Yet Another Study Shows Mainstream Media Is A Key Vector In Spreading Misinformation

from the again-and-again-and-again dept

The common "accepted knowledge" these days among many is that the rise of disinformation and conspiracy theories must be driven by social media, and Facebook in particular (with Twitter and YouTube right behind). This theory has always seemed a bit bonkers, and we've pointed to multiple detailed, data-driven studies that showed that cable news was a much bigger driver of misinformation than social media. Specifically, it found that conspiracy theories and misinformation and the like didn't actually "go viral" until after it appeared on cable news.

So, it's good (but not at all surprising) to find yet another study pointing out the same thing. This one, first highlighted by MediaPost, involved a big survey exploring the spread of conspiracy theories -- and found that the mainstream media is often the biggest vector, rather than social media.

Contrary to popular opinion, we found that while technology (and social media specifically) has a role to play in perpetuating CTs, our data suggests that this is not the only source of information about CTs, and often not the main one either. People are more likely to say they heard about some CTs from a ‘mainstream’ news source (such as TV or a broadsheet or tabloid newspaper) than they are from a social media channel. We therefore need to be careful about locating technology as the source of the problem and indeed as the sole focus for possible solutions

In fact, the study notes:

“Our findings suggest that this highly effective disinformation campaign, with potentially profound effects for both participation in, and the legitimacy of, the 2020 election, was an elite-driven, mass-media led process. Social media played only a secondary role.”

Again, none of this says that conspiracy theories aren't spread on social media, because of course they are. But increasing evidence suggests they don't really catch on until the mainstream media gets involved, with TV News being a key vector and newspapers -- both "broadsheets" and "tabloids" -- playing a role as well. And yet, almost no one wants to explore the differing role among these other sources, and many people are solely focused on social media -- perhaps because it's new, and it's always easy to blame the "new" thing.

But it won't get to the root of the problem, and actually can serve to mask the real problems.

Filed Under: cable tv, internet, misinformation, newspapers, social media, tv news

AT&T Set Up And Paid For OAN Propaganda Network; Yet Everyone Wants To Scream About Facebook

from the ill-communication dept

We've noted for a while there's a weird myopia occurring in internet policy. As in, "big tech" (namely Facebook, Google, and Amazon) get a relentless amount of Congressional and policy wonk attention for their various, and sometimes painfully idiotic behaviors. At the same time, just an adorable smattering of serious policy attention is being given to a wide array of equally problematic but clearly monopolized industries (banking, airlines, insurance, energy), or internet-connected sectors that engage in many of the same (or sometimes worse) behaviors, be they adtech or U.S. telecom.

Case in point: while the entirety of U.S. policy experts, lawmakers, journalists, and academics (justifiably) fixated on the Facebook whistleblower train wreck, a story popped up about AT&T. Basically, it showcased how AT&T not only provided the lion's share of funding for the propaganda-laden OAN cable TV "news" network, the entire thing was AT&T's idea in the first place, and simply wouldn't exist without AT&T's consistent support:

"They told us they wanted a conservative network,” Herring said during a 2019 deposition seen by Reuters. "They only had one, which was Fox News, and they had seven others on the other [leftwing] side. When they said that, I jumped to it and built one."

It was previously known that AT&T was one of the few major cable TV distributors to carry OAN, therefore providing 90% of the channel's revenue (even Comcast long refused to carry the network). That's not surprising, given how well inflammatory bullshit sells. But it wasn't previously known how closely linked the two companies were, with OAN claiming AT&T even utilized the network to help put a positive shine on the company's disastrous, $200 billion, job-killing megamerger spree:

"[AT&T told OAN's owner AT&T] needed help to allay FCC and other officials’ concern that the DirecTV deal – a consolidation of providers – might make it harder for independent networks to get on the air, Charles Herring said.

So, he said in the affidavit, Slator proposed a new deal: If the Herrings lobbied on AT&T’s behalf, AT&T would air OAN and WealthTV on both U-verse and DirecTV. The Herrings would be paid one-third less per subscriber, but because DirecTV had so many more subscribers, the deal could be worth $100 million over five years...The court filings also cite a promise by OAN to “cast a positive light” on AT&T during newscasts."

