Login
close
Login is restricted to DCN Publisher Members. If you are a DCN Member and don't have an account, register here.
Search

Digital Content Next logo

Menu

Tags containing: "misinformation"

Industry-Research

As the election nears, news concerns intensify

As the US presidential election nears, the latest research continues to raise alarms about the state of the news landscape, both in the US and globally. Among recent findings: Meta may be less effective at curtailing misinformation than previously reported; adults increasingly rely on social media platforms for news; and international experts warn that politicians and social media platform owners are among the greatest amplifiers of misinformation. However, the same studies indicate proactive steps to promote a healthier news environment.

Debunking social media’s mitigation of misinformation

New academic research rebuts previous data suggesting that Meta’s algorithms were effective in limiting misinformation around the last US presidential election. In Social media algorithms can curb misinformation, but do they? scholars from University of Massachusetts Amherst, Indiana University, and University College Dublin reveal that prior research published in Science was conducted during a brief period when Meta had emergency measures in place to quell a dangerous surge of political misinformation. The new research indicates that much of the decrease in untrustworthy news content reported in the prior study was due to temporary “break glass” measures. These were short-lived and have since been lifted.

Authors of the report cite lack of transparency around social media algorithms as a key problem. Companies can potentially change their algorithms during the time they are being studied to improve appearances, and later remove those changes. This appears to have been the case during the previous study. New data shows that the bump in user exposure to news from trustworthy sources only lasted from November 3, 2020, to March 8, 2021- the dates covered by the prior study.

A silver lining: data shows adjustments to news feed algorithms are capable of curbing misinformation – if social media platform owners are incentivized to employ them and keep them in place. “There is a need for independent research of social media platforms and consistent, transparent disclosures about major changes to their algorithm,” the authors report.

More people get news from social media

The recent academic findings are especially concerning because other new surveys show the public relying increasingly on social media for news content. According to Morning Consult’s study, which is based on interviews with 2,2000 US adults:

  • Almost 2 out of 5 adults consume news from social media multiple times a day.
  • Gen Z cites social media as their most trusted news source.
  • Social media news influencers are now among the top three news source for young people- although their credibility is scant compared to traditional news outlets.
  • The percentage of TikTok users who rely on the app for news jumped from less than a third in July 2022 to over half in July 2024.
  • Over half of the users of X and Facebook, and almost half of YouTube users reported using those apps for news when surveyed in July 2024.

The report finds that people’s increasing reliance on social media for news coincides with an unwillingness of the public to pay for more traditional news sources. This change is evolving quickly.  Only 16% of Americans currently pay for news content, and 39% of those say they plan to cancel their subscriptions within the upcoming quarter.

However, the same study finds most American adults believe that misinformation is on the rise and are concerned about it. While that may not seem reassuring, admitting the problem is a vital first step. This awareness gives news leaders a chance to appeal to consumers who are searching for more reliable content.

A global crisis of misinformation

The US is far from alone in combating misinformation, political or otherwise. International experts recognize it as a global crisis. In fact, 412 researchers from 66 countries cited social media platform owners as the largest threats to the information environment, followed by governments and politicians, according to the International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE)’s survey.

Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, WhatsApp, Telegram, Reddit, 4chan, and X- were platforms that raised concern among experts, along with generative AI and internet search engines. Journalists and news organizations ranked of least concern as spreaders of misinformation.

What can be done to promote a healthier news ecosystem? Three factors were most cited by experts around the world:

  • Availability of accurate information (65%)
  • Diversity of voices (42%)
  • Diversity of media ownership (33%)

‍Two thirds (63%) of the experts surveyed in 2024 expect the information environment to worsen in the future, an increase from just over half (54%) in the previous year’s survey. International researchers agree that access to accurate information, including support of free and independent media, is critical for a healthy global news environment.

Burnout threatens journalists, and the news

The fraught news ecosystem is taking a toll on journalists, causing them to rethink their career paths. Over half of journalists considered resigning due to stress and burnout over the past year, according to a recent survey by Muck Rack. 40% of journalists have left a previous job due to stress or burnout, indicating that these feelings often do translate to action.

Retention of experienced staff is important to the stability and credibility of news media. High turnover jeopardizes the ability of news organizations to provide uninterrupted quality content to the public, which is especially crucial around a contentious presidential election.

