Understanding 'Truth'

The nature of 'truth' in 2021

Here, we start to chip away at the idea of truth and how finding it in today's world demands highly developed critical thinking tools. Whilst the intention is to provide sources to prompt inquiry from students and enable them to identify bias and misinformation to form a balanced, informed opinion in 2021, this does mean that the tone of this page might appear bias against post-truth theory and the very term 'fake news'. Hopefully this is an understandable slant!

Truth, Post truth and Fake News

The tone this page takes is one that recognises the difficulties that students face discerning quality information in the face of such an unfiltered quantity available; misinformation is a tangible obstacle that students must understand to be able to get past.

There are many reasons why the words Truth, Post-truth and Fake News will continously pop up in PPS lessons. No less reason than we are asking students to build their research skills which ultimately comes down to being active, autonomous and discerning consumers of information. It is also a recognition of a global context; the truth is (and we need to be careful how we use that word given the ideas and activities that follow) that we live in a world where the truth is not necessarily easy to discern due in no small part to an overwhelming onslaught of available media. And then there is the real and perceived manipulation of media, often fashionably brandished with the words 'fake news'. How do we navigate this?

Some initial definitions from The Cambridge English Dictionary

misinformation: wrong information, or the fact that people are misinformed
disinformation: false information spread in order to deceive people.
fake news: false stories that appear to be news, spread on the internet or using other media, usually created to influence political views or as a joke.
post-truth: relating to a situation in which people are more likely to accept an argument based on their emotions and beliefs, rather than one based on facts
bias: the action of supporting or opposing a particular person or thing in an unfair way, because of allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment.
propaganda: information, ideas, opinions, or images, often only giving one part of an argument, that are broadcast, published, or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions

... and from the Urban Dictionary: www.urbandictionary.com

(indicative of how language is changing to represent the current context, the word 'malinformation' is not yet in the Cambridge Dictionary but a definition is availbale in the Urban Dictionary. It is explored in the UNESCO video below)

Malinformation: Malinformation is fake information to make a scheme sound more believable. Often in the form of testimonials backing up Pyramid-like schemes. These scams tend to target people who suffer from chronic misinformedness.

Starting with misinformation ...

Setting the tone

UNESCO - United Nations Educational,  Scientific and Cultural Organisation - have worked expansively on the impact disinformation and technology has had on quality journalism. Using the handle #fightfakenews, they ironically actively discourage the use of the word 'fake news' as an oxymoron (there's a lesson just by itself!) and replace it with more specific words such as misinformation, disinformation and malinformation (see definitions above).

The following video comes from a Facebook live stream by UNESCO and is a fascinating discussion about the landscape of 'Fake news'. It's lengthy so break it up - the first half is particularly useful to establishing the context in question.

Truth goes hand in hand with trust.
As a research activity, look into The Trust Project as a case study and the 8 Trust Indicators which you will find below the video here. Why do you think these questions are asked in particular? What does it tell us about the field of journalism nowadays?
As a class discuss the ethical implications and ideas that come from the questions below about Best Practices. (These are the first of 8 Trust Indicators set by the The Trust project)

Indicator 1: Best Practices
Who funds the site? What is its mission?
What standards and ethics guide the process of gathering news?
What happens if a journalist has ties to the topic covered?

Using the source 'The 8 Trust Indicators', discuss the remaining indicators as a pair/group/class. Then find a news site that takes part in the Trust Project and explore how they fulfil the 8 Trust Indicators.

Source: The 8 Trust Indicators from https://thetrustproject.org/#indicators

'We asked people what they look for in trusted media – and from their answers, we created ‘Trust Indicators’ for the press to build into news sites.'

Best Practices

  • Who funds the site? What is its mission?
  • What standards and ethics guide the process of gathering news?
  • What happens if a journalist has ties to the topic covered?  

Journalist Expertise

  • Who made this?
  • Are there details about the journalist, including contact information, areas of knowledge and other stories they’ve worked on?  

Type of Work

  • What is this?
  • Do you see story labels with clear definitions to distinguish opinion, analysis and advertiser (or sponsored) content from news reports?

Citations and References

  • What is the source?
  • Does the site tell you where it got its information?
  • For investigative, controversial or in-depth stories, are you given access to the original materials behind the facts and assertions? 

Methods

  • Why was it a priority?
  • For investigations, in-depth or controversial stories, why did they pursue the topic? 
  • How did they go about the process?

