A Case Study
I’ve long ruminated over the topic of misinformation, and given a recent conversation with an acquaintance I felt the need to share some insights. I was discussing nefarious centralized social media platforms and the danger of having walled gardens where users are constantly fed (mis)information in their own echo chamber. That is because the algorithms are designed that way on X, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, or any other centralized social media platform. X is particularly problematic since it is controlled by an oligarch who boosts his own posts, prevents users from blocking accounts entirely, and makes it impossible for a user to control the type of information they get. Misinformation is rampant on the platform because the safety team was gutted by Elon in the name of cost savings 🙄.
In contrast, my comparison was Bluesky which runs on an open source decentralized protocol where the algorithm is in your hands and they are growing their moderation team. This led to an outburst by said acquaintance , “All you fucking wokers need a place to go talk amongst yourselves”. Strangely, this had nothing to do with the focus of the conversation. Not looking to engage in name calling, I simply brought him back to the focus on the conversation: misinformation.
He then started mentioning the WHO and how Biden is handing over sovereignty to them. I asked him for his source which he begrudgingly provided (media literacy and fact checking step).
The first link was to the WHO Pandemic prevention, preparedness and response accord where a specific FAQ disproves his assertion.
How much authority could an accord have over signatory countries? Will it take sovereignty away from signatory countries?
“None. The outcome document developed by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) and presented to the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly reaffirms “the principle of the sovereignty of States in addressing public health matters.”
Article 24, paragraph 2, of the draft agreement goes onto say that “Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the WHO Secretariat, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the national and/or domestic laws, as appropriate, or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures or implement lockdowns.”
A guiding principle of the draft agreement is the “full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.”
As with all international instruments, any new accord, if and when agreed by Member States, would be determined by governments themselves, who would take any action while considering their own national laws and regulations.
Member States will decide the terms of the accord, including whether any of its provisions will be legally binding on Member States as a matter of international law.
It is expected that such an accord would aim to help prevent future disease outbreaks from impinging on people’s freedom to travel, work, seek education and, above all, lead a healthy life free of avoidable disease, as called for by another global accord, the WHO Constitution.”
- WHO
I mentioned this to which he said it was in the zero draft that an article from the Epoch Times titled Biden Admin Negotiates Deal to Give WHO Authority Over US Pandemic Policies linked to.
Proven False
The article linked above has been proven false as mentioned below
I did a search on Snopes and found an entire rebuttal even referencing said article claiming it to be entirely false. I let him know and he never responded back. The silence spoke volumes.
This conversation led to this article and my suggestions on how to combat misinformation using readily available tools online. No matter what your ideals or beliefs are, you should always fact check highly consequential topics of a factual nature. There is no need to fact check opinions because they are just that…opinions.
Where We Are At
With the rise of social media, online platforms have given individuals a voice like never before, but this has also led to an unprecedented spread of false information. According to a study by Poynter Institute, 70% of adults in the United States believe that fake news has caused confusion about basic facts, and 64% say it’s a major problem for democracy.
The consequences of this phenomenon are far-reaching, causing confusion, conflict, and even premature death. Falsehoods about evidence-based treatments, birth control, vaccines, and other forms of medical care have been particularly damaging. Moreover, the spread of misinformation has also had a significant impact on democracy, with false information being used to manipulate public opinion and influence elections.
Understanding How People Spread Misinformation
Research has shown that people are more likely to spread misinformation when they feel emotionally invested in the information. This can be due to various factors such as confirmation bias, groupthink, or even financial gain. According to Psychology Today, people tend to seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs and ignore contradictory evidence.
The Role of Social Media in Spreading Misinformation
Traditional centralized social media platforms (Facebook, X, Instagram) have become a breeding ground for misinformation. With the ability to share information quickly and widely, social media has enabled the spread of false news at an unprecedented scale. The majority of online adults use social media to get their news. However, this also means that misinformation can spread rapidly through these platforms. Furthermore, those who use social media to get most of their news are less knowledgeable and engaged which further exacerbates the growing problem.
