Fact-checking journalist Deepak Adhikari, the editor of Nepal Check, has shared a piece he wrote about the spread of AI-generated image following an earthquake in Nepal in November 2023. The article, below, explains how his organisation and others set about identifying the fake photographs. Deepak hopes the methods he and his team used will be of use to other journalists trying to combat the spread of fake images on social media and in other news output.

Social media is flooded with AI-generated images. Here’s how to detect them

By Deepak Adhikari, editor of Nepal Check

Following the devastating earthquake that struck Jajarkot district in Karnali Province in early November, social media users shared AI-generated images claiming to show the devastation caused.

One photograph showed dozens of houses ruined by the earthquake with people and rescuers walking through the debris. The photo was initially shared by Meme Nepal. It was subsequently used by celebrities, politicians and humanitarian organisations keen to draw attention to the disaster in one of Nepal’s poorest regions.

The image was used by Anil Keshary Shah, a former CEO of Nabil Bank and Rabindra Mishra, a senior vice president of National Democratic Party. (See archived version here and here)

When Nepal Check contacted Meme Nepal in an attempt to find the original source of the photo, they replied that they had found the image on social media.

A month on, the AI-generated images supposedly showing the aftermath of the earthquake continued. On December 14, 2023, Arjun Parajuli, a Nepali poet and founder of Pathshala Nepal, posted a photo claiming to show students studying in the ruins of the earthquake at Jajarkot. Parajuli. The poet attached the photo to a poem, had reshared the image from Manish Khadka, who identifies himself as a journalist based in Musikot of Rukum district.

Both these viral and poignant images were fake. They were generated using text-to-image generator platforms such as Midjourney, DALLE.

In the digital age it’s easy to manipulate images. With the rise of AI-enabled platforms it’s possible to generate images online quickly and convincingly. AI-generated images have evolved from amusingly odd to realistic. This has created further challenges for fact-checkers who are already inundated with misleading or false information circulating on social media platforms.

Fact-checkers often rely on Google’s Reverse Image Search, a tried and tested tool used to detect an image’s veracity. But Google and other search engines only show photos that have been previously published online.

So, how can one ascertain if an image is AI-generated? Currently, there is no tool that can determine this with 100% accuracy.

For example, Nepal Check used Illuminarty.ai and isitai.com to check the earthquake images to try to find out if they were generated using AI tools. After uploading an image to the platforms a percentage of how likely the image is to be generated by AI is shown.

Nepal Check contacted Kalim Ahmed, a former fact-checker at AltNews. He made the following observations about the image claiming to show devastation of the earthquake in Jajarkot.

• If you zoom in and take a closer look at the people they appear deformed and like toys.
  The rocks/debris just at the centre look like they’re straight out of a video game made in the late 90s or early 2000s.
• In the absence of a foolproof way to determine whether a photo is AI-generated, using observational skills and finding visual clues is the best way to tackle them.

A healthy dose of skepticism about what you see online (seeing is no longer believing), a search for the source of the content, whether there’s any evidence attached to the claim, and looking for context are powerful ways to separate fact from fiction online.

In a webinar in August this year organised by News Literacy Project, Dan Evon urged users to keep asking questions (is it authentic?). With the AI-images, their surfaces seem unusually smooth, which can be a giveaway, according to him. “Everything looks a little off,” he said.

Dan suggests looking for visual clues, adding that it was crucial to find out the provenance of the image. Experts caution that the virality of content on social media often stems from its ability to generate outrage or controversy, highlighting the need for careful consideration when encountering emotionally charged material.

In her comprehensive guide on detecting AI-generated images, Tamoa Calzadilla, a fellow at the Reynolds Journalism Institute in the US, encourages users to pay attention to hashtags that may indicate the use of AI in generating the content.

While AI has made significant progress in generating realistic images, it still faces challenges in accurately replicating human organs, such as eyes and hands. “That’s why it’s important to examine them closely: Do they have five fingers? Are all the contours clear? If they’re holding an object, are they doing so in a normal way?”, Tamoa writes in the guide.

Experts recommend that news media disclose information to readers and viewers regarding AI-generated images. Social media users are also advised to share the process publicly to mitigate the spread of misinformation.

Although the images purporting to depict the earthquake in Jajarkot lack a close-up view of the subjects, upon closer examination it becomes evident that they resemble drawings rather than real humans. Nepal Check also conducted a comparison between the viral AI-generated images and those disseminated by news media. We couldn’t find any such images that had been published on mainstream media in the aftermath of the earthquake.

The post How to detect AI-generated images first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Many find it difficult to distinguish between credible and misleading content in today’s digital age. With the rise of social media, false and misleading information has become more prevalent, making it even more difficult for people to tell the difference between fact and fiction.

It’s the job of the journalist to try to find and present the truth, but fact-checking isn’t easy. It requires a methodological approach to verification.

Because many media outlets are profit-driven, sensationalist and clickbait content frequently takes precedence over fact-based journalism. As a result, trust in journalism as a whole has declined, while, at the same time, skepticism about the reliability of information published and shared has grown.

The preference of social media platforms for engagement and amplification has contributed to the information disorder. Indeed, credible and evidence-based information is in short supply, while false and misleading content continues to spread on social media.

Because of this it is critical to have a strong fact-checking system in place to combat the spread of false and misleading information.

A fact-checker must be skilled at digital investigation and willing to go the extra mile to uncover a kernel of truth. To assess the veracity of information accurately, fact-checkers must be trained in and have access to digital tools, techniques, and resources.

Fact-checking in action

At Nepal Check, we use both human intelligence and digital tools to verify information spreading online. Over the past six months, we have fact-checked a wide range of false claims, from political statements to health misinformation.

On the eve of the November 20 2022 elections in Nepal, we fact-checked screenshots purported to be from a secret circular issued by the ruling Nepali Congress urging its supporters not to vote for Maoist candidates.

Not only was the so-called “secret circular” made up. Election misinformation spreaders created screenshots of ‘news’ that claimed to have been published by reputable digital outlets and a newspaper in Nepal.

We dug deep into the misinformation spreaders to find out what party they were affiliated with. We found that the majority were affiliated with an opposition party that competed with the ruling alliance.

One of the fake news reports had a reporter’s byline. The claim was refuted by the reporter himself. In the fact-check, Nepal Check cited him. We also cited news outlets that claimed the screenshots were fake. In addition to relying on their statement, we checked the claims on news websites.

