Chapter 13

Protecting Against Fake News

A wise skepticism is the first attribute of a good critic.

—James Russell Lowell

It is a double pleasure to deceive the deceiver.

—Jean de La Fontaine

All of us have biases that affect our perceptions about the reality of the world as is and the way we want. How we process information is influenced by our biases, knowledge, skills, and dispositions in evaluating the news.

We wonder, “Will I be able objectively to evaluate the news?” The four hurdles mentioned earlier are significant obstacles.

The hope is that we have now gained additional information to objectively evaluate the available information and distinguish real from fake news. As noted earlier, available guides and resources to assist educators in preparing students to evaluate the news primarily focus upon media literacy or determining the accuracy of sources of news. This focus is insufficient. Guides and instruction also needed to assist in developing data literacy and critical thinking skills.

Here are some topics that we included in this book to develop necessary knowledge and skills to evaluate the news more comprehensively and objectively:

• Know where to look for accurate sources,
• Know the language and terms,
• Know how much information is sufficient,
• Know how methods of collecting information influence the news,
• Know what type of information is relevant,
• Know how to analyze the information,
• Know how to interpret and understand the information,
• Know how to check promised recommendations with reality,
• Know how fake news deceives,
• Know fake news regarding educational practice,
• Know how to protect against the influence of fake news (this chapter),
• Know instructional methods to assist students to distinguish real and fake news,
• Know educational policies to safeguard from fake news.

Knowing how objectively to evaluate the news is not sufficient. The “landscape of our mind” may be used to describe the most important territory in human geography. However, the geography of our thought processes is often influenced by the destructive storms of emotion and bias.

Two challenging obstacles remain for each of us. The first is to reflect upon and minimize our own biases in evaluating the news. The second is the commitment to apply objective and factual information in making decisions, even if the facts indicate we need to change our decision.

Examining our biases requires us to become aware of our tendencies for “fast” and subjective thinking that permits us quickly to process and respond to the news. We look for patterns even in meaningless events. A cause, even if secretive and nearly invisible, is often attributed to the event. We need to “slow” our thinking to permit more careful and objective evaluation of the news.

Remember our description of conspiracy theories in a previous chapter? When we hear a suspected conspiracy theory, here are some objective steps to evaluate and determine if the theory is more likely to be fake news (Shermer, 2011):

• No evidence provided of the causal connection or timeline between events,
• Individuals or organizations of the conspiracy are attributed to have significant power to cause the events,
• The greater the potential number of people involved in the conspiracy, the less likely they can remain silent about the secret and preserve the “secret” plan,
• The greater the scale of the plan to entire countries or world domination, the less likely the theory is to be true,
• The fewer the verifiable facts, the less likely the theory is to be true,
• The more the theory supporters reject any contrary evidence, the less likely the theory is to be true.

Developing more reflective and critical thinking skills may also help students to minimize biases. Here are some relevant strategies developed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that can support a more objective analysis of information in the news (Newberg & Waldman, 2006):

• Examining alternative points of view,
• Thinking backward to try and explain how a future event might have occurred,
• Assume a different interpretation and try to examine assumptions that support that alternative assumption,
• List assumptions supporting a current interpretation,
• Ask questions,
• Double-check supposed facts.

Some earlier suggestions and questions from this book are also useful for objectively evaluating the news from different media:

• Doubt every source of news,
• Seek independent additional sources of news,
• Question all new information,
• Understand the specific terms,
• Consider alternative explanations,
• Follow an objective method to evaluate all news to answer questions (checklist “look for” items can assist with an objective method),
• Is the information accurate and verifiable?
• Is the information relevant or appropriate?
• Is there enough or sufficient information?
• Become aware and minimize personal biases in analysis and interpretation of the news,
• Objective and verifiable facts should direct your decisions,
• Make decisions with knowledge of probability rather than absolute “proof” or “disproof,”
• Be willing to change your decisions as more accurate, relevant, and complete information becomes available.

Fake news and false knowledge can have deadly consequences. The Titanic is not just the title of a movie, but was a ship that was assumed to be “unsinkable.” The ship did sink on its first trip with the loss of over 1,000 lives.

