Oumou Ly: Welcome to The Breakdown. My name is Oumou. I am a staff fel­low on the Berkman Klein Center’s Assembly Disinformation Program. On our pro­gram today we’re talk­ing with Claire Wardle, who by way of her Berkman bio is a lead­ing expert on social media, user-generated con­tent, and ver­i­fi­ca­tion. She is the cofounder and leader of First Draft, which is the world’s fore­most non­prof­it on research and prac­tice to address mis- and dis­in­for­ma­tion. Thank you for being with us today Claire, I real­ly appre­ci­ate you join­ing us. 

Claire Wardle: It is my plea­sure. Thanks for hav­ing me.

Ly: Awesome. So our con­ver­sa­tion today real­ly cen­ters on the inter­play between dis­in­for­ma­tion and what we call the lega­cy or pro­fes­sion­al media ecosys­tem. Certainly over the past cou­ple of months since the pan­dem­ic has real­ly ramped up and in some in some ways par­al­leled and turned into an infodem­ic or sorts, we’ve seen var­i­ous points at which it appears that there is a rela­tion­ship, or even more specif­i­cal­ly a pipeline between the online infor­ma­tion ecosys­tem which seeds dis­in­for­ma­tion into the main­stream media. 

So I have a cou­ple of ques­tions for you about that. And my first one is real­ly about the path­way that false con­tent may fol­low when it starts maybe in real­ly obscure cor­ners of the Internet, maybe through fringe news sites, and then it even­tu­al­ly makes its way more main­stream. So can you talk about that process? 

Wardle: Yeah, so I think those of us who study and think about mis- and dis­in­for­ma­tion, it’s very tempt­ing to study what’s in front of us. And so there’s a dis­pro­por­tion­ate focus on Twitter, because it’s the eas­i­est to study because there’s an open API—although, caveats—and Facebook and— That’s a lot of the places that we study. And sim­i­lar­ly, that’s a lot of the places that jour­nal­ists look for con­tent and sources and stories. 

And so we end up kind of real­ly just think­ing about that as the prob­lem,” when actu­al­ly we need to think about the full ecosys­tem. And it’s not always the case, but there is cer­tain­ly exam­ples of some of these con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries, or kind of trend­ing cam­paigns, or inau­then­tic activ­i­ty being coor­di­nat­ed in spaces for exam­ple like a Discord, a guild, or it might be 4chan. It might be some of these pret­ty small spaces. And it would be nor­mal­ly easy to dis­miss them and those con­ver­sa­tions because you can see peo­ple try­ing to coor­di­nate, but you don’t nec­es­sar­i­ly think that’s going to go any­where. And in a lot of cas­es it does­n’t. But some­times you see this basi­cal­ly trad­ing up the chain which is, this term has been around a for long time, we talk about this as like the Trumpet of Amplification because you can see it then move into oth­er spaces that might be WhatsApp groups or Twitter DM groups, where the coor­di­na­tion gets a lit­tle bit more strategic. 

You then maybe say that move into com­mu­ni­ties maybe on YouTube, or even Reddit, or Gab, or places that are tech­ni­cal­ly pub­lic, but these com­mu­ni­ties often you’re not spend­ing a lot of time in, they’ve kind of grown up as par­tic­u­lar fringe-type com­mu­ni­ties that jour­nal­ists are not spend­ing time in. And from there, you see it jump into Instagram, YouTube—the YouTube that you and I spend time in, Instagram or Facebook. And it’s at that point that jour­nal­ists tend to find it. 

And the prob­lem is they don’t nec­es­sar­i­ly under­stand that this has come…that there’s a his­to­ry to this. That there’s poten­tial­ly been any kind of coor­di­na­tion. And at that lev­el, unfor­tu­nate­ly we some­times see politi­cians repeat­ing the con­spir­a­cies, or influ­encers repeat­ing the false­hoods. And then at that point, you see the media make a deci­sion that says, Ugh, we’ve now got to cov­er it, because it’s being pushed by a par­tic­u­lar influ­encer or politi­cian.” But that was part of the plan. That was the aim, which was to get the media to cov­er it. 

