Ian Kindall
Gerald Scott
CST 373 Ethics in Comm & Tech
May 17, 2017
Fake News, Real Problems
In the age of mass communication, it is easy take what is seen online for granted. Information is so readily available that it is sometimes hard to remember that everything posted online was written by somebody else. This makes it easy to forget that there is no guarantee that the information is true. Fake news is not a new concept. Though the phrase itself is relatively new, the ideas and issues surrounding the spread of misinformation have been around for centuries. Despite how old the issue is, the reason that it has become so prevalent as of late is because of how much faster misinformation can spread and how much more of it is being produced on a daily bases. Fake news is not in and of itself an ethical issue. Not many would argue that deliberately deceiving people could be seen as moral. The issues come in how best to handle the spread of misinformation. In many cases the proposed solutions house their own slue of ethical concerns that need to be addressed before a true solution can be reached.
Before getting too far into the ethical dilemma, it is important to look back on the history surrounding the issue. As stated above, the term fake news is relatively new, having only gained widespread use in the last couple of years. Despite this, misinformation is not a new concept. Propaganda can be seen as the predecessor to fake news, with documentation of its use in government going as far back as the Roman Empire. Propaganda was used extensively during times of war, by governments around the world, as a means of strengthening the people's support for their war efforts. In essence it was a means for the government to tell its people what they should and should not know about. Propaganda was therefore a form of government censorship. Only images supporting the government's ideals would be displayed, making it an effective tool for controlling civil opinion on controversial matters. Propaganda’s flaw was that it relied on the average citizen being uninformed on what was actually happening around the world. With the advent of mass communication, propaganda began to lose its effect. This is where fake news differs from propaganda. Unlike propaganda, fake news relies upon the speed at which information travels and uses it to garner more support.
Fake news is a form of business. Its only real purpose is to earn the writer money. Though some might think that earning money off of fake news would not be viable, it is actually rather simple. Fake news earns money the same way most other websites and news networks do, through advertising revenue. Though not always the case, most advertisers pay the website hosting their ads a bit of money every time the advertisement is displayed. This means that all a website needs to do, in order to make money off of advertisements, is to get as many people to visit their site as possible. Fake news is one such way people attract users to their websites. Fake news stories are written deliberately to catch the reader's attention and get them to visit the author's webpage. Every time someone does this, the author makes money.
Though many absurd stories crop up because of how easy it is to make money off of fake news, by far the most profitable stories come in the form of fake political news. This is likely because politics are such a polarizing topic for people, especially here in the United States. People with strong political allegiances to a political party are more likely to endorse positive news they hear about their own party, while at the same time believing anything negative they hear about the opposing party. This dynamic makes fake political news easier to spread, and therefore easier to make money off of than any other form of fake news.
On the topic of how fake news spread, this is largely due to how social networking sites target their posts. Hashtags work by finding other posts with similar hashtags and pooling them together. Originally hashtags were meant to help people find other users with similar interests, and help promote discussion. Hashtags are incredibly useful in this regard; it also means that when an article containing a false or biased message gets posted it will immediately gets linked to people who are already inclined to believe it. Those readers can then post or comment about what they just read and the story reaches even more people. This is in general how stories go viral and how miss information garners so much momentum. The worst part is that once a story goes viral it is almost impossible to curb it entirely. An example of such a story is talked about in detail in a New York Times article titled How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study. The article tells of a man named Eric Tucker and how he started a story about anti-Trump protests being fake and bussed in from elsewhere. In the article, Tucker mentions how he took a photograph of what he believed was a line of busses that had brought the fake protesters, and how he then posted the image along with a comment saying “Anti-Trump [protesters] in Austin today are not as organic as they seem. Here are the busses they came in” (qtd. in Maheshwari). Despite Tucker’s small twitter following, and several articles as well as other sources debunking the rumor, the story went viral. Eventually Tucker himself removed his original post and apologised, having found out the actual reason for the busses and learning that he was mistaken about the fake protesters. Despite this, the rumor continued to circulate and grow. This goes to show how dangerous political bias is, and how easy it is to have a story get out of control. Anyone who bothered to fact check knew the story was untrue, but the people passing along the fake news did not care to do their research. They only wanted a story that supported what they believed.
