Close

Ch. 5 (Unit 5A) The News Business Current Articles

"Fake news is cheap to produce. Genuine journalism is expensive. Toomas Hendrik Ilves.

Article #1

Americans’ Changing Relationship With Local News (Excerpt from Extensive Research) Links to an external site.

As news consumption habits become more digital, U.S. adults continue to see value in local outlets

BY ELISA SHEARER, KATERINA EVA MATSA, MICHAEL LIPKA, KIRSTEN EDDY AND NAOMI FORMAN-KATZ   May 7, 2024
Reporters question a defense attorney at Harris County Criminal Courts at Law in Houston on 3/24/2024. (Getty Images)
How we did this

The local news landscape in America is going through profound changes as both news consumers and producers continue to adapt to a more digital news environment. We recently asked U.S. adults about the ways they access local news, as well as their attitudes toward local journalism, finding that:

A bar chart showing Americans increasingly prefer digital pathways to local news
A bar chart showing most Americans say local media are at least somewhat important to their community
  • A growing share of Americans prefer to get local news online, while fewer are getting news on TV or in print. And newspapers are no longer primarily consumed as a print product – the majority of readers of local daily newspapers now access them digitally.
  • The share of U.S. adults who say they are paying close attention to local news has dropped since our last major survey Links to an external site. of attitudes toward local news in 2018, mirroring declining attention to national news.
  • Americans still see value in local news and local journalists. A large majority say local news outlets are at least somewhat important to the well-being of their local community. Most people also say local journalists are in touch with their communities and that their local news media perform well at several aspects of their jobs, such as reporting the news accurately.
  • At the same time, a relatively small share of Americans (15%) say they have paid for local news in the last year. And many seem unaware of the major financial challenges facing local news: A 63% majority (albeit a smaller majority than in 2018) say they think their local news outlets are doing very or somewhat well financially.
  • Majorities of both major parties say local media in their area are doing their jobs well. While Republicans and GOP-leaning independents are slightly less positive than Democrats and Democratic leaners in their opinions of local media, views of local news don’t have the same stark political divides that exist within Americans’ opinions about national media Links to an external site..
  • Most Americans say local journalists should remain neutral on issues in their community, but a substantial minority say local journalists should take a more active role. About three-in-ten say local journalists should advocate for change in their communities, a view that’s especially common among Democrats and younger adults.

These are some of the key findings from a new Pew Research Center survey of about 5,000 U.S. adults conducted in January 2024. This is the first in a series of Pew Research Center reports on local news from the Pew-Knight Initiative, a research program funded jointly by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

Americans largely hold positive views of local news organizations

At a time when many local news outlets are struggling Links to an external site. and Americans’ trust in the news media Links to an external site. has waned, the vast majority of U.S. adults (85%) say local news outlets are at least somewhat important to the well-being of their local community. This includes 44% who say local journalism is extremely or very important to their community

About seven-in-ten U.S. adults (69%) say that local journalists in their area are mostly in touch with their community, up from 63% who said this in 2018. And most Americans also say their local news organizations are doing well at four key roles:

A bar chart showing most Americans say local media are doing well at different aspects of reporting
  • Reporting news accurately (71%)
  • Covering the most important stories (68%)
  • Being transparent (63%)
  • Keeping an eye on local political leaders (61%).

These are relatively positive views compared with how Americans see news organizations more broadly. For instance, a 2022 Pew Research Center survey Links to an external site. found that fewer than half of U.S. adults say that news organizations in general do a very or somewhat good job of covering the most important stories, reporting the news accurately and serving as a watchdog over elected leaders.

A bar chart showing majorities of both political parties believe their local news media do aspects of jobs well

What’s more, views toward local news are not as politically polarized as Americans’ opinions about the news media overall. While Republicans and GOP-leaning independents are not quite as positive as Democrats and Democratic leaners in some of their assessments of local journalists, most Republicans still say the local media in their area are doing their jobs well.

For example, roughly three-quarters of Democrats (78%) say their local media do well at reporting news accurately, compared with about two-thirds of Republicans (66%).

By comparison, the 2022 survey found that 51% of Democrats and just 17% of Republicans say that news organizations in general do a very or somewhat good job of reporting the news accurately.

