This is an invited talk I presented at the University of Zurich, speakers' series 2.10.2017. The presentation is based on the following paper: Brandtzaeg, P. B., & Følstad, A. (2017). Trust and distrust in online fact-checking services. Communications of the ACM. 60(9): 65-71

1. University of Zurich
02.10.2017
1
Petter Bae Brandtzaeg
SINTEF Digital
pbb@sintef.no @petterbb
In a world of fake news –
Do people trust fact-checkers?

2. 2
2013-2016

3. 3
Brandtzaeg, P. B., & Følstad, A. (2017). Trust and distrust in online fact-
checking services. Communications of the ACM. 60(9): 65-71
Brandtzaeg, P. B., Følstad, A. & Chaparro Domínguez, M.Á. (2017, online
first). How journalists and social media users perceive online fact-checking
and verification services. Journalism Practice.
Brandtzaeg, P. B., Lüders, M., Spangenberg, J., Rath-Wiggins, L., & Følstad,
A. (2016). Emerging journalistic verification practices concerning social
media. Journalism Practice, 10(3), 323-342.

4. Outline
• How to understand fake news
• Why are fake news important to
investigate?
• A new industry of fact-checking
• Do people trust fact-checking sites?
4

5. 5
Who is this?

6. Kids today are growing up in a digital reality of
manipulation and fake as default
6

7. 7

8. 8

9. False information has existed as long as humans have
told stories, the term “fake news” is recent
9

10. 10

11. How should we define fake news?
11

12. How do academic studies define fake news?
• A paper in the journal Digital Journalism looks at how the term “fake news”
has evolved across scholarly studies. Edson C. Tandoc Jr., Zheng Wei Lim,
and Richard Ling, Nanyang Technological University, looked at 34 papers
on fake news published between 2003 and 2017.
• They found that “fake news” was most often used to refer to satirical “mock
news programs” like The Daily Show, or parodies like The Onion — followed
by “fabrication, manipulation, advertising, and propaganda.”
12

13. Fake news - a problematic term
13
Brandtzaeg, P. B., Følstad, A. & Chaparro Domínguez, M.Á. (2017,
online first). How journalists and social media users perceive
online fact-checking and verification services. Journalism Practice.
The false information is intended

14. 14
(Fake news site)
Source Dissemination Ads Aim
Fake news in Norway vs US
(Anonymous profile)
(Confusion, political)
Ads
Source Dissemination
Aim

15. 15

16. Distribution of harms – misinformation harming the public sphere
16
A Pew Internet Research report (2012)
predicted “distribution of harms” due to
the large quantity of inaccurate and false
information in the near future.
Source:
Anderson, J. Q., & Rainie, L. (2012). “Big Data: Experts Say New Forms of Information Analysis Will Help People
Be More Nimble and Adaptive, But Worry over Humans’ Capacity to Understand and Use These New Tools Well,”
Pew Internet Research Report. Washington, DC.

17. 17
The global risk of massive digital
misinformation sits at the centre of a
constellation of technological and
geopolitical risks ranging
from terrorism to cyber
attacks and the failure of global
governance. This risk case examines
how hyperconnectivity could enable
“digital wildfires” to wreak havoc in the
real world.
Source: http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2013/risk-case-1/digital-
wildfires-in-a-hyperconnected-world/#view/fn-12

18. Digital wildfire 1
The existence on YouTube of a video entitled “Innocence of Muslims”, uploaded
by a private individual in the United States, sparked riots across the Middle
East. These riots are estimated to have claimed more than 50 lives. The video
titled "The Real Life of Muhammad", uploaded on July 1, 2012
18

19. Digital wildfire 2
Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory that went viral during the 2016 US presidential
election. The personal e-mail of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, was
hacked and made public by WikiLeaks.
Proponents of the Pizzagate theory falsely claimed that the e-mails contained
coded messages referring to human trafficking and connecting a restaurant in
the Washington DC and members of the Democratic Party with an satanic
child-sex ring.
19

20. Digital wildfire 3
"The market recovered within a few minutes (….),
vulnerability to breaking news in the age of social media" (.. trading
algorithms that scan the news and trade quickly, causing "flash crashes".
(Source: Guardian, April 23. 2013)

21. Lese nyheter via sosiale medier i % (Norge)
21
Two thirds of US. adults get news from social media.
They are mainly using Facebook as a news source

22. 10 percent of people think of Facebook as a news outlet that produces the stories
published on the site (Pew Research, 2016)
22
The more you engage with a particular
kind of post, the more you will see its
ilk. “Smart” algorithmic feeds that
optimize for engagement.

23. But did facebook and social media affect the election?
23
• Social media wasn’t the major source of political news for most Americans in
2016; only 14 percent say they relied on Facebook and other social media sites as
their most important source of election coverage.
• “Social media was an important but not dominant source of news in the run-up to
the election,” the authors write. Television, it turns out, remains the go-to place for
political news.
• Political polarization is more extreme in older
people, who use social media less, than in
the young.

