write a 2000 words essay about this topic: "Journalism has primary responsibility for combatting misinformation" . Thesis: Not only journalists have to be accountable for misinformation. --> COLLECTIVE BURDEN 

- Word count: About 2,000, excluding bibliography. This is a guideline, not a hard floor/ceiling. Write what you need to make your argument.

- Citation style: Chicago. 

tentative OUTLINE:

**Introduction**

- Define the topic and its relevance in today’s society.
- Present the thesis statement: “Journalism has a primary responsibility for combatting misinformation”.

**Section 1: The Role of Journalism in Society**

- Define MISINFORMATION and DISINFORMATION = genuinely mistakes or
- [Discuss the fundamental role of journalism in society](https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2022/06/14/journalists-highly-concerned-about-misinformation-future-of-press-freedoms/)
- Explain how journalism contributes to the free flow of information and accountability

**Section 2: The Challenge of Misinformation —> SOCIAL MEDIA** 

- Define misinformation and its impact on society
- [Discuss the proliferation of misinformation in the digital age](https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/journalism-fake-news-and-disinformation-handbook-journalism-education-and-training)

**Section 3: Journalism and Misinformation —> NEWS IN WARTIME / COVID-19 CASE STUDY????**

- Discuss how misinformation poses a challenge to journalism
- Explain how journalists are combating misinformation through fact-checking and ethical reporting
- COVID-19 case study: **[Meeting COVID-19 Misinformation and Disinformation Head-On](https://publichealth.jhu.edu/meeting-covid-19-misinformation-and-disinformation-head-on)**

**Section 4: The Responsibility of Journalism in Combatting Misinformation —> FACT-CHECKING**

- [Argue why journalism has the primary responsibility in combatting misinformation](https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2020/whos-mainly-responsible-for-curbing-disinformation/)
- Discuss the tools and strategies used by journalists to combat misinformation

**Section 5: The Role of Information Literacy —> LITERACY PROGRAMS WITH NEWSROOMS** 

- [Define information literacy and its importance](https://www.unesco.org/en/ifap/information-literacy).
- Discuss how information literacy can support the efforts of journalism in combatting misinformation:

sources:
- In the era of misinformation, unless a person is following a truly unbiased source, it is hard to not receive news with a personal slant.
- Currently, [the internet is a place not regulated by the government](https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/internet-speech). As a result, many people will take to the internet to find like-minded people since it is a place where they are able to talk freely.
- question of how to stop or even minimize the spread of misinformation
    
    —> *should people have an obligation to share truthful information if they are aware they have a large platform?* I think people should have some form of responsibility when they are aware that they have a platform, and they are aware that people are following them for news. 
    
- Currently, Twitter has a [feature](https://apnews.com/article/twitter-launch-crowd-sourced-fact-check-589809d4c9a7eceda1ea8293b0a14af2) that allows for community members to add a fact checking note to a tweet of a public user. Many have noted that this feature [is not perfect](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-twitter-birdwatch-community-notes-misinformation-politics/) since it relies on the public to add facts and when it comes to divisive topics people from both sides will enter conflicting opinions and then the note will not show up for any users. While this feature is not perfect, it is a start towards people beginning to hold people with a platform accountable to show a version of being truthful.
- Some people consider the ability to say whatever they want on the i[nternet as a right](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2016/11/07/the-internet-as-a-human-right/) that cannot be taken away from them, but when it comes to people trying to present themselves as a reputable source, there should be something that holds individuals accountable.
- when there are cases that the general public are interested in, there should be **more options for people to have access to the truth.**
- social media is a useful tool for people to spread information but if people want to be news sources, there should be something that requires them to be as truthful as possible

---

THE PENETRATION OF DISINFORMATION INTO THE MEDIA

- It is becoming increasingly difficult for the weakened profession of journalism to resist the intrusion of misinformation. Digital media, with its emphasis on the speed of journalism, is investing less and less in verifying the truth of news, but the problem is becoming more apparent in the structure of the media: media owners are not looking for editors who insist on high professional standards and verification of information circulating in the public space. Instead, they are increasingly looking for editors willing to meet the demands of advertisers and powerful politicians, with whom various arrangements are made.
- [Interlocutors in the focus groups rated](https://edmo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Guidelines-for-Responsible-and-Safe-Journalism-in-Times-of-Crisis.pdf) disinformation published by journalists as more dangerous than disinformation published by non-journalists - because disinformation spread by the media undermines the very idea of journalism and helps to further deepen distrust in journalism.

