Study: Too Many People Think Satirical News Is Real

Editors’ note: The following article is from the academic-research site The Conversation.

In July, the website Snopes published a piece fact-checking a story posted on The Babylon Bee, a popular satirical news site with a conservative bent.

Conservative columnist David French criticized Snopes for debunking what was, in his view, “obvious satire. Obvious.” A few days later, Fox News ran a segment featuring The Bee’s incredulous CEO.

But does everyone recognize satire as readily as French seems to?

Our team of communication researchers has spent years studying misinformation, satire and social media. Over the last several months, we’ve surveyed Americans’ beliefs about dozens of high-profile political issues. We identified news stories – both true and false – that were being shared widely on social media.



We discovered that many of the false stories weren’t the kind that were trying to intentionally deceive their readers; they actually came from satirical sites, and many people seemed to believe them.

Fool me once
People have long mistaken satire for real news.

On his popular satirical news show “The Colbert Report,” comedian Stephen Colbert assumed the character of a conservative cable news pundit. However, researchers found that conservatives regularly misinterpreted Colbert’s performance to be a sincere expression of his political beliefs.

The Onion, a popular satirical news website, is misunderstood so often that there’s a large online community dedicated to ridiculing those who have been fooled.

But now more than ever, Americans are worried about their ability to distinguish between what’s true and what isn’t and think made-up news is a significant problem facing the country.

Sometimes satire is easy to spot, like when The Babylon Bee reported that President Donald Trump had appointed Joe Biden to head up the Transportation Security Administration based on “Biden’s skill getting inappropriately close to people and making unwanted physical advances.” But other headlines are more difficult to assess.

For example, the claim that John Bolton described an attack on two Saudi oil tankers as “an attack on all Americans” might sound plausible until you’re told that the story appeared in The Onion.



The truth is, understanding online political satire isn’t easy. Many satirical websites mimic the tone and appearance of news sites. You have to be familiar with the political issue being satirized. You have to understand what normal political rhetoric looks like, and you have to recognize exaggeration. Otherwise, it’s pretty easy to mistake a satirical message for a literal one.

Do you know it when you see it?
Our study on misinformation and social media lasted six months. Every two weeks, we identified 10 of the most shared fake political stories on social media, which included satirical stories. Others were fake news reports meant to deliberately mislead readers.

We then asked a representative group of over 800 Americans to tell us if they believed claims based on those trending stories. By the end of the study, we had measured respondents’ beliefs about 120 widely shared falsehoods.

Satirical articles like those found on The Babylon Bee frequently showed up in our survey. In fact, stories published by The Bee were among the most shared factually inaccurate content in almost every survey we conducted. On one survey, The Babylon Bee had articles relating to five different falsehoods.

For each claim, we asked people to tell us whether it was true or false and how confident they were in their belief. Then we computed the proportion of Democrats and of Republicans who described these statements as “definitely true.”

If we zero in on The Babylon Bee, a few patterns stand out.





Members of both parties failed to recognize that The Babylon Bee is satire, but Republicans were considerably more likely to do so. Of the 23 falsehoods that came from The Bee, eight were confidently believed by at least 15% of Republican respondents. One of the most widely believed falsehoods was based on a series of made-up quotes attributed to Rep. Ilhan Omar. A satirical article that suggested that Sen. Bernie Sanders had criticized the billionaire who paid off Morehouse College graduates’ student debt was another falsehood that Republicans fell for.

Our surveys also featured nine falsehoods that emerged from The Onion. Here, Democrats were more often fooled, though they weren’t quite as credulous. Nonetheless, almost 1 in 8 Democrats was certain that White House counselor Kellyanne Conway had questioned the value of the rule of law.



It’s no surprise that, depending on the headline, satire might be more likely to deceive members of one political party over another. Individuals’ political worldviews consistently color their perceptions of facts. Still, Americans’ inability to agree on what is true and what is false is a problem for democracy.

Flagging satire
The larger question, though, is what we should do about this problem.

In other recent work, we compared the effectiveness of different ways of flagging inaccurate social media content.

We tested a couple of different methods. One involved including a warning that fact-checkers had determined the inaccuracy of a post. Another had a message indicating that the content was from a satirical site.