This brings up the question, what can be done to stop spread fake news. The answer to this is far more complicated than it might seem. The two most reliable means of combating fake news are the stricter regulation on what websites can have advertisements and having social networking sites, which are generally responsible for the spread of fake news, increase their efforts to have fake news stories removed from their websites. Though both of these solutions would prove effective in combating fake news in theory, there are a number of problems that would crop up in trying to implement them as well as a host of new ethical concerns that would need to be addressed.
To start off with, removing advertisements from websites that have a history of posting fake news stories. The removal of advertisements from these websites would do two things. Firstly, it would remove incentive for websites to allow content to be posted that could be interpreted as fake news. This would increase the scrutiny websites place on content uploaded to their site. Secondly, the removal of ads from these websites would also remove the source of income for fake news writers. This would remove the writer’s incentive to create fake news articles. As stated prior, fake news is a business and without advertisements there would be no money to be made. In the end though, removing advertisements from such websites is not plausibly doable.
In order for removing advertisements from fake news websites to be a possible solution, every business out there would need to be on board with the idea. If only a handful of advertisers decided to remove their ads from fake news sites it would only open up space for other advertisers to place their ads. Since it is highly unlikely that all advertising agencies would willingly agree to such a proposal, government intervention would be the only means of enforcing such a decision. Unfortunately, this would goes against the idea of laissez-faire as it would mean the government would be directly telling businesses that they would no longer be allowed to market their business to potential clients. This would become a major ethical and political issue as creating a new political policy forcing businesses to stop marketing on these websites would be unlikely to pass. The other issues with this system is it would likely affect other forms of business that rely on advertisements to make money. Hypothetically, if such a law were to be passed, content creators on youtube, twitch and other sites that rely primarily on ads to make money would likely also suffer greatly from these restrictions. Advertisers would most likely be unwilling to take the risk as to have their ads show up on sites that could potentially be used to post fake news. Though some content creators with large followings might still be able to make money off of donation and subscriptions, it would likely not be financially viable for new producers to get started, essentially killing off the industry. Much like the removal of ads from fake news sites, the next countermeasure for combating fake news sounds good in theory but has many issues surrounding its execution.
Social media is by in far the fastest way for fake news to spread. Many believe that it is therefore the responsibility of these companies to do something about the issue. For the most part these social networking sites have agreed and are doing their best to help combat the issue. A forerunner in this particular field is Facebook which has released several statements in multiple articles about how it intends to help resolve the problem. Some of the ways Facebook has purposed include: strengthening their fake news detection, making it easier for users to report any fake news they come across, implementing a third party verification system, displaying warnings about the authenticity of posts that have been reported by multiple users, and displaying the quality of articles related to the one being read. Most of these systems have not yet been implemented, but it is Facebook’s hope that when they are it will help reduce the spread of fake news. So far however, their efforts have produced little success, and in some cases helped to spread fake news articles.
In a recent article posted in a United Kingdom news website, The Guardian, it was shown that Facebook’s new fact-checking system actually had the opposite of its intended effect. After Facebook flagged a fake news story for being false, the number of people viewing the story increased dramatically. According to the author of the original post, this was caused by “[a] bunch of conservative groups [who] grabbed [at] this and said, ‘Hey, they are trying to silence this blog – share, share share’” (qtd. in Levin). In short, people saw Facebook’s attempt to flag the story as them trying to censor the content. This brings up the underlying issue with combating fake news. Should fake news be censored? Though most would agree that being deceived by fake news is a negative, the alternative is to allow a president for companies, and possible the government, to take down any blog, post, or comment that they disagree with by claiming that it contains fake news.