Given the sheer scope of the propaganda being funneled through online platforms, cable TV news channels like OAN are often dismissed as less relevant. But in a nation where elections are often decided by a few hundred votes, a dedicated propaganda network (one at the direct beck and call of Donald Trump) really can make all the difference, media experts say:

"If you have 12 Americans being fed a diet of untruth, that’s 12 too many – and here, it’s literally millions,” Watson said of the OAN audience. “When you have that sort of poisonous influence on mass media, it’s a problem; because elections in the United States tend to be so close, a few percentage points here or there can really make a difference."

The story saw a tiny fraction of the mind-space usually reserved for modern day issues surrounding "big tech." While Facebook certainly deserves intense scrutiny for very serious screw ups, there's an obvious asymmetry in policy and media attention when it comes to "big telecom." That apathy extends to the Biden government, which rushed to appoint a big tech critic at the FTC in Lina Khan, but still hasn't been bothered to staff the nation's two top telecom and media regulators, the NTIA and FCC. This despite the fact COVID has highlighted broadband's importance, and issues like media consolidation are more important than ever in the face of a struggling news industry and soaring propaganda.

However bad Facebook is (and I 100% agree with complaints that its executives are monumentally terrible), think about this: in just the last few years AT&T has been: fined $18.6 million for helping rip off programs for the hearing impaired; fined $10.4 million for ripping off a program for low-income families; fined $105 million for helping "crammers" by intentionally making such bogus charges more difficult to see on customer bills; fined $60 million for lying to customers about the definition of "unlimited" data; caught in a scandal in which the company paid Trump's fixer $600,000 for closer access to the President; fined $7.7 million for turning a blind eye to drug dealers running directory assistance scams; caught lying about its claims it stopped funding politicians supporting January 6 insurrectionists; and was accused of ripping off the nations school systems for years by one of its own, former lawyers. I'm sure I missed some.

Now AT&T has been found to be not only the primary backer, but the brain child of an outright propaganda network that's so extreme, it's to the far right of Fox News. A network that routinely promotes anti-democratic election conspiracy theories, as well as anti-science COVID hysteria.

The occasional, piddly fine is laughable to a company that enjoys not only a regional broadband monopoly in many parts of the country, but received a $42 billion tax break from the Trump administration for doing absolutely nothing (technically less than nothing, given it has laid off roughly 50,000 employees since the 2017 cut). Tethered to both our domestic surveillance and first responder systems, AT&T is largely immune to serious government accountability because it's effectively now a patriotic part of government. It shouldn't be.

Where's the week long hearing about AT&T getting billions in subsidies and tax breaks in exchange for nothing? Where's the several-year exclusive media focus on the shoddy state of U.S. telecom and media? Where's the Congressional hearing about how cable and telecom giants are funding and promoting outright, blatant propaganda? Where's the endless parade of think pieces and deep dives into these problems? Why has Facebook, and big tech, completely dominated the policy discourse? Why are we seemingly incapable of chewing gum and walking at the same time?

We haven't seemed to figure out yet that it's all one, over-arching problem tethered to consolidation, monopolization, antitrust apathy, regulatory dysfunction, and corruption. "Big telecom" is seeing a tiny fraction of the scrutiny of "big tech," something the telecom sector is actively encouraging. Similarly, countless U.S. industries are filled with sectors dominated by heavily consolidated giants, created by the mindless rubber stamping of terrible mergers. Not a one is seeing equal levels of scrutiny. I'm not saying we shouldn't be heavily scrutinizing Facebook and technology giants, whose failures are clearly established. I'm just saying that the bizarre asymmetrical policy myopia -- where "big tech" is seemingly all that matters -- is starting to drive me a little batshit.