Finally, our investigation revealed that the Nepali Congress party’s Central Working Committee had not met in nearly three months when the meeting was claimed. We also used the occasion to explain how morphed screenshots are created. In doing so, we hoped to raise awareness about the technique so that people would think twice before spreading false information.

We fact-checked videos with false claims that Gagan Thapa, the general secretary of the Nepali Congress, promised freebies if elected prime minister. Thapa is a popular politician and is often the target of misinformation. The video claiming Thapa promised free smartphones, free petrol and a monthly stipend for the elderly had circulated on social media for several months.

To debunk the claim, we needed to find the original, full version of the video. So we started by looking up the video on YouTube. We discovered a video of the political function, but it lacked the section where Thapa was quoted. However, the video provided an important clue that a fact-checker can use to conduct additional research. It displayed the event’s date and location.

With this vital information, we were able to locate the event organizer’s Facebook page. A further Google search led us to the full version of the video, which had been published by a local television station. We found that Thapa’s statement had been taken out of context in order to spread misinformation.

Thapa had argued that while populist programs receive widespread support, they are difficult to fund. To disseminate misinformation, the video, which was more than an hour long, was edited down to a 22-second clip. We could verify this by following the claim back to its source, which is an important aspect of combating misinformation.

Human intelligence and engaging the audience

While the digital age creates opportunities for the spread of fake news, misinformation and disinformation, it also creates opportunities for fact checkers to follow digital trails in order to try to find the source and the veracity of the information being shared.

The fundamental journalistic skills of fact-checking are not new, they just need applying to the digital age. Our duty, as always, is to publish accurate, fair, objective, impartial and well-sourced information, backed by well-researched context and analysis. That has not changed. And digital tools are a massive help in the pursuit of robust and critical journalism. We just need to make sure we are using those tools as well as those who propagate falsehoods do.

All newsrooms must have a fact-checking team made up of dedicated journalists who are skilled in thorough research and diligent scrutiny in order to ensure that all information shared is a true representation of news events.

Below is a list of some of the tools Nepal Check uses, and how we use them.

Human intelligence

• Research who is behind the information being spread, try to find a trail of similar information to lead you to the source.
• Does the fake news item carry a byline? Does that person exist? If they do contact them. By doing so you might find a new lead in your search for the truth.
• Does what is being said stand up to historical scrutiny? Research and establish the sequence of events leading up to the claims.

Digital tools

• Is the evidence real or manipulated or used out of context?
• Are screenshots real or fake, can you find any evidence of the original material online or in print? If not, why not? Who could have created the screenshots and why?
• Is video being used? Has a clip been taken out of context? As a journalist you have a duty to search for the original, watch it in its entirety, and offer a more complete picture including the situation and circumstances in which it was shot in order to add context and relevance.
• When you find the original you will also discover the date and, possibly, the location of the original material. Do these match the details in the clip?
• Check all social media links back to the original source to find out what other material has been shared.

Engaging your audience

• Be totally transparent in your myth-busting research.
• Let those who read your journalism know the steps you took and the evidence you uncovered.
• By doing so you will help them understand more about fake news and empower them with the tools to do their own fact-checking.

The post Creating a strong fact-checking system first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Journalism is about far more than simply gathering information and passing it on. An essential part of the editorial process is to examine everything we are told to make sure it is factual, and then add context so that any facts that are uncovered are considered alongside existing knowledge.

The author skyfishgoo wrote in a piece about critical thinking that “science and journalism both seek to put facts in context so they become useful to others”. He goes on to say that “science dictates that when a claim is made it is subject to critical review”.

Giving content “a bit of a scrub”

Put simply, he says that all of us have a responsibility to give every new piece of information that comes our way “a bit of a scrub” before passing it on to others.

This is particularly important in terms of producing original journalism and then broadcasting or publishing that material and sharing it on social media.

Once a piece of journalism is in the public domain it will be referenced, quoted, and possibly plagiarised as it becomes part of the global conversation. If that piece of journalism is untrue, then lasting damage will have been done.

But let’s first agree what is meant by the word ‘fact’.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a fact is something that is “known or proved to be true”. It is also “information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article”. In legal terms, a fact is “the truth about events as opposed to interpretation”.

And that last definition is interesting, because journalists ‘interpret’ events by adding context – but more on that later. For now, let’s refer to facts that have not yet been fully tested as ‘claims’.

Here are a few tests that should be applied to information that a journalist receives from someone who ‘claims’ that what they are passing on is factual.

The first three tests are about source verification and fact-checking, the fourth is about adding context.

1: Is the source credible?

• What do we know about the source?
• What is their motive for sharing the information?
• Could the source have an agenda about which we are not aware?

To Do: Research the background of the source, their connections, any previous record of sharing information.

2: Has it happened?

• Could there be a simple explanation?
• Has your source been misled? If so, by whom?
• Is there a history of such an event taking place?

To Do: Research the chronology of events. Check your own news organisations archive. Search the web.

3: Where is the evidence?

• Is the information available elsewhere?
• What is the evidence to support the claim?
• Has that evidence been tested?

To Do: Seek out a second, independent and trusted source.

4: What is the context?

• What are the implications if the claims are true?
• How many people are affected and how?
• Gather data and statistics for comparison purposes.

To Do: Paint the bigger picture, understand the importance of the event in relation to other news stories.

Those of you who are new to journalism might want to print out the following checklist and put it on the wall in your newsroom as a reminder.

If the results of your research make you feel uneasy you might want to drop the story. However, even a false claim, presented as fact, but, on investigation, found to be untrue, could still be a story. It could point to a political, commercial, or social conflict that might require investigation.

Never rule out a possible news story because the initial evidence presented proves to be shaky.

Now let’s look at point four ‘the context’ more closely.

Adding context

One dictionary definition of ‘context’ is: “the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.”

That word, ‘understood’, is important.

The role of a journalist is to enhance understanding. We do that by surrounding proven facts with data, statistics, history, and circumstances that, together, help paint a fuller picture of what has happened.

Think of it this way.

Imagine you are at home watching a series on TV. It’s the final episode of six. Just as the programme is reaching the conclusion there is a knock at the door. It’s a friend you haven’t seen for some time. You welcome them in.

As they walk through the door there is a scream from the lounge. One of the characters in the TV series has discovered the gruesome remains of a body. Your guest is shocked, but fascinated.

You offer to turn the TV off so you can chat, but they are so intrigued by what they saw on the screen that they ask you whether they could watch the programme with you, particularly as it’s reaching its conclusion. They want to know what happens next.

