BREAK DOWNPROVOKE

DESTROYDISRUPTFRIGHTENSHOUTATTACK

INFORMATION SHEETCHEATFALSIFYSTRIKE BACK
1

The Bad News game confers resistance against bad
online information by putting players in the positionof the people who create it. This document provides
background information on how the game was developed,
how it works, and what it is based on. It also goes into
the concept of disinformation in a broader sense, andexplains how the game covers its various aspects. This
document is meant as an explainer for educators whowish to use the Bad News game as a teaching tool. It also
provides links to additional information that educators
might find useful.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
How was this game developed?						3What is disinformation?							3Why is disinformation a problem?					

3What solutions are there?						4Inoculation theory							5The Bad News Game: how does it work?					

5Badge breakdown							6Use in class or group							12Age restrictions and sensitivity warning					

2

12HOW WAS THIS GAME DEVELOPED?
The first version of this game was written in Dutch and launched in November of
2017. This Dutch-language version can be played at www.slechtnieuws.nl. The
content of both the Dutch and the English-language version of Bad News was
written by DROG (www.aboutbadnews.com), a Dutch organisation working against
the spread of disinformation, in collaboration with researchers at Cambridge
University in the United Kingdom. The visual and graphic design was done by
Gusmanson (www.gusmanson.nl).

WHAT IS DISINFORMATION?
The term ‘fake news’ has become ubiquitous in media coverage. While itcertainly has its uses, it doesn’t do a very good job at describing the full breadthof the concept. What we call ‘fake news’ refers to news that has been entirely
fabricated or made up. Snopes is one of the websites that keeps track of stories likethis. Examples are not hard to find: headlines like “Australia to forcibly vaccinate
citizens via chemtrails”, “Melania Trump bans White House staff from taking flu
shot” and “Muslim doctor refuses to treat Christian girl on board a flight” are but
a Google search away.
However, a news item doesn’t have to be entirely made up to be insidious or
misleading. To capture the broader scope of the various ways to mislead audiences,
we prefer to use the term ‘disinformation’. Unlike ‘misinformation’, which issimply information that is incorrect, disinformation involves the intent to deceive.
Propaganda, then, is disinformation with an explicit or implicit political agenda.

WHY IS DISINFORMATION A PROBLEM?
Disinformation is commonly used by a variety of parties, including somegovernments, to influence public opinion. Social media are a particularly fertile
breeding ground for such attempts. To give an example: around 47 million Twitter
accounts (approximately 15%) are bots. Many of these bots are used to spreadpolitical disinformation, for example during election campaigns. Recent examples
of influential disinformation campaigns include the MacronLeaks during the
French presidential elections in 2017, the Pizzagate controversy during the 2016
US elections, the various “alternative” explanations surrounding the downing of
Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in July 2014 and the rumors circulating in Sweden
about the country’s cooperation with NATO.
Disinformation works because many people fail to recognize false information
when it’s presented to them. For example, a recent British study indicated that
only 4% of participants was able to tell fake news from real. In some ways, this is3

not surprising: people are bombarded with excessive amounts of information as
they scroll through their news feeds or social media page. Much of this information
was shared by friends, whom people tend to trust to tell them the truth. A fake ordisinformative news article shared and shown to someone by a friend is therefore
more likely to be seen as trustworthy.

WHAT SOLUTIONS ARE THERE?
Disinformation can be countered in numerous ways: by changing search engines’ orsocial media sites’ search and display algorithms, by improving fact-checking tools,
through regulation, or through education.
First: Google and Facebook are figuring out how to tweak their algorithms todisincentivize fake or unreliable news sites and prevent fake content from showing
up on people’s newsfeeds in the same way as reliable news sites. While this could
potentially be a very effective tool, algorithms are never 100% effective at detecting
unreliable sources or pieces of output. There is always a risk of false positives(meaning that the algorithm says something is fake that isn’t) and/or false
negatives (flagging something as real that is fake).
A second example is fact-checking tools. Social media platforms are experimenting
with real-time fact-checking. Articles that are found to be unreliable get a labelthat says ‘disputed’ or something similar. Fact-checking is a necessary element
to combating disinformation, but its biggest flaw lies in the fact that limited
resources lead to an ‘implied truth’-effect: since it is impossible to fact-checkall news articles, some disreputable output will remain unchecked and thus notacquire a ‘disputed’-label. Research shows that people rate even obviously fakearticles as more reliable if they know that they could be given a label but weren’t.
Third, some governments and other agencies are working out ways to regulate thespread of fake news. A prominent example is France’s ‘Fake News Law’, which during
election time would place tougher restrictions on media outlets as to what content
they are allowed to put online. In some countries, such as the United States, laws
like this are not likely to be passed due to constitutional frameworks protecting
free speech. In countries without such constitutional protection, it’s unclear whatform laws like this would end up taking, and some are voicing concerns over theirpotential risk to freedom of speech and expression.
The most effective method of combating disinformation is to foster critical andwell-informed news consumers. Knowledge and education are by far the best
weapons against disinformation. However, such solutions are costly, as theyrequire an individual (or at least classroom-level) approach.