A heightening sense of urgency around 24-7 cable news coverage combined with doomscrolling on social media, impacts the mental health of many Americans. This in turn poses further danger to journalists. While journalism has always involved an element of risk, increasing attacks are causing some schools of journalism to include how to remain safe in the midst of conflict as part of their lesson plans.

Proactive steps media organizations can take

The state of news in a rapidly changing technology landscape doesn’t lend itself to easy solutions. However, a few paths in the right direction are indicated by the above research.

Requiring greater transparency from social media giants is a key step in enabling accurate research into the algorithmic changes that can increase exposure to more reliable news and curtail disinformation. “Laws such as the Digital Services Act in the European Union and the proposed Platform Accountability and Transparency Act in the U.S…  could empower researchers to conduct independent audits of social media platforms and better understand the potentially serious effects of ever-changing social media algorithms on the public,” academic researchers assert. While some companies might eschew the push for more transparency, research produced by academia can also provide insights that platforms may utilize for their benefit.

News media leadership can help support a healthier environment by making employees aware of available of mental health resources, expressing support for those who need help, and by putting policies in place to minimize interruptions during staff vacation and off hours.

Digital access is a critical issue worldwide, especially in developing countries, but many digital platforms facilitate the spread of misinformation. Global experts agree it’s important that news remain free from government or political control, because politicians can be among the greatest amplifiers of disinformation. The public’s growing concern about the spread misinformation presents opportunity for reputable news organizations to promote the accuracy and quality of their content – and to encourage support for the free press.

Advertising | Perspectives

How inclusion lists fight misinformation

Programmatic advertising may be the most ubiquitous, influential market in the world. Yet almost nobody, including most of its participants, understands how it actually works. It’s something I cover in a chapter of my new book The Death of Truth. The chapter – which attracted a lot of attention after it was excerpted in WIRED is (appropriately) titled “Buying Blind.” It documents how so many publishers and even marketers are blindsided by the unintended consequences of programmatic’s dominant role in advertising.

Even those working with programmatic advertising every day were surprised at how it can actually undermine the journalism ecosystem. It has created a marketplace in which blue-chip advertisers unknowingly finance the worst peddlers of misinformation and disinformation at the expense of publishers who still care about informing readers.

A striking example of this phenomenon occurred in 2019 when my team discovered that Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway was the biggest advertiser on Sputnik News, a Kremlin-controlled disinformation website, through its subsidiary Geico. This was, of course, not because of a deliberate decision made by Buffett or executives at Geico. Instead, Geico’s funding for Sputnik came in the form of ads the company inadvertently placed on the Russian disinformation site because of the black hole that is programmatic advertising. Comscore and (my company) NewsGuard have estimated there is $2.6 billion a year in programmatic advertising unintentionally going to publishers of misinformation—revenues that quality news publishers badly need.

Companies like Geico use ad tech tools offered by “Demand Side Platforms” — DSPs — to buy these ads. The largest DSPs, as you might know, are Google and The Trade Desk. The Trade Desk (now a partner with NewsGuard in helping to combat this issue) has real-time bidding technology that uses advanced algorithms and extensive data to place ads across the web at the scale of 5.4 million ads per second. But for all the sophisticated data powering the operations of the DSPs, one crucial detail was overlooked as programmatic was invented and flourished: The identity of the websites where a brand’s ads are placed. This has left advertisers flying blind, sending hundreds, thousands, or even millions of dollars into the ether without knowing where their ads will appear. The result: Ads appearing in environments where studies show they are less likely to get cost-effective responses – and also likely to embarrass the brand.

Exclusion and blocking: Blunt, ineffective advertising tools

Seeing how brands have been burned by placing their ads alongside unsavory content, many advertisers and agencies have taken blunt approaches that range from bad to worse:

  • One approach involves using “exclusion lists” — a list of websites that an advertiser deems inappropriate — instructing the DSP to block the brand from running its ads on any sites on the list. This approach has some appeal, but it is reactive and never fully effective because, new, hoax websites crop up daily, wreaking havoc on our information ecosystem long before they make it onto an advertiser’s exclusion list. This is true now more than ever as phony websites created by generative AI looking to get in on the programmatic gravy train are popping up every day.
  • Another approach involves using “keyword blocklists” — lists of sometimes thousands of keywords like “Ukraine,” “war,” “gay” or “Black” that the advertiser deems dangerous. These blocklists instruct the DSP to block ads from appearing on any webpage that contains even just one of these keywords. But studies have shown that news — especially news serving minority or underserved communities — are disproportionately harmed by keyword blocklists.
  • Worse yet, some advertisers have decided to remove their ads from news altogether by blocking their ads from the entire category. This has the obvious effect of harming the news industry, slashing already dwindling revenues for news outlets. But it also has a negative, dollars-and cents impact on advertisers themselves: Missed opportunity.