So you pause the programme, put the kettle on, make a cup of tea, and tell your guest about what has happened so far.

You explain who the characters are, what has taken place in previous episodes, how the situation has developed, the relationships between the characters, what clues you have picked up along the way, and how the plot has thickened to reach the point where your guest heard the scream.

And explaining the background proves to be important because your friend thought you must be watching a murder mystery, when, in fact, the series you were watching was a documentary about archeology. The scream was from an archeologist who had unexpectedly found mummified remains. It was not a modern-day crime thriller.

Now your guest has the context, so you can watch the end of the final episode together, with your guest informed about the background to the story and better able to understand events.

The same is true with journalism.

A colleague who was working as an intake editor on a news desk remembers receiving a call from an off-duty reporter who had just passed an overturned red double decker bus on  a London street. People were wandering around with blood pouring from wounds. Two camera crews were mobilised, but before they’d even left the building the reporter discovered that it was a film crew making a movie. The story had changed once the reporter had checked his facts and explored the context.

I made a similar mistake when reporting on a fire at an inner city block of flats in Liverpool. I reported live into the 4pm news bulletin saying that residents were trying to salvage what they could from their burning homes. I was wrong. Had I checked my facts, not made assumptions, and taken time to establish the context of events I would have discovered that I was witnessing rioting and looting. You can read about that experience and the lessons learnt here.

The challenge all journalists face is not just to report the news but to also set out the background to an event as well as all related events in order to help the audience understand the elements of a story which they might otherwise find hard to comprehend – or even reach the wrong conclusion.

Perhaps it involves researching and setting out the chronology of events that have led to the current breaking news story. These can be presented as related stories.

You might need to research the backgrounds of the characters involved as you look for any social connections to anyone else involved. These can be presented as profiles.

Essentially, what you are doing is gathering as much information as possible in order to put together the most detailed, in-depth, and informative account of what has happened.

All this illustrates that journalism helps people make sense of the world – not just what’s happening, but why it’s happening. Stories that raise questions without even attempting to address those questions are weak stories.

• A bridge has collapsed. Why?
• A racing driver stops his car while leading the race. Why?
• A politician resigns. Why?

A news story without context can never be completely understood. A news source that is not verified can never be completely trusted. A claim, left unchecked, might not necessarily be a fact. And a news story without fact-checking and context could add more to the cacophony of confusion than to the enhancement of understanding.

If you found this interesting and, perhaps, helpful, you might want to check our other, related training modules.

Accuracy in journalism
The basics of fact-checking
How to identify and deal with fake news
Dealing with disinformation and misinformation
Unconscious bias and its impact on journalism

The post Fact-checking and adding context first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Fake news is not new, it’s been around for thousands of years. Throughout history there have always been attempts to fool and confuse the public and distract attention from the truth. However, in recent years disinformation has become much more widespread, and it constitutes a direct challenge to honest, truthful reporting. So what should journalists do about it?

Fojo Media Institute has an excellent free resource called Fojo Check containing tools for journalists wanting to brush up their skills in fact-checking.

Annelie Frank, the project manager for Fojo’s fact-checking hub Faktajouren says many know about fake news’, but not many understand what it is.

“It’s not news, because news tells us what’s really happened even if mistakes occasionally are made. I don’t think a lot of people fall for fake news on fake news sites nowadays. The public has been educated on source criticism and on how the media works. The former US president has practically kidnapped the term with his attacks on traditional media. Fake news is not the big problem. But disinformation is a greater threat. These kinds of stories contain quite a lot of truth. A government decision can be described correctly, but relevant information will be left out and thereby the big picture is muddled.”

We spoke to a range of experts involved in training journalists, and we asked them how to spot fake news and deal with it. Responses listed alphabetically.

Associate Professor Dr. Dinh Thi Thuy Hang – Director, Center for Further Training of Professional Journalists (VJTC), Vietnam Journalists Association (VJA)

“In 2021 the VJTC conducted five training workshops for journalists in identifying and checking fake news, disinformation and misinformation.

“Fake news often appears on social networks. They have catchy and often shocking headlines to attract attention. As an internet user, I often read through the information, then look at the link (URL).

“Misinformation often comes from fake news websites which are created to appear almost identical to the original websites.

“When in doubt I cross check the date and the event to see if the information is published on other newspapers or news sites. If the news is discussed by other sources, such as mainstream newspapers, there’s a high chance that news is true. However, for journalists, they still need to verify the information with sources to gather evidence in order to confirm that the news is accurate.

“When I find misinformation being spread, I often post on my family’s and friend’s groups on social media to tell them that the information being shared is fake and that they shouldn’t believe it or circulate it. However some people still circulate misinformation even though they are suspicious of the information being shared via social media links.”

Sanjoy Hazarika is a former reporter for the New York Times, author and documentary filmmaker. He is co-convenor of the South Asia Media Defenders Network (SAMDEN) and currently Director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI). He is the founder of the Centre for North East Studies and Policy Research (C-NES).

“I encourage journalists to access well-known resources and organizations which flag, challenge and disseminate information about fake news and their media handles. Every major country has a few dedicated persons focusing on these critical issues. In addition, the answer to fake news is to place the facts on any issue in the public domain.

“Another way — slower than getting a news break from a reliable source but reliable — is to use freedom of information/right to information laws which exist in many parts of the world.

“Journalists have won national and international awards by anchoring their reporting about key government issues of public concern on right to information (RTI) requests. RTI has become an important tool for media to investigate official wrongdoing. The facts can’t be disputed because they come from the original source: the relevant government department.”

Naomi Goldsmith – journalism trainer and media consultant

“I personally think there is no such thing as ‘fake news’. If the information is fake, then it’s not news.

“News, of course, should always be accurate, and where there is uncertainty or controversy – this should be made clear.

“There are people who knowingly or mistakenly create or pass on information which is not accurate, and this can more precisely be referred to as disinformation and misinformation.

“Disinformation – like dishonest – means it’s deliberately false. Misinformation – like mistake – means there wasn’t a deliberate intention to create or pass on false or misleading information. It was a mistake.”

(Naomi has written a longer piece for this site about dealing with disinformation and misinformation).

Jaldeep Katwala – writer and journalist

“Look at the source. Is it an organisation you trust? If the information comes to you via social media from a friend of a friend or someone you vaguely know, be particularly suspicious.

“Does it sound credible? Are the sources quoted recognised and traceable?

“Beware of opinions masquerading as facts. Always ask what is this person’s perspective and ask if they are trying to support an outrageous statement with partial or unlikely facts.

