The Observer is a Student-run, daily print & online newspaper serving Notre Dame & Saint Mary's. Learn more about us.




| Tuesday, November 15, 2016

In the aftermath of last week’s presidential election, social media has been abuzz with all sorts of information. Spirited assaults on and defenses of various political ideologies have saturated Facebook and Twitter like never before. And all of that is great; the free flow and exchange of information is essential to a free society. The only problem is that all information flows freely, whether true or false. Further, since fiction is not required to stick to the truth, it can be as salacious and viral as its creator wishes it to be. The result is that many popular stories traveling through “the cyber” are flat-out falsehoods.

Just to sample some of the differentially-factual Internet flotsam, let’s look at two pieces of viral content describing reactions to the election’s outcome. One viral video released shortly after the election shows several African-American men pulling a white man from his car and beating him before stealing his vehicle, while an off-camera voice shouts “You voted Trump!” Across the aisle, a Tweet was released alleging that the Ku Klux Klan was spotted celebrating on a bridge in Mebane, North Carolina. Both were shared across multiple media thousands of times within hours.

As it turned out, neither of these cases were what they appeared at first glance. Chicago police have stated the carjacking incident was precipitated by a traffic incident, not a political difference. While the bystander effect is certainly horrifying, the video is hardly evidence of an anti-Trump hate crime. Meanwhile, the persons depicted in the Mebane tweet were Trump supporters but were not affiliated with the Klan. The Klan does intend to hold a victory parade (or “klavalkade” in their idiotic lingo) in North Carolina in early December, but that meeting is separate from the incident that was tweeted out.

What made both of these pseudofacts zip halfway around the world before the truth could get its pants on? Simple: both neatly encapsulated the pre-existing assumptions of their target audience. It’s much easier to accept information that agrees with your worldview (though studies show that contradictory information only strengthens one’s beliefs). There’s no need to critically reason or question assumptions when a story like one of the above lands on your news feed. The absence of the second step in “trust, but verify” means that a Netizen can just read, assume and post without interrupting the flow of their browsing.

Enough talk about what’s wrong with the Internet — time to talk about what’s right. The Silicon Revolution has spawned a variety of fact-checking services designed to hold Internet culture accountable for its distortions. Snopes focuses on urban legends and chain emails, Politifact has won a Pulitzer for catching Beltway residents with their “Pants on Fire!”, and FactCheck has turned up in multiple Presidential elections to unpack candidates’ claims. Additionally, it’s harder and harder for politicians to bury their records. When Mike Pence says something like “smoking doesn’t kill,” online archives mean he has to own it forever and can’t memory-hole it away as he might have done last century.

Even when the various professional fact-checkers haven’t yet responded to a particular claim, it’s often easy to investigate yourself. Never be satisfied with a Facebook post’s caption or a 140-character assertion; click through to the source. Then click to that site’s source, and so on till you reach the raw information. (While you’re doing this, keep in mind that if you wouldn’t hire a site’s web designer, you shouldn’t trust its journalists.) Investigating a spurious link can uncover anything from unsourced blog ranting to an Onion article; it usually only takes ten seconds or so and can save you a lot of embarrassment.

A deep and abiding commitment to fact-checking will become extremely important in the next few years. This election cycle has spawned stories you couldn’t make up if you tried. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the new administration will likely be as reality-impaired as its campaign was. Unless you want to spend the next four years purchasing various pieces of New York’s transportation infrastructure, critically-analyzing the various stories that turn up in your news feed will be an essential skill.

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

Tags: , ,

About Stephen Raab

Contact Stephen
  • Punta Venyage

    You start off making a great point about confirmation bias and people being predisposed to only view evidence they want to see and discarding the others.

    But you drop an ultimate irony bomb when you drool over the “Silicon Revolution” “fact-checkers” and quote Snopes and Politifact. If you think “professional fact-checkers” are the decreers of truth and source of all that is righteous and just when it comes to fact or fiction, you haven’t been watching closely. Apply your own standard of critical thinking to this realm, because I think it may be your blindspot.

    These sites have demonstrated themselves to be effective political tools and you shouldn’t trust them so blindly.

    I don’t like presenting a problem without a solution so:

    The most effective way to verify facts in politics is to go straight to the raw uncurated data. This means watch the full half hour video, read the extra pages of the legal document, and always peruse the comments section of any article you read as there will almost certainly be a counter argument and counter evidence presented that would help provide further insight for your understanding of the situation.

    The key vulnerabilities of our perception are not only slight (or not so slight) twists of truth (how evidence is presented, etc.), but perhaps even more so, omission of relevant and very important facts. The media elite are experts at omission, selective focus, and framing (they show 1% of the evidence 100% of the time, and subconsciously you are convinced that you aware of the 100%), and the only way you will see this is if you start cross-referencing claims with the RAW DATA, not someone else’s SparkNotes of it.

  • Gunnar Anderson

    Terrifying when even the most venerated of media sources are no longer trustworthy. Without an objective and unbiased press, freedom cannot last long.