I know, but I shared it anyway

The viral content problem: Many people don’t care whether it’s true

Craig Silverman, the author of a book about journalism and fact-checking called Regret The Error and a column by the same name at the Poynter Institute, has come out with a major report on the problem of online hoaxes and misinformation, a study he did for the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University. It is an impressive survey of how the desire for pageviews and online “engagement” compels many online media outlets to distribute fake news.

In the pre-amble to his report, Craig (who I should note is a friend) points out that while we usually expect news organizations to disseminate “quality, accurate information” about the world around us, many media companies — and not just digital upstarts but traditional ones — persist in distributing questionable information, even when they suspect it is false:

[blockquote person=”” attribution=””]”News websites dedicate far more time and resources to propagating questionable and often false claims than they do working to verify and/or debunk viral content and online rumors. Rather than acting as a source of accurate information, online media frequently promote misinformation in an attempt to drive traffic and social engagement.”[/blockquote]

A human need to share

Recent examples of hoaxes are legion, and many of them have been debunked on a site that Craig started called Emergent.info — an attempt to create a kind of crowdsourced verification engine that can latch onto hoaxes and determine quickly whether they are true or not. From snow on the pyramids in Egypt to a woman who allegedly had three breasts, every month or so seems to spawn a fresh batch of questionable news reports, many of which show up on some of the leading news websites such as CNN and even Reuters.

Emergent2

As Craig notes in his report (which I encourage you to read if you care about this topic), hoaxes and rumors are not new to journalism — there have been outlets that specialize in that for as long as there have been newspapers, whether it’s the British tabloids or the National Enquirer. But a combination of factors have led to the explosion of misinformation we see all around us, including the rise of the social web and the 24-hour news cycle. Silverman uses the example of the disappearance of Malaysian flight 370:

[blockquote person=”” attribution=””]”The drive to fill the empty space with something — particularly on cable news — was partly human nature, and also partly dependent on the need to meet the public’s insatiable demand for information. All of us — journalists and the public — sought to understand what had happened. But facts were sparse. So we engaged in collective sensemaking and rumor propagation to fill the void.”[/blockquote]

Fake news goes viral

In effect, we are all CNN now: Every website that wants to attract an audience, no matter how large or how small, feels the overwhelming pressure to be first with a news report — regardless of how questionable it might be. And the more salacious or titillating that report is, the more likely an editor is to hit the publish button, and to hide his or her doubts behind a question-mark headline or the phrase “reports say.” And then many of those sites will double down on this strategy by running stories about how their initial reports were false.

newspaper boxes

Occasionally, the tension between wanting to be first with a report that people might click on and wanting to be accurate bursts out into the open. In his report, Silverman mentions a discussion in 2013 between Gawker founder Nick Denton and one of his then-writers, viral specialist Neetzan Zimmerman — who at the time was responsible for posts that drove tens of millions of unique visitors to the site, by reporting on whatever was going viral on dozens of social networks. At one point, Zimmerman says:

[blockquote person=”” attribution=””]”Most viral content demands from its audience a certain suspension of disbelief. The fact is that viral content warehouses like BuzzFeed trade in unverifiable schmaltz exactly because that is the kind of content that goes viral. People don’t look to these stories for hard facts and shoe-leather reporting. They look to them for fleeting instances of joy or comfort. That is the part they play in the Internet news hole.”[/blockquote]

Who cares if it’s true?

As part of his report, Silverman talks about the psychology behind why we all participate in distributing hoaxes and rumors and questionable information — and we definitely all do it, even journalists. I freely confess that I have retweeted news stories or headlines or reports that I haven’t verified, even though I am regularly humiliated for doing so. Usually it’s because I am in a hurry, and the report seems so interesting that I don’t bother to check.

In many cases, we re-publish and distribute these reports because on some level we want them to be true. We want to believe that a woman who posed for a photo in Iraq with a rifle is single-handedly leading a battalion against the forces of ISIS. Why? Because it would make a great story. And that’s why the single best advice for journalists — or anyone else, for that matter — when it comes to news is “If it seems too good to be true, it probably isn’t.”

This photo posted to Twitter shows the so-called Angel of Kobane, who allegedly killed hundreds of ISIS soldiers -- reports that have since been discredited
This photo shows a female fighter known as the Angel of Kobane, who allegedly killed hundreds of ISIS soldiers

In other cases, however — and I would argue that this is a much larger problem than media companies redistributing false information — the vast majority of people simply don’t care whether a report is true or not. They are going to share it anyway, because it is funny, or touching, or creepy, or disturbing. In other words, it sparks some kind of human emotion. Fusion writer and former Reuters columnist Felix Salmon described this well in a piece he wrote in 2013:

[blockquote person=”” attribution=””]”The reasons that people share basically have nothing to do with whether or not the thing being shared is true. If your company was built from day one to produce stuff which people want to share, then that will always end up including certain things which aren’t true.”[/blockquote]

The lines have blurred

This is the one big issue with attempts at crowdsourced verification, whether it’s Emergent.info or Facebook’s recent announcement that it is trying to crack down on hoaxes that get spread via the social network: Facebook’s attempt in particular relies on people to click a button and flag something as a potential hoax — but most people are never going to do this, not just because it takes effort on their part, but because they probably don’t even care whether the report is true or not. They will share it anyway.

In the old days, when media came to us via certain distinct channels — a newspaper, a TV network — it was easy to distinguish fact from entertainment, or gossip from truth. Certain outlets could be trusted, and others couldn’t. But now, the media we consume comes at us from all directions, and the original source isn’t always obvious. And factual news content blurs into entertainment content until everything looks the same.

In effect, we are all trying to figure out whom to trust and when, and the barriers between us and the sausage-making process known as journalism have been removed. That means it’s not just up to media organizations to fix this problem — although they definitely play a major role — it’s up to all of us as news consumers.

13 Responses to “The viral content problem: Many people don’t care whether it’s true”

  1. “If it seems too good to be true, it probably isn’t.” Is this what you meant? Or did you meant, “If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.” – meaning, if it is too good to be true, then it is too good to be true….?

  2. Historically the spread of false content, which even prestigious news outlets have repeated without fact checking, has been the special prerogative of governments. (WMD in Iraq? Gulf of Tonkin incident?)

    Now that information sharing is increasingly decentralized and there are fewer gatekeepers, more can get in on the act.

  3. “And that’s why the single best advice for journalists…“If it seems too good to be true, it probably isn’t.””

    How ironic :). The saying actually goes ‘If it seems too good to be true, it probably IS’.

  4. To City News

    I started a news checking source that connects to local city news stations around the country. There are so many horrific stories that don’t hit the mainstream that, as a break, I have to look for some three breasted stories to take me away from the reality of it all.

  5. I believe that we are facing a sharing era, but we are unprepared for it as a society. The number of stupid news I read every day on my social profiles is astounding, and it let me to reduce the number of my contacts to an absolute minimum. I rather add pages I consider worthwhile, while constantly monitoring their efforts. Lately, there have been a surge of pages (especially on FB) which focus on the correction of the mistakes. I still hope there will be a better education in the media and internet for our youngest, who are fully integrated to the new era technologically, but still completely unaware of the possible consequences of big media scams and hoaxes. And we also have to take care of the legislation on the drones and other devices, which can be possibly dangerous for our privacy.

  6. It’s true that many viral contents are not true. As long as the contents are interesting, people will share it directly (face-to-face) or by any medium they use in this Internet era. It is reflecting the nature of human being to share everything no matter whether it is true or not.