24. 24
Social media are changing journalism
The majority of journalists use social media
(96% in UK, Social Journalism Study 2013, UK)

25. Social media as a "primary" news source for journalists
25
:
”
•
Before, we often used the phone calling, to find out whether anything had
happened. Not many years ago we took the initiative. But now, the opposite is
the case (.......), social media is now the place where you first get access to
information. (...) The foundation for what you produce news-stories on is really
from social media."

26. Fake news cause a great deal of confusion about the
basic facts of current issues and events
26

27. Exposure to conspiracy theories decreases the
intention to engage in politics
Experiments suggest that conspiracy-like stories can inspire feelings of
powerlessness and lead people to report lower likelihoods to engage politically.
"People who were exposed to conspiracy theories about climate change
reported less intention to reduce their carbon footprint (….) an feelings of
powerless and uncertainty towards climate change, and also feelings of
disappointment in climate scientists" ( p. 56)
27
Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2014). The social consequences of conspiracism:
Exposure to conspiracy theories decreases intentions to engage in politics
and to reduce one's carbon footprint. British Journal of Psychology, 105(1), 35-56.

28. New actors entering social media and news media
(Chat)BOTS

29. Kilde: Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2014). The “nasty effect:”
Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 19(3), 373-387.
TROLLS

30. 30
Alternative news media
Ideological fight against
Left-wing media

31. Men Who and how many read and share fake news?
31

32. How many have seen fake news?
45% of the Norwegian
population (18-80 years)
report that they on a daily
basis (15%) or weekely
(30%) see news online
that they believe are
fabricated or made up
news stories
Source: Norwegian Media Authority
on Fake news (April 2017/N=1004)
32
Source: Norwegian Media Authority,
IPSO Sweden, Pew Research US

33. Where do people see fake news?
33
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Facebook Mainstram
media
Search
engines
(e.g.
Google)
Youtube Alternative
news
media
Twitter Instagram Other
social
media
Other Dont know
Where do you most often see untrue content presented as real news? (N=1004)
Source: Norwegian Media Authority, April 2017

34. Who are sharing fake news?
How often have you posted news stories online that you knew or suspected to be untrue? (N=1004)
34
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
18-22 years 23-35 years 36-55 years 56-80 years
Several times Only one time
Source: Norwegian Media Authority, April 2017
Pew Internet: 23% say they have shared a
made-up news story – either knowingly or not

35. 96 active fact-checking initiatives in 2015
35
a 50% increase from the previous year
http://reporterslab.org/fact-checking

36. Research into fact checking has scarcely paid attention to the general
public's view of fact checking in how the public percive fact-checking
36
• ……. focusing instead on how people's beliefs and attitudes
change in response to facts in general.
• People often ignore facts that contradict their current beliefs,
particularly in politics and controversial social issues.

37. Fact-checking vs verification services
"Fact-checking services are individuals or organizations that analyze and
determine the accuracy of claims and content in the public domain and guide
users on the credibility of online content. (…) Fact-checking services typically
have a broader potential user group than verification services as these provide
complete analyses and assessments of online claims or content and may thus
be useful for internet users" (ex. Snopes, Fact-check.org)
"Verification services are tools that may support the process of authenticating
onlinecontent items such as text, images, and videos. These tools often apply
algorithms to make the verification process more efficient and accurate.
Verification services are typically useful for specialized user groups such as
journalists." (TinEye, Reverse Image Search to help find an image's source,
duplicates or altered versions)
Brandtzaeg, P. B., Følstad, A. & Chaparro Domínguez, M.Á. (2017, online first). How journalists and social
media users perceive online fact-checking and verification services. Journalism Practice.
37

38. 38

39. Examples of fact-checks
39

40. Three categories of fact-checking services
40

41. 41

42. 42
5 months:
Facebook:
won’t share
data on
whether or not
the program
has been
effective.

43. 43
What kind of third-party fac-checkers?
They should follow a code of principals for fact-check developed at the Poynter Institute, a Florida-based
journalism training organization.
• A COMMITMENT TO NONPARTISANSHIP AND FAIRNESS We fact-check claims using the same
standard for every fact check. We do not concentrate our fact-checking on any one side. We do not
advocate or take policy positions on the issues we fact-check.
• A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF SOURCES We want our readers to be able to verify our
findings themselves. We provide all sources in enough detail that readers can replicate our work.
• A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF FUNDING & ORGANIZATION We are transparent about our
funding sources. If we accept funding from other organizations, we ensure that funders have no influence
over the conclusions we reach in our reports. We detail the professional background of all key figures in
our organization and explain our organizational structure.
• A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF METHODOLOGY We explain the methodology we use to
select, research, write, edit, publish and correct our fact checks. We encourage readers to send us claims
to fact-check and are transparent on why and how we fact-check.
• A COMMITMENT TO OPEN AND HONEST CORRECTIONS We publish our corrections policy and follow
it scrupulously. We correct clearly and transparently in line with our corrections policy, seeking so far as
possible to ensure that readers see the corrected version.
International Fact Checking Code of Principles.

44. 44

45. 45

46. 46
Factcheck Armenia

47. 47

48. 48
Not only are "everyone"
creating news, but also
"everyone" are creating
facts….