Jump to more information on views toward local news organizations. Links to an external site.

A bar chart showing declines in attention to both local and national news

Fewer Americans are closely following local news – and other types of news

Despite these positive views toward local news organizations, there are signs that Americans are engaging less with local journalism than they used to.

The share of Americans who say they follow local news very closely has fallen by 15 percentage points since 2016 Links to an external site. (from 37% to 22%). Most U.S. adults still say they follow local news at least somewhat closely (66%), but this figure also has dropped in recent years.

A line chart showing Americans’ preferred path to local news is moving online

This trend is not unique to local news – Americans’ attention to national and international news also has declined.

The local news landscape is becoming more digital

The ways in which Americans access local news are changing, reflecting an increasingly digital landscape – and matching patterns in overall news consumption habits Links to an external site..

Preferred pathways to local news

  • Fewer people now say they prefer to get local news through a television set (32%, down from 41% who said the same in 2018).
  • Americans are now more likely to say they prefer to get local news online, either through news websites (26%) or social media (23%). Both of these numbers have increased in recent years.
  • Smaller shares prefer getting their local news from a print newspaper or on the radio (9% each).

Specific sources for local news

The types of sources (e.g., outlets or organizations) Americans are turning to are changing as well:

A bar chart showing more Americans get local news from online forums than daily newspapers
  • While local television stations are still the most common source of local news beyond friends, family and neighbors, the share who often or sometimes get news there has declined from 70% to 64% in recent years.
  • Online forums, such as Facebook groups or the Nextdoor app, have become a more common destination for local news: 52% of U.S. adults say they at least sometimes get local news from these types of forums, up 14 percentage points from 2018. This is on par with the percentage who get local news at least sometimes from local radio stations.
  • Meanwhile, a third of Americans say they at least sometimes get local news from a daily newspaper, regardless of whether it is accessed via print, online or through a social media website – down 10 points from 2018. The share of Americans who get local news from newspapers is now roughly on par with the share who get local news from local government agencies (35%) or local newsletters or Listservs (31%).

Not only are fewer Americans getting local news from newspapers, but local daily newspapers are now more likely to be accessed online than in print.

A bar chart showing local newspapers are no longer accessed primarily through print
  • 31% of those who get news from daily newspapers do so via print, while far more (66%) do so digitally, whether through websites, apps, emails or social media posts that include content from the paper.
  • In 2018, just over half of those who got news from local daily newspapers (54%) did so from print, and 43% did so via a website, app, email or social media site.

There is a similar move toward digital access for local TV stations, though local TV news is still mostly consumed through a TV set.

  • In 2024, 62% of those getting news from local TV stations do so through a television, compared with 37% who do so through one of the digital pathways.
  • An even bigger majority of local TV news consumers (76%) got that news through a TV set in 2018.

Jump to more information on how people access local news. Links to an external site.

The financial state of local news

The turmoil for the local news industry in recent years has come with major financial challenges. Circulation and advertising revenue for newspapers have seen sharp declines in the last decade, according to our analysis of industry data Links to an external site., and other researchers have documented Links to an external site. that thousands of newspapers have stopped publishing in the last two decades. There also is evidence of audience decline Links to an external site. for local TV news stations, although advertising revenue on local TV has been more stable.

A bar chart showing the share who think their local news is doing well financially is still a majority

When asked about the financial state of the news outlets in their community, a majority of Americans (63%) say they think their local news outlets are doing very or somewhat well, with a third saying that they’re not doing too well or not doing well at all. This is a slightly more pessimistic view than in 2018, when 71% said their local outlets were doing well, though it is still a relatively positive assessment of the financial state of the industry.

Just 15% of Americans say they have paid or given money to any local news source in the past year – a number that has not changed much since 2018. The survey also asked Americans who did not pay for news in the past year the main reason why not. The most common explanation is that people don’t pay because they can find plenty of free local news, although young adults are more inclined to say they just aren’t interested enough in local news to pay for it.

Jump to more information on how people view the financial state of local news. Links to an external site.

Other key findings in this report

A bar chart showing weather, crime, traffic and government are all commonly followed local news topics

Americans get local news about a wide variety of topics. Two-thirds or more of U.S. adults at least sometimes get news about local weather, crime, government and politics, and traffic and transportation, while smaller shares (but still at least half) say they get local news about arts and culture, the economy, schools, and sports.