Despite the growing threat to global health and democracy, social media companies have backtracked on promises to police misinformation on their platforms. X, formerly Twitter, has especially been problematic. This has left users, especially young people who frequently encounter antiscience views online, vulnerable to being deceived. When they try to verify information, they often land on more inaccuracies.
The Need for a Multifaceted Approach
The spread of misinformation is a complex issue that requires a multifaceted approach. By understanding the psychology behind misinformation, the role of social media in spreading it, and the consequences of misinformation, we can take steps to protect ourselves from its effects. Key strategies to fight back against misinformation include:
- Critical thinking: Encourage individuals to question sources, evaluate evidence, and consider multiple perspectives.
- Media literacy: Educate people about the differences between news articles, opinion pieces, and advertisements.
- Fact-checking: Use reputable fact-checking websites to verify information.
Bias and Credibility Checkers
AllSides
AllSides is a media literacy platform designed to help users understand political and media bias by presenting perspectives from across the political spectrum. It offers tools and resources to promote balanced news consumption, including its Media Bias Ratings, which classify outlets as left, center, or right based on content analysis, independent research, and community feedback.
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC)
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) is an independent online resource established in 2015 to evaluate media bias and deceptive news practices. Using a standardized methodology, MBFC provides analyses of source biases and occasional fact checks. It is funded through donations and third-party advertising, aiming to remain free from external influence.
I personally prefer MBFC because there is greater detail and transparency in their reporting of bias and credibility. They are also independently funded by their users. However, they aren’t without critics. A 2018 article from the Poynter Institute referred to these ratings as a “quick-fix solution for misinformation,” cautioning that they might oversimplify the complex and multifaceted nature of unreliable information online. That being said, the tool is frequently utilized by respected news outlets to evaluate media bias. Research on news credibility ratings has found consistency among services like MBFC, suggesting they are useful for gauging news quality, even if they cannot fully capture the complexity of the issue.
Fact Checkers
Two well known institutions in the United States track and verify fact checking organizations: International Fact-Checking Network and Duke Reporters’ Lab. Shockingly, there are only 170 fact-checker signatories according to the IFCN and 446 from Duke Reporters’s Lab. Fact-checking seems to have taken a back seat as the number of fact-checkers has plateaued even in a world where there is rampant and increasing amounts of misinformation. IFCN has a lot more information about their signatories and how and why they made the list. Their level of transparency is much preferred over Duke’s. Of those, I picked four of the most well known and respected fact checkers which you can check out here.
Snopes
Founded in 1994, Snopes.com is a fact-checking and investigative reporting platform that initially focused on urban legends and folklore. Over time, it has expanded to address misinformation in various forms. Known for documenting its sources, Snopes allows readers to verify claims independently and is recognized as one of the oldest and most comprehensive fact-checking sites online.
PolitiFact
PolitiFact is a fact-checking organization that emphasizes principles such as independence, transparency, fairness, thorough reporting, and clear writing. It aims to provide information that enables citizens to participate more effectively in democratic governance.
FactCheck.org
FactCheck.org is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that reviews the accuracy of statements made by prominent political figures in the United States. By analyzing claims made in TV ads, debates, speeches, and other forums, it seeks to reduce misinformation and enhance public understanding through a blend of journalistic and academic methods.
AP News
Associated Press (AP) fact-checkers are part of the AP’s effort to ensure accuracy and combat misinformation in news reporting. As a global news agency with a reputation for impartiality, AP’s fact-checking initiative focuses on verifying claims circulating in the public sphere, including those made by public figures, viral social media posts, and widely shared content.
Back to the Case Study
Let’s dig into the article from The Epoch Times. First, I wanted to better understand the media outlet and the quality of their reporting. To do this I went MBFC and did a search for The Epoch Times.
Low Credibility
“Overall, we rate The Epoch Times Right Biased and Questionable based on the publication of pseudoscience and the promotion of propaganda and conspiracy theories, as well as numerous failed fact checks.”
