With all the hype around "fake news", and the media trying to pretend like this is a new phenomenon and also creating the idea that we are in a "post-truth" era, some people in society recognize that we have always had fake news, and there are always people who aren't interested in the truth of reality.
One such person is Dominique Brossard, a Life Sciences Communication Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She discussed her finding on the fake news hype related to science and online social networks at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
She recognizes that science has always had fake information:
"Fake news about science has always existed. What has changed now is social media and the potential to disseminate this kind of news much faster among social networks."
Fake news is spreading false information under the guise of real news. in order to influence people by them simply believing in it. Trashy tabloids are plenty, and even other magazines play on people's uncertainty of not knowing if things are real or not. They sell gossip and sensationalism.
Relating fake news and science, Brossard says there is a difference between bad science reporting, and then projecting that forward as fake news purporting to be real news. Some scientific studies might be poorly conducted, or merely poorly reported to convey a false understanding of the study. Does that make these reports fake news, or just poor reporting based on that study?
A story that says "caffeine might cure cancer", but it's only based on a study of 20 people, needs to be evaluated better in order to determine if the conclusions are valid. The stories will often spread like wildfire in social media because of the hope and positivity they offer in our lives. Who wouldn't be happy about the hope ingesting something can cure a loved one suffering from cancer?
Journalism is often trying to get people to read their story, and will be more focused on how other people will be interested in the story and craft headlines that sensationalize or make extravagant claims to entice people to read more about it. Journalists aren't trained to assess the validity of the study. Many are just trying to sell a story. Some stories might not be a fake story, but bad reporting can turn into conveying false information and thereby making it a fake news story.
Brossard outlines 3 methods to improve scientific communication and promote more accuracy in science news:
1- Explaining more facts in the research at the onset can backfire with people double-down in their attachment to false beliefs. Explaining the context of how the data fits into reality accurately, by getting on some "common ground" understanding that the journalist can relate to, would provide a greater understanding as they can relate it to something they are already familiar with.
Brossard says scientists need to be available to talk to journalists to explain things, or else they will go find someone else. Scientists have a level of responsibility to ensure their data is better represented to the public.
2- Agencies and institutions that deliver scientific research need to engage in quality or "brand" control. Coca-cola is used as an example, whereby they monitor when news agencies mention their name, and engages the social media conversations to launch damage control as required when false information is spread. The same can be done when studies are misrepresented, but there is no systemic way to facilitate this process yet. It would need to be developed.
3- Bad science that is retracted should be removed from search engines to prevent people from thinking it's a valid study to use for coming to conclusions about something. Brossard cites Andrew Wakefield's falsified vaccine study from 1998 as an example that persists.
"If I tell you that 87 percent of scientists believe there is no link because the evidence shows that, but then there is this one study, many parents will say: 'I'm not going to take the risk. I'm going to believe that one. It's not that people don't trust science, it's that they are going to use science that fits their beliefs."
A good online tool for anyone to use is Retraction Watch, which usually has at least one retraction each day for poor or fraudulent scientific publications. Retraction Watch can't catch everything, but the site currently reports between 500 and 600 retractions each year.
Social media plays a large role in propagating false information. Social networks usually consist of people with like-minds who share a common body of knowledge, set of ideas or beliefs to unite and find common ground to form a community.
Since changing people's minds is hard to do once they have accepted a belief into their worldview, it's important for scientific news to get things right from the start. We can all too easily work for a group or organization that is based around false information that we then become invested in, with our time, money and emotions.
Brossard says there is no clear distinction between fake news and real news that can easily be discerned. In science news, scientists need to understand it's not a "us versus them, the public" issue. Understanding the limitations in how the public comprehends scientific information can lead to better science communication where the scientists don't shy away from collaborating in explaining their studies more in-depth and in easier to understand language.
Many people are under the aura and appeal to authority that science and the ideology of "scientism" creates. If it comes from "science", then automatically many people assume it to be "correct". We all need to be more discerning of the information we input into our consciousness. Science is great, and scientists help us learn more about reality, but they aren't infallible. Get out of the "cult of scientism" if you are in it and start thinking more critically for yourself.
Reference:
If you appreciate and value the content, please consider:
Upvoting 
, Sharing 
or Reblogging 
below.
me for more content to come!
Looking to contact me? Find me on Discord or send me a message on SteemKURE.