And you know, the oth­er com­pli­ca­tion here is some­times the media—even if a politi­cian does­n’t talk about it, there’s a sense of hang on, these rumors, con­spir­a­cies, false­hoods, fab­ri­cat­ed media…it’s got to a point where actu­al­ly we have to debunk” it. And unfor­tu­nate­ly, if news­rooms debunk in an irre­spon­si­ble way, then that itself is the end goal of these kind of bad actors,” even though that’s a ter­ri­ble phrase. The fact that news­rooms are report­ing on it, they have a mega­phone that many of these fringe com­mu­ni­ties just don’t have. So the role of the pro­fes­sion­al media in this whole ecosys­tem is crit­i­cal, as is the way we under­stand politi­cians and influ­encers. Because you can’t think about mis- and dis­in­for­ma­tion in 2020 with­out under­stand­ing their roles.

Ly: One dif­fi­cul­ty that I hear reporters and jour­nal­ists talk a lot about is this deci­sion they have to decide whether or not report it, giv­en that dif­fi­cul­ty, right. You want to pre­bunk, debunk, or just maybe even do sim­ple fact-checking, but you can’t do that with­out the risk of ream­pli­fi­ca­tion. Given the fact that most major print, broad­cast audi­ences are net­worked, how do reporters go about doing that real­ly crit­i­cal fact-checking, debunk­ing, or pre­bunk­ing work with­out risk­ing inad­ver­tent­ly rein­forc­ing those very harms they’re try­ing to mitigate?

Wardle: So, it’s a great ques­tion, because the chal­lenge that news­rooms now face is that they have dif­fer­ent plat­forms that they need to con­sid­er. So when we do train­ing with jour­nal­ists, we talk to them a lot about the work of danah boyd around data voids, which is actu­al­ly on cer­tain, for exam­ple con­spir­a­cies… If main­stream media don’t do any­thing to debunk those con­spir­a­cies, if some­body hears about that on their fam­i­ly WhatsApp group and they go to Google and they type in you know, 5G coro­n­avirus,” if there’s no debunk­ing there, then all they get on Google is the con­spir­a­cies. So when it comes to infor­ma­tion designed for Google and YouTube, news­rooms actu­al­ly need to like, be cre­at­ing this con­tent and cre­at­ing a head­line that will get picked up by search. 

However, if you’re think­ing about a tweet or Facebook post that peo­ple are stum­bling across, you have to be care­ful not to give oxy­gen to a rumor that they might not have heard about, because unfor­tu­nate­ly our brains are real­ly bad at mak­ing sense of truth and fal­si­ty. And even if some­body tells us it’s false, a week lat­er when peo­ple go back to [study it?] they’re like Oh, some­body said some­thing about…Obama being a Muslim, I can’t remem­ber now is he or not,” you know. We’re real­ly real­ly bad at mak­ing these dis­tinc­tions. And so we need to be more care­ful about ensur­ing that we don’t tell peo­ple rumors that they haven’t heard before. 

So it’s real­ly dif­fi­cult to make sense of all of these things, and there’s no hard and fast rules? But all of this is hap­pen­ing with­in an econ­o­my, where news­rooms are increas­ing­ly strug­gling. We would be naïve to not rec­og­nize that some of these head­lines, some of these these debunks, actu­al­ly get a lot of traf­fic. So, as story…I think of 2012, there’s a now very famous YouTube video of an eagle steal­ing a baby in a park. And it’s pret­ty like, Oh my good­ness!” And then it tran­spired that it was actu­al­ly a uni­ver­si­ty in Canada—they’d been giv­en an assign­ment to cre­ate a video that would fool journalists. 

And I was work­ing with a news­room at the time that ran the video, and I was like, Oh my good­ness, are you mor­ti­fied that you ran this?” 