Relatively few Americans are highly satisfied with the coverage they see of many topics. The survey also asked respondents who at least sometimes get each type of local news how satisfied they are with the news they get. With the exception of weather, fewer than half say they are extremely or very satisfied with the quality of the news they get about each topic. For example, about a quarter of those who consume news about their local economy (26%) say they are extremely or very satisfied with this news. Read more about different local news topics in Chapter 2. Links to an external site.

A bar chart showing younger adults are more likely to say that local journalists should advocate for change

When asked whether local journalists should remain neutral on community issues or advocate for change in the community, a majority of Americans (69%) say journalists should remain neutral, reflecting more traditional journalistic norms. However, 29% say that local journalists should be advocating for change in their communities. Younger adults are the most likely to favor advocacy by journalists: 39% of those ages 18 to 29 say that local journalists should push for change, as do 34% of those 30 to 49. Read more about Americans’ views of the role of local journalists in Chapter 4. Links to an external site.

Americans who feel a strong sense of connection to their community are more likely to engage with local news, say that local news outlets are important to the community, and rate local media more highly overall. For example, 66% of those who say they are very attached to their community say local news outlets are extremely or very important to the well-being of their local community, compared with 46% of those who are somewhat attached and 31% of those who are not very or not at all attached to their community.

Article #2

Local news anchors across the country are reading from the exact same script on Joe Biden. Links to an external site.

Local television news broadcasters are airing suspiciously similar attacks Links to an external site. on Joe Biden’s mental acuity and how it will affect the coming election—and it appears to be part of a coordinated effort.

The Sinclair Broadcast Group owns or operates 185 local television stations across the country, and dozens of their stations aired a segment from national correspondent Matthew Galka citing a Wall Street Journal article Links to an external site. that makes dubious attacks on Biden’s age and mental awareness. The stations that aired the segment introduced it using startlingly similar, if not identical language, the Popular Information and Public Notice newsletters reported Links to an external site..

It’s not the first time Sinclair, owned by right-wing businessman David D. Smith, has appeared to be running a conservative propaganda campaign. Infamously in 2018, dozens of the company’s TV stations were caught airing an identical editorial Links to an external site. about the dangers of biased and false news. This time around, the Rupert Murdoch Links to an external site.-owned Wall Street Journal, as well as Murdoch’s cable news stations Fox News and Fox Business, have gotten in on the act.

Smith himself has long been a donor to Republican causes Links to an external site. through his family foundation, which counts right-wing nonprofits Young Americans for Liberty, Project Veritas, Turning Point USA, and Moms for Liberty among its recipients. In 2016, the Donald Trump campaign cut a deal with Sinclair that exchanged Links to an external site. extensive access to Trump in return for positive coverage without fact-checking. That same year, Smith met with Trump and reportedly told him, “We are here to deliver your message Links to an external site..”

Earlier this year, Smith purchased The Baltimore Sun Links to an external site., insulting its staff and laying out a vision to steer it in the conservative direction of his TV stations. It’s quite obvious that Smith, Murdoch, and other conservative millionaires and billionaires are taking over Links to an external site. as many media outlets as possible to push right-wing political propaganda, with the Biden age article and subsequent TV segments as examples of the end product they want. They’re finding vast opportunities in America’s declining news deserts Links to an external site., as well as the skeletal newspapers gutted by hedge funds Links to an external site. and profit-seeking corporations. It doesn’t just bode well for the next election, but also portends a scary future for American democracy for decades to come.

After publication, a Sinclair spokesperson reached out to The New Republic to clarify that “using a preproduced script for a package that has been provided by another media outlet is a common practice across the industry.”

This article has been updated.

Exited Washington Post Editor Clashed With CEO Over Coverage of His Ties to Murdoch Scandal Links to an external site.

Links to an external site.By Stephanie Kaloi June 5, 2024 @ 6:56 PM

CEO Will Lewis argued with former executive editor Sally Buzbee over paper’s coverage of Prince Harry phone hacking case

Washington Post sign outside its headquarters.