> *“It is absolutely true that the mainstream media plays a major role in spreading misinformation. Everyone is responsible for it. Serious foreign media have fact-checking departments that check texts and verify information (…) I believe that not all responsibility can lie with the media, even if they have the necessary information. We need to look at the media sector as a whole, together with the public, and then design coordinated interventions through a systematic media policy,” said one of the interviewees in the focus groups.*
> 
- Some have warned that many media outlets do not have sufficient resources
to review information in detail, and during the pandemic they began to rely
on “experts, scientific authorities, etc.”-but this also proved ineffective, as
experts’ opinions often changed and confused the public.
- The problem of the lack of science journalists who know how to communicate information from the scientific field to the general public was highlighted.
- *During COVID-19 crisis*, European journalists’ associations engaged in a series of recommendations and practical advice for journalists

JOURNALISM AND SOCIAL NETWORKS 

- More and more information consumers are coming to content via social networks, losing the ability to get a full or more comprehensive picture - they only see the information that interests them, and very often they can not even distinguish which content is “journalism” and which is not. The problem of primary “informing” via social networks without an understanding of the need to verify the source and authenticity of the information was particularly pronounced at the time of the Covid 19 pandemic and has severely shaken the basic missions of journalism.
- However, numerous interlocutors also warned of the responsibility of the media themselves, that there are more and more signs that they are not coping with the social changes, that they do not know how to present the content in the social networks, that they should use more new tools, but also graphic presentation models that are more in line with the trends.
- It has also been warned that many media outlets are losing not only audiences but also trust because of the uncritical attitude toward the centers of political power and advertisers, as well as surreptitious advertising. The problem is not only the uncritical adoption of unverified information from social networks, but also the uncritical adoption of “information” from the media that has been created through various forms of surreptitious advertising or collusion with government presentatives.

# **[Truth is the first casualty](https://niemanreports.org/articles/journalism-year-in-review-2023/)**

In wartime, misinformation and disinformation run rampant. That certainly was the case following an explosion at Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City on Oct. 17. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, CNN, the BBC, and others immediately passed along as fact a claim by the Hamas government that the explosion was caused by an Israeli airstrike, and that some 500 people had been killed. **They all had to [walk back that claim](https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2023/the-new-york-times-explains-its-gaza-hospital-blast-headline-change/) after subsequent developments showed the explosion was probably caused by a misfired rocket launched by Islamic Jihad, a Hamas ally, and that the death toll was much lower.** 

For instance, accounts on X/Twitter and Facebook purported to show a “**Hamas terrorist with a kidnapped Jewish baby girl in Gaza**.” In fact, the video, posted on TikTok before the war began, was of a [girl who had gotten lost](https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/israel-hamas-lost-girl-video-predates-october-clashes-2023-10-09/) and was asking two men where her parents were. **The Dutch investigative news organization Bellingcat has published a [useful guide](https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/how-tos/2023/10/26/separating-fact-from-fiction-on-social-media-in-times-of-conflict/)** to the uses and misuses of **social media during war,** with examples of disinformation from Gaza and Ukraine. 

# **[Who’s ‘mainly’ responsible for curbing disinformation?](https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2020/whos-mainly-responsible-for-curbing-disinformation/)**

**Who should be responsible for curbing the spread of disinformation?**

—> who is responsible for spreading it. 

