How real is the fake news problem?
If 2017 already has a buzz word, it could well be ‘fake news’, but just how big is the problem? In this guest post David Hickey, director Meltwater ANZ, explores the issue and argues journalistic integrity and research have taken a back seat as news organisations chase eyeballs and create clickbait.
Social media has completely transformed the way we create, distribute and consume news. In the past decade, it has become a driving force in shaping political beliefs and online and offline behaviour. In fact, Telsyte’s recent Australian Digital Consumer Study found that online news is now considered the most influential medium for Australian businesses and consumers, with one in three respondents accessing news through social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. Amid ongoing reports citing the prevalence of fake news stories circulating social media during the recent US election, we have seen journalistic integrity and research take a back seat in the pursuit of clickbait.
Social media v news media
Social media has become somewhat of an echo chamber in which the content, pages and even people that we engage with in the online space increasingly serve to confirm our own personal biases. This is no mistake.
The socialisation of news is a hallmark of the digital age. Algorithmic formulas across social platforms now pick and choose what we do and do not see, selectively exposing users to content that aligns with their own opinions, interests and social and political sensibilities.
Fake news is a problem, but it’s a lesser part of the wider shift.
The bigger issues are the social media echo chamber effect (as mentioned in the post) and the incentivization of clicks.
In the first instance, Facebook – by far the most popular social network in Australia (reaching 71% of all AUS internet users) as well as the rest of the world – is built on an algorithm that learns your preferences and shows you more of what you engage with, be that through Likes, comments, even the time you spend reading a post after clicking through. Users have also learned to switch off those with opinions they don’t agree with by unfollowing, helping them narrow their inputs to only those that support their viewpoint. In the past, similar filtering was possible – you listen to the same radio station every day, read the same newspaper, and they’ll reinforce a certain point of view. But the difference with social is that the information is coming from the people you know, the opinions you put more trust in, making the effect more significant.
On the second point, because clicks are currency for online publishers, they’re now incentivized to write more divisive, controversial headlines – those that, again, help reinforce people’s pre-existing beliefs. Yes, it would be great if we could see balanced, reasonable headlines, but ‘Trump open to using nukes’ is gonna’ get more clicks than ‘Trump discusses nuclear policy’. That hyperbolic approach means the news itself becomes fuel for division, with each headline giving more power to each side of the argument. You don’t agree with the headline, you stop following that outlet. You don’t agree with the person who shared it, you switch them off. But because the headlines are so heavily weighted one way or the other, there’s no grey area, no in between. You’re with us or against us. Agree with this, or you’re wrong.
And of course, the majority of people (some reports suggest up to 80%) only ever read the headline any way.
As the author notes, Facebook have announced they’re taking action against fake news, but they’ve repeatedly stated – even just last week – that fake news itself is only a very minor element on the platform. It’s a problem, yes, and it should be stamped out, but focusing on it diverts from the bigger issues that are much more difficult to resolve.
Most of the negative news, as Trump calls it, (because it is about him); is true!
He is a rogue, a crook, a bully, a sexist, a liar, an embarrassment. He is an awful human being and a great example of the money or nothing culture of greed that so many of us wallow, day in, day out.
Prior to social media Murdoch took care of fake news…
Nice irony : fake president complains about fake news.
He’s not fake now! Enjoy the next four years.
Unlike newspapers, you can’t start reading digital media from the back page.
You CAN, however, dodge stories of little interest. We all do it.
BTW did you hear Malcolm Turnbull is going to declare Australia a republic and himself first President?
It’s not true, but I’d like to hear him deny it.