Data and misinformation – notes
Lecture 1
Facts versus beliefs → what you believe to be a fact
Objective truth (truth verified by abundant evidence, universally accepted)
Versus
Subjective truth (i.e., beliefs backed up by some evidence, e.g., theories, hypotheses, often competing
with other beliefs)
Factual truth versus emotional truth (the information “feels true”)
Post-truth/Post-fact era = relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less
influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief
Digital wildfires →
- Massive digital misleading information
- Impact amplified by hyperconnectivity
- Rapid viral spread of information, with potential serious consequences
Lies spread faster than the truth → Study found that false news reached more people than the truth and
that falsehood also diffused faster than the truth
Artificial amplification → fake bots, messages, followers, likes, etc.
Misleading information → Disinformation vs. misinformation
Misinformation = resulting from honest mistakes (not intended)
Disinformation = resulting from deliberate intention to deceive (can be positive, e.g. De Speld, but also
negative, e.g. Thierry Baudet)
Can misinformation become disinformation → yes, when someone accidently tweets a false fact and
someone else knows its false and retweets it to be true, as he wants to impact his audience.
Lecture 2
Citizens have the democratic right to know the facts, to be able to engage in a reasonable discussion.
➔ Although definitely not the solution to battling misleading information, the beliefs of an average
individual do become more accurate when being exposed to fact-checks (Walter et al., 2020)
,Fact-checking is no longer the sole domain and/or responsibility of the journalist. We are all responsible
for checking before sharing. We all need to have media/information literacy skills (knowing what and
how to fact-check).
Potential cues of disinformation in news and social media →
Potential cues of disinformation in news and social media →
What is a fact? → A statement:
- that can be verified: true or false (to a certain extent); it needs to be ‘fact-checkable’
- about something that is taking place or has taken place (as opposed to predictions)
- that is objective, independent of the one who utters the statement
- that contains concepts with (kind of) a fixed meaning, in a certain context
- that can be verified with a specifiable method – (e.g., observation, measurement).
As opposed to beliefs, opinions, et cetera.
Fact-checkable? → There are lots of statements that are in between a clear fact and a clear opinion.
Claims about causation are tricky. Correlation is not causation.
A fact is not as straightforward as one may think:
- Is a false or unverified fact still a fact?
- Post modernistic claim: “There is no absolute truth.” → Can we really determine the truthfulness
of factual statements? Isn’t it a matter of perspective?
How to fact-check text?
, - Accuracy: titles, product names, place names, locations, etc.
- Double-check names and titles, either by finding a source’s official bio online or by asking them
directly.
- Based on a study? Dig up the original study and make sure the summary was accurate. • Same
goes for things like statistics, dates and just about anything else you can double-check in a
primary document.
- If you’re fact-checking something like an event — what happened, who did what, etc.—it’s good
to use extra sources
- Trust your gut—if something a source is telling you doesn’t ring true, check with another expert
(or two or three).
- Take a closer look at sentences including underspecified terms like: “increasing amount”,
“often”, “presumably”, “probably”, “more and more”, “significant increase in”, “according to
research”, “according to experts”.
- Check declarative statements, for example, “…this is a big deal,” “the area is huge,” "always,"
"exactly," etc. The reason it is a “big deal” (how “huge” is the area?) should be explained in the
text. If it isn’t, find out why: Is it a big deal because of money, time, compared with something
else?
What about the trustworthiness of the sources? Can they be trusted? Are they biased? Are they real
even? (Bots?) What is missing?
If needed: approach/check relevant sources (people or extra databases, ‘experts’ or…)
How to fact-check photos / videos? Questions to be answered:
- Is it real? Or manipulated in some way?
- Is it what/where/when it is claimed to be?
o Verify the source: who originally shot/uploaded the photo/video? Reliable?
o Locate the photo/video: where was it shot?
o Verify the date: when was it shot?
Various online (OSINT) tools freely available (see next slides) And always use your eyes and gut instinct!
Anything suspicious?
Fact-checking videos – harder than photos:
➔ Verifying the source
➔ Locating the video
➔ Verifying the date
➔ Common sense, a good eye and creative searching needed (also for photos by the way…)
Does the photo/video make sense given the context in which it was filmed?
Does anything clash with your gut instinct?
Does anything look out of place?
Do clues suggest it is not legitimate?
