Thread by @rasmus_kleis

To understand and address problems of misinformation, we need to understand not only content itself, but also how it reaches people, how they see it, and who they as a consequence think should do something about it.

Key points from my #TTOCon presentation, more in thread 1/7

The move to distributed discovery is demonstrably expanding people’s news diets… 2/7

See fx @dragz and I here on

(1) incidental exposure journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117…

and (2) automated serendipity tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…

… but people often don’t recognize brands, have low levels of trust in news overall, and especially news in search and social … 3/7

See fx @antoniskalog et al here on correct brand attribution in distributed environments journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117…

… and in many countries we see high levels of concern over what is real and what is fake in the news… 4/7

See fx @dragz here with analysis of our @risj_oxford survey data on misinformation in 37 markets (2018 data) digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2018/mi…

… concerns that are fanned by politicized use of the term “f*ke news” and wide attention to it and draw on deep-seated and much broader concerns… 5/7

See fx @gravesmatter and I on audience perspectives on "f*ke news" here reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/n…

… that lead many to see publishers as responsible for main forms of what they see as misinformation. 6/7

See again @dragz, w/analysis of (2018) survey responses to Q of who should do more to make it easier to separate what is real and fake on internet digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2018/mi…

So if you talk about "f*ke news"+say you will fight it, many think you mean poor journalism and/or hyperpartisan opinion, & as a consequence hold news media & politicians responsible. So be specific about problems you want to address-when you describe them,& when you address them