Locally Sourced

  • Do they know the community?
  • Was the reporting done on the scene?
  • Is there evidence of deep knowledge about the local situation or community?

Diverse Voices

  • What are the newsroom’s efforts and commitments to bring in diverse perspectives across social and demographic differences?
  • Are some communities or perspectives included only in stereotypical ways, or even completely missing?

Actionable Feedback

  • What does the site do to engage your help in setting coverage priorities, asking good questions and finding the answers, holding powerful people and institutions accountable and ensuring accuracy?
  • Can you provide feedback that might provoke, alter or expand a story?
How to spot online misinformation
The following activity is based upon an article www.theconversation.com/10-ways-to-spot-online-misinformation-132246. It encourages students to look at the news from a different perspective from the activities so far and take an independent stance on their research outcomes.

Discuss the following ten questions to ask of a news article or story to check for possible misinformation. 
Reflect: Why might these questions hint at misinformation?
10 ways to spot misinformation

1. Did a post spark anger, disgust or fear?
2. Did it make you feel good?
3. Is it hard to believe?
4. Did it confirm what you already thought?
5. Am it heard to reed?
6. Was the post a meme?
7. What's the source?
8. Who said it?
9. Is there a hidden agenda?
10. Have you checked the facts?

More structured questions

Ideas and questions to help you explore each question:
1. Did a post spark anger, disgust or fear?
If something causes intense feelings of outrage, is it intentionally trying to bypass your critical thinking skills?
2. Did it make you feel good?
Why might a news source which is well positioned to produce malicious content, also distribute feel good pieces too?
3. Is it hard to believe?
Might 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'?
4. Did it confirm what you already thought?
Are we more motivated to read content that aligns with our existing beliefs than consider other perspectives?
5. Am it heard to reed?
'If it is hard to read and not spell-checked, there is a chance it is not fact-checked either'. Discuss.
6. Was the post a meme?
Are all memes benign?
7. What's the source?
What methodology might you use or have you used to check the source of the article?
8. Who said it?
'Just because somebody definitely said something, it does not mean that sentence is the truth'. Discuss
9.  Is there a hidden agenda?
Why was the source written? Could there be more than one apparent reason?
10. Have you checked the facts?
How easy or difficult would it be to fact check every source you want to share, before you share it? What might be the effect of sharing a source without fact checking first?
 

Teacher notes: The questions are summarised from an article on www.theconversation.com/10-ways-to-spot-online-misinformation-132246.

Full article from www.theconversation.com/10-ways-to-spot-online-misinformation-132246

Propagandists are already working to sow disinformation and social discord in the run-up to the November elections.

Many of their efforts have focused on social media, where people’s limited attention spans push them to share items before even reading them – in part because people react emotionally, not logically, to information they come across. That’s especially true when the topic confirms what a person already believes.

It’s tempting to blame bots and trolls for these problems. But really it’s our own fault for sharing so widely. Research has confirmed that lies spread faster than truth – mainly because lies are not bound to the same rules as truth.

As a psychological scientist who studies propaganda, here is what I tell my friends, students and colleagues about what to watch out for. That way, they can protect themselves – and each other – from lies, half-truths and misleading spins on current events.

1. Did a post spark anger, disgust or fear?

If something you see online causes intense feelings – especially if that emotion is outrage – that should be a red flag not to share it, at least not right away. Chances are it was intended to short-circuit your critical thinking by playing on your emotions. Don’t fall for it.

Instead, take a breath.

The story will still be there after you verify it. If it turns out to be real, and you still want to share it, you may also want to consider the fire you may be contributing to. Do you need to fan the flames?

During these unprecedented times we have to be careful about not contributing to emotional contagions. Ultimately, you are not in charge of alerting the public to breaking news, and you’re not in any race to share things before other people do.

2. Did it make you feel good?

A new tactic being adopted by misinformation warriors is to post feel-good stories that people will want to share. Those pieces may be true or may have as much truth as urban legends. But if lots of people share those posts, it lends legitimacy and credibility to the fake source accounts that originally post the items. Then those accounts are well positioned to share more malicious messages when they judge the time is right.

These same agents use other feel-good ploys as well, including attempts to play on your vanity or inflated self-image. You’ve probably seen posts saying “Only 1% of people are brave enough to share this” or “take this test to see if you are a genius.” Those aren’t benign clickbait – they’re often helping a fraudulent source get shares, build an audience, or in the case of those “personality quizzes” or “intelligence tests” they are trying to get access to your social media profile.