Weeks before the unexpected resignation on Sunday of Washington Post executive editor Sally Buzbee, she argued with CEO Will Lewis when he pushed back on the paper’s coverage of a scandal in the United Kingdom he is connected to.

According to The New York Times Links to an external site., in mid-May Buzbee approached Lewis about a piece the paper planned to run about Prince Harry’s phone hacking case in the UK which would have noted that Lewis himself could be named as a participant in the scheme. Lewis, NYT says, told her that this “did not merit coverage.”

After Buzbee informed him the outlet would cover the ruling anyway, “he said her decision represented a lapse in judgment and abruptly ended the conversation,” according to NYT. The Post published an article Links to an external site. about the ruling after the judge added Lewis’ name to the case.

The conversation between Lewis and Buzbee took place in a conference room outside the Post newsroom. Lewis had previously denied any involvement in covering up alleged phone hacking while he worked as an executive for Rupert Murdoch.

Buzbee was reexamining her own role at the paper at the same time, according to the New York Times. In April, Lewis offered her the job of managing a new social media and service journalism department, which would include lifestyle coverage, a swap she considered a demotion from her role overseeing all parts of the news team.

Lewis’ changes at the Post included splitting the editorial team into three sections: a newsroom covering politics and business among other topics; an opinion section; and the new division proposed to Buzbee.

As part of the new role, Lewis told Buzbee she would have a say in the hiring of a new editor to head the news team.

The Post announced Buzbee’s resignation on Monday. Matt Murray, former editor in chief of The Wall Street Journal, will fill the role through the 2024 presidential election. Robert Winnett, deputy editor of the Telegraph Media Group, will take over following the election’s conclusion.

Buzbee was the first female executive editor for the Post.

Links to an external site.

 

Article (Information) #4

Media Bias Chart (Dated 2024) Links to an external site.

media bias chart

Article (Information) #5

How False News Spreads video Links to an external site.

Example

‘Cheapfake’ Biden videos enrapture right-wing media, but deeply mislead Links to an external site.

The Republican National Committee posts a clipped video. Then the New York Post, the Telegraph and other pro-Trump outlets follow suit with the same deceptive framing.

Analysis by Adriana Usero and  Glenn Kessler
Updated June 15, 2024 at 10:42 a.m. EDT|Published June 14, 2024 at 5:17 p.m. EDT
Biden clips from G7
Biden video clips at G7 (The Washington Post) Links to an external site.

“What is Biden doing?”

— Republican National Committee social media post Links to an external site., 1:01 p.m., June 13

Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter. Links to an external site.

“Biden wanders away at G-7 summit before being pulled back by Italian PM”

— headline of New York Post article Links to an external site., posted less than two hours later

“Meander in Chief: Biden embarrasses U.S. with confused wanderings at world conference.”

— front page of New York Post, posted June 14 Links to an external site.

A particularly effective attack on a political candidate can come in the form of a video snippet that appears to reinforce an existing stereotype. The social media feed of the RNC regularly churns out misleading clips of President Biden Links to an external site., 81, intended to show that he is too old for the job.

Biden’s Republican opponent, former president Donald Trump Links to an external site., turned 78 on Friday, but polls show there is less concern about his physical and mental fitness for office. In a recent Pew Research poll released in April Links to an external site., fewer than a quarter of voters expressed a high degree of confidence in Biden’s mental fitness (21 percent) and physical fitness (15 percent). By contrast, about four in ten voters were extremely or very confident about Trump’s mental and physical fitness. So there is an incentive for the Republicans to keep hammering away at a perceived vulnerability for Biden.

This past week, the RNC feed has misleadingly called attention to two video clips of Biden. One was so distorted that it resulted in a “community note” on the X platform calling out its dishonesty. But the RNC’s dismal track record — which we have highlighted Links to an external site. on multiple occasions Links to an external site. — has not stopped right-leaning outfits from echoing the RNC’s framing and reinforcing its narrative that Biden has lost a step.

The ‘meandering’ clip

On June 13, at about 1 p.m., the RNC posted a clip it captioned, “What is Biden doing?” The post has been viewed more than 3 million times. Biden is seen with other Group of Seven leaders watching skydivers in Italy, carrying the flags of the nations. Biden turns and walks a few steps to chat with one of the parachutists, the only leader to do so. Then Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni turns him back to the other leaders. In one feed distributed by news services — the one used by the RNC — it’s not entirely clear who Biden is talking to, but an alternative feed, also distributed by news services, makes it clear that Biden is having a conversation.