Filed Under: big tech, cable news, charles herring, disinformation, propaganda, tv news
Companies: at&t, directv, facebook, oan

Momo Hoax Shows America's Susceptibility To Bullshit Goes Well Beyond Social Media

from the demonic-chicken-lady-told-me-to dept

Social media outlets like Twitter have been rightly criticized for being comically inept when it comes to handling hate, hoaxes, and propaganda. But when conversations bubble up on how best to actually solve these issues, social media tends to get the lion's share of the blame for Americans' aggressive susceptibility to bullshit. In many of these conversations, Americans' susceptibility to bullshit is somehow seen as a new phenomenon, and Twitter and Facebook are exclusively to blame for American heads getting filled with gravel and disinformation.

In reality, America's gullibility problem goes much deeper, and it's going to take a lot more than some Facebook wrist slaps to actually address it. Case in point: you've probably seen something about the "Momo challenge" hoax that's everywhere. The short version: the hoax claims there's a viral game making the rounds on services like WhatsApp that involves a demonic-looking chicken lady goading young children into acts of violence or even suicide. In the game, images of said bird lady supposedly press kids harder and harder until they engage in violence like some Japanese horror flick.

Except there's nothing to the claims; and the photo being used as the cornerstone of the hoax was just an art gallery piece that first bubbled up back in 2016:

And while social media certainly played its part in circulating the hoax, the cornerstone of the spread was more traditional, brick and mortar institutions. Local news outlets, gutted over the last few decades thanks to media consolidation and budget cuts, played a huge role in the origins of the Momo hoax -- with only a fraction of the criticism faced by social media outlets. Many of the earliest reports first popped up on local media outlets in Argentina; reports that were then parroted by outlets like Fox News without much in the way of original reporting or skepticism.

Ultimately the hoax spread to major news outlets that perpetuated it via "bothsideism" news coverage that failed to adequately explain that neither the game nor Momo were actually real. Take The Washington Post, for example:

"The game, which many are calling the “Momo Challenge,” requires players to complete escalating tasks that are usually dangerous and involve self-harm. But, given the challenge’s mysterious origins and the unreliability of news reports linking it to actual harm, some question whether it’s simply another one of the many hoaxes that breed on the Internet."

Yes! If only there were, say, journalists who were resourced to investigate this and actually make the truth clear to their giant audiences, one way or another! In the clickbait era, the truth is often dull, and therefore doesn't sell. So a lot of outlets engage in "both sides" reporting because the chance there's a demonic chicken lady telling kids to kill themselves makes a lot more money than debunking nonsense does.

The dysfunction was global, and was often aided with the help of celebrities, schools, and law enforcement officials. In the UK, schools warned parents that the Momo game was being "spliced" into YouTube Fortnite videos. In Ireland, the police warned the public that the game was not only real and diabolical, it was being run by hackers who are looking for personal info. And when celebrities like Kim Kardashian decided to "help," they directed their fans' ire toward YouTube:

"Parents please be aware and very cautious of what your child watches on YouTube and KIDS YOUTUBE. There is a thing called ‘Momo’ that’s instructing kids to kill themselves, turn stoves on while everyone is sleep and even threatening to kill the children if they tell their parents,” read one of the two posts Kardashian West, 38, shared along with a plea asking YouTube to “Please help!”

Of course, YouTube certainly has other problems related to kids and perpetuating bullshit like flateartherism, but a demonic chicken goddess trying to convince kids to off themselves isn't among them.

Yes, the internet does make it easier than ever to spread bullshit at unprecedented scale; but any notion that this is something new or exclusively the fault of social media misses the point. Hoaxes wouldn't work if we cultivated stronger critical thinking skills (read: improved education) and focused on finding ways to finance and reward quality reporting. Human susceptibility to bullshit is not some new phenomenon, and many of the same worries about the expedited threat of disinformation plagued the early newspaper industry.

Social media isn't blameless, but it's also in many ways just a window into our existing dysfunction, not the exclusive origins of the dysfunction itself. Fixating exclusively on social networking lets the press, police, and the general public off the hook for our multi-generational susceptibility to a bottomless well of bullshit, be it delivered via social media, the police, educators, or your hometown newspaper.

