A new study spearheaded by Pranav Goel, postdoctoral research associate at Northeastern University, sheds light on the disturbing occurrence of the spread of misinformation. Our study sheds light on the profound influence of misinformation on public discourse. While at the University of Maryland (UMD), a true interdisciplinary nexus, he researched how people interact with information. This new study underscores just how much information can shape public opinion, particularly on social media platforms. These findings underscore the importance of being aware of how credible reporting can be — and has been — co-opted to promote misleading narratives.
To answer these questions, the researchers took an unprecedented look at a massive dataset. This dataset contained tweeted geolocations for an estimated 1.6 million unique U.S. residents, spanning from May 2018 through November 2021. The dataset includes articles from all over the media landscape. You can read it all, from the shady fake news websites to classic, real news establishments such as the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post. Goel’s team wanted to figure out how that bad information flows online. Their team, including co-authors Jon Green, David Lazer, and Philip Resnik.
The Role of Reputable Sources in Misinformation
Pranav Goel emphasized that misinformation often exploits credible news outlets, making it more challenging for audiences to discern truth from falsehood. He noted that headlines such as “Vaccinated people now make up a majority of COVID deaths” gained traction among anti-vaccine groups on Twitter/X. These statements were then often taken out of context and recast to undermine public confidence in vaccines.
“These headlines became ammunition for people pushing anti-vaccine narratives,” – Pranav Goel
Goel’s study comes from that realization, that users propagating false narratives are usually drawn to mainstream outlets. They particularly go after these outlets when the information can be manipulated to fit their agenda. The study’s findings indicate that content originating from reputable sources is often perceived as more credible, thus complicating efforts to combat misinformation.
“Our analysis suggests that users promoting misleading narratives find mainstream sources particularly attractive—especially when those sources publish information that can be spun to support their views,” – Pranav Goel
That draw presents a powerful challenge to the type of public discourse we all need. These narratives, some intentionally so, are gaining dramatic traction. Consequently, millions of people may inadvertently consume twisted and warped representations of the information they perceive as credible.
The Impact of Social Media Dynamics
Our research sheds light on these nuanced social media dynamics and how they drive the spread of misinformation. Of course, Goel’s study found that users often share inaccurate headlines without thinking enough about them first. Then, most people don’t realize the big picture behind the assumptions behind the headlines in these stories. This under-examination compounds the harms when these narratives spread, gaining traction across an ever-growing network of podcasts, blogs, and social media.
“And because the origin of the content came from credible outlets, they were harder to dismiss,” – Pranav Goel
The study raises a larger call to action to hold ourselves and the platforms accountable. Users need to be equipped with critical media literacy skills in order to discern the chaotic array of information presented in these digital spaces. At the same time, social media platforms need to be doing a far better job of proactively recognizing and shutting down misinformation before it spreads.
A Call for Increased Awareness
The implications of Goel’s findings stretch far beyond that narrow sector’s influence on the spread of misinformation on social media. They highlight the urgent need for the public to be aware about how information is being consumed and shared in our current digital landscape. Digital hovercrafting misinformation has become both a weapon against democratic discourse and an obstacle to effective public health discourse and initiatives. It’s imperative for our nation’s future that we do so.