The New York Post jumped on the RNC clip, posting a story less than two hours later and embedding the RNC post. When the White House cried foul Links to an external site., saying the video had been taken out of context, the newspaper buried that comment in the bottom of the story, while noting that the video feed had been distributed by news services. (None characterized it as the RNC did. C-SPAN, for instance, titled its video Links to an external site.: “President Biden & G-7 Leaders Watch Skydiving Demonstration.”)

The New York Post went on to make the fake story the cover of its print edition.

The New York Post video on social media Links to an external site. was a vertical edit, which further removed the context of Biden’s conversation — nothing of the panoramic view to the right and left can be seen. This is a good example of how cutting a viral “moment” vertically, without taking into account what’s going on in the rest of the frame, can alter perception.

An X community note was added to the video clip, saying: “Biden didn’t ‘wander off’. After viewing a skydiving demo with the other G-7 leaders, Biden stepped aside to speak with one of the other skydivers who is kneeling on the ground packing away his chute. The video in the above post has been digitally altered to remove the skydiver.”

A few hours later, for undisclosed reasons, the community note was changed to simply say “the video was cropped,” with a link to a 14-minute clip on the YouTube channel of Sinclair Broadcasting, another conservative outlet. The new note does little to combat the framing of the post: “President Biden appeared to wander off at the G-7 summit in Italy, with officials needing to pull him back to focus.”

Another news organization that regularly follows the signals of the RNC feed is the Telegraph newspaper in Britain. It published an article Links to an external site. that accepted the RNC’s framing even as it quoted the British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, as saying the story was bunk. “Sunak defends Biden after he ‘wandered off’ at G-7 event: Video shows U.S. president drifting away from leaders during a photo op with parachutists,” the headline said.

The Telegraph’s YouTube channel Links to an external site. framed the clip this way: “Joe Biden appears to walk off during G-7 flag ceremony.”

Jake Schneider, the RNC’s rapid response director, defended the use of the clip, saying it “came straight from the official G-7 feed.” He added: “Joe Biden is not only lost and confused, but he is also weak, failed, and dishonest.”

Representatives of the New York Post and the Telegraph did not respond to requests for comment. (Robert Winnett, a deputy editor of the Telegraph, will become editor of The Washington Post in November.)

The ‘freezing’ clip

Earlier in the week, the Telegraph ran another article Links to an external site. based on a misleading RNC clip: “Watch: Biden appears to freeze at White House concert.” The article was based entirely on speculation, advanced by the RNC, that Biden had some sort of episode that caused him to freeze. The article suggested that the person next to him “seemed to notice something was amiss, putting his arm around Mr. Biden before the pair bumped fists.”

In a post on June 10 Links to an external site. that had 3.3 million views, the RNC asked: “Why isn’t Biden moving?” In the clip, Biden is standing still while people around him are dancing at a Juneteenth celebration. The full video, when it pans, shows other people similarly standing still at the right end of the screen.

Biden, as he did in this 2009 Associated Press interview Links to an external site., has often said he doesn’t dance. “Joe Biden wants to make one thing clear: He can’t dance,” the article said, quoting him as saying “the reason I want to keep talking is because I can’t dance.” The article noted that at an inaugural ball he danced “stiffly” with his wife, Jill. “I may not be able to dance, but I sure like holding her,” Biden said.

“Unfortunately, some of President Biden’s right-wing critics don’t respect their readers or themselves and resort to misinformation and cheap fakes because his performance in office — fueling the strongest economic growth in the world, bringing violent crime to historic lows, and advancing our national security in the world — is so threatening to them that they feel a need to make things up,” deputy White House press secretary Andrew Bates said in a statement. “It’s also telling that President Biden’s critics believe that giving a thumbs up to a skydiver or taking the time to thank veterans in Normandy is somehow negative.”

Article #6

The rise of AI fake news is creating a ‘misinformation superspreader’ Links to an external site.