49. 49
• People tend to ignore facts that contradict to their beliefs.
• Do they also ignore fact-checking services?
• Trust in news media is critical.
Do people trust fact-checkers?

50. 50
• Insufficient knowledge about how to understand and measure trust in a new and
multifaceted media landscape (Fisher, 2016).
• Trust is seen as particularly relevant in situations characterized by perceived risk;
that is => where something of value is seen as at stake (Mayer et al., 1995).
• Applied to fact-checking, the perceived risk is related to the relationship between
the user and fact-checker. Perceived risks may for example relate to whether the
news consumer perceives the fact-checker to present an unbiased fact-checking
process.
Fisher, C. (2016). The trouble with ‘trust’ in news media. Communication Research and Practice, 1-15.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust.
Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734.
Tust is complex

51. Fact-checkers and challenges
51
• What kind of organizations should be fact-checkers? Fact-checking services
differ in terms of their organizational aim and funding, as well as their areas of
concern, that in turn may affect their trustworthiness (Brandtzaeg and Følstad,
2017)
• How should they be considered independent or objective?
• When should they report and debunk fake content? How much traffic and
what is the tipping point? Can silence be the best response to mis- and dis-
information?
• How do should they write corrections? How can they maximize the positive
impact of their fact-checking or corrections and minimize chances of blowback?

52. 52
Fact-checking services investigated
Political/public claims
Online rumors/hoaxes
Specific topics

53. • Method: "Snopes is….." "factcheck.org is…"
53
•
Social media conversations take place in the everyday context of users who are likely
to be particularly engaged in fact-checking services.

54. 54
1.Usefulness, is it useful for my fact-checking
task? (Tsakonas et al. 2008)
2.Trust (Mayer, Davis et al, 1995)
• (a) Ability (skills, expertise),
• (b) Benevolence (is the trustee believed to do good),
• (c) Integrity (independent/objective/biased).
•
We manually coded post in social media related to…

55. 55
Coding scheme we used to analyze the data

56. 56
•
• A majority of the social media users in this study are negative towards Snopes
(69%) and FactCheck.org (56%), mainly due to a lack of trustworthiness.
•
• Conversely, 74% perceives StopFake as a useful source to combat the
misinformation surrounding the Ukrainian crisis (Maybe fact-checking sites
targeting a specific topic face less criticism because they are attracting a specific
audience that are more goal-oriented in terms of their information need and fact-
checking, e.g. people that are Ukrainians)
Results: Lack of trust
69%
56%
26%

57. 57
Snopes is a unreliable left-leaning “fact-checking” site. I cannot
understand why Snopes is ever cited as authoritative. It should
be eliminated from any discussion either as confirming
something or dismissing it
Biased (integrity): Unreliable left-leaning

58. 58
George Soros and FactCheck.org are funded by
UBER PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS AND
COMMUNISTS! So don’t look to find the truth about
anyone on the left or their agendas or policies from
Snopes.com or FactCheck.org. You will only find LIES,
DECEIT AND SPIN on the left!
Benevolence: part in fraud or propaganda, or some larger conspiracy

59. 59
Snopes IS? A husband and wife, without any
scientific background, without any investigatory
experience. They get their info from Google.
They are a joke.
Ability: indicating a lack of expertise and low credibility

60. 60
It doesn’t take that much effort to see if
something on the Internet is legit, and Snopes is
a great place to start. So why not take that few
seconds of extra effort to do that, rather than
creating and sharing misleading items.
Usefulness: Why not take a few seconds….

61. 61
Fact-checking services are often
perceived as active players and
biased players in an information war.
Results: Biased and active players

62. 62
Among Trump supporters and
young people, the fact-checking
program could even backfire:
Perceived accuracy is increased
by the presence of disputed tags.
Source: Pennycook, Gordon and Rand, David G.,
Assessing the Effect of 'Disputed' Warnings and
Source Salience on Perceptions of Fake News
Accuracy (September 15, 2017). Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3035384

63. 63
• Our research is making clear how hard it is to stop people
from believing false stories on social media,
• and how difficult it is for fact-checkers to gain trust among
different user groups.
• Yet, we believe our study offers a template for future
studies to achieve a global picture of what commenters are
saying about active fact-checkers should help suggest new
approaches to increase audience trust.
Is there any hope for fact-checking efforts?

64. 64
Conclusion: How to develop public trust and trust from
through openness and transparency?
Who is doing it (integrity)? How is it being done? (skills)

65. 65
If this is now – what about the future?

66. Low critical thinking => belive in fake news
Analytic thinking associated with more accurate spotting of
fake and real news regardless of respondents' political
ideology.
Source: Who Falls for Fake News? The roles of analytic thinking, motivated reasoning,
political ideology and bullshit receptivity. Gordon Pennycook & David G. Rand. Not yet
published.
66

67. 67
The response should focus
on people, not national
security, says Nina
Jankowicz of the Woodrow
Wilson Center. "We need
to teach people how to
navigate this media
environment."

68. 68
Contact: pbb@sintef.no
or twitter @petterbb
Thank you!