In my opinion, though Facebook has the best of intentions in regards to its new policies, I feel that opening the door to potential censorship of other people’s perspective. There is one other course of action that can be taken to combat fake news, but unfortunately it is the least effective as it only alleviates the problem on an individual basis without offering any means of solving the issue as a whole. This method is fact checking. Fact checking is the simplest means of verifying what stories are true and which ones are false. Since the one doing the research is personally looking up the information, they are bound to become more informed on the topics and be better informed when reading future articles. As far as reliability goes, fact checking information for oneself is the most reliable way to determine the truthfulness of a story. If the article has a bizarre headline, google search it. Most likely the top results will be articles debunking the story. If the article lacks sources or the sources are fake it means their is no evidence backing up the alleged news and it is most likely fake. If the author of an article is not accredited, take what they write littlely, as it may not be true. Fact checking is easy and helps make the reader more well informed about what is really going on, instead of relying solely on what pops up on their social media accounts.
Though I personally think that fact checking is the best means of countering the spread of fake news, it is not without its flaws. Though there are not any ethical concerns regarding fact checking, the biggest issue with it is that it only helps resolve the problem if everyone is doing it. Fact checking can only react to the spread of fake news and does nothing to combat the source of the issue. As shown in the example with Facebook flagging a post as false, it is difficult to fact check for strangers. They have their own opinions and biases on the matter. If they are not fact check the information for themselves then they are just taking the word of the fact checker against the word of the fake news author. Since the fact checker is attempting to debunk an article the reader most likely already believes, they are at a disadvantage. The fake news most likely supports what the reader already believes or what they want to believe.
In conclusion, most of the ethical concerns surrounding fake news revolve around how it can be stopped, and not whether or not fake news is wrong. Fake news is not protected under free speech as it is shown to have the potential to incite violence as shown in the story about Comet Ping Pong Pizzeria. A fake news story about a pizza restaurant housing a child pornography ring in its basement, and how a man decided to privately investigate by bringing a gun to the pizzeria. Most would agree that purposefully spreading misinformation is wrong. It has no value and is potentially harmful to those who buy into it. Fake news is only an ethical issue because the concerns with how it can be stopped. The removal of advertisements would go against the system of free market, social networks have the potential to censor anything they wish without regard to actual facts, and fact checking can only react to the problem without fixing its cause. Fake news is still around because there is no implementable and viably ethical solution. Though I have brought up its flaws, I feel the best that can be done to combat the spread of misinformation is to fact check for oneself and insure one's peers are also well informed. Though a stranger might ignore facts as opinions, those close by will hopefully have an open enough mind to at least check for themselves what stories are true. Only through mutual trust and a willingness to seek the truth will fake news ever truly be a thing of the past. To quote a meme, “Don’t believe everything you read on the internet just because there’s a picture with a quote next to it. - Abraham Lincoln” (qtd. in WeKnowMemes).
Fake News: Bibliography:
Bilton, Nick. "Fake News Is About to Get Even Scarier than You Ever Dreamed." The Hive. Vanity Fair, 26 Jan. 2017. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
Broxson, Brandi. "How to Fact-Check the Internet." Real Simple. Real Simple, 20 Jan. 2016. Web. 16 May 2017.
Carson, James. "What Is Fake News? Its Origins and How It Grew in 2016." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 08 Feb. 2017. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
Cnbc. "Germany Could Start Fining Social Media Giants $53 Million for Not Tackling Fake News, Hate Crime." CNBC. CNBC, 06 Apr. 2017. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.
"Don't Believe Everything You Read On The Internet..." WeKnowMemes. WeKnowMemes, 20 July 2012. Web. 16 May 2017.
FactCheck.org. "Video: Spotting Fake News." FactCheck.org. FactCheck.org, 08 Dec. 2016. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.
Filucci, Sierra. "How to Spot Fake News (and Teach Kids to Be Media Savvy)." Common Sense Media. Common Sense Media, 20 Mar. 2017. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.
Hiscott, Rebecca. "The Beginner's Guide to the Hashtag." Mashable. Mashable, 08 Oct. 2013. Web. 16 May 2017.
"How Is 'Fake News' Defined, and When Will It Be Added to the Dictionary?" Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 16 May 2017.
Hoyt, Alia. "How Propaganda Works." HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks, 24 Sept. 2008. Web. 16 May 2017.