We found that labeling an article as “satire” was uniquely effective. Users were less likely to believe stories labeled as satire, were less likely to share them and saw the source as less credible. They also valued the warning.

Facebook tested this feature itself a few years ago, and Google News has started to label some satirical content.


The New Yorker’s Borowitz Report – a satirical column written by Andy Borowitz – is labeled ‘satire’ when it appears in Google News searches.


This suggests that clearly labeling satirical content as satire can help social media users navigate a complex and sometimes confusing news environment.

Despite French’s criticism of Snopes for fact-checking The Babylon Bee, he ends his essay by noting that “Snopes can serve a useful purpose. And there’s a space for it to remind readers that satire is satire.”

On this point, we couldn’t agree more.



—————————————————————————————————————-

R. Kelly Garrett, Professor of Communication, The Ohio State University; Robert Bond, Associate Professor of Communication, The Ohio State University, and Shannon Poulsen, PhD Student in Communication, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read here for more information about why Snopes fact-checks satire.
Current ratio on their tweet:
Screenshot (165).png
 
Probably the propensity to fall for purposely fake news comes down to raw intelligence (for better and for worse, moderates are the stupidest, the conservatives then liberals), along with the human instinct for confirmation bias.
Wait you think people are going "Donald Trump is a Russian sleeper agent, the white house is red, we have an enemy of the state as our chief of state" or "all liberals want to take our guns, murder toddlers, indoctrinate our children to be communists, and turn the frogs gay" and then "but I don't really think one party is worth voting for, they both have their pros and cons."?
 
If people actually started to think critically and to examine evidence, the whole transideology clownshow would stop dead. When people like Liam Madigan and Jonathan Yaniv claim to be women, the public could just shut that shit down by telling them to get a grip. But, no, we've moved to an era where feelings and identities are more important than biology.
 
Wait you think people are going "Donald Trump is a Russian sleeper agent, the white house is red, we have an enemy of the state as our chief of state" or "all liberals want to take our guns, murder toddlers, indoctrinate our children to be communists, and turn the frogs gay" and then "but I don't really think one party is worth voting for, they both have their pros and cons."?
That is my political opinion. Here, allow me to explain.
Point 1: Republicans are stupid extremists who have been REEEEE-ing since 1980.
Point 2: Democrats are stupid extremists who have gotten even dumber past 2016, exponentially so.
Point 3: There are no other parties with enough power to do anything.

Ergo:
1: American politics is fucked
2: A single person's vote is meaningless. Unless you're wealthy, you cannot influence any more than a few people
3: I am not wealthy enough to influence the nation
4: It does not matter what I do, so I might as well insult both sides.
 
Realistically, it probably takes more intelligence, training, and writing skill to consistently write for The Onion than it does to make non-fiction stories about tweets in the "real media."
 
The Babylon Bee responds



Readers of The Bee,

Snopes is at it again. We had hoped that a demand letter from our attorneys would prompt changes. And it seemed to. Snopes did go back and edit their defamatory fact-check, revising some of the language that suggested we were deliberately misleading people. However, they've subsequently published a new rating for satire called "Labeled Satire." Their explanation of this rating says the label "satire" is often misapplied to content that doesn't really qualify as satire — and Snopes has made it clear that they feel our content falls into that category. From their view, we're just pretenders, using the label "satire" to our advantage so we can hoodwink the masses. It's really extraordinary, especially since they've acknowledged in private communication with us that there is a "clear distinction" between our satire and intentionally misleading fake news. For some reason, they refuse to acknowledge the clear distinction in their published articles.

On top of all this, they're now promoting a survey that suggests satire is causing too much confusion, posing "a problem for democracy." The research conducted for this survey appears to be shoddy at best. But that didn't stop Snopes from using it to advance the narrative that our content is deceptive and problematic.

We'll close with the same call to action we offered before: If you value The Babylon Bee and want to see us prevail against Snopes and anyone else who might seek to discredit or deplatform us, please consider becoming a subscriber. Your support really will make a difference. It already has made a difference. Subscription revenue covered our legal fees last month, which exceeded $4,000. For that, we're sincerely grateful.
 