If you encounter a piece like this, if you can’t avoid clicking then just enjoy the good feeling it gives you and move on. Share your own stories rather than those of others.

3. Is it hard to believe?

What you read may make some extraordinary claim – like the pope endorsing a U.S. presidential candidate when he has never endorsed a candidate before. Astronomer and author Carl Sagan advocated for the response you should have to such claims: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” which is a longstanding philosophical premise. Consider whether the claim you’re seeing was supported by any evidence at all – and then check that the quality of that evidence out.

Also, remember that a quirk of human psychology means that people only need to hear something three times before the brain starts to think it’s true – even if it’s false.

4. Did it confirm what you already thought?

If you’re reading something that matches so well with what you had already thought, you might be inclined to say “Yep, that’s true” and share it widely.

Meanwhile, differing perspectives get ignored.

We are strongly motivated to confirm what we already believe and avoid unpleasant feelings associated with challenges to our beliefs – especially strongly held beliefs.

It is important to identify and acknowledge your biases, and take care to be extra critical of articles you agree with. Try seeking to prove them false rather than looking for confirmation they’re true. Be on the lookout because the algorithms are still set up to show you things they think you will like. Don’t be easy prey. Check out other perspectives.

5. Am it heard too reed?

Posts that are riddled with spelling and grammatical errors are prime suspects for inaccuracies. If the person who wrote it couldn’t be bothered to spell-check it, they likely didn’t fact-check it either. In fact, they may be using those errors to get your attention.

Similarly, a post using multiple fonts could unintentionally reveal that it had material added to the original – or be trying to deliberately catch your eye. (Yes, the errors in the heading for this tip were intentional.)

6. Was the post a meme?

Memes are usually one or more images or short videos, often with text overlaid, that quickly convey a single idea.

While we may all enjoy a good laugh with a new “Ermahgerd” meme, memes – particularly those sowing political discord – have actually been identified as one of the emerging mediums for propaganda. In recent years, the practice of using memes to incite divisiveness has rapidly escalated, and extremist groups are using them with increasing effectiveness.

For example, white supremacist groups have commandeered the “Pepe the frog” meme, a cartoonish image that may attract younger audiences.

Their origins as benign, humorous images about grumpy cats, cats who want cheeseburgers or calls to “keep calm and carry on” have led our brains to classify memes as enjoyable or, at worse, harmless. Our guards are down. Plus their short nature further subverts critical thinking. Stay alert.

7. What’s the source?

Was the post from an unreliable media outlet? The Media Bias/Fact Check website is one place to look to find out whether a particular news source has a partisan bias. You can also assess the source yourself. Use research-based criteria to judge the quality and balance of the evidence presented. For instance, if an article expresses an opinion, it may present facts slanted in a way favorable to that opinion, rather than fairly presenting all the evidence and drawing a conclusion.

If you find that you’re looking at a suspect site, but the specific article seems accurate, my strong suggestion is to find another credible source for the same information, and share that link instead. When you share something, social media and search-engine algorithms count your sharing as a vote for the overall site’s credibility. So don’t help misinformation sites take advantage of your reputation as a cautious and careful sharer of reliable information.

8. Who said it?

It may be surprising, but politicians and other public figures don’t always tell the truth. It may be accurate that a particular person said a particular sentence, but that doesn’t mean the sentence is correct. You can double-check the alleged fact, of course, but you can also see how truthful particular people are.

If you’re hearing information from a friend, of course, there’s no website. You’ll have to rely on old-fashioned critical thinking to evaluate what she says. Is she credible? Does she even have sources? If so, how reliable are those sources? If evaluating the message is too much work, maybe just stick with the “like” button and skip the “share.”

9. Is there a hidden agenda?

If you find something that seems compelling and true, check out what nonpartisan sources say on the subject. For a view of media outlets’ perspectives, take a look at the Media Bias Chart.

Finding no mention of the topic in nonpartisan media may suggest the statement or anecdote is just a talking point for one side or the other. At minimum, ask yourself why the source chose to write or share that piece. Was it an effort to report and explain things as they were happening, or an attempt to influence your thinking or actions – or your vote?

