Get smarter, faster. Subscribe to our daily newsletter.
Fake news sites aren't the core problem. The media's diminished credibility is.
Why do people believe fake news? It's not because it gets shared all over Facebook; it's because they don't trust mainstream news. And Snopes agrees with them.
Remember when we told you about Google's plan to shut down fake news sites and how Facebook helped spread fake news by not filtering its content? According to myth-busting news site Snopes, fake news might not be the real problem at all.
In an interview with Backchannel, Snopes Editor-in-Chief Brooke Binkowski doesn't place the blame for the spread of false news on social media or search sites: she puts it on the mainstream media. “The problem, Binkowski believes, is that the public has lost faith in the media broadly — therefore no media outlet is considered credible any longer," Backchannel reports.
That faith has been lost as internet news sites have grown at the expense of traditional news media. “As the business of news has grown tougher, many outlets have been stripped of the resources they need for journalists to do their jobs correctly." Backchannel reports. It's referring to widespread budget cuts in print and digital news media across the country, from media giants like Hearst and Salon to local papers. These budgets cuts not only reduce the number of reporters on staff, but also editors, fact checkers and other staffers who can help catch mistakes. Binkowski, who is an award-winning journalist, puts it this way: “When you're on your fifth story of the day and there's no editor because the editor's been fired and there's no fact checker so you have to Google it yourself and you don't have access to any academic journals or anything like that, you will screw stories up."
Snopes founder David Mikkelson confirms that, explaining that “the fictions and fabrications that comprise fake news are but a subset of the larger bad news phenomenon, which also encompasses many forms of shoddy, un-researched, error-filled, and deliberately misleading reporting that do a disservice to everyone."
While the mainstream media does print corrections when they find errors, they are often small and not publicized. That is a perfect storm for breeding mistrust in consumers -- and it is why over 60 percent of Americans don't trust mainstream media according to poll company Gallup.
So what's the solution to rebuilding trust in news? “The solution to this problem isn't less content; it's better curation," Queens College professor Brian Hughes told CNN. He explains:
In the 1950s, the FCC regulated the television industry with a program it called the "Fairness Doctrine." The thinking went like this: With only three networks to choose from, viewers needed reliably balanced news and opinion. So, if a television station aired one perspective on a controversial topic, it was obliged to air an opposing view. As a country, we should look at the possibility of adopting a digital equivalent to the Fairness Doctrine.
Until that happens, we'll just have to be savvy media consumers and learn to spot fake news. Thankfully, according to Binkowski, it's really easy to spot. “'Honestly, most of the fake news is incredibly easy to debunk because it's such obvious bullshit," she says. “A site will have something buried somewhere on it that says, 'This is intended to be satire. Don't sue us,'" Backchannel reports. Snopes offers a full guide to spotting fake news. Generally speaking, fake news is “fabricated stories set loose via social media with clickbait headlines and tantalizing images, intended for no purpose other than to fool readers and generate advertising revenues for their publishers," according to Snopes.
Another way to fact check, according to Backchannel commenter John E Branch, Jr., is to not use Google. “Try a different search engine now and then. Though Google's results are to some degree tailored to each user, its basic ranking of results may be broadly the same for everyone, meaning that if 50 journalists all check Google they're probably all getting the same view of the subject. I often check Bing, and sometimes check Yahoo, for the sake of a possibly different perspective."
Columbia University professor Tim Wu gave us additional insights here:
Truthfully, our best defense against fake news for the foreseeable future is to simply call it out. Or, as Binkowski told Backchannel, “The only thing that we are doing that we can really keep doing is: just say the truth again and again and again and again and again, and just keep doing it."
With just a few strategical tweaks, the Nazis could have won one of World War II's most decisive battles.
- The Battle of Britain is widely recognized as one of the most significant battles that occurred during World War II. It marked the first major victory of the Allied forces and shifted the tide of the war.
- Historians, however, have long debated the deciding factor in the British victory and German defeat.
- A new mathematical model took into account numerous alternative tactics that the German's could have made and found that just two tweaks stood between them and victory over Britain.
Two strategic blunders<p>Now, historians and mathematicians from York St. John University have collaborated to produce <a href="http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~nm15/bootstrapBoB%20AAMS.docx" target="_blank">a statistical model (docx download)</a> capable of calculating what the likely outcomes of the Battle of Britain would have been had the circumstances been different. </p><p>Would the German war effort have fared better had they not bombed Britain at all? What if Hitler had begun his bombing campaign earlier, even by just a few weeks? What if they had focused their targets on RAF airfields for the entire course of the battle? Using a statistical technique called weighted bootstrapping, the researchers studied these and other alternatives.</p><p>"The weighted bootstrap technique allowed us to model alternative campaigns in which the Luftwaffe prolongs or contracts the different phases of the battle and varies its targets," said co-author Dr. Jaime Wood in a <a href="https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2020/research/mathematicians-battle-britain-what-if-scenarios/" target="_blank">statement</a>. Based on the different strategic decisions that the German forces could have made, the researchers' model enabled them to predict the likelihood that the events of a given day of fighting would or would not occur.</p><p>"The Luftwaffe would only have been able to make the necessary bases in France available to launch an air attack on Britain in June at the earliest, so our alternative campaign brings forward the air campaign by three weeks," continued Wood. "We tested the impact of this and the other counterfactuals by varying the probabilities with which we choose individual days."</p><p>Ultimately, two strategic tweaks shifted the odds significantly towards the Germans' favor. Had the German forces started their campaign earlier in the year and had they consistently targeted RAF airfields, an Allied victory would have been extremely unlikely.</p><p>Say the odds of a British victory in the real-world Battle of Britain stood at 50-50 (there's no real way of knowing what the actual odds are, so we'll just have to select an arbitrary figure). If this were the case, changing the start date of the campaign and focusing only on airfields would have reduced British chances at victory to just 10 percent. Even if a British victory stood at 98 percent, these changes would have cut them down to just 34 percent.</p>
A tool for understanding history<p>This technique, said co-author Niall Mackay, "demonstrates just how finely-balanced the outcomes of some of the biggest moments of history were. Even when we use the actual days' events of the battle, make a small change of timing or emphasis to the arrangement of those days and things might have turned out very differently."</p><p>The researchers also claimed that their technique could be applied to other uncertain historical events. "Weighted bootstrapping can provide a natural and intuitive tool for historians to investigate unrealized possibilities, informing historical controversies and debates," said Mackay.</p><p>Using this technique, researchers can evaluate other what-ifs and gain insight into how differently influential events could have turned out if only the slightest things had changed. For now, at least, we can all be thankful that Hitler underestimated Britain's grit.</p>
The next era in American history can look entirely different. It's up to us to choose.
- The timeline of America post-WWII can be divided into two eras, according to author and law professor Ganesh Sitaraman: the liberal era which ran through the 1970s, and the current neoliberal era which began in the early 1980s. The latter promised a "more free society," but what we got instead was more inequality, less opportunity, and greater market consolidation.
- "We've lived through a neoliberal era for the last 40 years, and that era is coming to an end," Sitaraman says, adding that the ideas and policies that defined the period are being challenged on various levels.
- What comes next depends on if we take a proactive and democratic approach to shaping the economy, or if we simply react to and "deal with" market outcomes.
A new MIT report proposes how humans should prepare for the age of automation and artificial intelligence.
- A new report by MIT experts proposes what humans should do to prepare for the age of automation.
- The rise of intelligent machines is coming but it's important to resolve human issues first.
- Improving economic inequality, skills training, and investment in innovation are necessary steps.