4

INOCULATION THEORY
Inoculation theory, which has its roots in social psychology, states that people
are able to build up a resistance against false or misleading information by being
presented with a weakened version of a misleading argument before being exposedto the “real” information. One can see this as giving people a kind of “vaccine”
against misleading information. If you can recognize it, you can resist it. The Bad
News game draws on inoculation theory for its theoretical justification.

THE BAD NEWS GAMEHOW DOES IT WORK?

The Bad News Game confers resistance against disinformation by putting players in
the position of the people who create it, and as such gain insight into the various
tactics and methods used by ‘real’ fake news-mongers to spread their message.
This, in turn, builds up resistance. The game works in a simple and straightforward
way: players are shown a short text or image (such as a meme or article headline)
and can react to them in a variety of ways. There are two ways in which their scoreis measured: ‘followers’ and ‘credibility’. Choosing an option that is in line with whata ‘real’ producer of disinformation would choose gets them more followers andcredibility. If, however, they lie too blatantly to their followers, choose an optionthat is overtly ridiculous or act too much in line with journalistic best practices, thegame either takes followers away or lowers their credibility. The aim of the game is
to gather as many followers as possible without losing too much credibility.
As it is impossible to cover all aspects of disinformation in great detail, we havechosen to cover the most common aspects of it in the game. The game breaks
down into 6 badges: impersonation, emotion, polarization, conspiracy, discredit,
and trolling. These badges are partially based on the report ‘Digital Hydra’ by NATO’s
East Strategic Command (East StratCom), which details the various forms thatdisinformation can take. A breakdown of what each badge covers is found below.

5

BADGE BREAKDOWNIMPERSONATION
It’s very easy to start a website and publish
content that looks entirely legitimate. Since
there’s almost no entry barrier in terms of costs,
pretty much anyone can do it. The purpose ofthis badge is to show how easy this process isand how a professional look or strong-sounding
name does not necessarily imply legitimacy. In
the game, ‘impersonation’ refers to two things:

explains how the follower counter and credibility
meter function. Players then impersonate theofficial account of either Donald Trump (whodeclares war on North Korea), the US Geological
Survey Earthquake Alerts (which warns of amagnitude 9.3 earthquake near London, United
Kingdom), or Nickelodeon (which announces
the impending cancellation of SpongeBob
SquarePants). Players are then shown two
reaction tweets by Twitter users who fell for theimpersonation hoax. The game then prompts
them to go professional and start their own
news site. They pick a website name, title andslogan.

-	Impersonating a real person or organization
by mimicking their appearance, for example
by using a slightly different username.
-	Posing as a legitimate news website or blog
without the usual journalistic credentials andguidelines.
Players first post a tweet about something that
frustrates them, which can be anything from afailing government to the Flat Earth Society. Thisgets them their first followers, and the game

Supplementary reading:More information on online impersonation canbe found here, here and here.

6EMOTION
Emotional content is content that is notnecessarily ‘fake’ or ‘real’ but deliberately plays
into people’s basic emotions such as fear, anger
or empathy. The aim of this badge is to show
how players can make use of these emotions intheir content.

followers. They can then either make a meme (ahumorous piece of media, usually an image or
GIF, that spreads from person to person on theinternet) or write an article that reflects theirchoice. Each has numerous options, of which
one is always bad (because it’s boring or misses
the point). Some of their followers react to theirpost on Twitter in an emotional, angry way. The
player has then accomplished his or her goal.

