Verrit, like Snopes, Politifact, and a host of other fact-checking sites, reflect fundamental misunderstandings about how information circulates online, what function political information plays in social contexts, and how and why people change their political opinions. Fact-checking is in many ways a response to the rapidly changing norms and practices of journalism, news gathering, and public debate. In other words, fact-checking best resembles a movement for reform within journalism, particularly in a moment when many journalists and members of the public believe that news coverage of the 2016 election contributed to the loss of Hillary Clinton. However, fact-checking (and another frequently-proposed solution, media literacy) is ineffectual in many cases and, in other cases, may cause people to “double-down” on their incorrect beliefs, producing a backlash effect. —Alice E. Marwick, Georgetown Law Technical Review
Why Do People Share Fake News? A Sociotechnical Model of Media Effects
Dr. David von Schlichten honors the spectrum of motivations (not always financial) feature...
Journalist flexes in story about Trump Media accountant who has spelled his own name 14 di...
NASA reconnects with Voyager 1 (after months of confusion)
Collegewide game encourages small interactions around campus
Surprise sidewalk encounter with my man Hopkins outside the Admin shuttle stop this mornin...
Shakespeare-themed Math Puzzles
You are definitely right. Furthermore, fake news can cause more damages.