Do any of the source's details or answers to your questions not add up?
, Lecture 3, Framing
Paper 1 – Scheufele & Iyenga (2014)
Framing effects = communication effects that are not due to differences in what is being communicated,
but rather to variations in how a given piece of information is being presented (or framed) in public
discourse
Kahneman & Tverksy → win/lose framing →
When presented with outcomes defined as potential gains, people showed risk aversion and chose the
more certain payoff. But when the identical outcome was defined in terms that suggested potential
losses instead of gains, people became risk seekers and preferred the outcome with the less certain
payoff.
How we interpret information differs depending on how that information is contextualized or framed.
Psychological approaches to framing are based on two assumptions:
- Framing refers to differential modes of presentation for the exact same piece of information.
The information that is being presented is then informationally equivalent across different
frames. (= Equivalence framing)
- Framing, if tested in experimental designs, often leads to “complete suppression of ambiguity in
conscious perception’’. In other words, participants interpret the stimulus in line with the
context in which it is framed in the particular experimental condition, but have no reason to
assume that it could also be seen differently if framed in an alternative way. (= emphasis
framing)
→ Is argued to be true in the complex environment we live in nowadays
Priming = seen as a logical extension of agenda-setting processes. It is the process that occurs after a
construct is presented as highly salient to audiences. So if media coverage makes an issue more salient in
people’s minds, this issue is also more likely to be used as one of “the standards by which governments,
policies and candidates for public office are judged”.
Framing vs. agenda setting:
- Framing = more than issue or object salience. The news not only tells us what to think about; it
also tells us how to think about it. Both the selection of topics for the news agenda and the
selection of frames for stories about those topics are powerful agenda-setting roles and
awesome ethical responsibilities.
- Agenda setting = essentially involves selection and salience. To frame is to select some aspects of
a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to
promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or
treatment recommendation for the item described.
A study argues that mass media influence audience perceptions by highlighting the importance of issues
(first-level agenda setting) or issue attributes (second-level agenda setting, which they see as equivalent
to framing).
Agenda setting and priming → accessibility-based effects:
- Media coverage can influence perceptions of salience among lay audiences, either for particular
issues or attributes of issues
Lecture 1
Facts versus beliefs → what you believe to be a fact
Objective truth (truth verified by abundant evidence, universally accepted)
Versus
Subjective truth (i.e., beliefs backed up by some evidence, e.g., theories, hypotheses, often competing
with other beliefs)
Factual truth versus emotional truth (the information “feels true”)
Post-truth/Post-fact era = relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less
influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief
Digital wildfires →
- Massive digital misleading information
- Impact amplified by hyperconnectivity
- Rapid viral spread of information, with potential serious consequences
Lies spread faster than the truth → Study found that false news reached more people than the truth and
that falsehood also diffused faster than the truth
Artificial amplification → fake bots, messages, followers, likes, etc.
Misleading information → Disinformation vs. misinformation
Misinformation = resulting from honest mistakes (not intended)
Disinformation = resulting from deliberate intention to deceive (can be positive, e.g. De Speld, but also
negative, e.g. Thierry Baudet)
Can misinformation become disinformation → yes, when someone accidently tweets a false fact and
someone else knows its false and retweets it to be true, as he wants to impact his audience.
Lecture 2
Citizens have the democratic right to know the facts, to be able to engage in a reasonable discussion.
➔ Although definitely not the solution to battling misleading information, the beliefs of an average
individual do become more accurate when being exposed to fact-checks (Walter et al., 2020)
,Fact-checking is no longer the sole domain and/or responsibility of the journalist. We are all responsible
for checking before sharing. We all need to have media/information literacy skills (knowing what and
how to fact-check).
Potential cues of disinformation in news and social media →
Potential cues of disinformation in news and social media →
What is a fact? → A statement:
- that can be verified: true or false (to a certain extent); it needs to be ‘fact-checkable’
- about something that is taking place or has taken place (as opposed to predictions)
- that is objective, independent of the one who utters the statement
- that contains concepts with (kind of) a fixed meaning, in a certain context
- that can be verified with a specifiable method – (e.g., observation, measurement).
As opposed to beliefs, opinions, et cetera.
Fact-checkable? → There are lots of statements that are in between a clear fact and a clear opinion.
Claims about causation are tricky. Correlation is not causation.
