Here’s something that’s likely to be one of the more specific predictions on Nieman Lab this year.
Sometime in the first few months of 2021, a social media user will share a picture of a newly released Moderna vaccine information packet distributed with the doses of the vaccine. The user will be shocked (shocked!) that it says the vaccine has not been evaluated for adverse effects on fertility. Which is weird, they’ll say — why wouldn’t they want to test that? Could this have to do with the whole syncytin-1 thing? What are they hiding? Is this evidence of a cover-up of history’s largest sterilization event — Exhibit A, right in the pamphlet?
This technique — which has been used so regularly by anti-vaccination activists that it has its own name, “argument by package insert” — will take people hours to debunk definitively. As shares click into the thousands, some fact-checker will write it up, patiently explaining that the timelines and ethical restrictions around most new drug trials end up producing little fertility data; the language in the pamphlet is boilerplate, not unique to this drug; and package insert language is regulatory disclosure, not a review of all research.
And when the original claim is, in fact, debunked, for the gazillionth time, the platforms will add a simple note to the posts sharing it. The note won’t say that this is a variation on a piece of disinfo older than Britney Spears’ “Toxic,” that it has always been used deceptively, and has been repeatedly found without merit, year after year, month after month, day after day.
It will say the claim is “disputed” and link to a specific fact-check. Then we’ll move onto something else — something equally predictable and equally specific.
Maybe it’ll be someone misframing documents about tracking doses as RFID-nanobot tracking in the vaccine itself. Or claims about disturbing vaccine outcomes in Britain that don’t account for recipient age. Or crisis actors, videos of people being “rounded up,” timeworn misrepresentations of VAERS or VAERS-like data. The sort of claims that a lot of people in the vaccine and political misinformation space could probably predict accurately, today, at any level of granularity desired. They’ll be seen as new claims, generate new debunks, and spark new debates about labeling or removal. And we’ll do it over and over again, as if each claim was a special snowflake.
In the mind of the public, disinformation is a series of endlessly creative and unpredictable attacks by unknown actors. In reality, much of what flies around is pretty predictable. It’s the same narratives, the same stories, the same techniques. It’s the same people spreading it, rotating in a limited number of new celebrities and plot twists each season. We likely already know most of the claims coming in the impending flood of Covid-19 vaccination misinfo. We know why those claims are wrong, or at least have historically turned out wrong. We know this because they’re likely to be the same claims on new hangers, ready-to-hand and minimally fitted to new events.
Yet too often, each claim is treated as a one-off — as if the history of the claim, tactic, or those spreading it can’t be taken into account. Platforms and web users are asked to make judgments, but they’re asked to do so in ways that often discard the most important information, at least early on: Does the person making or amplifying the claim have a history of making false statements? Is there a long history of similar claims being used to deceive? Students are encouraged to evaluate claims “on their own terms.” Platforms don’t provide historical or tactical context on likely deceptive claims while they’re being checked more deeply, even if they’re small variations on false claims seen a million times before.
We just keep plodding through the process.
I don’t claim to know what the exact remedies are here. But aside from the more narrow predictions in the introduction, I’d like to think that this is the year we all — from educators to platforms to users — make better use of the predictability of online misinformation and those who amplify it. More pre-bunking of the claims we know are coming, more indicators that various actors have a history of deception or error. More recognition that a claim that is a variation on repeated lies cannot be accorded the same initial epistemic status as claims that are truly novel. An education that focuses less on deep analysis of novel claims, and more on quickly finding the history and status of known claims and the reputation of those making them.
Recognizing that much misinformation is neither surprising nor novel may be demoralizing in a sense, but it might light the way to a more proactive approach. And maybe, just maybe, that will make the future less depressingly predictable.
Mike Caulfield runs the Digital Polarization Initiative at the American Democracy Project.
Here’s something that’s likely to be one of the more specific predictions on Nieman Lab this year.