Filed Under: gullibility, hoaxes, local news, momo challenge, momo hoax, tv news, viral news

TVEyes Hit With Incredibly Restrictive Permanent Injunction By Court

from the so-much-for-the-fair-use-'win' dept

The last time we checked in with the long-running TVEyes case, the TV monitoring company had scored another partial victory for fair use. The company packages clips of news stories from TV broadcasts and makes them available to paying subscribers -- which include journalists and government officials.

It had scored a much larger fair use win earlier, when the court found that even the storage of clips by TVEyes fell under fair use, despite Fox News' protests to the contrary. A year later, some of TVEyes' fair use victory was scaled back. The court took another look at the end users' ability to download and store clips and found these actions weren't covered under the fair use ruling. Users could privately share clips and create archives only they could access. What wasn't covered was public sharing and downloading of clips.

In order to comply with the court's decision, TVEyes would need to additionally restrict access to its compiled content. The court didn't say specifically what TVEyes would have to change to comply with the ruling at that point. Those instructions appear to have arrived.

An injunction issued by the court contains all sorts of new restrictions, as Eriq Gardner reports.

Here's a list of things that are now forbidden:

Enabling users to download to their own computers video clips of content telecast on the Fox News Channel or Fox Business Network.

Enabling users to view FNC or FBN content by searching by date, time, and channel.

Enabling users from sharing video clips of FNC or FBN content on social media websites rather than by personally directed emails, with further limitations.

Those further limitations?

If a TVEyes client wants to email a clip, he or she can only do so to five or less recipients. The client also has to register their work email with TVEyes instead of using Gmail or another free web email service. Those being sent the clip will also have to submit their own email address to ensure they are the intended recipients.

These new restrictions could do some serious damage to TVEyes, which charges subscribers ~$500/month for access to a wide variety of news clips. Where high-profile subscribers like Reuters, Bloomberg, the White House (yes, THAT one), the Dept. of Defense and others will go if they find the new restrictions unworkable isn't exactly clear, but it's a safe bet that Fox's litigious efforts will see a few of these entities finding the service no longer worth the investment.

And that's not the full extent of the restrictions in the permanent injunction. TVEyes will also be required to create and implement a social media blockade solely for Fox News content to prevent the public sharing of its clips. Any Fox content circulated by TVEyes will also have to carry a warning that the content has not been purchased or licensed by the company and that unauthorized sharing is considered copyright infringement. So, for $500/month, TVEyes' subscribers will now have the privilege of being blasted with anti-piracy warnings as if they were lowly, DVD-purchasing peasants.

This order can be appealed and most certainly will be, as it imposes a ton of restrictions on content originating from a single source. Fox News gets its own new set of rules and everyone else plays by the old ones. The court's decisions haven't exactly added up to a fair use win, because a real fair use ruling would apply across the board, not just to everything but this one particular litigant's content.

Filed Under: archiving, copyright, downloading, fair use, search, tv, tv news
Companies: fox, tveyes

TV News Programs Seem Focused On Making Sure NSA Defenders Get Nearly All Air Time

from the of-course-they-do dept

Remember back when CBS's John Miller defended his laughably bad propaganda piece for the NSA on 60 Minutes by claiming that "the NSA story has been a fairly one-way dialogue..." in which only critics are having a voice?

Right. About that. Fair & Accuracy in Reporting is noting that the big Sunday talk shows seem to be dominated by NSA defenders, very rarely allowing NSA critics to even appear. On NBC's Meet the Press, nearly all of the time was taken up by some of the NSA's biggest defenders, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Mike Rogers. David Gregory also had on Newt Gingrich and Harold Ford, who both more or less supported the NSA. The only critic was a very brief appearance by Reddit's Alexis Ohanian, given very little time compared to everyone else. On CBS's Face the Nation, a similar pattern played out. Mike Rogers made another appearance, along with Obama advisor Tom Donilon who attacked Snowden. Then there was former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morrell, who's been spouting a lot of nonsense about how the metadata program could have stopped 9/11 -- a claim that has been debunked so many times it's barely worth discussing any more. The only person interviewed who was critical of the NSA was Senator Marc Udall, who was, again, given much less time than the others. (CBS News, by the way, has also now hired Morrell, where we expect him to take over John Miller's role as the intelligence community's mouthpiece now that Miller has returned to the intelligence community.)