Please also consider supporting me as a Steem Witness by voting for me at the bottom of the Witness page; or just click on the upvote button if I am in the top 50:
2017-02-19, 5:02pm
@KrNel, your post has been chosen by @STEEMNEWS.ONLINE as one of today's promoted posts for its excellent content. We've upvoted, resteemed and published it through Facebook & Twitter.
As the author of a SNO featured article, you've been awarded one TRAIL coin. Please stop by the SteemTrail Discord server to learn more about how to claim your TRAIL coin. You will need an Open Ledger account to do so.
STEEMNEWS.ONLINE is the @SteemTrail for #news and watches the #steemnews tag most closely. Please consider supporting excellent news articles by making steemnews.online one of your operators on Streemian, in addition to steemtrail.
Thank you for your hard work and contribution of excellent content to Steemit.
If you would rather not be promoted by STEEMNEWS.ONLINE, please inform us by replying to this comment and we will honor your request.
Exactly- fake news has been around as long as real news- what used to be real news outlets are now propaganda outlets which is of course agenda not TRUTH driven. Conversely the independent journalists like myself who strive to deliver the truth and aren't agenda driven are labeled 'fake' by the actual fake news purveyors themselves.
The driving force behind the MSM pushing the 'fake news' narrative was the emergence of the PIZZAGATE / PEDOGATE scandal- they know this is the game changer and they're pulling out ALL the stops. Not only do those who control the MSM (satanic pedophiles) have 'skin in the game' but so do many members of the propaganda machine itself- their a**es are on the line and they know it- their fierce, visceral, patently dishonest campaign against the newly elected POTUS clearly reflects how much they fear this man and his new AG- like Trump or not I think he along with AG Sessions have a historic role to play in exposing and bringing to justice a global child trafficking/pedophile, and in some instances torture and murdering, ring. One of the main players in this 'civil war' is the CIA and anyone that doesn't understand that the CIA has a very tight chokehold on the MSM simply has not studied their history nor their openly stated control objectives regarding the media and made decades ago. They have accomplished that mission of complete control.
How anyone can look at the Podesta Emails and James Alafantis' Instagram as well as the password protected hidden pages on Comet's website that with the proper key allowed users to view child porn, and STILL think this doesn't all warrant an investigation is beyond me. I have concluded that one must either be woefully ignorant and refusing to examine evidence OR they are intentionally running cover for child traffickers/satanic pedophiles.
In the end it all boils down to discernment- IMHO it's not only prudent to process information on a logical level but it's absolutely critical to gauge how you FEEL about that particular information.
I am a bug believer in using logic , thought and reason BUT only to the point that it narrows the choices of what could be closest to the truth- that's when discernment and intuition step in and make the final call- I always go with my gut and that has served me very well.
Interesting! Another example of fake news or fake science is the correlation between salt and blood pressure. My cardiologist told me that it all came about as the result of one study that was thoroughly discredited in the 1970's, yet the narrative continues to this day.
"If I tell you that 87 percent of scientists believe there is no link because the evidence shows that,..." This is also interesting. How could they possibly know that ALL scientist were included in the study, or that they held degrees in the proper discipline? Great article...certainly gives you a lot to think about!
I hope you aren't taken statins- oh and so called 'science' is as rigged, bought, and sold as the MSM these days- real scientists with anything that questions the existing models are often marginalized.
http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/alzheimers_statins.html
Nope...Just good old opioids!
Everything I learned in science class is wrong!
The way science is taught in school is as a religion.
You believe the teacher, memorize what they told you, and regurgitate it on the test. You take for fact that these things were scientifically proven. And when you go and research how these were proven, you find a big FAT LIE. But you believe it, just like a person raised in religion believes.
See my article on Michelson-Morely for one example.
https://steemit.com/science/@builderofcastles/the-michelson-morley-experiment-the-error-in-the-errors
I'm going to put some thoughts I've developed on this subject in some posts I wrote 3 months ago.
We are in a time of total delusion about collective power.
People are still in the denial phase because people they are still based on acephalous beliefs in populist, demagogic, pseudo redeemer and savior political speech.
This took us to the death of all ideologies and the rise of extremist new ideologies that are winning elections all over the world with the most recent examples of Trump, Le Pen, Neocons and others.
This kind of (non-)ethics is the sign of the times, with the media castrating and mystifying public opinion, and gives us fake news in the interest of a few, generating a total crisis in public trust.