- That lack of a single source also explains why it is so hard to identify a solution. There’s not just one place to look.
- 2020 poll on disinformation reflects the difficulty people have in assigning responsibility for addressing the problem.
    - little consensus when it asked people to choose who should have the “main responsibility” for addressing the question: 39% pointed to the media, 18% to technology companies, 15% to the government and 12% to the public.
    - second poll in a year in which the **largest share of respondents said the media should have the primary responsibility for reducing the flow of misinformation**. In a [Pew Research Center survey](https://www.journalism.org/2019/06/05/many-americans-say-made-up-news-is-a-critical-problem-that-needs-to-be-fixed/) conducted in early 2019, 53% of respondents said journalists have the most responsibility to fix the problem.
    - 59% of respondents reported that it is hard to tell the difference between factual and misleading information.
- There is also the question of *whether it is realistic to ask people to assign the main responsibility for stopping the flow of disinformation to one entity*
    - multi-faceted solution:
        - more fact-checking (ex: on politicians)
        - Platforms may need more regulation
        - To help users spread less false information —> [news literacy programs](https://www.poynter.org/from-the-institute/2020/the-poynter-institute-announces-investment-from-facebook-to-expand-mediawise-digital-information-literacy-program-to-first-time-voters/).

# **[Fake news on social media: Whose responsibility is it?](https://www.ericsson.com/en/blog/2018/11/fake-news-on-social-media-whose-responsibility-is-it)**

### **Can we trust social media?**

The extent of untrustworthy information on social media is concerning, and recent events have certainly put social media under question. The cause for concern is not surprising given that many consumers rely heavily on social media for news. In the U.S., for example, 67 percent of [survey participants](https://www.journalism.org/2017/09/07/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2017/) say they get their news from social media in general, and 45 percent say they get it from Facebook alone. The situation in Europe is a little better but still cause for concern. In the EU, [13 percent of consumers](http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/STANDARD/surveyKy/2137) say they stay up to date on European politics via social media, with the figure rising to 16 percent regarding domestic politics. In Sweden and Denmark, social media serves as the main source of information for [30 percent of consumers.](http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/STANDARD/surveyKy/2137)

Yet, in spite of these high figures, there is evidence to suggest that consumers are sceptical about information on social media. According to our latest ConsumerLab report, [less than one in five trust information they read on social media.](https://www.ericsson.com/en/reports-and-papers/consumerlab/reports/social-media-consumer-insights)

### **Can we stop the spread of fake news?**

- Printed media like newspapers and journals build relationship with their readers based on **reputation,** by carefully checking information before publishing it.
- On social media “there are no editors”, which allows all kind of content to spread without control
    
    —> having a person or AI review a social media platform's content ?
    
    his was a key takeaway from the ConsumerLab report: [as many as two-thirds say that social media services should hire employees to manually check the content on their platforms and 40% expect AI editors to do this in the future.](https://www.ericsson.com/en/reports-and-papers/consumerlab/reports/social-media-consumer-insights)
    
- Fake news on social media is a complex phenomenon and probably has to be addressed from various angles. There's no denying the role that social media companies have in controlling the spread of fake news on their platforms. But we, social media users, also have a role to play —> learning to verify information that we read on social media platforms. **Personal responsibility can be the first step to protecting the fabric of our societies.**

### **Report by**  [#OMG social media is here to stay](https://www.ericsson.com/en/reports-and-papers/consumerlab/reports/social-media-consumer-insights)

**[Fake news travels fast](https://www.ericsson.com/4ac641/assets/local/reports-papers/consumerlab/reports/2018/social-media-and-privacy-consumerlab-report_aw_screen.pdf)** 

On top of these issues, the fake news phenomenon arrived, leveraging social media tools, such as share and like buttons, to spread misinformation faster than ever. Over half of consumers interviewed in the US and UK acknowledged they have read news on social media they later found to be fake. Almost one in four admitted spreading articles they later found were fake news. While to a large extent being driven by the hunt for advertising money, fake news poses a major threat to social media’s advertising business model, as fewer than 20 percent now trust information found on social media platforms. Social media is included free of charge on some mobile data plans, and for many who use those data plans, social media is their sole source of news and information, and that might harm not only social media’s business model, but also damage democracy and society as a whole.

Social media companies themselves are only now waking up to the threat of fake news. Consumers expect social media services to act, with two-thirds thinking social media companies should ensure there is no fake content on their platforms, and well over half agreeing social media services should be legally liable for fake news and misinformation on their platforms. Consumers want the publisher role back; three out of five say social media services should hire people to review content on their platforms to ensure fake information is not spread. Forty percent think artificial intelligence should do it, while half believe social media services should only host users with verified real names.