“Journalists are gatekeepers of information. We check the validity of what we are told and then share it with the audience once we are sure it is accurate, honest and truthful.

“Sometimes journalists fail in this regard, so information published by other news outlets also needs to be tested.

“If you’re not sure that information is correct don’t pass it on. Be subjective but don’t be obsessive.

“In your work as a news gatherer be sure to cast your eyes and ears widely in an attempt to include multiple perspectives. Don’t limit yourself to a personal echo chamber cut off from the real world and other points of view.

“Keep an open mind, listen to diverse opinions, and always check and double check all the information you come across before passing it on to those who turn to you for reliable information.”

Richard Sambrook – Emeritus Professor of Journalism at Cardiff University

“Fake news is a phrase used to cover many different sorts of problems – and sometimes used to undermine legitimate journalism. Basically there is misinformation – information which is unintentionally wrong and simply needs correcting – and disinformation, which is deliberately wrong and intended to mislead.

“The problem of disinformation isn’t going to go away. The tools of disinformation are getting more sophisticated. For example, artificial intelligence can now manipulate audio and video to make it appear people have said things they have not said.

“So how can you spot Fake News? Ask some basic questions:

• Who is saying this? Is the source clear and are they who they say they are (e.g. is the website url genuine?)
• Where are other voices, views and sources on this topic? If there are none – be suspicious.
• Why are they saying this? Is it to inform? persuade? entertain? educate? Or might it be to mislead?
• When was this said? Is it contemporary or is it a picture or quote taken out of context from the past to mislead about a current issue?

“When misinformation or disinformation is found, it needs to be corrected. But that alone may not be enough. In the end, serious journalists need to commit to high standards of accuracy, fairness, providing evidence, reporting a range of views and being open about their purpose and accountable if mistakes get made. Openness and transparency are the best means of winning trust.

“Understanding fake news and verification techniques are built into core journalism modules at Cardiff University.”

The post How to identify and deal with fake news first appeared on Media Helping Media.

The growth of social media platforms has enabled people to express views and share content online, quickly and often. The ease of access to smartphones, data, and a wide variety of platforms has led to a deluge of online information. And not all of it is true.

Sometimes people share content without having adequate knowledge. This has been particularly evident during the Covid-19 pandemic.

When people are scared and have little knowledge about a topic they are more susceptible to spreading misinformation. That’s why misinformation spreads like a wildfire during major breaking news events.

People tend to share photos, memes or content that they find on social media without checking the veracity. In most cases, they do so with good intentions, perhaps to alert their family and friends.

But misinformation can be harmful because those reading the information tend to believe it and sometimes act on the basis of such information. And they, in turn, are likely to share it further.

In order for people to make informed decisions, they need to be provided with accurate and reliable facts. Fact-checking can play a critical role in this problematic news ecosystem.

Exposing the invisible – The Kit

Exposing the Invisible – The Kit has been developed by Tactical Tech in order to help people “develop the ability to question information that is false, find information when it is scarce and filter information when it becomes overwhelming.”

I was responsible for writing the part of The Kit that deals with fact-checking, including the following sections:

• The mindset needed for fact-checking
• How to get started with fact-checking
• How to stay safe when fact-checking
• How to fact-check the fact-checkers
• How to include fact-checking when carrying out investigative journalism
• The challenges of fact-checking

The Kit also includes experience of fact-checkers from Nepal and India.

For more information on fact-checking you can take a look at this list of articles and guides.

And if you need help understanding some of the terms used in any of these pieces you can refer to this glossary of definitions.

The post The basics of fact-checking first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Briefings, background information, and editorial control

What should a journalist do with off-the-record information? Should they agree to conditions being placed on its use? Should they ignore any conditions and do the story anyway? Or should they use what they have been told as background information and dig further? Try our scenario and decide what you would do in the circumstances.

Dealing with off-the-record information

You are working as a reporter on a local radio station, which is situated in the city centre close to the police headquarters.

Journalists and police officers are often found mixing in the local pub after their shifts have finished.

In the city where you work the journalists have a lot of dealings with the police. Many are on first-name terms, having crossed paths in the course of their work.

The pub is a good place for journalists to pick up leads and background information.

You are having a beer with a couple of journalist pals, when two police officers you know join you for a drink. They, too, have just finished the late shift.

As you chat, one of the officers tells you that, earlier in the evening, vice squad officers working undercover in the city’s red-light district say they saw a prominent public figure driving his car slowly down a street which is well known for kerb-crawling.

Later they say the found the same car parked in a side street. When they checked, they found the man in the back seat with a woman. The woman wasn’t his partner.

The officer tells you that the man was given a caution, and says the police were “taking it no further”.

He names the man, describes the circumstances in some detail, but then says the story is “off the record”, and that it mustn’t get out.

He says a surveillance operation is continuing, and tells the journalists not to mention it to anyone else.

What should you do?

The following are three options. There will be many more, but in this module we are looking at the following three.

Option 1 – run with the story

This has the makings of a lead story. The off-the-record status of the information has no legal bearing; you haven’t signed anything. If the officer gets into trouble that’s his problem.

You have the name of the man, you have the location of the incident, the time it took place, you have a description of the car, and details of what vice squad officers saw when they shone their light in the vehicle.

You have enough for a 30-second voice report for the next bulletin. You should tell the newsdesk you have a new lead, head back to the newsroom, and get working on it as soon as you can.

Option 2 – keep your mouth shut

You should respect the informal off-the-record arrangement you have with your contact in the local police.

The officer has given you the details only because he trusted you. He has told you that the story “mustn’t get out”.

If you break this confidence it will damage a productive relationship, which might take years to repair.

You need to preserve the close relationship your news organisation has with the authorities.

So you should agree not to mention the incident, not even to your news editor, but to consider it valuable background information related to an on-going investigation.

Option 3 – refer up and investigate further

You should call your news editor and share the information, making it clear that the officer had told you that he was speaking off the record after he revealed the details.

There is still so much missing from the story. Apart from the chat in the pub with the officer, you have nothing else to go on. You have one source only.

You and your news editor need to discuss the significance of the information. Together you will need to assess the public interest aspects of what has happened.

You will also need to consider why the police officer was willing to share the information.

Then you need to decide whether the alleged incident requires further investigation.

At this stage you should certainly not consider putting anything out on air.

Off-the-record briefings

Off-the-record briefings are common in journalism. They can be useful in helping journalists research background information, and they can provide context about the issues reporters are investigating.