AI is making it easy for anyone to create propaganda outlets, producing content that can be hard to differentiate from real news

By Pranshu Verma   December 17, 2023 at 6:00 a.m. EST

Artificial intelligence is automating the creation of fake news, spurring an explosion of web content mimicking factual articles that instead disseminates false information about elections, wars and natural disasters.

Since May, websites hosting AI-created false articles have increased by more than 1,000 percent, ballooning from 49 sites to more than 600, according to NewsGuard Links to an external site., an organization that tracks misinformation.

Historically, propaganda operations have relied on armies of low-paid workers or highly coordinated intelligence organizations to build sites that appear to be legitimate Links to an external site. . But AI is making it easy for nearly anyone — whether they are part of a spy agency or just a teenager in their basement — to create these outlets, producing content that is at times hard to differentiate from real news.

The heightened churn of polarizing and misleading content may make it difficult to know what is true — harming political candidates, military leaders and aid efforts. Misinformation experts said the rapid growth of these sites is particularly worrisome in the run-up to the 2024 elections Links to an external site..

“Some of these sites are generating hundreds if not thousands of articles a day,” said Jack Brewster, a researcher at NewsGuard who conducted the investigation. “This is why we call it the next great misinformation superspreader.”

Well-dressed AI-generated news anchors are spewing pro-Chinese propaganda, amplified by bot networks sympathetic to Beijing. In Slovakia, politicians up for election found their voices had been cloned to say controversial things they never uttered, days before voters went to the polls Links to an external site.. A growing number of websites, with generic names such as iBusiness Day or Ireland Top News, are delivering fake news made to look genuine, in dozens of languages from Arabic to Thai.

Readers can easily be fooled by the websites.

Global Village Space, which published the piece on Netanyahu’s alleged psychiatrist, is flooded with articles on a variety of serious topics. There are pieces detailing U.S. sanctions on Russian weapons suppliers; the oil behemoth Saudi Aramco’s investments in Pakistan; and the United States’ increasingly tenuous relationship with China.

But sandwiched in with these ordinary stories are AI-generated articles, Brewster said, such as the piece on Netanyahu’s psychiatrist, which was relabeled as “satire” after NewsGuard reached out to the organization during its investigation. NewsGuard says the story appears to have been based on a satirical piece published in June 2010, which made similar claims about an Israeli psychiatrist’s death.

Having real and AI-generated news side-by-side makes deceptive stories more believable Links to an external site.. “You have people that simply are not media literate enough to know that this is false,” said Jeffrey Blevins, a misinformation expert and journalism professor at the University of Cincinnati. “It’s misleading.”

Share this articleNo subscription required to readShare

The sites work in two ways, Brewster said. Some stories are created manually, with people asking chatbots for articles that amplify a certain political narrative and posting the result to a website. The process can also be automatic, with web scrapers searching for articles that contain certain keywords, and feeding those stories into a large language model that rewrites them to sound unique and evade plagiarism allegations. The result is automatically posted online.

NewsGuard locates AI-generated sites by scanning for error messages or other language that “indicates that the content was produced by AI tools without adequate editing,” the organization says.

The motivations for creating these sites vary. Some are intended to sway political beliefs or wreak havoc. Other sites churn out polarizing content to draw clicks and capture ad revenue, Brewster said. But the ability to turbocharge fake content is a significant security risk, he added.

Technology has long fueled misinformation. In the lead-up to the 2020 U.S. election, Eastern European troll farms — professional groups that promote propaganda — built large audiences on Facebook disseminating provocative content on Black and Christian group pages, reaching 140 million users per month.

Pink-slime journalism sites, named after the meat byproduct, often crop up in small towns where local news outlets have disappeared, generating articles that benefit the financiers that fund the operation, according to the media watchdog Poynter.

It’s not clear whether intelligence agencies are using AI-generated news for foreign influence campaigns, but it is a major concern. “I would not be shocked at all that this is used — definitely next year with the elections,” Brewster said. “It’s hard not to see some politician setting up one of these sites to generate fluff content about them and misinformation about their opponent.”

Blevins said people should watch for clues in articles, “red flags” such as “really odd grammar” or errors in sentence construction Links to an external site.. But the most effective tool is to increase media literacy among average readers.