# **[Disinformation is disrupting the practice of journalism](https://pen.org/report/hard-news-journalists-and-the-threat-of-disinformation/)**

### **Key findings:**

- Virtually all the journalists responding consider disinformation a serious problem for journalism today; 81 percent say it’s a very serious problem.
- Most deal with disinformation regularly: 61 percent on some days and 15 percent all or most days.
- Only 8 percent say that detecting and addressing disinformation is “not too important” a priority at their news outlet; 40 percent categorized this task as “urgent.”
- More than 90 percent said disinformation had an impact on their experiences as journalists in recent years; 65 percent had faced hostility from the public, 48 percent reported feeling frustrated or overwhelmed, and 42 percent felt some portion of their audience had lost trust in them.
- While 99 percent of the journalists expressed at least some confidence in their own ability to detect disinformation as they worked, 11 percent acknowledged they had unwittingly reported disinformation themselves.
- More than 90 percent had made one or more changes in their journalistic practice as a result of disinformation, including 66 percent who said they are spending more time actively debunking disinformation and 59 percent who reported intentional efforts to be transparent about decisions, methods, and sources. But one in three found themselves questioning their gut instincts and one in four reported feeling overwhelmed by the level of fact-checking required to complete a story. And 17 percent said they had avoided doing a story they were considering covering due to fear of “fake news” backlash that would seek to discredit their accurate reporting.
- Three out of five journalists surveyed said that amid the proliferation of disinformation and distrust, at least one of these things had happened to them: received threatening emails, phone calls, or letters; been harassed in person while working; been doxed or trolled; been catfished; and/or feared for their personal safety sufficiently to add security precautions to their daily routines.

Yet despite these high levels of concern and clear impact on their practices, most journalists responding said they did not feel they had the specialized skills or the newsroom support systems to respond adequately to the disinformation crisis:

- Only 30 percent of the journalists said their news outlet had generally effective processes in place to cope with disinformation; 40 percent said no organization-wide approach exists.
- Asked about eight different steps media outlets could take to address disinformation—including training journalists in how to report on it and putting systems in place to respond to it quickly—one in three said their newsroom has not taken a single one.

# **The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction**

- **Misinformation — which we define as any information that turns out to be false —** poses an inevitable challenge for human cognition and social interaction because it is a consequence of the fact that people frequently err and sometimes lie.
- Misinformation has been identified as a contributor to various contentious events, ranging from elections and referenda to political or religious persecution and to the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic
- social media users’ exposure to information that challenges their worldviews can be limited when communication environments foster confirmation of previous beliefs — so-called **echo chambers —>** Although there is some controversy about echo chambers and their impact on people’s beliefs and behaviours, the internet is an ideal medium for the fast spread of falsehoods at the expense of accurate information.
- However, the prevalence of misinformation cannot be attributed only to technology
- the term disinformation is often specifically used for the subset of misinformation that is spread intentionally —> misinformation as an umbrella term referring to any information that turns out to be false and reserve the term disinformation for misinformation that is spread with intention to harm or deceive.
- The information source also provides important social cues that influence belief formation. In general, messages are more persuasive and seem more true when they come from sources perceived to be credible rather than non-credible
- People trust human information sources more if they perceive the source as attractive, powerful and similar to themselves
- Experts and political elites are trusted by many and have the power to shape public perceptions; therefore, it can be especially damaging when leaders make false claims. For example, false claims about public health threats such as COVID-19 made by political leaders can reduce the perceived threat of the virus as well as the perceived efficacy of countermeasures, decreasing adherence to public health measures
- The emotional content of the information shared also affects false-belief formation. Misleading content that spreads quickly and widely (‘virally’) on the internet often contains appeals to emotion, which can increase persuasion.