    According to studies, such as those from the IAB and Stagwell, advertising on news can be highly effective. In a 2020 study, the IAB found that “nearly half of consumers find brands that advertise in the news to be more customer-focused and engaging, more innovative, and relevant to them.” Newsreaders are a large but overlooked demographic: 25% of Americans are “news junkies,” according to recent research by Stagwell. Therefore, any strategy that simply avoids or excludes news is failing to reach a large, engaged audience.

Inclusion creates a better ad ecosystem

There is a better way: Website inclusionlists. Inclusion lists allow advertisers to focus their ad spend on pre-vetted, high-quality websites that align with their brand values and target audience. This ensures better placement and engagement, and ultimately increases the return-on-investment (ROI) of ad campaigns. And, of course, this proactive approach reduces the risk of a brand having its ads appear on low-quality or inappropriate sites, including sites propagating misinformation.

My company, NewsGuard, offers one solution for building a high-quality publisher inclusion list. We deploy a team of expert journalists to rate and review the reliability of news sources across the open web based on a set of apolitical criteria of journalistic practice. Using these ratings for more than 10,000 top news and information sources, NewsGuard offers inclusion lists of highly credible news publishers, which can be activated via pre-bid segments through The Trade Desk, Peer 39, and Comscore, or via private marketplaces of trusted news domain lists in SSPs including Pubmatic, OpenX and Magnite.

Because the focus is on websites that pay attention to best journalistic practices, every member of DCN is probably on NewsGuard’s highest-quality inclusion list.

You should brag about It!

Quality publishers can play their part in advocating for the use of inclusion lists as the superior advertising strategy. Publishers can make advertisers aware of inclusion lists in their advertising marketing materials. Many publishers now signal their trustworthiness to advertisers and readers by including their high score from an independent third party in their marketing materials. They can encourage ad agencies to end the harmful practices of boycotting news or using overly broad keyword blocking. They can work with the supply-side platforms to ensure that only other quality news websites are included in ad buys.

This next, logical evolution in programmatic advertising requires that everyone in the process step up to do their part.  Publishers and advertisers would be the most immediate beneficiaries, with news departments getting the revenues they need and brands getting the more efficient purchases they seek. Especially in an election year, we should also keep in mind that democracy will function best with more news resources to support an educated public. Democracy matters. The news matters. And it pays to be the smartest players in the programmatic marketplace

About the author

Steven Brill is the co-founder of NewsGuard. His new book, ”The Death of Truth,” comes out June 4 from Penguin Random House.

Industry-Research

Not disclosing AI-generated content negatively impacts trust


Artificial intelligence (AI) is generating a new era of content creation. However, with this innovation comes the challenge of distinguishing AI-generated content from human-made material. This creates another issue media companies must grapple with to build and maintain audience trust.

Mozilla’s latest report, In Transparency We Trust?, delves into the transformative impact of AI-generated content and its challenges. Ramak Molavi Vasse’I and Gabriel Udoh co-authored this research, exploring disclosure approaches in practice across many platforms and services. The report also raises concerns about AI-generated content and social media’s powerful reach ― intensifying the spread of algorithmic preferences and emotionally charged material.

Where generative AI falls on the synthetic content spectrum

AI-generated content is a subset of synthetic content. It includes images, videos, sounds, or any other form generated, edited, or enabled by artificial intelligence. Synthetic content exists on a spectrum with varying degrees of artificiality. One end of the spectrum features raw content, comprising hand-drawn illustrations, unaltered photographs, and human-written texts. These elements are untouched, representing the most natural form of creative expression. Moving along the spectrum is minimally edited content. Subtle refinements characterize this stage, like using Grammarly for text refinement or adjusting image contrast with photo editing apps. These adjustments enhance the quality and clarity of the content while maintaining its original essence.

Stepping up from minimally processed content is ultra-processed, where automated methods and software play a more significant role in altering or enhancing human-generated material. Applications like Adobe Photoshop can easily enable intricate image manipulations, such as replacing one person’s face with another’s. This level of processing represents a deeper form of content alteration facilitated by advanced technology.The spectrum of synthetic content presents authenticity challenges, and the credibility of digital content comes into question.