But such briefings can also put a journalist in an awkward position.

It’s possible an off-the-record briefing is given because the person sharing the information wants the journalist to research the matter for a variety of unknown reasons. In that case the journalist might be being used by the information provider.

It could be that the person sharing the information is afraid it will get out and is trying to pre-empt the situation by sharing a version of events in the hope that the journalist will be content with what has been shared and distracted from a bigger story.

Or it might be that the journalist has simply witnessed some loose talk, that the person sharing the information has realised they made a mistake in sharing it, and they are trying to recover the situation by saying what they shared was off the record.

A lot depends on the circumstances.

Some off-the-record chats will take place formally, others will be chance meetings with contacts who have information to share. Most will involve information providers who don’t want to go on the record for having shared it.

Specialist correspondents and beat reporters often depend on receiving confidential information from their contacts as a valuable part of their research.

Most media organisations will have a policy regarding off-the-record briefings. Some will accept them, others will feel that they compromise their ability to seek out facts and tie them to a controlled version of events.

You need to know your employer’s stance on the issue. This should have been made clear when you joined the company and during your training.

This scenario is not about a briefing with a specialist in a particular subject, it’s a chat with a casual contact in a pub late at night.

How would you deal with the situation?

Let’s look at the three options set out above

Option 1 – run with the story

If you follow option 1, you would be broadcasting information which hadn’t been checked.

It’s late at night, the officer who told you about the incident had heard it second-hand from the vice squad.

What they told him was a colourful, off-the-cuff description of what they said they had seen. It was not an official report.

There is nobody to quote. You have simply been given a tip-off that something has happened. A man found with a prostitute has been given a caution. That is all.

If you write a 30-second voice report at this point, you will be at risk of defamation of character, based on unsubstantiated information. That is not journalism.

Option 2 – keep your mouth shut

In this option, the reporter is keen to preserve the cosy relationship they have with the local police.

The reporter knows that if they report what was said in the pub, the police might not open up to them in the future. That could damage future newsgathering efforts.

The reporter is quite content to let the police officer rule on what they can or can’t do with the information. But, in doing so the reporter has allowed the line between information-sharing and editorial control to be crossed.

That is not a healthy position.

Option 3 – refer up and investigate further

This is the preferred course of action.

You have been given background information, which you and your news editor now need to consider.

By applying the public interest test you will be able to assess what to do next, and how much effort should be put into further research, if any.

It could be that the man in question has been outspoken in the past about the need to clean up the sex industry in the city. Perhaps he’s been campaigning about sex trafficking.

If so, there might well be a public interest justification for further investigation.

You might consider putting a file together on the prominent public figure who is alleged to have been cautioned so that you are ready if and when the news finally breaks.

Such a file would be accessed by your online team, too, and probably contain a biography, videos and photographs of the man in public life as well as other background material.

But as for writing a piece for the next bulletin – no, there is nothing to report.

Not only because the information was shared off the record, but also because you don’t have any independent sources offering verified facts that have been double-checked to ensure that the information you broadcast is accurate, fair, and in the public interest.

All the scenarios on Media Helping Media are based on real events.

The post Off-the-record chat – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Taking part in an organised media trip

You are a reporter in a city with a large army base.

The anniversary of the end of a military invasion is approaching.

Tensions still exist between the two countries involved.

A political resolution has still to be reached.

No-fly zones are in force.

A battalion, based in the city where you work, has been sent to the country to begin a year-long tour of duty.

The army invites selected media representatives from your city to spend a week in the country under the protection of the battalion.

You are chosen as a radio reporter. You will be accompanied by three other journalists. One from a local weekly newspaper, another from the city’s daily newspaper, and a freelance reporter from a news agency which supplies the national newspapers.

The four of you are to be embedded for the trip, meaning that all of your activities will, supposedly, be organised and monitored by your military hosts.

As part of the deal you have to agree to a code of conduct, set out by the army’s media office.

You are told that you are not to operate outside of the framework of the trip – which is set out for you in terms of where you should go and who you should talk to.

You are issued with military clothing appropriate to the conditions in which you will be working.

Throughout the trip you are closely chaperoned by army media officers who arrange helicopter trips over the battle zones, set up interviews with senior military figures, and help arrange visits to a satellite communications vessel so that you can file your regular reports.

The four journalists spend the week in close proximity. They are not allowed out of their minders’ sight.

The journalists talk among themselves a lot. They discuss what they will be filing, and what storylines they will be covering.

Because they are all being exposed to the same information, there is little difference in what they file. The usual editorial tensions of working closely with competitors appear not to exist.

The group is well aware that this is little more than a public relations stunt by the military, but all four are keen to take part in order to experience travelling to a war zone.

Towards the end of the week, you and the other three journalists are told you are being taken on a trip to a remote settlement where an estimated 70 soldiers had died during the fighting.

You are shown a battlefield and told that the army engineers have been carrying out an extensive operation to remove what they say are live booby traps – explosive devices attached to corpses – so that local farmers can return to the land.

As you approach, there is a loud explosion. The army minders are distracted. The group of four reporters is separated.

Close by, half a dozen locals have gathered, presumably attracted by the noise of the helicopters when you landed in the area.

Two of the four reporters take the chance to talk to them. You are one of them, the other is the freelance news agency reporter.

One local resident tells you more about the booby traps. He says they have to deal with them on a daily basis. Livestock is being killed. Parts of their land are no-go areas. Another backs the claims. You turn your tape recorder on.

They say they are angry that not enough has been done to protect the local community. They claim that yours is the first visit by the army to the area since the end of the war.

The freelance news agency reporter takes notes. You have the interview on tape.

You return to base. The army minders arrange a meeting with all four journalists during which they set out what can and cannot be reported from the scene. Neither you nor the freelance reporter mention your conversation with the local residents.

The minders inform the group that there will be a trip to the satellite communications vessel later that evening. All four reporters start to write.

You suspect that the freelance news agency reporter will be filing a report about the conversation with the local residents. You fear that he will have a scoop and you will appear to have missed the story.

You need to consider, in the light of what you have seen and heard – and the debriefing meeting with the minders – what you will transmit.

What do you report?

1) The trip you are on has been arranged and paid for by the military, and you had agreed to a code of conduct before taking part. You should report only what you have been told by the military. You were not expected to be exposed to unauthorised sources. And you have no way to verify what local community members said, which could be untrue.