Regulation, he added, is largely nonexistent. It may be difficult for governments to clamp down on fake news content, for fear of running afoul of free-speech protections. That leaves it to social media companies, which haven’t done a good job so far.

It’s infeasible to deal quickly with the sheer number of such sites. “It’s a lot like playing whack-a-mole,” Blevins said.

“You spot one [site], you shut it down, and there’s another one created someplace else,” he added. “You’re never going to fully catch up with it.”

Article #7

What factors affect Americans’ ability to identify real news? Links to an external site.

by Dylan Walsh

In a 2018 interview with David Letterman, former President Barack Obama suggested that one of the biggest challenges in the U.S. is that people live in different news universes — some watch Fox News, others listen to NPR — and “don’t share a common baseline of facts.” The Republican compass points to a different truth than the Democratic compass.

It’s a persuasive description of today’s fractured politics. But is it, well, true?

“When we look at this question, we find that the average individual is actually pretty good at discerning what’s true from what’s false,” said Charles Angelucci, a professor of applied economics at MIT Sloan. A new study Links to an external site. he conducted with Andrea Prat Links to an external site. from Columbia University found that partisan Republicans and Democrats distinguished real news from fake news relatively accurately. Both parties, for the most part, operated in the same universe.

At the same time, the researchers found that many U.S. citizens are not confident in their ability to tell what’s true from what’s false. The biggest determinant of that confidence was socioeconomic background, the study found: People who were older, male, and white and had a college education or earned more than $60,000 annually were more likely to confidently recognize true news stories. 

“Socioeconomic variables — age, gender, income, education, race — still determine who the informed and the uninformed are in America,” the authors write.

For the study, Angelucci and Prat collaborated with a group of journalists who determined the three most important news stories related to American politics in a given month. These stories were paired with fake news headlines that were either generated by the journalists or had actually been published online but had been confirmed as fake by the fact-checking website Snopes. The researchers then ran surveys in which they asked respondents to differentiate between true and false headlines and used the resulting data to quantify various socioeconomic and partisan determinants of news discernment.

The study found that 47% of the subjects confidently chose the true story, and 3% confidently chose the fake story. The rest were uncertain.

Partisanship mattered, but not much. Partisan individuals were about 2% more likely to correctly identify the true news story if it reflected well on their party. (This effect increased as time passed. When stories were five to eight weeks old, partisans were roughly 6% more likely to select the true news story if it reflected very favorably on their party.)

“Memory actually tends to make us more partisan; time’s passage skews our perception of truth toward our partisan preferences,” Angelucci said. “Still, the average person did well on this test, despite what people fear.”

Where discernment between true and false diverged far more dramatically was along socioeconomic dimensions — specifically, and in descending order of magnitude, based on age, education, gender, income, and ethnicity. The probability that someone over 52 years old would identify a real news story was 6 percentage points higher than for someone younger than 52 years old.

In the most extreme case, older, white, high-income, college-educated men were 25% more likely to correctly identify the true news story than young, low-income, minority women without a college education. This divide, Angelucci said, has the potential to create a negative feedback cycle.

“This latter group tends to be poorer with less access to education, and, for reasons that are complicated, they are also less involved in politics. They probably have bigger worries on their minds,” Angelucci said. “But because they’re less involved, politicians might pay less attention to them, which further exacerbates the problem. In this way, information inequality amplifies economic inequality.”

The researchers also found that undecided voters — also called pivotal voters, given that they are numerous enough to swing an election — tend to be less informed about politics. This makes them particularly susceptible to political misinformation campaigns. “They would be the least equipped to resist this kind of information,” Angelucci said.

The research provided cause for both hope and concern, he said. On one hand, the average survey participant was relatively well informed and capable of distinguishing political fact from fiction. Misinformation didn’t sort strongly along partisan lines, either, suggesting that the notion that Democrats and Republicans live in different realities is not entirely true.

On the other hand, “we see very real and intense political disagreement out there, so if this isn’t rooted in the information we believe, then I worry it’s something more fundamental,” Angelucci said. “We might disagree about the situation around us, but not because we have access to and consume and believe fundamentally different information. There is something much deeper in how we process things, which implies simply providing the truth won’t fix the problem.”

 

Previous Module:
WEEK 4: JULY 8-14 Flashcards - The News Business