Hunt, Elle. "What Is Fake News? How to Spot It and What You Can Do to Stop It." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 17 Dec. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
Kiely, Eugene, and Lori Robertson. "How to Spot Fake News." FactCheck.org. The Wire, 19 Dec. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
Levin, Sam. "Facebook Promised to Tackle Fake News. But the Evidence Shows It's Not Working." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 16 May 2017. Web. 16 May 2017.
Lohana, Pooja. "6 Ways to Make Money With Advertising on Your Blog and the Websites To Help You." Jeffbullas's Blog. Jeffbullas's Blog, 22 Apr. 2017. Web. 16 May 2017.
Fake News: Bibliography Continued:
Maheshwari, Sapna. "How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study." The New York Times. The New York Times, 20 Nov. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
Ohlheiser, Abby. "Analysis | This Is How Facebook’s Fake-news Writers Make Money." The Washington Post. WP Company, 18 Nov. 2016. Web. 16 May 2017.
Pierson, David, and Melissa Etehad. "Facebook Is Working to Stop Fake News by Tapping Human Fact-checkers." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 15 Dec. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
Pogue, David. "What Facebook Is Doing to Combat Fake News." Scientific American. Scientific American, 12 Jan. 2017. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
Politifact, and Internet Rumors Bloggers. "Clinton Foundation Has No Ships, Didn't Smuggle Refugees." @politifact. N.p., 12 May 2017. Web. 13 May 2017.
Price, Rob. "Facebook Will Now Teach You How to Spot Fake News." Business Insider. Business Insider, 12 Apr. 2017. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.
Price, Rob. "This Is What Google's New Fact Check Feature in Its Search Results Looks like." Business Insider. Business Insider, 07 Apr. 2017. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.
Slotkin, Jason. "'Pizzagate' Gunman Pleads Guilty To Charges." NPR. NPR, 24 Mar. 2017. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
Wingfield, Nick, Mike Isaac, and Katie Benner. "Google and Facebook Take Aim at Fake News Sites." The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 Nov. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
Zuckerberg, Mark. “A lot of you have asked what we're doing about misinformation..." Facebook. N.p., 18 Nov. 2016. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.
Gerald Scott
CST 373 Ethics in Comm & Tech
May 17, 2017
Fake News, Real Problems
In the age of mass communication, it is easy take what is seen online for granted. Information is so readily available that it is sometimes hard to remember that everything posted online was written by somebody else. This makes it easy to forget that there is no guarantee that the information is true. Fake news is not a new concept. Though the phrase itself is relatively new, the ideas and issues surrounding the spread of misinformation have been around for centuries. Despite how old the issue is, the reason that it has become so prevalent as of late is because of how much faster misinformation can spread and how much more of it is being produced on a daily bases. Fake news is not in and of itself an ethical issue. Not many would argue that deliberately deceiving people could be seen as moral. The issues come in how best to handle the spread of misinformation. In many cases the proposed solutions house their own slue of ethical concerns that need to be addressed before a true solution can be reached.
Before getting too far into the ethical dilemma, it is important to look back on the history surrounding the issue. As stated above, the term fake news is relatively new, having only gained widespread use in the last couple of years. Despite this, misinformation is not a new concept. Propaganda can be seen as the predecessor to fake news, with documentation of its use in government going as far back as the Roman Empire. Propaganda was used extensively during times of war, by governments around the world, as a means of strengthening the people's support for their war efforts. In essence it was a means for the government to tell its people what they should and should not know about. Propaganda was therefore a form of government censorship. Only images supporting the government's ideals would be displayed, making it an effective tool for controlling civil opinion on controversial matters. Propaganda’s flaw was that it relied on the average citizen being uninformed on what was actually happening around the world. With the advent of mass communication, propaganda began to lose its effect. This is where fake news differs from propaganda. Unlike propaganda, fake news relies upon the speed at which information travels and uses it to garner more support.
Fake news is a form of business. Its only real purpose is to earn the writer money. Though some might think that earning money off of fake news would not be viable, it is actually rather simple. Fake news earns money the same way most other websites and news networks do, through advertising revenue. Though not always the case, most advertisers pay the website hosting their ads a bit of money every time the advertisement is displayed. This means that all a website needs to do, in order to make money off of advertisements, is to get as many people to visit their site as possible. Fake news is one such way people attract users to their websites. Fake news stories are written deliberately to catch the reader's attention and get them to visit the author's webpage. Every time someone does this, the author makes money.