We've seen similar things going on pretty much every Sunday. The idea that the NSA doesn't get to have its side of the story told is a complete joke. When it comes to network news, it's pretty clear that the reverse is true.

Filed Under: nsa, nsa defenders, surveillance, tv news

Why The Internet Archive Says It Can Show You Every TV News Program

from the and-why-the-tv-news-guys-may-disagree dept

Like many folks, I saw the news today about the always-wonderful Internet Archive offering up a treasure trove of TV news broadcasting and thought it was a great thing. They're basically making available every TV news recording they could get from 2009 forward, including all of the major TV networks, the news channels (CNN, Fox News, etc.), etc. They'll also have a bunch of local TV broadcasts as well, which is cool. All in all, it's launching with 350,000 clips. They'll even have recordings of The Daily Show as a part of the archive -- which seems fitting, since Internet Archive mastermind Brewster Kahle noted that with this collection, they can "let a thousand Jon Stewarts bloom" by letting them find interesting (or contradictory) news clips.

You can go check out the TVNews Search & Borrow site right now. The search feature is pretty cool, combing through closed captions to find the relevant content. So it's neat to do a quick search on topics of interest and see what they turn up. Of course, there are still a few kinks to work out. Out of curiosity, I did a search on SOPA, and got back some relevant news stories (including the Jon Stewart story about blackout day. But... I also got a bunch of Spanish-language programs about soup. Even when I limited the language to English. I assume those things will get better over time. Each clip is split into 30 second increments, so it's not like you're automatically getting the full broadcast, though you can piece together the clips.

And it's not just a "historical" archive. They're going to continue to add to it, with new clips being available 24-hours after they air.

Of course, all of this made me wonder about the copyright issues involved. The NY Times had this somewhat cryptic statement:

The act of copying all this news material is protected under a federal copyright agreement signed in 1976. That was in reaction to a challenge to a news assembly project started by Vanderbilt University in 1968.

I was curious about that, and a few people pointed me to 17 USC 108 (f)(3), which notes that:

nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the reproduction by lending of a limited number of copies and excerpts by a library or archives of an audiovisual news program subject to [a few other clauses concerning archives]...

This is based on the Vanderbilt Television News Archive, which the Internet Archive directly calls out in its own announcement as being the inspiration for this new project. Inspiration... and legal helper.

Here's a bit of historical perspective from Historians.org:

Indeed, in the early days of the archive, CBS had sued for copyright infringement, claiming that broadcasts could not be recorded without the permission of the networks. At the time of the lawsuit, Congress was in the process of revising the copyright law. Congress recognized the growing importance and influence of television media on American culture, thought, and politics, and felt that news broadcasts should have special protection under the copyright law, to allow the American people access to their own history. Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee introduced an amendment to the 1976 U.S. Copyright Act to give universities and archives the right to record news broadcasts off-air and to make a limited number of copies for research purposes. Following the enactment of the new law with this provision, CBS and Vanderbilt mutually withdrew from the lawsuit.

But does that really make the Internet Archive legal? I'm not so sure the TV guys are going to see it that way. That same report at Historians.org notes that Vanderbilt is not allowed to share nearly all of its collection online -- and it also notes that "The advent of the Internet and the consequent possibility of making digital copies and lending them online have, however, raised new legal problems that need to be resolved." I would imagine that a key one among them is whether or not the Internet Archives' setup qualifies as "lending a limited number of copies."

One would hope that an informed court would recognize that this fits with the intent of Congress in creating this kind of exception, though I fear that the networks are likely to fight pretty hard on this one, even as it seems like this service could really benefit them as well as others, rather than really take away from anything they do.

Filed Under: archives, broadcasts, copyright, exceptions, tv news
Companies: internet archive