2) You should request another meeting with the minders and your fellow journalists and tell the group that you chatted to the locals while they were distracted by the explosion, summarise what the local farmers told you, play your recorded interview to the group, and ask the army minders for a comment.

3) You should write two reports. One covering the day’s events in line with the rules you agreed to before taking part in the trip, the other covering the conversation with the locals. You should file both, and leave it up to your editor to make the final decision on what angle to broadcast.

Verifying conflicting information

In this case the reporter took the second option. He realised that the locals had offered another perspective on the booby trap clearance, and it needed to be checked. He couldn’t ignore it. He also felt that he should invite the army to comment on what he had witnessed.

Being open and honest with the group about what he had seen also removed the fear that the freelance reporter might break the rules to get a scoop that would then make it seem as though the others had missed the story.

In the event he discovered that both versions of the story were true. The army engineers had been involved in removing booby-trapped corpses for some months, but had only that week started to clear the area which the journalists were visiting. So the locals were telling the truth that this was the first visit to their area, but the army was also telling the truth that the operation had been going on for months – although not necessarily in the area visited by the journalists.

So, had the journalists reported the comments of the locals without checking they would have been correct geographically in terms of a small area, but wrong operationally in terms of a larger task being undertaken by military engineers.

In this scenario the reporter also referred up to his line manager when filing to ensure that his decisions, taken at the scene, were supported by a senior editorial figure.

Related training modules

Accuracy in journalism

For journalists, clarity is as important as accuracy

The post Transparency and full disclosure – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

A young radio reporter is coming to the end of his first month on the job. He’s just been approved to drive the radio station’s news car, which means he can now go out on stories and broadcast live from the scene. He’s very excited.

He looks out of the newsroom window and sees a thick plume of smoke rising from the east of the city centre. He alerts the news editor who agrees he should take the radio car, get as close to the scene as possible, and report live into the next bulletin at 4pm.

The reporter arrives at the scene at 3:50pm. He parks behind two fire engines at the corner of a building which is ablaze.

The reporter has 10 minutes before he has to go live into the bulletin. He tries to find someone for a comment, but all the firefighters are busy trying to control the flames, while the police are trying to control the crowd.

However, one of the engineers operating the fire engine pump will talk. When asked whether there are any casualties, he says “Not that we know of, but there are still people in the building.”

The reporter sees a group of people carrying items out of the burning tenements. He presumes they are trying to salvage what they can from the flames.

He lives in a similar part of the city and in similar accommodation. He feels sorry for them.

At that point he decides on the top line for his live report – that people are still in the building trying to salvage what possessions they can.

He hasn’t even considered that he could be at a crime scene where looters are stealing items as residents flee their burning homes.

He raises the radio car mast. The vehicle is new. It has the radio station’s logo plastered all over it in red, white, and blue. The reporter can see the car is attracting attention.

A group of men, some with their faces covered, gather round the vehicle. Three police officers approach and try to block their way.

By now the reporter is sitting in the radio car ready to broadcast. It’s one minute to the 4pm bulletin.

He leaves all four windows half-open to try to capture the sound effects of the chaos outside.

The 4pm news jingle starts to play.

The news reader announces that there is a major fire at a city centre tenement block. He then says, “We are now going live to our reporter on the scene.”

The light on the reporter’s microphone goes green. He’s live. He starts his report…

“The fire has now spread to four floors of this five-storey building. Dozens of firefighters are trying to contain the blaze. Residents are still in the building. Many are trying to salvage what they can from their burning homes. Working together they’re stacking their possessions on the street.”

One of the police officers, who had been protecting the radio car while the reporter was broadcasting, bangs on the window and shouts, “They’re looting, you’ve got to move, it’s not safe here.”

Emotions and assumptions take over

What we have here is a situation where an inexperienced reporter, faced with a breaking news story, is expected to report live from the scene with little knowledge of what is really going on.

That is a common situation.

But the reporter has been carried away with the excitement of the event, and, in the absence of any credible information, and with no time for proper news-gathering or fact-checking, relies solely on his own emotions and assumptions.

And that is not good.

The fact that he lived in a similar inner-city area meant that he was unable to be objective; he immediately assumed those gathering possessions were similar to his own neighbours.

His emotions were high when he thought they were salvaging what they could. He made a false assumption and that polluted his report.

The story he had built in his mind from the moment he arrived at the scene was wrong. Not only was it wrong, but it was missing the importance of the event.

He was witnessing rioting and looting, not local residents working together to salvage what they could from their burning homes.

In such situations reporters must detach themselves from events, broadcast what they see, and avoid any assumptions.

If they are unable to find out what is actually going on from a reliable source, they should offer a situation report about what they can see in front of them.

There was enough eye-witness material to fill a 30-second report without adding guesswork.

Guesswork, assumptions, and emotionally charged observations are not part of breaking news reporting.

The report should have been limited to describing the flames, the smoke, the number of fire engines, the size of the crowd, and the number of police at the scene.

The reporter’s mistake was letting his imagination take over.

He was broadcasting false information to the station’s listeners.

This was before social media, but in today’s age of Facebook and Twitter, such an error could lead to a rapid spread of misinformation which would take on a life of its own as raw emotion and ill-informed reaction is added.

Lessons from this scenario

• A breaking news reporter’s job is to describe what is happening at the scene, you are not there to interpret without evidence. If you have facts that are sourced and verified, you should include them.
• It doesn’t matter what you think might happen next. Guesswork about the future has absolutely no value.
• You must avoid all assumptions when compiling a report. Assumptions are fine when you are trying to work out what the story is during the research stage, but they then must be verified or discarded during the fact-checking process – they have no place in live situation reports.
• Adjectives and adverbs have little value in live breaking news reporting. The facts are strong enough on their own. The audience doesn’t need your subjective take on things, or your own personal value judgements.

Related modules

Accuracy – scenario

Accuracy in journalism

How to avoid make-believe journalism

Photojournalism and ethics

The post Emotional assumptions – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Spotting fake news through good practice

Here we discuss fake news or false news. We look at what these terms mean for journalists and the different kinds of fake news that exist. Then we offer guidance on how journalists can fight fake or false news through good practice and the use of ‘Trust Chains’.

Fake news

Fake news or false news can mean one of two things. It can be either:

1. a made-up, untrue story or invented “fact” that has been written or presented to seem genuine, or
2. an accusation that a genuine news story or actual fact is false, in order to undermine it.

Made-up news or facts (meaning 1 above) have been around for centuries. Although there are some rare exceptions when it is permissible to make up so-called “news” – for example in comedy or fiction – overall, false news is wrong and should not be produced by ethical journalists.