Though many absurd stories crop up because of how easy it is to make money off of fake news, by far the most profitable stories come in the form of fake political news. This is likely because politics are such a polarizing topic for people, especially here in the United States. People with strong political allegiances to a political party are more likely to endorse positive news they hear about their own party, while at the same time believing anything negative they hear about the opposing party. This dynamic makes fake political news easier to spread, and therefore easier to make money off of than any other form of fake news.
On the topic of how fake news spread, this is largely due to how social networking sites target their posts. Hashtags work by finding other posts with similar hashtags and pooling them together. Originally hashtags were meant to help people find other users with similar interests, and help promote discussion. Hashtags are incredibly useful in this regard; it also means that when an article containing a false or biased message gets posted it will immediately gets linked to people who are already inclined to believe it. Those readers can then post or comment about what they just read and the story reaches even more people. This is in general how stories go viral and how miss information garners so much momentum. The worst part is that once a story goes viral it is almost impossible to curb it entirely. An example of such a story is talked about in detail in a New York Times article titled How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study. The article tells of a man named Eric Tucker and how he started a story about anti-Trump protests being fake and bussed in from elsewhere. In the article, Tucker mentions how he took a photograph of what he believed was a line of busses that had brought the fake protesters, and how he then posted the image along with a comment saying “Anti-Trump [protesters] in Austin today are not as organic as they seem. Here are the busses they came in” (qtd. in Maheshwari). Despite Tucker’s small twitter following, and several articles as well as other sources debunking the rumor, the story went viral. Eventually Tucker himself removed his original post and apologised, having found out the actual reason for the busses and learning that he was mistaken about the fake protesters. Despite this, the rumor continued to circulate and grow. This goes to show how dangerous political bias is, and how easy it is to have a story get out of control. Anyone who bothered to fact check knew the story was untrue, but the people passing along the fake news did not care to do their research. They only wanted a story that supported what they believed.
This brings up the question, what can be done to stop spread fake news. The answer to this is far more complicated than it might seem. The two most reliable means of combating fake news are the stricter regulation on what websites can have advertisements and having social networking sites, which are generally responsible for the spread of fake news, increase their efforts to have fake news stories removed from their websites. Though both of these solutions would prove effective in combating fake news in theory, there are a number of problems that would crop up in trying to implement them as well as a host of new ethical concerns that would need to be addressed.
To start off with, removing advertisements from websites that have a history of posting fake news stories. The removal of advertisements from these websites would do two things. Firstly, it would remove incentive for websites to allow content to be posted that could be interpreted as fake news. This would increase the scrutiny websites place on content uploaded to their site. Secondly, the removal of ads from these websites would also remove the source of income for fake news writers. This would remove the writer’s incentive to create fake news articles. As stated prior, fake news is a business and without advertisements there would be no money to be made. In the end though, removing advertisements from such websites is not plausibly doable.
In order for removing advertisements from fake news websites to be a possible solution, every business out there would need to be on board with the idea. If only a handful of advertisers decided to remove their ads from fake news sites it would only open up space for other advertisers to place their ads. Since it is highly unlikely that all advertising agencies would willingly agree to such a proposal, government intervention would be the only means of enforcing such a decision. Unfortunately, this would goes against the idea of laissez-faire as it would mean the government would be directly telling businesses that they would no longer be allowed to market their business to potential clients. This would become a major ethical and political issue as creating a new political policy forcing businesses to stop marketing on these websites would be unlikely to pass. The other issues with this system is it would likely affect other forms of business that rely on advertisements to make money. Hypothetically, if such a law were to be passed, content creators on youtube, twitch and other sites that rely primarily on ads to make money would likely also suffer greatly from these restrictions. Advertisers would most likely be unwilling to take the risk as to have their ads show up on sites that could potentially be used to post fake news. Though some content creators with large followings might still be able to make money off of donation and subscriptions, it would likely not be financially viable for new producers to get started, essentially killing off the industry. Much like the removal of ads from fake news sites, the next countermeasure for combating fake news sounds good in theory but has many issues surrounding its execution.
