, comments she attempted to play down but that the judge criticized from the bench as being disrespectful to the rule of law. Most media coverage acknowledged that Chauvin was likely to appeal the verdict and that Waters’ statement could lend legal merit to the appeal.
What related misinformation circulated? Even more so than most major stories, Chauvin’s trial was a national event because of the way Floyd’s death sparked protests in cities across the country last summer, and the jury’s verdict was going to be consequential either way — and therefore fertile ground for misinformation. On one side, fake accounts purporting to be the police departments of cities like Chicago and Portland (tweet was later deleted) posted messages of solidarity with Chauvin after the verdict. In coverage of the demonstrations by conservative media, there were also echoes of the stories they have told since last summer of cities being wholesale burned or destroyed by rioters and violent factions, taking isolated incidents and using the imagery in particular to inflame audiences against protesters. Up until the verdict was announced, there were stories on the left about the misinformation and other harmful content that might be expected if Chauvin were to be acquitted, and Facebook announced it had taken measures to be ready to enforce its policies related to false information in anticipation of a post-verdict surge in social media activity.
Federal Regulators Pause, Then Unpause, Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 Vaccine
What happened? On April 13th, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced they were putting the government’s authorization of Johnson & Johnson’s single-shot COVID-19 vaccine on pause while an independent advisory committee to the CDC evaluated the risk of rare blood clotting issues observed in some women who had taken the vaccine. Ten days later, on April 23rd, the advisory committee reaffirmed that it still recommends the vaccine — which is highly effective at preventing infection and has a perfect record so far on preventing death caused by the disease — for everyone ages 18 and older. Within hours, CDC and FDA announced that they recommended resuming the use of the vaccine without any restrictions on who should be offered it.
How was it covered? Major outlets ran stories highlighting the hold when it was announced, with many putting out “explainer” articles describing what was known about the link between the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the rare blood clots. Some, including Fox News and NPR, followed the initial coverage with reports that a European Union regulating body had said the Johnson & Johnson shot should be labeled with a warning about unusual blood clots with low platelets.
What related misinformation circulated? These developments, especially in the interim while the vaccine was on hold, had many elements to suggest it would be vulnerable to being misused and misunderstood. There are large-number comparative probabilities involved (six cases of blood clotting out of millions of doses administered) that are hard for untrained individuals to weight correctly; a government announcement that seemed to confirm what was already being said by proponents of anti-vaccine misinformation; and a government reversal that could be twisted to look like a conspiratorial coverup, to name just a few. Indeed, two days after the pause was announced, the most popular article on it on Facebook was one posted by a “news analyst & hip-hop artist” (his words) called An0maly, who has said the pandemic is just a cover for a government power grab and who had run afoul of Facebook’s content rules just the day before. An0maly’s wording on this post was not deemed factually incorrect and so he managed to avoid having it removed, but others including known anti-vaccine personalities Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Rizza Islam, and even some (Republican) state lawmakers in Pennsylvania, pounced on the pause announcement as proof that all three of the authorized vaccines are unsafe and should be avoided. Other vaccine-related misinformation sprung up at the same time as the Johnson & Johnson pause, with posts calling the vaccines “experimental,” claiming they had skipped animal testing phases or clinical trials, or asserting that there is evidence the mRNA vaccines cause infertility, neurocognitive problems, or reduce life expectancy — despite none of thatbeing true. (Point to ponder: How would we even know, so early on, about impact to life expectancy? Hmmmm.)
FUN WITH FACT CHECKS
And sometimes misinformation is so ridiculous, all you can do is laugh.