10. Have you checked the facts?

There are a lot of reputable fact-checking organizations, like Snopes and FactCheck. There is even a dedicated meme-checking site. It doesn’t take long to click over to one of those sites and take a look.

But it can take a very long time to undo the harm of sharing misinformation, which can reduce people’s ability to trust evidence and their fellow humans.

To protect yourself – and those in your social and professional networks – be vigilant. Don’t share anything unless you’re sure it’s true. Misinformation warriors are trying to divide American society. Don’t help them. Share wisely.

UNIT PLAN: Exploring a Theory


Aim: To explore a definition of post-truth and reflect on the potential impact it might have on critical thinking tools and personal understanding of world events.

The final outcome of this lesson/topic (it can be a series of lessons quite easily) is to hold an ethical debate about the nature of post-truth theory in our understanding of the world. However, in the preparation of this, there is also an opportunity to practise critical reading skills with close reading of academic articles, discussion of content, validity of argument and the creation of informed opinions. Given below and in the worksheet, are examples of sources which will add something to the student's understanding of truth and post-truth. Clearly, other sources can be used. The sources are intentionally quite tricky in parts not merely as a way of getting students used to academic jargon; it is also an exercise for students to reflect explicitly on what they did and did not understand in this problem-solving exercise and how they kept moving forward to reach a group understanding.

In his article, 'Truth, Lies and Tweets: A Consensus Theory of Post-Truth',  Vittorio Bufacchi takes the definition of Post-Truth further than the Oxford English Dictionary (and, indeed, the Cambridge English Dictionary's definition given above in the introduction and just below here) which incorporates an intentional undermining of theoretical frameworks to deligitimize scientific truth. He also goes on to justify his steps.  

What do you think of the difference between the Cambridge English Dictionary's definition of Post-truth and Bufacchi's extended definition? What is the most important point Bufacchi makes in his explanation of why he did this?
Cambridge English Dictionary

post-truth: relating to a situation in which people are more likely to accept an argument based on their emotions and beliefs, rather than one based on facts

Vittorio Bufacchi

'Post-truth is a deliberate strategy aimed at creating an environment where objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion, where theoretical frameworks are undermined in order to make it impossible for someone to make sense of a certain event, phenomenon, or experience, and where scientific truth is delegitimized.

Compared to what we read in the OED, this definition has two advantages. First, it includes a dimension of epistemic injustice, whereby Post-Truth is used with the intent of subverting one’s relationship with the truth. Secondly, Post-Truth is at the forefront of a novel legitimization crisis, to the extent that Post-Truth delegitimizes science’s claims on truth. On the basis of this definition, we can now address the issue of why Post-Truth is such a big issue today, its origin and what to do about it[1].

Research, Analysis and Discussion
Motion: We all have a moral responsibility to hold beliefs that are true or likely to be true
Preparation

In groups, students scrutinise one source before moving to the next one. Choose one of the systems listed here to fact check and validate each source before considering its content.
1. 8 Trust Indicators from www.trustproject.org
2. 10 ways to spot online misinformation
3. R.A.V.E.N system: picture included here.


 

Source 1: Vittorio Bufacchi, Truth, Lies and Tweets: A Consensus Theory of Post-Truth'

What does this source tell you about the origins of thought behind '
We all have a moral responsibility to hold beliefs that are true or likely to be true'?

'... Media outlets are not the only culpable parties in the explosion of Post-Truth: consumers of information also have a moral responsibility. Maria Paola Ferretti (2018) has recently drawn our attention to a tradition in the history of Western political thought, originating in the work of John Locke, according to which citizens in a liberal society have a duty to do their best to hold beliefs that are true or very likely to be true. This duty has sometimes been called the ‘alethic obligation’, from the Greek term for truth, Aletheia (α'λήθ∊ια). Ferretti argues that if we accept our alethic obligation, then our responsibilities as believers increase, rather than diminish. This is in stark contrast to the prophets of Post-Truth, who want to release us from our alethic obligations'.

Source 2: Dr Chris Henry, The Politics of (Post) Truth: Theories of Truth in Contemporary Philosophy, University of Kent at Canterbury, accessed 30/12/2020

If something is true, no matter how controversial, should it lead to action?

'Generally speaking the truth claims form the weight of political argumentation, and theories of truth are often used to ground claims in a certain sense of 'reality'; when thinking either politics or the political, truth claims tread a thin line between a reductively dogmatic world-view and qualified political claims that ground their authority in a theory of their truthful relationship in the world.

