Being more media savvy won’t stop the spread of ‘fake news’ – here’s why


Craig Harper, Nottingham Trent University

Fake news” is the buzzword of 2017. Barely a day goes by without a headline about president Donald Trump lambasting media “bias”, or the spread of “alternative facts”.

Many articles on the subject suggest that social media sites should do more to educate the public about misinformation, or that readers should think more critically about the sources of news stories before sharing them. But there are fundamental problems with this. First, there isn’t a clear definition of what “fake news” really is. And second, it overlooks important aspects of people’s psychological makeup.

“Fake news” can be classified in a number of ways and represented as a series of concentric circles. First, in the centre of the concentric model, we have actual fake news. These are the stories that we commonly see shared on sites such as News Thump and The Onion. These satirical stories are written for comedic purposes and are put together to entertain.

Next, we have propaganda articles. Typically, these pieces do not actually contain any real news value. They may, for example, detail an individual’s past behaviour and suggest that that it reflects something about their current intentions. Alternatively, these pieces may contain some kernel of truth, but this may be twisted in such a way that it totally misleads audiences and misrepresents a story’s true news value.

These propaganda articles take numerous forms. The Huffington Post, for example, included a caveat about Donald Trump’s alleged bigotry whenever mentioning him in a story before the US election last November, while British readers will likely recall the Daily Mail’s much-maligned attacks on former Labour leader Ed Miliband’s late father in 2013, calling him a “man who hated Britain”.

Finally, and occupying the outermost ring of the model, there are the stories that are technically true, but reflect the subtle editorial biases of the organisation publishing them. This reporting is commonplace within the mainstream media, through selective storytelling and politically-driven editorials. Whether this is reflected in the left-wing bias of The Guardian or the right-wing approach of the Murdoch media empire, this practice is less malicious and more a political interpretation of events.

A concentric model of ‘fake news’.

A tale of two biases

Despite the widespread use of the label, only one of these rings – the central and smallest group – is legitimately “fake news”. Stories in the outer two rings are not necessarily “fake”, and they may or may not actually be “news”. But if particular companies take editorial positions on particular issues, that in itself is not a problem. The important issue is how we interact with these viewpoints.

The meme of “fake news” provides a new and socially approved way of indulging some of our core psychological and political bias. Confirmation bias is a label used by psychologists to describe the tendency that people have to search for and interpret information in a way that corresponds with their preexisting beliefs, preferences and attitudes. Quite simply, we are more inclined to believe a story, and share it with others, when its content corresponds with our opinions. Similarly, we are more likely to brand stories we don’t agree with “fake news”.

Yes, I totally agree.

It all comes down to who we are. The idea of ontological security suggests that people are motivated to maintain a clear and consistent sense of their own identity and the environment around them. When they are confronted with a story that goes against their view of the world, therefore, they impulsively reject its core messages.

That said, there are clearly some stories that we may disagree with, but which also feature key arguments that make logical sense. If this is the case, we seek to discredit the sources rather than the argument. We attribute ulterior motives to them in order to bolster “our” side. In the current climate, we call them “fake news”.

The way forward

Data shows how online communities are increasingly becoming ideologically pure “echo chambers”. This trend contributes to a rising intolerance of anything that does not quite fit with a particular worldview. People share things that match their beliefs, and disparage anything that does not. What’s more, with the click of a button or the swipe of a smartphone, individuals can now block, unfriend, and unfollow anybody promoting “deviant” views. We cleanse the chamber from within.

It is clear, then, that being more “media savvy” is unlikely to counter innate psychological biases. But there is a need for more diversity of opinion within social networks. Research suggests that contact between groups can lead to reduced polarisation and conflict. It is only by confronting legitimate opposing viewpoints on a regular basis that we can truly recognise fake news when we see it. Quite how we do this in an era of political polarisation, however, remains an open question.

Craig Harper, Lecturer in Human Psychology, Nottingham Trent University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

MBFC Ad-Free 


MBFC Donation

Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources

Found this insightful? Please consider sharing on your Social Media:

Subscribe With Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to MBFC and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 22.8K other subscribers

8 Comments on "Being more media savvy won’t stop the spread of ‘fake news’ – here’s why"

  1. I have an opinion about this. If…when the reporter, starts reading (talking), you can tell if it is fake news in that it is when he/she talks from a “personal” point of view. Like it is from their OWN perspective. And it’s usually negative and they’re griping. THIS IS “FAKE” NEWS!! The reports are to inform you of the facts, NOT TO PERSUADE YOU TO FEEL A CERTAIN WAY!!! This is what it’s supposed to do. Thanks for letting me spout. America deserves the best.

  2. This fact checker website is obviously left bias so anything conservative is going to get mixed reviews. Cnn highly factual, lol, please. I’ve seen CNN slant their reporting by leaving out key information. You should also have a scale for dishonesty. You guys need to be fact checked. Lol.

  3. In order to get a mixed rating you must fail at least one fact check. CNN has moved left since the start of election season. We rate them based on news reporting and not their left biased talk shows. We will be re-evaluating them in the near future as we try to do that once per year. They will be moved accordingly based on how they score with our system.

  4. As long as you cite left-wing sources like RationalWiki and the SPLC for their interpretation of the people on the right, and lump all controversial right-wing figures into the alt-right, MBFC will never be free from its own bias.
    (Same goes for vice versa, but as MBFC is now, it leans left with little understanding of how few people are in the actual “alt-right”)
    (The SPLC? Seriously? Pepe is not a hate symbol and has been used by people on all sides to make internet jokes.)

  5. Thanks MBFC! You deserve an award for the work you have done.

  6. Media Bias Fact Check | April 27, 2020 at 9:17 am |

    Thank you.

  7. I find this a unique study. My own opinion is the very nature of “news” may be a bias in and of itself. James Reston made the point one of the critiques of news reporting is it’s “Dailyness,” the idea this happened today. As a result many stories that are important, but not noted may be overlooked.

    One small example. I had my annual physical with our family doctor. This was in 1960 something. I mentioned actor Robert Young had a new series about a family doctor. My doctor said he didn’t watch television.

    I mentioned Young said fewer doctors go into family medicine or being a GP General Practioner. My doctor said, “Well he’s right about that. In 1950 the county where I lived had 6 GPs, The population had doubled in 20 years. There were now 3.

    This was not a headline story, but many times it’s the changed so obvious nobody notices; the move from the city to the suburbs, the decline of print media to be replaced with “Social” ? Media, the move from an industrial economy to a service economy…I could go on but you get the idea.

  8. I am concerned about the article and video from Dr, David Martin where he exposes Trudeau why he wont back down. I know this is Right Wing, never-the-less, if true it could stop the protesting and so avoid violence breaking out and Canada becoming a Police State. In that case should the Truth not be exposed?


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.