They are oriented and in conformity with the right wing and fascist extremists full of hate, racism, supported by oligarchic business interests, to justify their actions in manufacturing guns and wars all over Africa and Asia, and that can lead in the future to wars even in Europe (already happening with the migrants).
The only "science" that can help people is awareness and unconformity, and above all, get their butt off the sofa and detox from too much time glued to the TV screen of a passive opiate and mesmerizing media.
Since my youth, I remember that have been seeing nothing but fake news and I'm surprised people never saw it.
The Big Brother is not watching people, he already inhabits inside their heads in the form of fear.
Passive Media puts you drowning in a sea of Information, instead of giving a constructive Education, that should be the first goal and maybe it was in the early days.
Left wing is also full of hate. Thanks for the feedback.
For a moment, I was reminded of a discussion from my college daze (over 30 years ago) in which my psychology professor were exploring the way people would successfully take completely crackpot ideas and apply a heavy dose of "science vocabulary" and suddenly a large swath of people would believe something utterly nonsensical was "real," because of the "science speak." Kind of like the old dihydrogen monoxide (strictly chemical terminology for H2O) hoax...
To me, "science" as fake news seems to be just another variation of the old newspaper maxim "If it bleeds, it leads." Sensationalism sells. So if there's even a slight chance that someone in a lab thought it, at some time... the media leads with "AVOCADOS CAN CURE ALZHEIMERS!" Or something like that... and people jump all over it and perpetuate it because of our tendency to want an "easy button" for everything in life.
Now, can it sometimes be expedient to act on something without 100% proof of truth? I would say yes... based on discernment and critical analysis; for example, even if there's no conclusive proof of global warming, or proof that fossil fuels are the primary culprit... renewable energy is still a good idea; we're more likely to run out of liquid dinosaurs than wind and sun.
This was my conclusion as well, and why I wrote the piece I did the other day on fake news/propaganda. It has been around for a VERY long time. The hypocrisy was that those that had been propagating it for generations suddenly decided to attack people that were speaking against them with the label. That was a mistake. It blew up in their face.
Here are the demi-gods of their belief system.
LOL, yeah, don't fall for the cult of personality. Go for the info ;)
They deliberately dumb down content so much it almost becomes misleading or even totally incorrect. But to be fair "popularisation" of science is never an easy job, they're just doing whatever it takes to amass a following. Unfaithful to science? yes , is it unreasonable? no
It's dumbed down because people are fucking stupid lol.
I mean, ever notice how absolutely stupid people are, and how they believe just about anything, no matter how obvious it is that it's made up? Yeah, that's why science is dumbed down to ridiculous levels.
I think it goes both ways, ever wonder why these people are so dumb? yea, because they consume dumbed down versions of actual science, if the popularisers of science took more effort to educate the masses rather than simply trying to write shock headlines for clickbaits, then maybe the average person would be smarter.
Yeah, I won't disagree at all.
But it's not just science. It seems like people are fooled into all sorts of bullshit, of nearly every type. The idea that people are not actually understanding things, but are instead just "believing it", is very troublesome.
I mean, if you actually "understand" a scientific topic, there is no debate.
It's obvious what the facts are, and there's no reason to even pretend like it's a political issue. You just need all the facts, and then you need to put the facts into a correct formula, in order to figure out the truth.
But that stuff is tough, especially when even if you get one thing right, there's a million other things that you'll never fully understand. It's only made worse when so many people lie, or have no idea, but act like they do. It just misleads people in nearly every aspect.
Of course, I'd harshly condemn anyone who actually looks down on Bill Nye or Tyson. Those people are for sure "science communicators", and not exactly geniuses, but that doesn't make them bad people, and it certainly doesn't make them wrong, even when it comes to the most controversial issues.
' " The idea that people are not actually understanding things, but are instead just "believing it", is very troublesome. '
very well put, but the way I see it , its only natural. Some people are way easily convinced than others, they let others do the thinking and researching for them, its been that way for centuries. Sure, the internet has changed this quite a bit, but when the news media organisations with the largest reach
want people to believe something, they can and will get it done with ease. Their reach and credibility is way more influential than individual thinkers/researchers spreading accurate information.
Anyways, you can't expect the average person to verify everything they're being fed by the media, they have neither the time nor incentive to take those efforts. I don't blame them either, they have different priorities.. they just want to eat good food, have sex, do drugs, enjoy music etc . who cares about the truth when you're happy and content with your life?
