In class today I had a really interesting discussion with my table of peers regarding opinions vs fact. One of the issues with the spread of fake news, is often it is very difficult to tell the difference between opinions and facts in articles. So often, people will read an opinion piece and take it word for word as fact. One way to easily tell the difference is to assess what sources the writer is referring to, if they are from both sides of a debate and if they come from a reputable source. While this is a small thing you can consider while reading an article to help decide whether it is true or not, often the language used by writers is tricky.

 

We discussed in class today the use of phrases like “this study confirms” or “according to research”. So often are these phrases used to add a level of credibility to a claim, and so they should, however, even these phrases can be extremely misleading if you don’t delve in deeper. It is not uncommon for media to pick up a scientific story and run with it without reading the entire study. They look for “buzzwords” or phrases that can draw in an audience and get them the clicks and the views. The problem with this is that many people he the words “scientific study” and assume blindly that it is true, they trust scientists and assume they have done all the fact checking for them. John Oliver did a very interesting segment on this not long ago, which I rewatched after this class discussion. He talked about the dangers of media outlets running stories based on reading the media release of a study. There were a few outlandish examples where there were reports of coffee curing cancer, despite the study never actually mentioning coffee at all. I find myself at a loss as to how the media and journalists could get it so wrong. Which led me to think about the kind of pressures they would be under to make this kind of mistake.

 

I have said before that the economic factors contributing to fake news can not be understated. A headline reading that coffee cures cancer is far more likely to get clicks and views than a more vague and bland statement. Again, these outlandish and misleading claims by the media wouldn’t be as bad but barely anyone from the general public would actually go and check the sources. This fundamentally shows the problem with fake news as a whole. Spreading false information can have disastrous consequences. So often I think people this of politics when thinking about fake news, particularly since the rise of Trump in America. I am more terrified, however, of the medical and health repercussions of fake news. It seems like there is a new study every week saying contradictory things about drugs, food, exercise and a whole range of other things that affect our health. Without the proper fact checking behind it this can cause mass spread of false information that can harm people. Just look at the anti-vaxx movement that is going on at the moment. Unfortunately I think that might just be the tip of the iceberg. So many places are misreporting scientific studies and are not being held accountable for it.

 

It has now made me question whenever I see or hear “scientists have proven” or something similar. I find myself asking “What is your sources?” and “What was the study actually about?”. These kind of misleading news reporting can have disastrous effects on people’s lives, and on the topic of fake news, I feel like it is hardly ever spoken about. 

 

References:

John Oliver on Scientific Studies: