Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Misinformation isn’t just coming from your cranky uncle on Facebook

Misinformation on Facebook
Marcela Vieira

Minichiello writes The Sift newsletter for educators at the News Literacy Project.

I see misinformation all the time. Scrolling through Instagram, I saw a musician I follow sharing false posts about the Israel-Hamas war. Out to eat at a restaurant, a server making friendly small talk shared true crime content she finds online — while rattling off names of accounts that I later discovered were conspiracy-minded. A friend of mine thinks the Infowars conspiracy theories site is a delight. And there’s my relative who started entertaining the idea that the world is flat after watching YouTube videos.

Misinformation affects everything from our health decisions to our personal relationships to business to, of course, democracy. It’s easy to get angry when we’re confronted with misinformation — that’s what it’s designed to do — but learning how to sort fact from fiction online while also practicing empathy will go a long way in fixing the misinformation crisis.


And the News Literacy Project, where I now work after a career in journalism, can teach people how to identify credible news.

First, if you’re fortunate enough not to live in a local news desert, you should get your information from your local newspaper, radio station or TV news programs. Beware of online “news” sites that are partisan propaganda. If they have very few or no local stories but plenty of politically charged articles, it’s a red flag. Also, follow news outlets that adhere to journalism standards and ethics, such as being transparent about corrections. Quality local news not only empowers us individually, but studies show it’s also good for democracy.

Second, when navigating difficult conversations where misinformation may come up, try practicing what NLP calls “PEP”: patience, empathy and persistence. You can’t convince people of anything in one heated conversation, but if you listen you can walk away with a better understanding of how they developed their beliefs.

“We don’t all think the same,” said one of my relatives, who refused to get a Covid-19 booster shot after seeing misinformation about how it might affect someone’s hair.

I responded: “I’m not saying we need to think the same thing. I’m saying we need to know what’s true before we agree or disagree.”

It’s hard when someone you love is repeating falsehoods, but that doesn’t mean they’re not intelligent or they are a bad person. We’re living in a system where social media platforms don’t properly moderate content for misinformation and, in fact, incentivize its spread through outrage. Laws and regulations haven’t caught up to how quickly artificial intelligence technologies — including misleading images, videos and posts — are being developed.

Additionally, remember that none of us are exempt from falling for misinformation. It’s embarrassing, but it’s happened to me too. During the early days of the pandemic, photos spread online of dolphins swimming in Venice canals. It seemed mesmerizing and magical. Of course, those photos later turned out to be false. And I felt like a fool – something to remember the next time I spar with a friend over misinformation.

It’s a systemic problem. We can do our part to counter it by seeking out credible sources of news. We can keep in mind that it’s easy to be fooled by falsehoods. And we can engage in tough, face-to-face conversations with the people we care about, but lead with empathy — not accusations.

One tactic that has helped me immensely — not just in countering misinformation I see online but also when talking through hot misinformation topics with loved ones — is to simply take ... a ... pause. This is actually a news literacy skill. Being news-literate means being able to identify credible information, which is often as simple as pausing to confirm whether something is true before sharing it online or in conversations.

It also means seeking out credible news sources like your local TV station or paper. By practicing news literacy skills, we’ll be better equipped to find trustworthy information and engage in difficult conversations about conspiracy theories and misinformation.

During National News Literacy Week, which runs Jan. 22-26, you can learn how to push back on misinformation and empower yourself and your communities to seek quality, vetted information. Join us in our effort to build a national movement to advance the practice of news literacy throughout American society, creating better informed, more engaged and more empowered individuals — and ultimately a stronger democracy.

Read More

Fox News’ Selective Silence: How Trump’s Worst Moments Vanish From Coverage
Why Fox News’ settlement with Dominion Voting Systems is good news for all media outlets
Getty Images

Fox News’ Selective Silence: How Trump’s Worst Moments Vanish From Coverage

Last week, the ultraconservative news outlet, NewsMax, reached a $73 million settlement with the voting machine company, Dominion, in essence, admitting that they lied in their reporting about the use of their voting machines to “rig” or distort the 2020 presidential election. Not exactly shocking news, since five years later, there is no credible evidence to suggest any malfeasance regarding the 2020 election. To viewers of conservative media, such as Fox News, this might have shaken a fully embraced conspiracy theory. Except it didn’t, because those viewers haven’t seen it.

Many people have a hard time understanding why Trump enjoys so much support, given his outrageous statements and damaging public policy pursuits. Part of the answer is due to Fox News’ apparent censoring of stories that might be deemed negative to Trump. During the past five years, I’ve tracked dozens of examples of news stories that cast Donald Trump in a negative light, including statements by Trump himself, which would make a rational person cringe. Yet, Fox News has methodically censored these stories, only conveying rosy news that draws its top ratings.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Flag / artificial intelligence / technology / congress / ai

The age of AI warrants asking if the means still further the ends—specifically, individual liberty and collective prosperity.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Liberty and the General Welfare in the Age of AI

If the means justify the ends, we’d still be operating under the Articles of Confederation. The Founders understood that the means—the governmental structure itself—must always serve the ends of liberty and prosperity. When the means no longer served those ends, they experimented with yet another design for their government—they did expect it to be the last.

The age of AI warrants asking if the means still further the ends—specifically, individual liberty and collective prosperity. Both of those goals were top of mind for early Americans. They demanded the Bill of Rights to protect the former, and they identified the latter—namely, the general welfare—as the animating purpose for the government. Both of those goals are being challenged by constitutional doctrines that do not align with AI development or even undermine it. A full review of those doctrines could fill a book (and perhaps one day it will). For now, however, I’m just going to raise two.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of AI chat boxes.

An illustration of AI chat boxes.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

In Defense of ‘AI Mark’

Earlier this week, a member of the UK Parliament—Mark Sewards—released an AI tool (named “AI Mark”) to assist with constituent inquiries. The public response was rapid and rage-filled. Some people demanded that the member of Parliament (MP) forfeit part of his salary—he's doing less work, right? Others called for his resignation—they didn't vote for AI; they voted for him! Many more simply questioned his thinking—why on earth did he think outsourcing such sensitive tasks to AI would be greeted with applause?

He's not the only elected official under fire for AI use. The Prime Minister of Sweden, Ulf Kristersson, recently admitted to using AI to study various proposals before casting votes. Swedes, like the Brits, have bombarded Kristersson with howls of outrage.

Keep ReadingShow less
shallow focus photography of computer codes
Shahadat Rahman on Unsplash

When Rules Can Be Code, They Should Be!

Ninety years ago this month, the Federal Register Act was signed into law in a bid to shine a light on the rules driving President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal—using the best tools of the time to make government more transparent and accountable. But what began as a bold step toward clarity has since collapsed under its own weight: over 100,000 pages, a million rules, and a public lost in a regulatory haystack. Today, the Trump administration’s sweeping push to cut red tape—including using AI to hunt obsolete rules—raises a deeper challenge: how do we prevent bureaucracy from rebuilding itself?

What’s needed is a new approach: rewriting the rule book itself as machine-executable code that can be analyzed, implemented, or streamlined at scale. Businesses could simply download and execute the latest regulations on their systems, with no need for costly legal analysis and compliance work. Individuals could use apps or online tools to quickly figure out how rules affect them.

Keep ReadingShow less