Sometime in the first few months of 2021, a social media user will share a picture of a newly released Moderna vaccine information packet distributed with the doses of the vaccine. The user will be shocked (shocked!) that it says the vaccine has not been evaluated for adverse effects on fertility. Which is weird, they’ll say — why wouldn’t they want to test that? Could this have to do with the whole syncytin-1 thing? What are they hiding? Is this evidence of a cover-up of history’s largest sterilization event — Exhibit A, right in the pamphlet?
This technique — which has been used so regularly by anti-vaccination activists that it has its own name, “argument by package insert” — will take people hours to debunk definitively. As shares click into the thousands, some fact-checker will write it up, patiently explaining that the timelines and ethical restrictions around most new drug trials end up producing little fertility data; the language in the pamphlet is boilerplate, not unique to this drug; and package insert language is regulatory disclosure, not a review of all research.
And when the original claim is, in fact, debunked, for the gazillionth time, the platforms will add a simple note to the posts sharing it. The note won’t say that this is a variation on a piece of disinfo older than Britney Spears’ “Toxic,” that it has always been used deceptively, and has been repeatedly found without merit, year after year, month after month, day after day.
It will say the claim is “disputed” and link to a specific fact-check. Then we’ll move onto something else — something equally predictable and equally specific.
Maybe it’ll be someone misframing documents about tracking doses as RFID-nanobot tracking in the vaccine itself. Or claims about disturbing vaccine outcomes in Britain that don’t account for recipient age. Or crisis actors, videos of people being “rounded up,” timeworn misrepresentations of VAERS or VAERS-like data. The sort of claims that a lot of people in the vaccine and political misinformation space could probably predict accurately, today, at any level of granularity desired. They’ll be seen as new claims, generate new debunks, and spark new debates about labeling or removal. And we’ll do it over and over again, as if each claim was a special snowflake.
In the mind of the public, disinformation is a series of endlessly creative and unpredictable attacks by unknown actors. In reality, much of what flies around is pretty predictable. It’s the same narratives, the same stories, the same techniques. It’s the same people spreading it, rotating in a limited number of new celebrities and plot twists each season. We likely already know most of the claims coming in the impending flood of Covid-19 vaccination misinfo. We know why those claims are wrong, or at least have historically turned out wrong. We know this because they’re likely to be the same claims on new hangers, ready-to-hand and minimally fitted to new events.
Yet too often, each claim is treated as a one-off — as if the history of the claim, tactic, or those spreading it can’t be taken into account. Platforms and web users are asked to make judgments, but they’re asked to do so in ways that often discard the most important information, at least early on: Does the person making or amplifying the claim have a history of making false statements? Is there a long history of similar claims being used to deceive? Students are encouraged to evaluate claims “on their own terms.” Platforms don’t provide historical or tactical context on likely deceptive claims while they’re being checked more deeply, even if they’re small variations on false claims seen a million times before.
We just keep plodding through the process.
I don’t claim to know what the exact remedies are here. But aside from the more narrow predictions in the introduction, I’d like to think that this is the year we all — from educators to platforms to users — make better use of the predictability of online misinformation and those who amplify it. More pre-bunking of the claims we know are coming, more indicators that various actors have a history of deception or error. More recognition that a claim that is a variation on repeated lies cannot be accorded the same initial epistemic status as claims that are truly novel. An education that focuses less on deep analysis of novel claims, and more on quickly finding the history and status of known claims and the reputation of those making them.
Recognizing that much misinformation is neither surprising nor novel may be demoralizing in a sense, but it might light the way to a more proactive approach. And maybe, just maybe, that will make the future less depressingly predictable.
Mike Caulfield runs the Digital Polarization Initiative at the American Democracy Project.
Sumi Aggarwal News literacy programs aren’t child’s play
Mandy Jenkins You build trust by helping your readers
Mariano Blejman It’s time to challenge autocompleted journalism
Moreno Cruz Osório In Brazil, a push for pluralism
Ben Werdmuller The web blooms again
Ryan Kellett The bundle gets bundled
Errin Haines Let’s normalize women’s leadership
Jacqué Palmer The rise of the plain-text email newsletter
Sara M. Watson Return of the RSS reader
Jody Brannon People won’t renew
Ernie Smith Entrepreneurship on rails
Jennifer Brandel A sneak peak at power mapping, 2073’s top innovation
Anthony Nadler Journalism struggles to find a new model of legitimacy
Charo Henríquez A new path to leadership
Rodney Gibbs Zooming beyond talking heads
Don Day Business first, journalism second
Masuma Ahuja We’ll remember how interconnected our world is
Natalie Meade Journalism enters rehab
Bo Hee Kim Newsrooms create an intentional and collaborative culture
Marissa Evans Putting community trauma into context
Nico Gendron Ask your readers to help build your products
Burt Herman Journalists build post-Facebook digital communities
Bill Adair The future of fact-checking is all about structured data
Hadjar Benmiloud Get representative, or die trying
Jeremy Gilbert Human-centered journalism
John Davidow Reflect and repent
C.W. Anderson Journalism changed under Trump — will it keep changing under Biden?
Alyssa Zeisler Holistic medicine for journalism
Tonya Mosley True equity means ownership
David Chavern Local video finally gets momentum
Gabe Schneider Another year of empty promises on diversity
Joanne McNeil Newsrooms push back against Ivy League cronyism
Robert Hernandez Data and shame
Julia B. Chan and Kim Bui Millennials are ready to run things
John Garrett A surprisingly good year
John Saroff Covid sparks the growth of independent local news sites
Sarah Marshall The year audiences need extra cheer
Gordon Crovitz Common law will finally apply to the Internet
José Zamora Walking the talk on diversity
Gonzalo del Peon Collaborations expand from newsrooms to the business side
Whitney Phillips Facts are an insufficient response to falsehoods
AX Mina 2020 isn’t a black swan — it’s a yellow canary
Nonny de la Pena News reaches the third dimension
Linda Solomon Wood Canada steps up for journalism
Ariane Bernard Going solo is still only a path for the few
Celeste Headlee The rise of radical newsroom transparency
Andrew Ramsammy Stop being polite and start getting real
Jennifer Choi What have we done for you lately?
Kerri Hoffman Protecting podcasting’s open ecosystem
Kate Myers My son will join every Zoom call in our industry
Tanya Cordrey Declining trust forces publishers to claim (or disclaim) values
Cindy Royal J-school grads maintain their optimism and adaptability
Francesca Tripodi Don’t expect breaking up Google and Facebook to solve our information woes
Shaydanay Urbani and Nancy Watzman Local collaboration is key to slowing misinformation
Michael W. Wagner Fractured democracy, fractured journalism
Chicas Poderosas More voices mean better information
Jonas Kaiser Toward a wehrhafte journalism
Nicholas Jackson Blogging is back, but better
Laura E. Davis The focus turns to newsroom leaders for lasting change
Logan Jaffe History as a reporting tool
Cherian George Enter the lamb warriors
David Skok A pandemic-prompted wave of consolidation
Aaron Foley Diversity gains haven’t shown up in local news
Eric Nuzum Podcasting dodged a bullet in 2020, but 2021 will be harder
Renée Kaplan Falling in love with your subscription
Ståle Grut Network analysis enters the journalism toolbox
Parker Molloy The press will risk elevating a Shadow President Trump
Hossein Derakhshan Mass personalization of truth
Pablo Boczkowski Audiences have revolted. Will newsrooms adapt?