And with­out miss­ing a beat the dig­i­tal edi­tor was like, Well no, the debunk will get twice the traf­fic.” So like, there was a recog­ni­tion that you know, we have to be wary, be aware of that when we have these discussions. 

Ly: Right, is there an under­stand­ing with­in the indus­try that this is a prob­lem and there’s a whole­sale shift of think­ing that needs to happen?

Wardle: I would argue in the last two years there have been many more dis­cus­sions in news­rooms about the role that they are play­ing in the infor­ma­tion ecosys­tem now that we have real chal­lenges with infor­ma­tion pol­lu­tion. And some of the work by Whitney Phillips or Joan Donovan has real­ly I think forced some inter­nal con­ver­sa­tions about this. And so what you see is news­rooms now say­ing, Well, is it right that we used that par­tic­u­lar key­word, because now we’ve learned that if we use the key­word, that actu­al­ly will then send peo­ple to con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries online. Maybe that’s not sensible.” 

So it is far from where we need it to be, but we’re ask­ing for a pret­ty big par­a­digm shift. You know, with­in the news indus­try there has always been this idea that more sun­light is a dis­in­fec­tant. That by hold­ing peo­ple to account,” by report­ing on prob­lems, that actually—then that will help. And the chal­lenge here is, these bad actors that we start­ed talk­ing about at the begin­ning of the inter­view that poten­tial­ly are sit­ting on 4chan or Discord or in WhatsApp groups coor­di­nat­ing, they really…that’s their whole end goal, that they will get that coverage. 

But it’s very dif­fi­cult— And in train­ings, when you show jour­nal­ists like, Listen, this is a dis­cus­sion that they are hav­ing about you as jour­nal­ists and how they can manip­u­late you into cov­er­ing them.” And it’s only then you kind of have this light­bulb moment from the jour­nal­ists who say, Well that’s not why I went into jour­nal­ism. I did not go into jour­nal­ism to help these peo­ple get more cov­er­age.” And I think when you have a dis­cus­sion about every news­room thinks very strate­gi­cal­ly about how to cov­er a press release, how to cov­er sui­cide, how to cov­er troop move­ments dur­ing a war, I think then there’s a sense of, Oh okay, this isn’t any­thing new. We just have to be aware of the unin­tend­ed con­se­quences of our cov­er­age, which pre­vi­ous­ly we did­n’t have to think about what we were cov­er­ing disinformation.”

Ly: Yeah. That real­ly seems to relate to what was going to be my next ques­tion any­way, about the struc­tur­al issues that give way to this dynam­ic. In what ways do you think that real­ly intrin­sic link between the large and lega­cy pro­fes­sion­al media orga­ni­za­tions and cor­po­rate adver­tis­ing play into the way this plays out? 

Wardle: Well, I mean we’ve seen some great jour­nal­ism over the last four years in par­tic­u­lar, kind of real­ly tak­ing to task the plat­forms and think­ing about the way that the busi­ness mod­el of the plat­forms dri­ves dis­in­for­ma­tion. But I don’t think we’ve had the same con­ver­sa­tion about how that also plays out in the news indus­try. I think again, we’re being naïve if we don’t rec­og­nize that the selec­tion of cer­tain sto­ries, the fram­ing of cer­tain sto­ries with­in the news busi­ness is designed for clicks and traf­fic and ad rev­enue. And because of that you know, I think there have been sto­ries writ­ten that have unfor­tu­nate­ly done more harm. And again, it’s very dif­fi­cult in the moment to have these con­ver­sa­tions, and I would say that over the last cou­ple of years I see much more reflec­tion from news­rooms about these unin­tend­ed con­se­quences. But again, some­times the peo­ple who are think­ing about this aren’t nec­es­sar­i­ly the peo­ple who write the head­lines, or ulti­mate­ly decide what to cov­er, so that’s the challenge.