The second meaning (2) was made fashionable more recently by US President Donald Trump to describe news stories he disliked, usually because they criticised him. Although Trump started the current popularity of this meaning, many other people now use it, mainly people with power who dislike what professional journalists say about them.

For a full description of the controversy over fake news, you can read this article in TheNewsManual … Now!

Fake news has been around since mankind first started communicating and for hundreds of thousands of years it existed amongst a mixture of myths, legends and provable facts.

What we might recognise today as news only started in western societies a few centuries ago, and then in things like political pamphlets pushing a particular ideology or view of the world. Today’s tradition of objective journalism is actually quite modern.

Objective journalism produces stories based on provable facts, supported by evidence, accurately relayed and representing all aspects of any controversy without bias.

This definition of news is the one used in modern democratic, free-speech journalism, of the type supported by The News Manual. You can read more in several chapters, especially Chapter 56 ‘Facts and Opinions’ in Volume III, Ethics and the Law.

Different kinds of fake news

There are many kinds of fake or false news and many different reasons why it is produced.

In a 2018 UNESCO report titled “Journalism, ‘fake news’ and disinformation”, (download the PDF of the report here, or go to the bottom of the page where it is embedded) the editors identified three specific types they called misinformation, disinformation and ma-linformation. In practice they break down into four types, with increasing levels of wrongdoing:

Genuine errors

At the lower end of the spectrum there is news that is wrong because of mistakes, carelessness, genuine misunderstanding or because the person generating the news or passing it on is not really good at it. This type of “fake news” has always existed and we generally forgive those responsible as “only human”.

Satire

One level down on the scale of harm is news presented as satire – or satire presented as news.

This is made-up news printed or broadcast in such a way that it is obvious to readers and viewers that it is not true, just a joke.

It is a tradition in many cultures for media to publish such stories on 1 April each year, ‘April Fools Day’. Usually no harm is done and the media organisation commonly identifies the story afterwards or leaves clues within the story showing it is made up.

But not everybody sees satire as harmless and people can be very offended when they think they are being fooled or made fun off.

Half-truths

Thirdly there is the kind of disinformation that takes real, provable facts and twists them, usually by selectively quoting some parts but not others. People usually do this to support their own belief system or a specific argument. Some of the news and opinion pieces to do with man-made global warming often fit into this category. It is not good practice, but many people regard it as part of politics.

Manufactured news

The most harmful kind of “fake news” is made up or manufactured in order to deceive, in such a way that it calls black white, it turns the truth on its head and maybe presents concocted evidence.

This seems like real news and is the most damaging kind of false news. Repeated often and long enough, this maliciously manufactured “fake news” not only damages the kind of rational discussion necessary for the functioning of democracy, but it leaves readers, listeners and viewers wondering just what they can believe, if anything at all.

It is very rare for such stories to be produced by most reputable media outlets, partly because journalists are trained to be cynical and check facts – there are usually systems of sub-editors and fact-checkers in place to assist – and because the publishers and broadcasters know that their readership and audience numbers depend on people coming back to them for news they can trust.

Social media and fake news

Social media have been blamed for spreading fake or false news. Indeed, surveys up to 2019 generally show that social media were the most mistrusted of all the modern media.

Social media such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and SnapChat are far less trusted than traditional print and broadcasting – what we call “legacy media”. Social media have some very useful functions in the 21st Century, sharing experiences, connecting families and friends, warning of danger so fast even the emergency services use them. They are generally beneficial and here to stay.

But social media are not so good in the production and transmission of news. In some ways they have actually caused the current plague of fake news. The very things that make social media so popular also make them so dangerous in spreading fake news. Anybody can use them, they are instant and there are few controls over content or quality standards.

Social media also play a major role in the “amplification” of false news. One person sharing something with ten people who each share it with 10 more can quickly spread fake news to thousands or millions of people. That is why information or accusations on social media are said to go “viral”, i.e. like a virus in a one’s body.

What also makes fake news so powerful is that it resembles an extreme form of what makes real news, in that it is typically very unusual. Because it is wrong, it is not what people expect so they pass it on as news. The truth – which might be much more ordinary – is not so attractive and is therefore not shared as widely or as quickly.

The journal Science has published research that shows that false news on Twitter spreads faster to more people than the truth.

As the 18th Century Anglo-Irish intellectual Jonathan Swift wrote: “Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it”.

Trust chains

One of the main weapons against fake news, for both journalists and their audiences alike, is the Trust Chain.

A Trust Chain is what connects the source of an event – including speeches, interviews etc – with the final reader, viewer or listener, ensuring that the version of facts they receive remains true to the original.

Each time a fact or comment is passed on by someone in the chain, it is a new link that must be checked to make sure it comes from a reliable source who has already checked its accuracy.

The steps to creating and maintaining Trust Chains are simple and should be followed at all times.

Be honest with yourself, about yourself

We should always try to be honest with ourselves and with other people. If we don’t know if something is true, then we should not say it is, even when the admission strikes at the very heart of our own personal worldview.

Journalists are also members of society, so are able to have personal opinions of their own. But these must never be allowed to influence our professional work, however hard that might be. Remember to separate the you-at-work from the you-at-home.

Pass news forward honestly

Again, whatever you write or broadcast, you must be truthful with your reader, listener or viewer.

If you do not know something is true, then either you must not pass it on or you must admit its weakness to your audience. If you cannot confirm that a story or a fact is true yourself, then you must say how accurate – or possibly inaccurate – you are being.

If you know something that is widely known but has not been confirmed, explain that. For example:

It is widely believed that the Prime Minister will announce a new trade agreement with France this afternoon, though no-one in Government will confirm this and the French Embassy has said it is “unlikely”.

Journalists should wherever possible attribute facts or opinions about which there may be dispute.

Question doubtful information

Journalists are more than people who pass on information to their audiences. Anyone can do that, but journalists add value through their work by sorting through lots of information to pick out what is newsworthy, then check its truthfulness or accuracy before communicating it in a news item or current affairs story.

Journalists are a bit like food tasters, deciding what is good and what is not so good or actually bad.

At first this requires a lot of effort, and you will make mistakes. But after a few years your sense of taste – in our case “newsworthiness” – becomes more highly trained and we may even develop a “sixth sense” about information we find or are given.

Be alert to that sixth sense, listen to that voice that asks yourself: “Does this really sound right?”