However, this 'consequentialist' justification for truth as a legitimisation for (often coercive) political claims - 'because it is true that immigration leads to social unrest, and it is true that social unrest is undesirable, we must develop a policy to reduce immigration' - is challenged by both critical and liberal theorists alike. For liberal universalist, who deny the ability to make consequentialist truth claims, institutions of the state must take a neutral stance ... for example, the French ban of the traditional Muslim headscarf (foulard) is not a 'neutral' decision but is grounded upon a republican conceptualisation of the public sphere from which obvious distinction is intolerable'. 

Source 3: Tom Buchanan, 'How to reduce the spread of Fake News - by doing nothing', 18/12/2020 University of Westminster, https://theconversation.com/how-to-reduce-the-spread-of-fake-news-by-doing-nothing-152097
What do you think might be the effect of ignoring 'fake news'?
Can you explore some of the examples given in more detail?

'When we come across false information on social media, it is only natural to feel the need to call it out or argue with it. But my research suggests this might do more harm than good. It might seem counterintuitive, but the best way to react to fake news – and reduce its impact – may be to do nothing at all.

False information on social media is a big problem. A UK parliament committee said online misinformation was a threat to “the very fabric of our democracy”. It can exploit and exacerbate divisions in society. There are many examples of it leading to social unrest and inciting violence, for example in Myanmar and the United States.

It has often been used to try to influence political processes. One recent report found evidence of organised social media manipulation campaigns in 48 different countries. The UK is one of those countries, as demonstrated by news reports about a local branch of the Conservatives which urged activists to campaign by “weaponising fake news”.

Social media users also regularly encounter harmful misinformation about vaccines and virus outbreaks. This is particularly important with the roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines because the spread of false information online may discourage people from getting vaccinated – making it a life or death matter.

With all these very serious consequences in mind, it can be very tempting to comment on false information when it’s posted online – pointing out that it is untrue, or that we disagree with it. Why would that be a bad thing?'

 
Teacher support material

There has been a number of suggestions in the activities above of different ways that students can fact check what they are reading. You have various options here for them to explore the validity of these sources before they start shaping their ideas. You can use the 8 Trust Indicators or checklist of 10 Ways to spot Online Misinformation. Or you may already have introduced students to the R.A.V.E.N system of critically checking sources included on the reflective project skills pages here: Research skills and Critical Thinking are just two places which use this/ 

In the sources themselves, key words are highlighted which might prompt questions from either you or your students might raise concerns themselves. It should be noted that these sources have been chosen specifically because they are theoretically trustworthy but the message to students is that rigour must be applied to all sources no matter how trustworthy they seem. No one is infallible and fact checking needs to become as instinctive as clicking like and sharing! For example, an interesting article used in Source 3 uses a wide range of sources, but students might feel that they can explore and check those examples a bit further such as the mention of Myanmar and the United States. And if they do fact check then where might they go to to do this. The Media Bias Chart is updated continously and is an interesting image for students and teachers alike to consider.

Footnotes

  1. ^ Bufacchi V, Truth, Lies and Tweets: A Consensus Theory of Post-Truth, 14/01/2020, https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719896382

Quick Ideas, plenaries and reflections

Conspiracies and Misinformation

Two short videos here explore misinformation spread in 2020 and who is behind it. Video 1 is by BBC Monitoring's Olga Robinson and Video 2, Specialist disinformation reporter Marianna Spring explains who exactly the stakeholders and gameplayers are in viral misinformation.
                          
Fake News 2020: Being detective

Having explored the idea of truth, post-truth and misinformation so far, students might like to play detective and trace the way certain misinformation grew and spread this year in 2020. Below are some stories deemed, queried or proven to be 'fake news' (trying to be impartial!): take one, two ... all and explore the story.

How did it grow? What truth is built on? What was the impact? The BBC videos below helps frame the issues.


'Dolphins in Venice'                                     '5G causes Covid 19'                                                'Trained Triceratops'      
              
'Veganism stops you catching Covid 19'                  'Stop the Steal'                             'Ethiopia Conflict in November 2020'

Who starts viral misinformation?
All materials on this website are for the exclusive use of teachers and students at subscribing schools for the period of their subscription. Any unauthorised copying or posting of materials on other websites is an infringement of our copyright and could result in your account being blocked and legal action being taken against you.