Analysis: Misinformation has created an alternative world for some Americans
There’s a tendency in this heated political climate to simply reject people who are saying false things and to write off conspiracy theorists writ large.
But as the US approaches the third straight election in which misinformation — and the fight against it — is expected to play a role, it’s important to understand what’s driving people who don’t believe in US elections.
…
I talked to O’Sullivan about the documentary, in which he has some frank and disarming talks with people about what has shaken their belief in the US. But he paints an alarming picture about the rise of fringe movements in the country.
Our conversation, conducted by phone and edited for length, is below:
WOLF: What were you trying to accomplish with this project?
O’SULLIVAN: So much of mainstream American politics now is being infected and affected by what is happening on what was once considered the real fringes — fringe platforms, fringe personalities.
And I think really what we want to do in this show is illustrate how these personalities may be pushing falsehoods, but they’re no longer fringe. This is all happening right now. And it is having a big effect on our democracy.
…
Misinformation has been around before the written word and while many are pointing the finger at the Internet for making it worse, I am not convinced it has. I mean all bought trickle down economics before the Internet for example.
Trickle down economics, as a theory, has been around well over 100 years, and it's never been believed in by everybody. Hell, a presidential candidate gave a speech against the idea in 1896
You're correct about misinformation having been around forever, but access to and ease to create misinformation is greater than ever before thanks to the Internet.
the internet also lets propagandists and propaganda consumers find each other in speed, volume, and frequency, in a way that unprecedented.
and the sad fact that is many many many people spend most of their waking hours consuming internet content these days. at least, anyone under 40. The only people I know who watch TV or read papers are all over 50. Hell, just finding anyone under 40 who reads a magazine or some other long-format type of information is incredibly rare. Why read The Economist when you can just subscribe to their tiktok feed?
People read magazines and newspapers before the Internet and before that it was town criers and word of mouth that spread misinformation. I really sense that misinformation has really not changed…just how it is consumed has.
I think the major difference is now everyone can get their tailor made brand of misinformation based on their own biases.
For example Cambridge Analytica had about 200 personality profiles that they used for targeted disinformation during the 2016 political campaign. So before people spreading misinformation had one or two stories to try and convince everyone. Now they know just about everything about you and can bombard you with misinformation until they find something that sticks.
It was the same in the past though too. Some audiences would be targeted by this newspaper or that one, others radio, some snuck into their favourite TV drama. Nothing new here just a new medium. We can only change ourselves through education as we are susceptible to misinformation and until that changes, we are are the mercy of whatever medium of the day reaches us.
I wonder, how were town criers paid?
Is a good question. I asked ChatGPT and it said “ Town criers were often paid by the local government or the community they served. Their compensation varied depending on the time period and location. In some cases, town criers received a regular salary, while in others, they might be paid per message delivered. Additionally, they sometimes received extra benefits, such as clothing or housing, as part of their compensation. The job of a town crier was considered important for public communication, especially before the widespread availability of printed media, so communities ensured they were reasonably compensated to keep the information flowing.” Seems like a reasonable answer that other sources seem to corroborate.
Probably paid by the wealthy class and I am sure they would stay on message if they wanted to keep their job.
Right, paid by the local government which was probably some kind of aristocracy.
I wonder if individual business owners could pay for messages like ads in the newspaper. “Buy bread at Baker Joe’s!”
Also I wonder if they were literate at times when most people weren’t. So the message could be written down so they don’t forget it. I’d guess if you were literate you’d have more lucrative job opportunities. So that might make this kind of a decent job?
I've been alive both before and after the internet and it's DRASTICALLY worse now.
I too have be alive before and after the Internet and it just seems like misinformation just moved mediums. Not like newspapers and magazines were not spreading misinformation before. I feel the more we point the finger a the Internet as the cause the more we are not recognizing it has always been with us back to town criers and word of mouth into the deep past. It is always been here and is not going anywhere. How we deal with it is what changes.
Of course the Internet has made it worse. It did so initially by giving a platform to hucksters, fascists and frauds that let them find like minded people that otherwise would not have convalesced around them.
Social media optimized this process, and now algorithms design entire custom made echo chambers that reinforce and amplify the outrageous because it profitable to do so, as rage and violence keep people on the platform, churning though ads.
Youre right that capitalism, the unending profit motive that must increase is the true source of the damage, but the internet has been a powerful engine in its conquest of truth for profit.
I really cannot agree as misinformation was prevalent in newspapers and magazines before the Internet and before that you better believe the town crier was spreading the word of those in power too, many of the same people you described. Echo chambers in person versus online are still just echo chambers.
The difference is the town crier could only speak to everyone near enough to hear. Now he can speak to anyone around the world with an Internet connection. And there are millions of town criers.
There is no evidence that it is worse than past communication mediums unless you have a link to a paper that shows this. The real point I am making is that misinformation has been something humans have been susceptible to since before recorded time regardless of the medium. Many are focusing on the Internet as the issue, but the focus should be on us…the people as misinformation is nothing new. Time we really address it, starting with education.
You have forgotten the feedback and psychological magnification of technology. Written word was just put out there. Focus groups became more prominent with TV ads. The internet provided a whole new set of tools like algorithms and data analysis to study and more effectively sway people's thinking. Putin has developed a whole new type of hybrid warfare using cyber technology.
There really is no evidence that the current mediums of misinformation are any worse than previous mediums. It has been an issue for a long time and while I agree that algorithms and such can amply, previous mediums has their amplifiers too, but we never really acknowledged. There is however lots of evidence that humans are susceptible to misinformation so while we cannot control misinformation, we can better educate on how to manage better.
Nope. The media just wanted you to think that. They constantly showed archconservative politicians peddling the nonsense and never showed anybody questioning it. Then the internet came along and most people said "of course it doesn't work very well lol". And suddenly everybody realized that most people never believed it.
All? Hardly. They called it 'voodoo economics' back in the 80s for a reason.