That little voice is not the answer, but it is an alarm you should listen to. If your sense tells you something is wrong about a piece of information, check it out with greater care than normal. Often you will be right in doing so.

When someone tells us something that sounds even remotely doubtful, ask them: “Who says?” or “How do you know?” Said properly, it doesn’t need to be rude.

Track suspect information back to its source

The Truth Chain for any news story has a beginning and an end. Unless the journalist witnessed the start themselves, they will usually become part of that process part-way along the chain. If so, they must always think about where the story started. Who first discovered the information? Who first passed it on? Who else has played a role in transmitting?

There is a children’s game in most cultures that relies on people in a line passing on a simple message to the next person until it gets to the last person in the line.

The fun in the game is to see how very different even a simple message becomes by being repeated before it reaches the last person.

Journalists cannot afford to play such games. We must try to ensure that the message at the end is the same as it was at the beginning. That will often mean going back and asking people before you in the chain to check the accuracy and truth of it, before you yourself pass it on. As you can see, this is not done for laughs; for journalists, getting the truth right is a serious business.

Distinguish facts from opinions

Suffice it to say here that the strength of the Trust Chain relies on both (a) knowing the difference and (b) telling your readers, listeners or viewers what each element of your news story is – fact or opinion?

Some facts are so clear or so well-documented they can be relayed without attributing them to a source. But any facts that are controversial, contested or less-known and ALL opinions must be attributed.

You can learn more about attribution in the News Manual’s Chapter 9 and about sources in Chapter 59.

Find trusted, tested news sources

As a journalist, you are largely reliant on other people telling you things, so try to find and follow people you know you can trust.

If you work for a professional news outlet, it will have a list of other news organisations – such as news agencies – that provide reliable information which is so vital for a strong Trust Chain.

Be aware that you cannot simply ignore your “sixth sense” if it tells you that something from one of your reliable sources seems doubtful. Check out all information that seems questionable, even if it comes from a previously trustworthy source.

Check against other professional media

Do not rely on one source for any information you receive that is even slightly doubtful or controversial. Check on multiple sources. Of course, they may all be wrong, but you lessen the chances of making a mistake if you search for good, accurate information as widely as practicable.

Most respectable professional news organisations have a “two-source rule”, meaning they must find at least two reliable and independent sources before they publish or broadcast something important.

Do not rely on the Internet

The Internet is just a means of moving information around – it is not a guarantee that information is reliable in any way. Websites are no more or less reliable that a social media feed, blog, tweet or post. What matters is the reliability of the people or the organisation behind the website.

As we have seen from the creation of “fake news”, there are hundreds of thousands of people around the world creating fake news, either for their own amusement or because they are paid to do it, usually by a corrupt government or business.

Even when a website appears to belong to a trustworthy organisation, check it out. Check the real website address. For instance, if your backtracking leads to a website purporting to be The Australian newspaper but the URL is something like www.chewbacky123.com, you have to assume it is a “fake news” site, not the real Australian newspaper.

And do not take everything that is written even on real sites as Gospel. Many media organisations push their own views or those of their owners as opinion-disguised-as-fact, maybe telling half-truths or reporting things out of context.

We all have our favourite media we think we can trust, often because their politics or philosophy match our own. But do not take that for granted. Ask yourself: “Where did they get their information from?” If it is from their own correspondent and someone you can trust, then you are far safer than if the article quotes “online opinion”.

Regularly look at other newspapers, radio stations or TV news providers to see what other news sources say. If your favourite news bulletin is out of step with everyone else, it could be that it is better than the rest; but it could also be because it is worse.

The Trust Chain needs to be strong at every link, from the source event all the way to your brain and then all the way to the eyes and ears of your readers, listeners and viewers. After that, it is up to them.

“Journalism, ‘fake news’ and disinformation”

The source of this training module is The News Manual’s Chapter Fake news & Trust Chains

The post Fake news and trust chains first appeared on Media Helping Media.

The following article is reproduced courtesy of First Draft News.

Surge of interest in trust and truth

Over the past eighteen months, there has been a surge of interest in trust and truth in a digital age.

There have been hundreds of conferences, reports and papers on the subject.

As our understanding of the space becomes more sophisticated, it’s time to recognize thirteen smaller sub-categories, so we can undertake more targeted research, and convene workshops and conferences on more clearly defined and specific topics.

Here, I suggest thirteen sub-categories where I’m seeing specific initiatives, research or natural alliances.

It’s important to note that all these sub-categories should also be seen through an international lens. It is the one overarching theme that connects all of the following.

The thirteen spaces are:

1. AI & Manipulation: Researching the ways that AI-generated synthetic media (otherwise known as ‘deepfakes’) will impact society, and developing tools and techniques tactics for identifying and verifying these types of sophisticated manipulated visual imagery.
2. Closed Online Spaces & Messaging Apps: Researching the patterns of disinformation on private and semi-private spaces online, as well as messaging apps.
3. Data Harvesting, Ad Tech & Micro-targeting: Researching the connections between data collection and targeted disinformation campaigns.
4. Fact-Checking & Verification: Investigating claims made by official sources (politicians, think tanks, journalists), and investigating information, images and videos from unofficial sources on the social web.
5. Identification of Disinformation Content & Tactics: Monitoring, verifying and providing contextual information around specific types of disinformation and the campaigns used to amplify them.
6. Manufactured Amplification: Understanding techniques for artificially inflating disinformation campaigns, as well as attempts to distort ‘public opinion’, as when manipulating trending topics or purchasing signatures on online petitions.
7. Media Ecosystems: Understanding how information disorder spreads across platforms and between traditional media (TV, radio and interpersonal communication).
8. Media Literacy: Researching and evaluating best practices for teaching digital literacy in an age of information disorder.
9. News Credibility: Developing machine-readable indicators that ensure quality information sources are given priority in social streams and search results.
10. Polarization: Understanding the impact of polarization on the ways in which information is used, understood and shared.
11. Policy & Regulation: Investigating the question of ‘regulation’, and ensuring it is based on clear definitions and evidence.
12. Reporting best practices: Researching and experimenting with best practices for publishing fact-checks or debunks, particularly investigating the concepts of the ‘tipping point’ and ‘strategic silence’ to prevent providing additional oxygen to rumours, false content and amplification tactics.
13. Trust in Media: Research and initiatives designed to improve trust in the professional media.

Note: This material first appeared on First Draft and has been reproduced here with the author’s consent. 

The post Information disorder – mapping the landscape first appeared on Media Helping Media.