It would be great to see more news outlets sign up to the #CoveringClimateNow initiative which “aims to convene and inform a conversation among journalists about how all news outlets […] can do justice to the defining story of our time.”
“We see #CoveringClimateNow as a fulfillment of journalism’s most sacred responsibilities, which are to inform people and foster constructive debate about common challenges and opportunities. Arguably, no problem in today’s world is more challenging”
Still, too many outlets treat the climate crisis like just another story. While it will be pivotal to avoid oversaturation so as not to dash hope and motivation to act, the topic should be given top priority. Otherwise, how can we hope that change will happen?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1️⃣ People perceived news labeled as AI-generated as less trustworthy, even though they did not evaluated these articles as less accurate/more biased.
2️⃣ Those who already trust news a lot & know more about how journalism works are more affected by the AI labels.
3️⃣ People who don't trust news much or aren't very knowledgeable about journalism don't seem to change their trustworthiness perception much, even with AI labels.
4️⃣ Where sources are provided alongside the text, AI-labels do not seem to reduce trust in the content
Knowing the Guardian (and looking at the size of the investigation with many news organisations involved) we will likely get more information in the coming days.
But whenever a company claims "We can flip" elections, I get immediately skeptical.
Reminds me of this piece I wrote in the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica scandal which looked at the rhetoric of these companies and the US political consultancies @CasMudde mentions: Lots of grand claims, very little evidence of big effects.
Disinformation is now firmly entrenched in various academic disciplines & well-funded by various actors. Journalists continue to display a keen interest not least given a multitude of crises which regularly bring the topic back into focus.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. Disinformation studies—the loose assortment of researchers, activists, journalists, & policymakers devoted to the study of the creation, distribution & reception of misleading information—has had positive & negative effects.
⁉️Does the ‘Infodemic’ make much sense? Did we really live through one?
📝In our new paper for New Media & Society, @evoluchico and I take these ideas to court.
💥 Our answers: No & No
In early 2020, the term ‘infodemic’ was suddenly everywhere after a WHO situation report stated the following…
Two weeks later, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said “We are not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an infodemic. Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus, and is just as dangerous”.
A flurry of papers, reports & news articles followed.
I see Cambridge Analytica is trending again because of this Channel 4 documentary exposing the Trump campaign’s attempted deterrence of Black voters in 2016.
Unpopular opinion: This documentary has some big structural flaws.
Had they bothered to ask, @davekarpf would have told them that this is “just” negative advertising (which is still despicable), but not structural voter suppression (eg closing polling stations, etc.). More in this short thread here:
What makes this such a great piece of scholarship is not only the great effort behind it (rivalling some investigative journalism) but that it allows us to see RT through the eyes of those who work(ed) for it & puts an emphasis on the internal, organizational dynamics.
🔑-bits:
- RT is seen as an instrument of state policy to meddle in other country’s politics
- RT is a ‘counterpunch to the West’s anti-Russian narratives and political positions’
- RT shaped by the practices of Soviet media controls of old