AI-generated content can potentially negatively impact society, from spreading misinformation to eroding public trust in digital platforms. This includes concerns like identity theft, security problems, privacy breaches, and the risk of cheating and fraud. The growing use of AI-generated content mandates the the need for rules to limit its harm.

Regulatory mechanisms

Mozilla’s report notes that regulatory requirements across the globe mandate clearly identifying and labeling AI-generated content. Current approaches include visible labels and audible warnings to address the challenges of undisclosed synthetic content effectively. However, human-facing disclosure methods are only partially effective due to their vulnerability to manipulation and the potential to increase public mistrust.

Machine-readable methods, such as invisible watermarking, offer relative security. However, they require robust detection mechanisms to be truly effective. Machine-readable methods show promise but require standardized, robust watermarking techniques and unbiased detection systems.

The authors advocate for a holistic approach to governance that combines technological, regulatory, and educational measures. This includes prioritizing machine-readable methods, investing in “slow AI” solutions that embed corporate social responsibility, and balancing transparency with privacy concerns. Furthermore, they propose reimagining regulatory sandboxes as spaces for testing and refining AI governance strategies in collaboration with citizens and communities.

Ensuring the authenticity and safety of digital content in the age of AI demands innovation in governance strategies is a complex challenge. As the report points out, navigating the AI content challenge requires supporting a trustworthy digital ecosystem by leveraging machine-readable methods, fostering stakeholder collaboration and user education.

Transparent governance is essential to combat the risks associated with AI-generated content and uphold the integrity of digital platforms. Regulatory frameworks and technological solutions must adapt to safeguard against misinformation in order to promote trust in digital media content.

Advertising | Supporter Spotlight

How publishers fight misinformation in ads

Wartime and elections pose the ultimate test for publishers’ programmatic advertising safeguards. Unfortunately, these measures have faltered in Q4. Since October 10th, GeoEdge’s security research has detected gruesome ads across U.S. publisher sites, revealing publishers’ flaws in accurately categorizing and thwarting violent ads.

In today’s sensitive international media sphere, publishers must confront disinformation by prioritizing responsible reporting and implementing resilient ad quality policies. Advertising undeniably influences media trust, with 64% of consumers claiming that seeing bad ads undermine their trust in all media organizations, extending beyond the site where the ad appears. By identifying and preventing offensive ads, ad-supported media can adeptly maximize ad revenue while maintaining audience trust.

The breakdown of publisher brand suitability 

Since the start of the Israeli-Hamas conflict in early October, programmatic channels have been inundated with violence, graphic imagery, and fringe support for terrorist activity. In an effort to engage audiences and garner support, advertisers have displayed ads featuring incitement of violence, weaponry, and gruesome war-related content.

These ads are intentionally designed to elicit viewers’ shock, fear, and horror, which results in significant effects on publisher engagement metrics. GeoEdge research revealed that 73% of consumers would not recommend sites with offensive ads to others, and 56% of consumers leave sites or apps due to unwanted ads. These ads take an emotional and physical toll on audiences, leading to reduced session times, increased churn rates, and a negative association with the publishers’ brand.

Upholding audience safety amid crisis 

Publishers face the critical task of deciding whether specific advertisers and sensitive, hot-button issues can be allowed to run ads on their sites, all while thwarting malicious actors.

“Media organizations frequently turn to upstream partners, ad exchanges, and SSPs for ad filtering, yet the presence of explicitly violent ads on publishers’ sites underscores their failures,” stated Amnon Siev, CEO at GeoEdge. GeoEdge’s security research team revealed that tech giants, including Google’s Ad Manager, fail to prevent ads that promote terror and clickbait, disseminating misinformation and spreading graphic content.

 Publishers can firmly grab the reins by:

  • Establishing a proactive policy for monitoring harmful messaging and provocative visuals in both ads and landing pages.
  • Identifying and blocking advertisers that seek to provoke fear and shock
  • Empowering readers to flag offensive ads directly from the ad slot. This allows the ads to be quickly reviewed, and any problematic ads can be referred to the ad ops team for immediate action.