This is the first badge where players produce
content for their news site. They are prompted
to browse news headlines for a topic that they
can publish about on their site. They can choose
between climate change or genetically modified
organisms (GMOs). Players are then asked
for their opinion on their topic of choice. The
game prompts them to say that their topic will
either bring about the apocalypse (in the caseof GMOs) or is a complete hoax (in the case ofclimate change), as this is the easiest way togain followers. The game asks them to choose
an approach to the topic at hand: attack thescientists behind it, post an emotional story, ortalk about the science. The latter option returns
a negative response, as players are encouraged
to use reactionary content to rile up theirSupplementary reading:More information on climate change and climate
scepticism can be found on Skeptical Science, ablog about climate change denial and its tenets.
The various theories surrounding geneticallymodified organisms have been detailed byMark Lynas.
More information on the general use ofemotional content in media can be found here,
here and here.

7

POLARIZATION
Polarization, in our definition, involves
deliberate attempts to expand the gap between
the political left and the political right. In orderto gain followers, young news websites often
use polarization as a way to stake out a nichein the media landscape. This badge also covers
the concept of ‘false amplification’, the ideathat you don’t have to tell a completely fakestory in order to get a point across. Instead,
you can also amplify existing grievances andmake them look more important or popularthan they really are.

is by writing an article about it or by posting ameme. This gets them more followers, as people
are beginning to pick up on the story. Next, thegame asks players if they want to purchase
Twitter bots that can amplify the story for them.
If they repeatedly refuse, the game ends, but
if they accept they gain 4000 robot followers.
They are shown examples of bots amplifying
their chosen story. Their target determines ifthey are polarizing their chosen topic towards
the left (by focusing on big corporations or
police brutality) or the right (by focusing on thegovernment or crime-related issues).

At the start of this badge, players are asked
if they want to publish something fake orsomething real. Choosing ‘fake’ tells them thatthey don’t always have to fake the news inorder to make headlines, but that they can alsofind a real story and blow it up. They can thendrive left and right further apart by choosing
between three local news stories as reported
by random citizens on Twitter: a chemical spill,a small town bribery scandal, and the heavyhanded arrest of a criminal. Players first picka target: in two cases they can attack either
big corporations or the government, and in one
case either the police or violent criminals. They
try to give voice to the story by talking about
it on their news site’s Twitter account fromtheir chosen perspective, but this fails. They
are asked to make the story look bigger than it

Supplementary reading:For extra reference: this article by Pew
Research Center looks at political polarizationand media habits.
This paper looks at the effects of polarizationon people’s ability and willingness to recognize‘fake news’.
And this piece investigates the consequencesof increased polarization.
Finally, more information on the use of
Twitter bots and ‘computational propaganda’,
including real-life examples, can be found here,
here and here.

8

CONSPIRACY
Conspiracy theories are part and parcel of fringe
online news sites. Conspiracies can be definedas the belief that unexplained events areorchestrated by a covert group or organization.

conspiratorial thinking, and lose points for going
off the rails. Followers react more positively thistime, and the player is encouraged to write aserious news article about their topic of choice.
If they do well, they gain a cult following, withpeople trusting their news site more and more
and becoming more sceptical of the so-called‘mainstream media’.

In this badge, players are first encouraged
to come up with an interesting new theory
and post it on their news site. However, since
all options are overtly ridiculous (e.g. publicschools no longer teach cursive writing so thatpeople stop reading the Communist Manifesto),
their theory is seen to be too far removed fromreality to be believable to their followers. Somefollowers call the player out for their strange
theory. To save their credibility, players thenlook for a more believable conspiracy to sell totheir followers. They can either choose between
Agenda 21, a non-binding United Nations treaty
on sustainable development, or the so-called‘vaccine conspiracy’, or the idea that the World
Health Organization (WHO) uses vaccinations
to indoctrinate people. Players score points ifthey cast doubt on the official narrative and ask
questions that point people in the direction of

Supplementary reading:More information on the effects ofconspiratorial thinking on the motivatedrejection of scientific findings canbe found here.
Snopes keeps track of conspiracy theories.
Many interesting real-life examples can befound there.
This Guardian article gives an overview of theAgenda 21-conspiracy, and this article goes into
the WHO vaccination program conspiracy.

9

DISCREDIT
Discrediting your opponents is an importantpart of disinformation. When disinformative
news sites are accused of bad journalism,
they tend to deflect attention away from theaccusation by attacking the source of thecriticism or denying that the problem exists.

between either denying the allegations or
attacking the fact-checker. Both options areequally valid and lead to a set of good or bad
responses to choose from. Their vehement
denial or ruthless ad hominem attack on thefact-checker triggers a supportive responsein the player’s followers, and their reputation
remains intact.

