Multiple New Studies Again Suggest The Internet Is Not Creating An ‘Infodemic’; Cable News, On The Other Hand…

from the but-of-course dept

Early on in the pandemic, the World Health Organization warned that the world was facing an “infodemic,” a mass outbreak of false and misleading information. While the WHO did not coin the term, it certainly made it popular, and contributed to the idea that it was the internet that was the leading cause of this infodemic. Today, it seems set in stone that the internet is the main vector for the spread of false information, and this is leading to all sorts of regulatory pushes by people all around the globe who think that the internet is to blame for all the bad stuff that is happening.

However, as we’ve noted over the years, the data… rarely seems to back up these claims. In 2019, we wrote about the book, Network Propaganda, written by Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts, which presents a ton of evidence that lies about the 2016 election would go viral not because of the internet, but because of Fox News pushing them. In 2020 (pre-election), they released some follow-up research concerning disinformation about mail-in ballots and again found that the spread of misinformation was “elite-driven, mass-media led” and that social media “played only a secondary role.”

But maybe you question their methodology (though, you should read the details, because it’s pretty comprehensive and thorough). Nirit Weiss-Blatt points us to an article by journalists-turned-academics Nick Mathews and Mark Coddington, highlighting a bundle of recent research that again suggests little evidence of an online “infodemic,” but at least some evidence of Fox News being the real main venue for spreading disinformation.

They point to a few different studies, with the first one showing that most people actually turned to trustworthy sources of news during the pandemic, rather than less trustworthy sources.

We find that in 2020 online news consumption increased. Trustworthy news outlets benefited the most from the increase in web traffic. In the UK trustworthy news outlets also benefited the most from the increase in Facebook engagement, but in other countries both trustworthy and untrustworthy news outlets benefited from the increase in Facebook engagement. Overall, untrustworthy news outlets captured 2.3% of web traffic and 14.0% of Facebook engagement, while news outlets regularly publishing false content accounted for 1.4% of web traffic and 6.8% of Facebook engagement. People largely turned to trustworthy news outlets during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic.

Next up was a study that involved surveying 14,000 people exploring whether or not the pandemic drove people into their own echo chambers. Again, we’ve highlighted other research in the past that suggests the internet actually decreases echo chambers, rather than increases them. Here, this new research more or less confirms the same thing regarding COVID info. The research looked at whether or not people focused on “like-minded” information (echo chambers) or explored more “cross cutting” (diverse) sources of information, and it showed a strong indication of cross-cutting information — though that was even stronger where citizens were most concerned about COVID and where governments were screwing up. In other words, when the government is incompetent, people inherently know it’s not healthy to stick in information bubbles.

A widely believed claim is that citizens tend to selectively expose themselves to like-minded information. However, when individuals find the information useful, they are more likely to consume cross-cutting sources. While crises such as terror attacks and pandemics can enhance the utility of cross-cutting information, empirical evidence on the role of real-world external threats in selective exposure is scarce. This paper examines the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study to test the extent to which citizens were exposed to information from cross-cutting sources on traditional and social media after the outbreak. Utilizing a two-wave panel survey among 14,218 participants across 17 countries – conducted before and after the initial outbreak – we show that citizens concerned about COVID-19 were more exposed to cross-cutting information on traditional and social media. The positive relationship with cross-cutting exposure to traditional news was stronger in countries where governments adopted less stringent policy responses, and in countries with greater pandemic severity and weaker democratic institutions. Our comparative approach thus sheds light on the social and political contexts in which cross-cutting exposure can occur.

I don’t think we should look at that as a ringing endorsement of incompetent governments, but it is still an interesting all around finding.

The final study looks at how one’s media consumption habits impacted their views on COVID mitigation strategies. Here they found that (after controlling for a bunch of factors), cable TV seemed to contribute the most to shaping one’s views, not the internet.

This research assesses how the environment for coronavirus disease (COVID) information contributed to the public’s willingness to support measures intended to mitigate the spread and transmission of the virus in the early stages of the pandemic. A representative sample of 600 Floridians was surveyed in April 2020. After controlling for sociodemographic factors, COVID anxiety, and knowledge about the virus, we find that components of the information environment mattered for public opinion related to mitigation policies. Television news sources, including local and national network news, center-left cable news (i.e., CNN, MSNBC), and Fox News, contributed to shaping policy support. The results highlight the importance of televised news coverage in shaping public opinion toward healthcare-related policies.

As Coddington and Mathews note, with the controls for partisanship, this study shows that this is not just correlation between conservatives pre-disposed to one view all watching Fox News, and liberals pre-disposed to the opposite view watching MSNBC. Instead, it strongly suggests that cable news contributes to their views:

The control for partisanship is a key factor here. It indicates that the influence of Fox News is not simply a product of conservatives being more likely to oppose mitigation and also more likely to watch Fox News. It suggests, instead, that the cable channels (and network TV news) may have had an influence apart from simple partisan audience self-selection. On the flip side, neither Facebook nor government communication (e.g., press conferences by Donald Trump and other elected officials) were significantly associated with views on mitigation.