# Professional perception of the journalistic sector about the effect of disinformation and fake news in the media ecosystem

3.1. Politics, health, polarisation, and the search for ideas which reaffirm individual beliefs

- The Covid-19 pandemic created a before and after, in that more disinformation and fake news was generated in health matters, as well as in those regarding politics. At times of fear and uncertainty, malicious messages seeking chaos and confusion multiply, making society doubt and choose to listen, on many occasions, to the most spectacular message. The effects and origin of the virus, vaccines, the social and geographical limits that appeared, especially in 2020 and 2021, their relationship with politics... these became subjects where misleading content and half-truths predominated on the social media.
- Politics and the search for messages which reaffirm the individual’s beliefs are seen as a cause favouring the phenomenon under examination, leading to an absence of debate and criticism:

> *It’s political questions because of the enormous polarisation currently and the clear interest in putting down one side or the other. What’s more, it’s the news where there is most confirmation: the reader just wants to read things that confirm his ideas, without question, and disbelieves everything that goes against them, even if it’s true*
> 

3.2. The role of journalists and fact-checkers in the struggle against disinformation, and the support they need

- The reach, in terms of numbers of people viewing, of malicious or erroneous content is greater than the later rectification. Under this premise, certified by professional journalists, and in order to minimise the damage caused, the figure of the fact-checker becomes even more necessary, these professionals are in a position to guarantee that a news item is true or false. We asked if they consider such work to be useful and what is their assessment of this now established figure:

> *They’re effective, but the problem is that there are people who, even after reading verified news, still don’t believe it if it doesn’t suit them.*
> 
- They are highly valued among members of the profession, who do not feel they should bear sole responsibility. Support by the media, greater investment, education from a young age and real social interest in learning the truth are vital aspects by means of which which the positive effects of fact-checkers would be greater.
- journalism’s efforts against disinformation are perceived as useful among the professionals interviewed if society really wants to learn about reality ([Thomson *et al.*, 2022](https://icono14.net/files/articles/1933-EN/index.html#ref40)). Their opinions continually refer to this issue only being reduced with the population’s effort to check facts, look at several sources and not accept just any information as truthful:

> *I prefer an informed reader with some context, a consumer of several media, who goes to reliable sources and is able to differentiate what’s true from what clearly isn’t. Even then they could be taken in by a false story, but it’s far harder to fool them.*
> 

3.3. Social media as the cause of and solution to the increase in disinformation and falsehoods in the digital setting

- Journalism also feeds off content originally emerging on the social platforms. This brings with it an amplification greater than if the story had stayed only on digital platforms. The proliferation of content has positive elements, such as being aware of an event and its development in real time. But it may generate confusion at the same time, with doubts about the broadcaster and its truthfulness, as well as a loss of context, which is a consequence of disinformation. The aforementioned swiftness with which events take place does not allow the journalist on occasions to correctly separate news from mere anecdotes, the real from the false, meaning a one-off error can lead to the accusation that the journalist is not doing his/her job properly. Checking facts and selecting trustworthy sources are routines that have to predominate over the ‘prize’ of being the first to break a story.

> *It’s absolutely essential to confirm an item with a source, see if there’s an official statement... You can’t just believe what appears in another medium without checking it for yourself. It’s surprising the mistakes you can make when you repeat what others say without checking. *****
> 

> *It’s true that nowadays it’s more important to be the first in posting a story than its quality. To guarantee the credibility of an item, the best thing is to get to where it’s happening, or, if not, to check it with your sources.*
> 
- We should make a point of saying that it is not a case of demonising the social media as a source of information for journalists. Reflection by the news professionals suggests advantages and disadvantages, showing that the problem is the misuse of networks or their utilisation as a primary source. The two opinions we have gathered, one positive, the other negative, are representative of this position:

**PRO**: *They are a reliable source provided the right profiles are used. Official accounts utilise the networks as another channel for communication, which can be taken perfectly well as a source of news. A journalist must know what sources to use for work.* 

**CON:** *They’re really abused. Everything appears first on Twitter now and you often hear about things because they come out there first. I think that can help a journalist, but you have to go further than what’s said or seen on Twitter.*

**4. CONCLUSIONS**

The issue we are dealing with has to be handled from a multiple perspective involving journalists and media, citizens and the platforms that take on content that is untrue and which seeks to sow confusion. The professionals who have taken part in this study are aware that users of social media demand immediacy and news that is explained as clearly possible, something which does not favour considered assimilation and rounded knowledge. The ease with which the propagators of false content function—especially towards audiences with corresponding opinions or ideology— is an enemy which cannot be completely defeated but mitigated by means of credible journalism which transmits assurance to society.