Clickbait, deepfakes, and misleading advertising 

As the 2024 election season approaches, ad spend is expected to top $10 billion in order to sway American voters. However, incorporating election ads into a revenue strategy isn’t cut and dry. More than half of consumers (67%) believe that the primary responsibility for keeping bad ads at bay lies with the website owner. Media executives must grapple with misinformation and divisive election ads; otherwise, they risk audience alienation, diminished brand value, and loss of quality advertisers. 

To maintain audience trust, publishers must keep a close eye on these four categories: candidate-focused ads, attack ads, fundraising ads, and issue-based ads. It is critical to ensure that they align with audience values and truth in advertising.

Navigating election disinformation 

Generative AI and deepfake technology have already been used to try to sway American voters. Responsible publishers must proactively detect and prevent their spread. 

Publishers’ ability to maintain oversight of their programmatic inventory is essential. When serving political content on your site, there are several approaches media executives can take in order to combat political disinformation:

  • Red light the entire 2024 election category, with exceptions to specific sites and advertisers
  • Automatically approve all election-related ads, and then eliminate misaligned ads/advertisers
  • Give users the ability to flag potentially problematic content themselves. User reports enable ad ops teams to take swift action based on user feedback and ensure a safer, more truthful environment. 

The turning point 

Ad supported media now faces a defining moment to reevaluate their ad quality policies and bring truth in advertising to their audience. Those who seize the opportunity are taking a significant step towards maintaining the trust of their audiences. Those who fail to do so not only risk losing the trust of their audiences, they risk losing them altogether.

Industry-Research

This survey can enhance people’s ability to detect misinformation

In today’s fast-paced digital age, there is an overwhelming amount of information, making it increasingly challenging to differentiate fact from fiction. Researchers recently developed a two-minute survey, Misinformation Susceptibility Test (MIST), to assess an individual’s ability to distinguish between real and fake news. By delving into the nuances of misinformation susceptibility within social psychology, particularly concerning social media, academics may be able to devise more potent intervention strategies. MIST offers a pivotal starting point for researchers to gain a profound comprehension of the underlying principles of social media products and their algorithms’ impact on the vulnerability to misinformation.

The MIST survey is comprised of 20 headlines, and participants must identify the fake headlines among them. The tool measures individuals’ ability to detect deceiving elements, such as manipulative language, in just two minutes. Interestingly, the research shows that younger Americans under 45 performed worse than older adults in distinguishing between real and fake news. Younger adults are more likely to suspect misinformation where there is none. They also tend to mistrust news headlines overall, possibly influenced by their higher online media consumption.

Further, mainstream news consumers, particularly those of AP news, perform better at distinguishing between real and fake headlines, with an average of 16 correct identifications. The study reveals that those who get their news from social media, especially Snapchat, could improve in distinguishing between real and fake headlines, as approximately 53% of Snapchat news consumers correctly identified just 10 or fewer headlines.

Enhancing news veracity acumen

MIST serves as an educational tool that provides individuals with an understanding of their susceptibility to misinformation and offers valuable insights into improving detection. The test’s feedback highlights specific areas where participants may be prone to errors in judgment. This empowers individuals to be more critical of the information they encounter and encourages them to adopt evidence-based approaches when evaluating news content.

The researchers plan to conduct further research on the correlation between “actively open-minded thinking” and resilience to misinformation. Specifically, they aim to explore methods of ranking content to enhance open-minded thinking.

Combating disinformation

In an era where misinformation can have profound societal consequences, MIST is a potent weapon against disinformation. By arming individuals with the tools to identify and combat fake news, tools like MIST can help create a more informed and discerning population. This, in turn, can lead to a decline in the viral spread of misinformation, ultimately contributing to a healthier information ecosystem.

MIST has significant implications for educational institutions and media literacy programs. By integrating this test into curricula, it can be used by educators to help students develop the necessary skills to critically navigate content online . Teaching students how to assess the credibility of sources, cross-check information, and challenge their biases will foster a generation better equipped to confront misinformation and make informed decisions.

MIST could significantly advance the ongoing battle against the widespread issue of misinformation. Embracing it as part of a strong academic approach could play a vital role in transforming media literacy education programs. The psychometric validation of the test ensures that it offers dependable and precise insights into an individual’s susceptibility to believing and disseminating fake news. Tools like the MIST in literacy programs empower individuals to learn more about discerning information and contribute to a more informed society. Ongoing efforts to refine and improve MIST, alongside other tools, and strategies, are vital in effectively addressing the challenges posed by the constant flow of deceptive information

©2024 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.