So, now the studies seem to be coming fast and furious suggesting that cable news has much more of an impact on our views than the internet. And yet, I can bet that we’re just going to keep hearing about how everything is the fault of the internet. Of course, it seems worth noting that it’s often the very same mainstream media, either cable news itself, or publications owned by the same companies who own cable news… pushing these “infodemic” stories. It’s almost as if they have a reason to attack the internet, while ignoring their own culpability.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: facebook, fox news, meta, msnbc

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Multiple New Studies Again Suggest The Internet Is Not Creating An ‘Infodemic’; Cable News, On The Other Hand…”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Verisimilidude says:

Disinformation and viewpoint supression in late medieval times

From the Wikipedia article on Richard III of England:

On 30 March 1485 Richard felt forced to summon the Lords and London City Councillors to publicly deny the rumours that he had poisoned Queen Anne and that he had planned a marriage to his niece Elizabeth, at the same time ordering the Sheriff of London to imprison anyone spreading such slanders. The same orders were issued throughout the realm, including York where the royal pronouncement recorded in the City Records dates 5 April 1485 and carries specific instructions to suppress seditious talk and remove and destroy evidently hostile placards unread.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Things will never get better simply because its fair easier to blame the tech than to blame the real problem.

More time has been spent trying to identify the sources than on why it spreads so easily.
Of course the media doesn’t want to have anyone looking very closely at them because click bait gets eyes much more than deconstructing lies as lies.

Fentynel is the biggest threat in the minds of parents right now, because the breathless reporting about how 1 grain (or 1/10th of a grain if its rainbow colored) can kill 30,000 people…
When was the last time you saw a report about how various red state legislatures are making having fentynel detecting strips a felony?
They claim they don’t want your kids to die, but a cheap test that could protect them has to be illegal!!
Otherwise people might think they are supporting addicts doing drugs.
It is more important to appear to be tough on drugs then protecting human lives.

Drugs have been a problem for a long time, but we can’t do anything different because we declared war on them. To many people are making to much money & keeping power by fighting an unwinnable war.

Reefer madness is still taken as serious ‘science’ while talk about the benefits of THC and CBD are footnotes about wacky out there ideas.

The truth is something we no longer get from our leaders or our media. It would be nice if the media started doing their job and covering the whole story & calling out the lies without worrying that truth might upset some faction who make their living from keeping the lies alive.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Internet: Open medium where you are exposed to a large number of sources and even more people who may or may not agree with a particular point and where [Citation Needed] can be applied in real time.

Cable news: Non-interactive medium where there are two sides, one to watch and one to speak, and the latter has total control over what is said and covered. Also carries with it the veneer of being ‘professional’ since if you’re on tv in front of millions of people with your job being to report the news you must have some credibility, right?

Can’t imagine why the latter might have more impact than the former when it comes to the spread of (mis)information…

ECA (profile) says:

They know HOw this works, but its changing.

Probably already covered.
TV is easy to control, and they Know how to deal with it, with adverts. really most of it is Paid for adverts, Which they USED to require as a comment at the end.

But how to Control the internet? Quora has this ‘No reply’ selection. But FEW other sites have that Choice. If you are willing to post you are willing to Roast.
And I truly believe, that if you are willing to State a fact, you should be able to Back it up, WITH unfake sites and data. At least a little.
But How to get STUPID, into the minds of people with no debate? on the internet? How many of you look for the Contact information? Location, People incharge?
Love to find Doctor this that, and Look that person up and find he ISNT a Doctor.
Use WHOIS, and Find out Who placed the site up and is responsible for it. I sent note to a admin about a site they owned, it was Shut down instantly.

To a point. Its either all of us, or a selected group that Could police the internet. The BS police. Proof patrol.
Ask a couple professionals of this and that, that could offer assistance if we need help Identifying something/someone. And it could do good things.
But we know how that goes. Corrupted, Bankrupted, taken over, bought out, or Just Quits.

Ninja (profile) says:

We are utterly unprepared to deal with media outfits that have some credibility with your average Joe and keeps spewing falsehoods. Part of this lack of preparedness steams from the people who fund these outfits and want to maintain the status quo flooding lawmakers with benefits to keep it that way and part because it’s incredibly complex to regulate such mediums without leaving room for censorship if, say, an orange asshole becomes president.

And even if we do reach some level of regulatory framework that can deal with the Fox News of the world, we’d still need to have judges that can understand it and apply correctly and without biases. I’d say it’s impossible to reach this goal.

LostInLoDOS (profile) says:

Cable is by far the largest spread of misinformation.
Hyper partisan stations like OAN and MSNBC spent, and spend, their entire broadcast time developing half truths and outright lies.

On top of that we have FNC with 3 hours (6 with repeat) of prime time ‘commentary’ and CNN with 4 hours. Also bending the facts of reality into a political narrative.

How anyone can point to the internet as a problem when 7 hours of misinformation are broadcast to over 90% of the television audience every weekday evening… ???!!!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...