The journalists interviewed also focus on the audience, seeing them as responsible for correctly choosing which sources of information offer veracity. Polarisation, the algorithms that show content appealing to the user, and the search for news that reaffirms existing beliefs, and which is shared and assimilated even when it has been officially denied, present us with a landscape that is difficult to deal with, where journalism has to bring its tools into play in order to become one of the preferred broadcasters of information.

Fact-checking by professionals exclusively dedicated to the task is a highly valued responsibility in the profession and should be adopted by the media to avoid making mistakes which put their reputations at risk. Politics, health, sports, immigration... are among the areas producing most hoaxes and disinformation. On occasions, not even a swift rebuttal eliminates them, which leads us to think they are not going to disappear, although all possible resources are used against them.

Social media are thought to be something positive when used efficiently. They should not be demonised, but one should be aware that they are the channels by which fake news travels fastest. Therefore, they cannot be the only source of information for journalism, due to the difficulty in obtaining sufficient data concerning a newsworthy item. Looking to a second source, taking the time needed to verify it, and to communicate it to the audience without just seeking a click or engagement, is a formula which will help professional journalists to impose themselves as a quality and reliable news reference.

Turning again to the research questions, we consider that we have achieved our goal of showing, from the point of view of professional journalists, the information panorama around disinformation. Learning their assessment, their criticism and their proposed solutions were the priorities of this study. We find ourselves facing a media landscape in which there are hardly any publications that focus their content on the most important actors in the news and media process: the journalists. Listening to them in the first person, and not only through global analyses, has allowed us to look more deeply into the state of the question.

# [Others Are to Blame: Whom People Consider Responsible for Online Misinformation](https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3512953)

- One approach to this issue has examined journalists’ and news institutions’ role in spreading misinformation. (…) Although not intending to spread misinformation, in contrast to other nefarious actors, news outlets might instead contribute to its dissemination through their debunking efforts. People become exposed to false information due to mainstream media correcting falsehoods that would otherwise reach only a small number of citizens.
- News outlets may also disseminate false information due to media manipulation. Interest groups, such as conspiracy theorists and trolls, have developed techniques to increase the visibility of their ideas online by targeting news media sources to help spread their content. For instance, these groups can coordinate actions that force specific topics into the public discourse so that journalists may be unable to ignore them.
- Journalists are aware of these issues; however, they highlight barriers to delivering accurate information, such as technical difficulties in obtaining data from social media and the power relations between them and online platforms.
- Instead of focusing on a specific actor’s responsibility, Graves and Wells argued that political elites, news media, and citizens each take part in establishing “factual accountability”. The authors proposed a comprehensive approach to the issue encompassing all entities involved in online misinformation. They argued that public discourse should not be limited to specific entities that can be blamed and are expected to prevent misinformation online. Instead, it should embrace a joint responsibility undertaking in which various actors are held jointly accountable for online information.

FINDINGS:

- No entity was held individually responsible for the complex problem of online misinformation, i.e., no individual or organization was deemed single-handedly accountable for misinformation. This trend was particularly prominent when considering misinformation dissemination. Hence, we agree with and expand on Graves and Wells’ proposal of “factual accountability” [32]. Instead of relying on specific entities to prevent the spread and creation of misinformation, all actors involved have a role in this fight as a form of joint accountability:
1.  Users should become aware of their role in creating, disseminating, debunking, and preventing false information from being shared online. Online interventions could play a crucial role in circumventing any psychological factors influencing users’ behaviors.
2. Social media platforms should fight misinformation through algorithmic and manual methods. Platforms could implement rapidly accessible interventions to promote users’ personal accountability.
3. Irrespective of political orientation, news media outlets were considered responsible for misinformation to a level comparable to social media. Considering that news media could unintentionally share misinformation when trying to debunk it [65], news outlets could promote accurate information more actively to overshadow falsehoods. 
4. Political actors and organizations should invest in stronger regulation to combat misinformation at its core through nonpartisan collaborations. Polarization should not become an obstacle since misinformation’s ill effects spread across the political spectrum.