A fact is not as straightforward as one may think:
- Is a false or unverified fact still a fact?
- Post modernistic claim: “There is no absolute truth.” → Can we really determine the truthfulness
of factual statements? Isn’t it a matter of perspective?
How to fact-check text?
, - Accuracy: titles, product names, place names, locations, etc.
- Double-check names and titles, either by finding a source’s official bio online or by asking them
directly.
- Based on a study? Dig up the original study and make sure the summary was accurate. • Same
goes for things like statistics, dates and just about anything else you can double-check in a
primary document.
- If you’re fact-checking something like an event — what happened, who did what, etc.—it’s good
to use extra sources
- Trust your gut—if something a source is telling you doesn’t ring true, check with another expert
(or two or three).
- Take a closer look at sentences including underspecified terms like: “increasing amount”,
“often”, “presumably”, “probably”, “more and more”, “significant increase in”, “according to
research”, “according to experts”.
- Check declarative statements, for example, “…this is a big deal,” “the area is huge,” "always,"
"exactly," etc. The reason it is a “big deal” (how “huge” is the area?) should be explained in the
text. If it isn’t, find out why: Is it a big deal because of money, time, compared with something
else?
What about the trustworthiness of the sources? Can they be trusted? Are they biased? Are they real
even? (Bots?) What is missing?
If needed: approach/check relevant sources (people or extra databases, ‘experts’ or…)
How to fact-check photos / videos? Questions to be answered:
- Is it real? Or manipulated in some way?
- Is it what/where/when it is claimed to be?
o Verify the source: who originally shot/uploaded the photo/video? Reliable?
o Locate the photo/video: where was it shot?
o Verify the date: when was it shot?
Various online (OSINT) tools freely available (see next slides) And always use your eyes and gut instinct!
Anything suspicious?
Fact-checking videos – harder than photos:
➔ Verifying the source
➔ Locating the video
➔ Verifying the date
➔ Common sense, a good eye and creative searching needed (also for photos by the way…)
Does the photo/video make sense given the context in which it was filmed?
Does anything clash with your gut instinct?
Does anything look out of place?
Do clues suggest it is not legitimate?
Do any of the source's details or answers to your questions not add up?
, Lecture 3, Framing
Paper 1 – Scheufele & Iyenga (2014)
Framing effects = communication effects that are not due to differences in what is being communicated,
but rather to variations in how a given piece of information is being presented (or framed) in public
discourse
Kahneman & Tverksy → win/lose framing →
When presented with outcomes defined as potential gains, people showed risk aversion and chose the
more certain payoff. But when the identical outcome was defined in terms that suggested potential
losses instead of gains, people became risk seekers and preferred the outcome with the less certain
payoff.
How we interpret information differs depending on how that information is contextualized or framed.
Psychological approaches to framing are based on two assumptions:
- Framing refers to differential modes of presentation for the exact same piece of information.
The information that is being presented is then informationally equivalent across different
frames. (= Equivalence framing)
- Framing, if tested in experimental designs, often leads to “complete suppression of ambiguity in
conscious perception’’. In other words, participants interpret the stimulus in line with the
context in which it is framed in the particular experimental condition, but have no reason to
assume that it could also be seen differently if framed in an alternative way. (= emphasis
framing)
→ Is argued to be true in the complex environment we live in nowadays
Priming = seen as a logical extension of agenda-setting processes. It is the process that occurs after a
construct is presented as highly salient to audiences. So if media coverage makes an issue more salient in
people’s minds, this issue is also more likely to be used as one of “the standards by which governments,
policies and candidates for public office are judged”.
Framing vs. agenda setting:
- Framing = more than issue or object salience. The news not only tells us what to think about; it
also tells us how to think about it. Both the selection of topics for the news agenda and the
selection of frames for stories about those topics are powerful agenda-setting roles and
awesome ethical responsibilities.
- Agenda setting = essentially involves selection and salience. To frame is to select some aspects of
a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to
promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or
treatment recommendation for the item described.
A study argues that mass media influence audience perceptions by highlighting the importance of issues
(first-level agenda setting) or issue attributes (second-level agenda setting, which they see as equivalent
to framing).
Agenda setting and priming → accessibility-based effects:
- Media coverage can influence perceptions of salience among lay audiences, either for particular
issues or attributes of issues