Meredith D. Clark The year journalism starts paying reparations
Anna Nirmala Local news orgs grasp the urgency of community roots
Jim Friedlich A newspaper renaissance reached by stopping the presses
Joni Deutsch Local arts and music make journalism more joyous
Rick Berke Virtual events are here to stay
Sarah Stonbely Videoconferencing brings more geographic diversity
Julia Angwin Show your (computational) work
Astead W. Herndon The Trump-sized window of the media caring about race closes again
Sonali Prasad Making disaster journalism that cuts through the noise
Stefanie Murray and Anthony Advincula Expect to see more translations and non-English content
Tauhid Chappell and Mike Rispoli Defund the crime beat
Patrick Butler Covid-19 reporting has prepared us for cross-border collaboration
Mike Ananny Toward better tech journalism
Christoph Mergerson Black Americans will demand more from journalism
Jesse Holcomb Genre erosion in nonprofit journalism
Imaeyen Ibanga Journalism gets unmasked
Megan McCarthy Readers embrace a low-information diet
Beena Raghavendran Journalism gets fused with art
Nisha Chittal The year we stop pivoting
Edward Roussel Tech companies get aggressive in local
Talmon Joseph Smith The media rejects deficit hawkery
Nikki Usher Don’t expect an antitrust dividend for the media
Doris Truong Indigenous issues get long-overdue mainstream coverage
Jessica Clark News becomes plural
Richard Tofel Less on politics, more on how government works (or doesn’t)
Mark S. Luckie Newsrooms and streaming services get cozy
Ariel Zirulnick Local newsrooms question their paywalls
Catalina Albeanu Publish less, listen more
Ashton Lattimore Remote work helps level the playing field in an insular industry
Annie Rudd Newsrooms grow less comfortable with the “view from above”
Alicia Bell and Simon Galperin Media reparations now
Ben Collins We need to learn how to talk to (and about) accidental conspiracists
Joshua P. Darr Legislatures will tackle the local news crisis
Victor Pickard The commercial era for local journalism is over
Chase Davis The year we look beyond The Story
Brian Moritz The year sports journalism changes for good
Francesco Zaffarano The year we ask the audience what it needs
Andrew Donohue The rise of the democracy beat
Jean Friedman-Rudovsky and Cassie Haynes A shift from conversation to action
Pia Frey Building growth through tastemakers and their communities
Zizi Papacharissi The year we rebuild the infrastructure of truth
Sam Ford We’ll find better ways to archive our work
Brandy Zadrozny Misinformation fatigue sets in
Samantha Ragland The year of journalists taking initiative
Kawandeep Virdee Goodbye, doomscroll
Rachel Schallom The rise of nonprofit journalism continues
A.J. Bauer The year of MAGAcal thinking
Nabiha Syed Newsrooms quit their toxic relationships
Benjamin Toff Beltway reporting gets normal again, for better and for worse
Juleyka Lantigua The download, podcasting’s metric king, gets dethroned
Jer Thorp Fewer pixels, more cardboard
Colleen Shalby The definition of good journalism shifts
Janet Haven and Sam Hinds Is this an AI newsroom?
Marcus Mabry News orgs adapt to a post-Trump world (with Trump still in it)
Kevin D. Grant Parachute journalism goes away for good
Alfred Hermida and Oscar Westlund The virus ups data journalism’s game
J. Siguru Wahutu Journalists still wrongly think the U.S. is different
Delia Cai Subscriptions start working for the middle
María Sánchez Díez Traffic will plummet — and it’ll be ok
Candis Callison Calling it a crisis isn’t enough (if it ever was)
Rishad Patel From direct-to-consumer to direct-to-believers
Matt DeRienzo Citizen truth brigades steer us back toward reality
Rasmus Kleis Nielsen Stop pretending publishers are a united front
Mark Stenberg The rise of the journalist-influencer
Tim Carmody Spotify will make big waves in video
Steve Henn Has independent podcasting peaked?
Marie Shanahan Journalism schools stop perpetuating the status quo
Zainab Khan From understanding to feeling
Tamar Charney Public radio has a midlife crisis
Mike Caulfield 2021’s misinformation will look a lot like 2020’s (and 2019’s, and…)
Taylor Lorenz Journalists will learn influencing isn’t easy
Rachel Glickhouse Journalists will be kinder to each other — and to themselves
Heidi Tworek A year of news mocktails
Loretta Chao Open up the profession
Kristen Muller Engaged journalism scales
Amara Aguilar Journalism schools emphasize listening
John Ketchum More journalists of color become newsroom founders
Sue Cross A global consensus around the kind of news we need to save
Matt Skibinski Misinformation won’t stop unless we stop it
Danielle C. Belton A decimated media rededicates itself to truth
Cory Bergman The year after a thousand earthquakes
Garance Franke-Ruta Rebundling content, rebuilding connections
M. Scott Havens Traditional pay TV will embrace the disruption
Raney Aronson-Rath To get past information divides, we need to understand them first