The study attributes most of that force multiplier to novelty and surprise, where falsehood will always have an advantage; important things that actually happen are often not surprising. Maybe people who wrap truth in clickbaity headlines are actually heroes, trying to even out the playing field... I never really thought of it that way before.
Another question to ask: In old print media, is it ok to have crazily sensationalistic headlines on the front page, with the hope that it gets people read the thoughtful journalism underneath?
Just to give you a sense, I took 1.5 years of death coverage in the NY Times and compared to actual deaths. My gut is that the reason for the coverage gap is primarily a function of reader interest, which presumably gets people to read more:
https://www.nemil.com/s/part3-horror-films.html
As the old aphorism goes, "if it bleed, it leads"
"The media you trust is the most dangerous media of all."
In other words, don't ever turn off your brain and just accept what you are being told. Inevitably the only solution is to question it all and get input from multiple sources.
does anyone actually click 'yes' to that prompt?
Please research the history of propaganda in the United States for yourself. See articles on Edward Bernays and documentaries like The Century of the Self. Research terms like "the fourth estate".
The sad truth is that even the smartest of us are, in some degree, intellectually lazy and hold at least one false belief. The only thing that has increased over the last decades is the average westerner's desire to force those beliefs upon their fellow citizens.
What makes you think this? Galileo was hung for what he said.
"Another approach is to follow that word, heresy. In every period of history, there seem to have been labels that got applied to statements to shoot them down before anyone had a chance to ask if they were true or not. "Blasphemy", "sacrilege", and "heresy" were such labels for a good part of western history, as in more recent times "indecent", "improper", and "unamerican" have been. By now these labels have lost their sting. They always do. By now they're mostly used ironically. But in their time, they had real force."
I get the point of what you are saying (that times in the past have had very extreme responses to people stating things that were accurate but unpopular), but Galileo was not hung or even executed. He was placed under house arrest (the trouble he got into was also more about stepping on the Church's domain of interpreting Scripture rather than astronomical facts, but that's a tangential popular misconception).
Those days are gone, and a emboldened radical left, hell bent on stamping out heterodoxy through violence and intimidation, has the silent consent of progressives.
This is true. We now have digital platforms which reward propaganda by spreading it faster.
The speed and spread of false information has exponentially increased because social media distorts media coverage, rewarding sensational, emotionally charged content with greater reach in people's timelines and feeds.
Rumors used to spread from person to person, but the algorithms are giving them an edge. The algorithms are not neutral. They are designed to favor clickbait.
Propaganda and its delivery methods only have the power you give them. We all have the ability to seek out truth.
“...a lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on” - Terry Pratchett, 2000
The truth is there are not many good journalists who cares and it’s more about making clicks rather than produce rich content.
Don’t think there is anything we can do about false news. Just learn how to live with it.
It is difficult because independent thought is too demanding. Marketers, propagandists, and yes, even hard-core journalists all rely on this. The fake news phenomenon has always existed, but it is amplified by the ease of manufactured outrage. Instant and global spread of (mis)information makes containment practically impossible.
If you can spot good satire, you are probably more likely to be able to spot bogus news items too. But spotting satire is damn hard - and a really good satire is nearly indistinguishable from well done legitimate reporting and/or story telling.
I wonder how/if rumors used to spread on Twitter before retweet was a first party feature.
>> What cited sources of truth are overtly biased?
ie, distrust all news until there's corroboration?