Here is another list of practical suggestions offered for us to be skeptical of all information in our search for distinguishing real and fake news as the fake news may have deadly consequences (Burns, 2008):

• Be aware of news that first creates a strong emotion. Emotion may lead to evaluate the news subjectively rather than objectively.
• Be careful of the “framing” or use of language and terms that may create distorted “narrative” explanation of a proposal. This is particularly evident with ambiguous words such as “patriotic,” “traditional,” and others.
• Be careful and examine the evidence and the ways that the evidence was collected. Evidence collected from biased samples and methodology is often at the heart of fake news.
• Be careful of statements simply because the statement is often repeated. Repetition does not guarantee accuracy or truth.
• Be careful of who endorses a proposal or the news. Seek independent and multiple sources to avoid the bias from advocacy groups or those sources motivated to spread fake news.
• Be careful of those sources stating a certainty of “proof” or “disproof.” Most situations in life offer the possibility of multiple causes. The best suggestion is to seek sources that offer a statement of probability and acknowledgment of potential other causes rather than a certainty of a single cause.

On a personal level, we may want to avoid directly responding to a falsehood or to fake news. Directly confronting and saying that a statement is false is sometimes counterproductive. Individuals will not be receptive and will deny or avoid responding. Directly challenging the accuracy of the statements of another person is not a way to make friends, but is a fantastic way to make enemies.

Our minds sometimes work in mysterious ways. If we directly confront a falsehood or fake claim, then we actually strengthen the falsehood. Doesn’t this sound illogical? Here is why this results. Confronting the falsehood increases attention and recognition of the false or fake claim. The other person will also dismiss your statement and, therefore, feel increasingly confident of the “truth” of its falsehood or fake news. This process also has neurological involvement as contradictory information activates brain regions responsible for emotional reactions (Lehrer, 2009).

We have several choices of how to respond. One choice is to just ignore the fake news if we feel the falsehood is an attempt to divert attention, “frame” a discussion, or move argument away from a more important topic. This attempt to divert is an effective strategy for politicians as journalists often “take the bait,” will try to “fact check” the falsehood, and divert their attention away from other issues.

The politician often is aware of the falsehood or fake news, but the strategy is effective. The examples in chapter 11 from a press conference are illustrative of an attempt to shift attention away from some issues.

A second choice is to go through a process of having the person who states a falsehood describe the reasons and evidence for the false or fake claim. We might ask the person to do so to “help us to understand.” Persons are very willing to explain their falsehoods or fake claims because individuals believe they can convince us of the “truth of their fake news.” Here are the steps in this process to help us to “understand”:

1. (1) Ask for their explanation so we can better understand,
2. (2) State you could be wrong, so the explanation will improve your understanding of how their suggestion or claim works,
3. (3) Validate their feelings by indicating how we both want a suggestion to make things better,
4. (4) Ask for explanations to help understand and, if possible, any demonstrations or evidence,
5. (5) Ask for any ideas from them about limitations of how their suggestion might not work,
6. (6) Ask for any ideas of how other explanations or suggestions would or would not work,
7. (7) Ask for examples.

Here is why this second choice is the best to confront someone with a false or fake claim. Many times, the person with the fake claim will recognize some of the limitations and problems of their fake news when they have to explain how it “works.” This person may then be less defensive if he or she then have at least an element of doubt of the accuracy of their fake news.

We are also influenced by others. In fact, we have a sense of “bonding” with others when we rapidly forward messages from social media. We need carefully to examine what we forward to others. Do we have any responsibility to our friends for the accuracy of the information we send to them? Do they have any responsibility to us?

We encourage others to take some time to check the information. What would we feel if someone sent fake news to our friends and they made a bad decision as they acted upon that news? How do we feel if we act upon fake news? Treat others as we want to be treated is a universal idea.

As we see, knowledge and skills distinguishing real and fake news are not enough. We have to follow a process to think about the information in ways that may be contrary to our assumptions. We need to set aside our biases and follow objectively factual information even if it means that we need to change our decisions.

In addition to our mind, we need the moral courage from our heart and determination and commitment from within to win the war against fake news. Hope we are now better prepared.

Discussion questions:

1. (1) Have students identify three techniques they can use to prevent being influenced by fake news.
2. (2) Ask students to evaluate and share in group discussion the best ways to avoid being influenced by fake news.