Social media is by in far the fastest way for fake news to spread. Many believe that it is therefore the responsibility of these companies to do something about the issue. For the most part these social networking sites have agreed and are doing their best to help combat the issue. A forerunner in this particular field is Facebook which has released several statements in multiple articles about how it intends to help resolve the problem. Some of the ways Facebook has purposed include: strengthening their fake news detection, making it easier for users to report any fake news they come across, implementing a third party verification system, displaying warnings about the authenticity of posts that have been reported by multiple users, and displaying the quality of articles related to the one being read. Most of these systems have not yet been implemented, but it is Facebook’s hope that when they are it will help reduce the spread of fake news. So far however, their efforts have produced little success, and in some cases helped to spread fake news articles.
In a recent article posted in a United Kingdom news website, The Guardian, it was shown that Facebook’s new fact-checking system actually had the opposite of its intended effect. After Facebook flagged a fake news story for being false, the number of people viewing the story increased dramatically. According to the author of the original post, this was caused by “[a] bunch of conservative groups [who] grabbed [at] this and said, ‘Hey, they are trying to silence this blog – share, share share’” (qtd. in Levin). In short, people saw Facebook’s attempt to flag the story as them trying to censor the content. This brings up the underlying issue with combating fake news. Should fake news be censored? Though most would agree that being deceived by fake news is a negative, the alternative is to allow a president for companies, and possible the government, to take down any blog, post, or comment that they disagree with by claiming that it contains fake news.
In my opinion, though Facebook has the best of intentions in regards to its new policies, I feel that opening the door to potential censorship of other people’s perspective. There is one other course of action that can be taken to combat fake news, but unfortunately it is the least effective as it only alleviates the problem on an individual basis without offering any means of solving the issue as a whole. This method is fact checking. Fact checking is the simplest means of verifying what stories are true and which ones are false. Since the one doing the research is personally looking up the information, they are bound to become more informed on the topics and be better informed when reading future articles. As far as reliability goes, fact checking information for oneself is the most reliable way to determine the truthfulness of a story. If the article has a bizarre headline, google search it. Most likely the top results will be articles debunking the story. If the article lacks sources or the sources are fake it means their is no evidence backing up the alleged news and it is most likely fake. If the author of an article is not accredited, take what they write littlely, as it may not be true. Fact checking is easy and helps make the reader more well informed about what is really going on, instead of relying solely on what pops up on their social media accounts.
Though I personally think that fact checking is the best means of countering the spread of fake news, it is not without its flaws. Though there are not any ethical concerns regarding fact checking, the biggest issue with it is that it only helps resolve the problem if everyone is doing it. Fact checking can only react to the spread of fake news and does nothing to combat the source of the issue. As shown in the example with Facebook flagging a post as false, it is difficult to fact check for strangers. They have their own opinions and biases on the matter. If they are not fact check the information for themselves then they are just taking the word of the fact checker against the word of the fake news author. Since the fact checker is attempting to debunk an article the reader most likely already believes, they are at a disadvantage. The fake news most likely supports what the reader already believes or what they want to believe.
In conclusion, most of the ethical concerns surrounding fake news revolve around how it can be stopped, and not whether or not fake news is wrong. Fake news is not protected under free speech as it is shown to have the potential to incite violence as shown in the story about Comet Ping Pong Pizzeria. A fake news story about a pizza restaurant housing a child pornography ring in its basement, and how a man decided to privately investigate by bringing a gun to the pizzeria. Most would agree that purposefully spreading misinformation is wrong. It has no value and is potentially harmful to those who buy into it. Fake news is only an ethical issue because the concerns with how it can be stopped. The removal of advertisements would go against the system of free market, social networks have the potential to censor anything they wish without regard to actual facts, and fact checking can only react to the problem without fixing its cause. Fake news is still around because there is no implementable and viably ethical solution. Though I have brought up its flaws, I feel the best that can be done to combat the spread of misinformation is to fact check for oneself and insure one's peers are also well informed. Though a stranger might ignore facts as opinions, those close by will hopefully have an open enough mind to at least check for themselves what stories are true. Only through mutual trust and a willingness to seek the truth will fake news ever truly be a thing of the past. To quote a meme, “Don’t believe everything you read on the internet just because there’s a picture with a quote next to it. - Abraham Lincoln” (qtd. in WeKnowMemes).