And many people will say it's censorship!
Yup, it's not a solution, I forgot to mention that as I have in a previous fake news post. The media is trying to control what people can get in terms of identifying falsity and truth, instead of educating people on how to think independently and critically to be able to evaluate information themselves. They are trying to make information overlord "watchers" through social media tools and censorship of information. None of this helps truth get out, but makes us more dependent on the mainstream media to tell us what to believe.
I remember reading something related to a pageant where a company that sells maps did a study door to door. For each person surveyed, if he or she didn't have a world map in the home, it was counted as a person who was unable to find America on a world map. Ridiculous!
Wow.. that's really misleading poor data to go on... sheesh! Thanks for the feedback.
One comment on the notion that these spread quickly because of "hope and positivity".
I think this is only looking at one side of the coin. What I think they mean to hone in on is the inherent advantage that sensationalism has in social media. Sensationalism is attractive in social media because it gives users social capital in terms of likes/shares/etc. (Or STEEM, of course.)
Other than that small nitpick, I think this is all right on.
It's not so much in reference to all fake news, but more the science news that tends to be spread based on hopes of cures and such. But indeed, there is science news about bad things as well (the other side), and that is indeed sensational for people to spread, but not "hope or positivity" hehe. Thank you for that feedback. I didn't think of that angle ;)
I think when you look at the less sophisticated propagators of this type of news are equally interested in the doom and gloom type of developments in the scientific community. It's one of the reasons I'm so tired of facebook and other similar platforms.
@krnel , you should check out "Lubos Motl" (if you already don't know him), has his own blog and writes very accurate science and sometimes does political commentary. He is bit of a controversial figure for his right wing views, climate change denial, is very politically incorrect with an eccentric nature but in my experience he has never been wrong with the technical stuff, so he's got that going for him.
No pop science, baseless fear mongering and alarmism that you see everywhere these days.
Thanks for the suggestion. I may have seen his face before ;)
thanks for that reference; I'll add it to my refs
One of the issue of retracted papers is they are still available despite their retractions, and many even end up continuing to be cited in subsequent publications.
Yup. That was point #3 she suggested be improved upon. Thanks for the feedback.
Another issue that I have observed is citing an article for something it did not say. This happens with my own work, out of curiosity I always look to see where a citing article has used my work. I would say 1/10 times the information I am being cited for was not indicated by my work, or the authors are making an inference that the data does not justify.
There really isn't a way to correct for this, and if it happens with my work, it likely happens all over the place.
Its hard to stop "fake news" when the primary sources contain false information from the outset.
True, that's an issue. I think that's what she refers to in #2 and in other places with regards to that involvement you are doing to "quality control" how people are using the data. Good job on keeping an eye out for that ;)
The issue is, I'm not doing any "quality control" as their really aren't any mechanisms by which those factual inaccuracies can be corrected. I just observe this, but can't do anything about it.
Well, the "quality control" alluding to coca-cola, is that they monitor when people are using information incorrectly, and set out to correct it in social media, maybe contact the site putting it out. Not sure how viable that is for you, but that's how they are doing the quality control by countering the incorrect data. Usually sites these days have comments so that someone can correct it. There is no official way to get them to correct it though, but someone objecting to it at least it's there for others to come across.
Dude, cowpox was used to successfully shown to protect people against smallpox as early as the late 1700's/early 1800's. To further this, cowpox exposure had actually been observed to protect people against small pox for perhaps thousands of years if we are to look at Iranian nomadic peoples. [Source]
What the heck you talking about? What bogus information?
Indistinguishable angenically not indistinguishable. The only thing full of crap here is what you are posting.
Statistics explains that it works. Give people cowpox as a vaccine, see reduction in small pox cases that is statistically relevant over a long period of time? Well guess what bub, then the coxpox inoculation is the causative agent for protection from the small pox.
All you are showing me is that the vaccination does not provide 100% immunity, okay. So what? Again you are misinterpreting things.
Could you please stop spamming me with your nonsense? Talking with you will get me nowhere, you are a lost cause. So I am not going to bother.
Edit: I am not bullying you in any capacity. I asked quite nicely if you could please stop spamming me. Thanks! Its a waste of both of our time.
thank for sharing @krnel
Uhm... I won't say. Given the fact just 1% of papers are selected for peer review, "academic" science is not into the condition to lecture magazines.