The Epoch Times - Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check
According to MBFC, Epoch Times is a right leaning publication. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing so long as articles are factually accurate. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case as MBFC rates them as a questionable source that promotes content for profit or influence. What’s worse is their former CFO was charged with money laundering. According to MBFC, “On June 4, 2024, the Department of Justice charged Weidong “Bill” Guan, the CFO of The Epoch Times, with laundering over $67 million through illicit methods and misrepresenting the funds as legitimate revenue from sources like subscriptions and donations.” No doubt this is a questionable source led by bad actors.
Next step was to fact check the source which I did simply by going to each of the four sites above and doing a search for the article title. First, I checked Snopes and low and behold the claim in The Epoch Times article is false.
The Truth
“This claim stemmed from talks in 2022 among WHO’s member states, which include the U.S., around amending existing International Health Regulations. As of this writing, while there was no official version of what the WHO was calling a “pandemic preparedness accord,” the Biden administration had released its own ideas, and they did not include a plan to give the nation’s sovereignty to the WHO, or offer ways for the WHO to gain new authority to implement lockdowns.
Is Biden Preparing To Give Sovereignty of US to WHO? | Snopes.com
What about the Associated Press? Same thing: totally false. They even call out the article in question.
The Truth
“Members of the World Health Organization are in the process of developing a new agreement to prevent, prepare for and respond to pandemics. A preliminary draft presented in February reaffirms nations’ sovereign right to make their own health policies during global pandemics, contrary to false claims online.”
WHO ‘pandemic treaty’ draft doesn’t sign over US sovereignty | AP News
FactCheck.org comes to the same conclusion.
The Truth
“The voluntary treaty, which is in draft form and is still far away from ratification, does not overrule any nation’s ability to pass individual pandemic-related policies, multiple experts, including one involved in the draft process, told The Associated Press. The treaty lays out broad recommendations related to international cooperation on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Nowhere in the 30-page document are lockdowns, closures or specific citizen surveillance systems mentioned.”
WHO ‘Pandemic Treaty’ Draft Reaffirms Nations’ Sovereignty to Dictate Health Policy - FactCheck.org
Last, but not least, Politifact says it is downright false. They also call out the article.
The Truth
“WHO pandemic accord doesn’t replace U.S. sovereignty…The draft doesn’t enable WHO to dictate pandemic responses to the U.S. or any country…Language in the draft says states have the sovereign right to manage their own public health responses.
PolitiFact | WHO pandemic accord doesn’t replace U.S. sovereignty
I wasn’t expecting all four fact checkers to cover this topic. Clearly, this was a widespread falsehood that needed to be covered in depth. Not all claims will be fact checked by all four. You only need to find it covered by one to confirm or deny said claim given the credibility of these four fact checkers.
Conclusion
It is more important than ever in our digital age to fact check trending topics that can be a source of misinformation. The steps I took to disprove the article are as follows:
- Check for media bias and publication authority and trustworthiness.
- Search for the article on each of four fact checking websites. Just one is all you need.
- If you found information on the topic, read the claim and fact-checking analysis to better understand the topic.
- Celebrate! You just did yourself a huge favor and can share the correct information with others.
Be Careful
If you did not find information on the topic, you shouldn’t immediately assume it is completely true. Typically, fact-checking websites cover topics that hit critical mass. You might have found information that is barely covered. If you aren’t sure then seek out the truth. Don’t accept everything at face value.
My hope is that my research will provide a blueprint to those who are searching for the truth in a sea of misinformation. The truth is still out there, you just have to dig for it.
Just some thoughts.
When possible, all supporting articles or references I linked to were fact checked and credibility verified. Below is the data from MBFC
| Source | Bias | Reporting Accuracy | Credibility Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Verge | Left-Center | High | High |
| Forbes | Least Biased | Mostly Factual | High |
| MediaPost | Least Biased | High | High |
| Poynter Institute | Least Biased | High | High |
| Psychology Today | Pro-Science | High | High |
| Pew Research | Least Biased | Very High | High |
| FreePress.net | Left-Center | High | High |
| Nature | Pro-Science | Very High | High |