Fake News: Bibliography:
Bilton, Nick. "Fake News Is About to Get Even Scarier than You Ever Dreamed." The Hive. Vanity Fair, 26 Jan. 2017. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
Broxson, Brandi. "How to Fact-Check the Internet." Real Simple. Real Simple, 20 Jan. 2016. Web. 16 May 2017.
Carson, James. "What Is Fake News? Its Origins and How It Grew in 2016." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 08 Feb. 2017. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
Cnbc. "Germany Could Start Fining Social Media Giants $53 Million for Not Tackling Fake News, Hate Crime." CNBC. CNBC, 06 Apr. 2017. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.
"Don't Believe Everything You Read On The Internet..." WeKnowMemes. WeKnowMemes, 20 July 2012. Web. 16 May 2017.
FactCheck.org. "Video: Spotting Fake News." FactCheck.org. FactCheck.org, 08 Dec. 2016. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.
Filucci, Sierra. "How to Spot Fake News (and Teach Kids to Be Media Savvy)." Common Sense Media. Common Sense Media, 20 Mar. 2017. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.
Hiscott, Rebecca. "The Beginner's Guide to the Hashtag." Mashable. Mashable, 08 Oct. 2013. Web. 16 May 2017.
"How Is 'Fake News' Defined, and When Will It Be Added to the Dictionary?" Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 16 May 2017.
Hoyt, Alia. "How Propaganda Works." HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks, 24 Sept. 2008. Web. 16 May 2017.
Hunt, Elle. "What Is Fake News? How to Spot It and What You Can Do to Stop It." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 17 Dec. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
Kiely, Eugene, and Lori Robertson. "How to Spot Fake News." FactCheck.org. The Wire, 19 Dec. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
Levin, Sam. "Facebook Promised to Tackle Fake News. But the Evidence Shows It's Not Working." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 16 May 2017. Web. 16 May 2017.
Lohana, Pooja. "6 Ways to Make Money With Advertising on Your Blog and the Websites To Help You." Jeffbullas's Blog. Jeffbullas's Blog, 22 Apr. 2017. Web. 16 May 2017.
Fake News: Bibliography Continued:
Maheshwari, Sapna. "How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study." The New York Times. The New York Times, 20 Nov. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
Ohlheiser, Abby. "Analysis | This Is How Facebook’s Fake-news Writers Make Money." The Washington Post. WP Company, 18 Nov. 2016. Web. 16 May 2017.
Pierson, David, and Melissa Etehad. "Facebook Is Working to Stop Fake News by Tapping Human Fact-checkers." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 15 Dec. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
Pogue, David. "What Facebook Is Doing to Combat Fake News." Scientific American. Scientific American, 12 Jan. 2017. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
Politifact, and Internet Rumors Bloggers. "Clinton Foundation Has No Ships, Didn't Smuggle Refugees." @politifact. N.p., 12 May 2017. Web. 13 May 2017.
Price, Rob. "Facebook Will Now Teach You How to Spot Fake News." Business Insider. Business Insider, 12 Apr. 2017. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.
Price, Rob. "This Is What Google's New Fact Check Feature in Its Search Results Looks like." Business Insider. Business Insider, 07 Apr. 2017. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.
Slotkin, Jason. "'Pizzagate' Gunman Pleads Guilty To Charges." NPR. NPR, 24 Mar. 2017. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
Wingfield, Nick, Mike Isaac, and Katie Benner. "Google and Facebook Take Aim at Fake News Sites." The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 Nov. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
Zuckerberg, Mark. “A lot of you have asked what we're doing about misinformation..." Facebook. N.p., 18 Nov. 2016. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.