In this badge, players are confronted with afact-checker who debunks the conspiracy
theory from the previous badge. They are given
three options: either apologize, do nothing,or take revenge. The first option costs thempoints, and it is explained that apologizing
is never a good idea. ‘Do nothing’ prompts a
response from one of their news site’s followers
asking why they are not responding to thefact-check. Eventually, all three choices lead tothe same point where players have to choose

Supplementary reading:More information on attacks against factcheckers can be found in this Forbes article.
This article provides more information
about how to discredit opponents during
political debates.

10

TROLLING
Trolling is a term that originally means ‘slowly
dragging a lure or baited hook from the back ofa fishing boat’. In the field of disinformation,
it means deliberately evoking an emotional
response by using bait.

mainstream media is also beginning to weighin on the story. Players are instructed to keepincreasing the pressure, either by discrediting
the investigation further or by using anotherarmy of Twitter bots to spread the hashtag#InvestigateNow. Depending on their initialchoice between impersonating a victim’s
family member or photoshopping evidence,
they can then deliver the final blow by either
fabricating another news article about thecrash or by choosing the option that they
didn’t go with earlier on. The Aviation DisasterCommittee, the (fictional) agency responsible
for the investigation, then responds to the
manufactured controversy on Twitter. Players
then attack this response either by calling
for the resignation of the chairman of theCommittee or by using the Twitter bot army
again. The game ends with the Committee
chairman resigning over the handling of theinvestigation.

In this badge, players put together thetechniques they learned in the other 5 badges.
This time, they can only choose one topic. At
the beginning of the badge, they are asked totalk about one of three topics (the 25 mostromantic cities in Europe; a passenger planecrash; and a newly discovered species ofstarfish), of which only the second one leads
to a full-fledged scenario. Choosing one of theother two prompts a scolding from the game’s
moderator. After this, players are given two
options: either pay respects to the victims of
the plane crash or start sowing doubt about
its cause. The first option prompts a response
from their followers asking why they aren’t
investigating the story in more detail. Bothoptions lead to the player eventually asking
whether the crash was a cover-up. Due to theirhigher credibility and number of followers,
their post attracts the attention of othernews sites as well, and the story begins toescalate. Players can then throw fuel onto thefire by either impersonating a crash victim’s
family member or photoshopping evidence ofa cover-up. Both choices then lead to evenmore emotional responses, and now the

Supplementary reading:This article provides more detailed insight
into trolling and its tenets.
One scenario in this badge is artificiallymaking a Twitter hashtag go viral. This Politico
article gives a recent real-life example of thishappening and explains how.

11

USE IN CLASS OR GROUP
The game takes approximately 20 minutes to complete. It is suitable for use inclass, for example during media literacy training. In our workshops we play thegame first and then discuss the techniques that the students have acquired. We
recommend dividing students up in pairs and having them play the game together
while actively thinking about what they’re doing. In our experience, the gamegives players decent (albeit somewhat limited) insight into the various tenets ofdisinformation and makes clear how easy it is to manipulate information.

AGE RESTRICTIONS AND SENSITIVITY WARNING
The game was written to be suitable for people age 14 and up. It contains somepotentially emotionally charged content, such as information on a fictional planecrash, as well as existing conspiracy theories that might be considered jarring. The
game does not employ violent imagery, swear words or other offensive language.
However, since players are prompted to take on the role of the ‘villain’, they mightexperience some mild psychological discomfort about the decisions that the gamepressures them into making. However, since the game takes place entirely in a
virtual environment that does not affect the real online landscape, such discomfort
should hopefully remain limited.

This game was developed by researchers at Cambridge
University and DROG, a Netherlands-based platform
against disinformation. For more information about
the game and its development, or if you have ideas
or feedback, we’re very happy to hear from you.
Ruurd Oosterwoud, founder of DROG, can be reachedat ruurd@wijzijndrog.nl. Or visit DROG’s website atwww.aboutbadnews.com

Copyright © 2018 DROG (www.aboutbadnews.com) All rights reserved. This document is intended for use as educational material. This earmarked copy is theproperty of the individual or organization that purchased it, and is not intended for use by third parties. The following conditions apply:• You may not use or reproduce this work for any commercial purposes, nor may it be used as supporting content for any commercial product or service.
• You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
• Any unauthorized reproduction or sharing of this document will constitute an infringement of copyright.