Ly: Yeah. Okay, I want to shift gears for a sec­ond and talk about pol­i­tics. Because polit­i­cal report­ing is real­ly ripe for dis­in­for­ma­tion in a way that’s unique to it. I mean it’s one of those kind of inter­est­ing sec­tors where the mate­r­i­al harm of dis­in­for­ma­tion is pret­ty imme­di­ate­ly rec­og­niz­able because of the way so much of pol­i­tics plays out in the pub­lic sphere. And I know that cer­tain­ly over the last ten years there’s been a grow­ing con­ver­sa­tion about the relationship…maybe not the rela­tion­ship but bet­ter yet the ten­sion between bal­ance and objec­tiv­i­ty in polit­i­cal report­ing. And the goal…when you lis­ten, real­ly is to real­ly indem­ni­fy news orga­ni­za­tions of any claims of bias by either polit­i­cal par­ty. So can you talk a lit­tle bit about that debate and how you see that play­ing out maybe in the con­text of the COVID infodemic? 

Wardle: I mean the COVID sit­u­a­tion’s so inter­est­ing because we’ve all sat around and been like wow, this is health mis­in­for­ma­tion. This just goes to show that the plat­forms could be doing much more than they’ve already been doing. But already we’re see­ing how COVID is now becom­ing inter­locked with polit­i­cal con­ver­sa­tion. So for exam­ple mon­i­tor­ing the exces­sive quar­an­tine protests recent­ly, and see­ing the online con­ver­sa­tions and under­stand­ing that there are a lot of anti-vax groups push­ing that, there are lots of Second Amendment gun rights peo­ple push­ing that. It’s get very…complex when you start adding…

Ly: Very inter­est­ing. Yeah. 

Wardle: And so this idea that there’s health mis­in­for­ma­tion or there’s polit­i­cal mis­in­for­ma­tion or dis­in­for­ma­tion, these bound­aries are actu­al­ly very dif­fi­cult. But the chal­lenge of report­ing all of this is you know, as the net­worked pro­pa­gan­da book showed us last year, this is asym­met­ri­cal. And so because of that it’s very dif­fi­cult to some­times tell these sto­ries, make sense of this land­scape, for jour­nal­ists who have been absolute­ly try­ing to with­in inch of of their life to always take both sides? And in the same way, there is the truth that most news­rooms do tend to have peo­ple who sit more on the left wing. And so they’re already try­ing to counter what they per­ceive as poten­tial bi—” well, they would­n’t see it as bias, but every­body’s aware of how that might play out. So it’s a real­ly prob­lem­at­ic space for every­body, because peo­ple are try­ing to use their train­ing to do jour­nal­ism, but as I just said the chal­lenges that jour­nal­ists now face, they weren’t taught about this in jour­nal­ism school. They weren’t taught about how do you cov­er dis­in­for­ma­tion? Because jour­nal­ism is about cov­er­ing the truth, it’s not about cov­er­ing the falsehoods.

So now, there’s this sit­u­a­tion that jour­nal­ists find them­selves in that’s real­ly hard. And of course the trust ques­tion of how do you report on these spaces, know­ing that it’s impor­tant that cer­tain com­mu­ni­ties receive qual­i­ty infor­ma­tion, yet know­ing that those com­mu­ni­ties are much less like­ly to trust the pro­fes­sion­al media? I think the fear I see is I see an increas­ing­ly polar­ized coun­try polit­i­cal­ly, but also when we look at con­sump­tion of pro­fes­sion­al media, I see half the coun­try going nowhere near the pro­fes­sion­al media. And those peo­ple are actu­al­ly more like­ly to be recip­i­ents of mis­in­for­ma­tion. It’s a real prob­lem. And I don’t see an easy way out of this.

Ly: Thank you so much for join­ing us today Claire. I real­ly appre­ci­ate it. We had a great conversation.

Wardle: Thank you very much.

Further Reference

Medium post for this episode, with intro­duc­tion and edit­ed text

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.