I don't remember anyone taking the Onion seriously before the advent of smartphones (circa 2007, twelve short years ago). So are smart phones making people stupid or are there merely way more stupid people with smartphones? Hard to tell.
I think it's more that the outrage media can sell people on the fear of alternative thought now that smartphones made it ubiquitously accessible.

Used to be such a selling point that average people would be allowed a voice. Until that actually happened, now it's the worst evil ever.
 
I think it's more that the outrage media can sell people on the fear of alternative thought now that smartphones made it ubiquitously accessible.

Used to be such a selling point that average people would be allowed a voice. Until that actually happened, now it's the worst evil ever.
Right, the whole "bridging digital gap" nonsense. Pretty sure the Democrats regret making it an issue since it figuratively bit them in the ass.
 

Yeah, and he will flip it for profit too according to my most trusted news source! #MakeAmericaRichAgain!

#makeanamericangreatagain

FTFY
 
Probably the propensity to fall for purposely fake news comes down to raw intelligence (for better and for worse, moderates are the stupidest, the conservatives then liberals), along with the human instinct for confirmation bias.

I'm not sure I agree with... any of that.

Really disinterested moderates tend to be stupid shits who fall for anything, but extremists are the ones who go out and make conspiracy theories about everything.

And liberals have a tendency to believe pretty much anything that comes from a TV anchor's mouth.
 
I don't remember anyone taking the Onion seriously before the advent of smartphones (circa 2007, twelve short years ago). So are smart phones making people stupid or are there merely way more stupid people with smartphones? Hard to tell.
tbh I don't trust this study all that much, it seems more that the level of stupid people remains unchanged, but the real change is that Snopes has gone from a place that debunked funny urban legends to a partisan activist group seething that the Babylon Bee started making fun of their favorite horsefaced socialist, and, even worse, was gaining popularity in doing so.
 
There was a show here in Britain called Brass Eye that used to trick celebrities and politicians into saying really dumb stuff, Here is a clip from the episode that got them cancelled called Paedogeddon
 
If this were a study done over a decade or so ago (hell, even just half a decade ago), I'd be calling those people idiots for believing those articles.

These days, I can't say I blame them. Real life has gotten so batshit insane that satire might as well not be a thing any more when it comes to the news.
 
Real life has gotten so batshit insane that satire might as well not be a thing any more when it comes to the news.

Example:
Screenshot_Chrome_20190821-033329-642x819.png

 

Concerning Survey Finds Too Many People Believe Snopes Is A Legitimate Fact-Checking Website

article-4696-1.jpg


U.S.—A troubling new survey released by The Babylon Bee confirmed Wednesday that too many people think Snopes is a real fact-checking website.

The survey found that over 60% of people believe Snopes is a real website, while only 25% understand that it's satire. The remaining minority thinks that Snopes is the name of a gangsta rapper from California, "one of those guys who makes the hip-hop about the devil's lettuce and shooting people."

In the study, we went to a Walmart and grabbed random people by the arm and started shouting at them: "HEY, DO YOU THINK SNOPES IS REAL!?" The ones who didn't run away screaming or call for security responded, and of those few dozen people, we got our results. Most said, "Sure, yeah, whatever, please just leave me alone and don't hurt me!" while others said they thought it was satire site. A few people said, "Snopes Dogg? I loved his album, Straight Outta Compton."

Despite the fact-checks on Snopes.com clearly being "labelled fact-checks," many people were taken in by the site's ruse. Snopes has managed to fool many readers with its brand of fact-checking in the past. We're not sure if muddying the details of actual investigative journalism qualifies Snopes as a real "fact-checker."

"This is clearly a threat to democracy," said the head researcher we specifically paid to say "this is clearly a threat to democracy." "Maybe people who read Snopes just aren't as informed or educated as people who simply watch Jeopardy! to get their information or call their Aunt Carla and ask her what the latest gossip is."

Well, whatever the case, one thing is clear: democracy can't long survive if people keep believing Snopes is a real fact-checking site.

(Note: you do not need to criticize the methods for this survey, as we have a pie chart, which makes it 100% legitimate).

Seriously. On fire.
 
Última edición:
Atrás
Top Abajo