Numb. Charles R. Chaffin

Numb - Charles R. Chaffin


Скачать книгу
or perhaps even blatantly deceptive language. We have all seen them: “You won't believe how much money Kim Kardashian has under her mattress!” or “10 things about clickbait headlines that you always hate!” As Dr. Shyam Sundar, the James P. Jimirro Professor of Media Effects and co‐director of the Media Effects Laboratory at the Bellisario College of Communications at Pennsylvania State University, says, “News outlets resort to hyping‐up their stories by making them more sensational than they really are. Initially, clickbaits were used only by shady websites to get users to click through several pages in order to get more ad impressions. But now you see even respectable news outlets resorting to clickbaits in a desperate effort to not only attract readers but also to show good metrics of user engagement, which are important for earning advertising dollars.”

      Obviously, the downside of this approach is that it can disappoint readers who click and see that the content of the article does not match the headline. Furthermore, the inaccurate or sensationalized clickbait headline could impact the perception of the reader when it comes to the actual topic. A group of Australian researchers explored the effects of headlines that contained some element of misinformation. They found that misleading headlines or images can constrain elements of information processing and, perhaps more importantly, create a bias towards a specific interpretation of a news event. So if a headline reads, “There are a lot of questions about the honesty of President Abraham Lincoln,” you might be inclined to click on it and discover that the content of the article is irrelevant to his honesty as a president (maybe the article described something silly like how several people have said that he once inflated his net worth to his wife, Mary Todd, when they were dating). You could read that article and understand the contents but still walk away from it thinking there are questions surrounding the honesty of Abraham Lincoln (hmm … and did he really deliver that Gettysburg Address?). Headlines designed to attract clicks through sensational language can bias the actual perceptions of the story even if the facts of the story do not match the sensationalism. It is one thing when the topic is frivolous, but it is another when the headline relates to real news that has real consequences.

      Confirmation bias, a topic addressed in more detail later in this book, likely caused these individuals to think that the statements they agreed with were factual, whereas statements they disagreed with did not appear factual to them. Cable news channels appeal to that bias by confirming viewers' beliefs regarding any number of political and moral topics. Viewers tune in to receive validation of their beliefs. This becomes particularly worrisome when there is a blurred line between what is news and what is commentary. Many of these commentary programs look and act like news shows: an anchor sits behind a desk discussing current events just like the local 6 p.m. news. In essence, some cable news channels have a partnership with their viewers. Cable news gets the viewers' attention and ratings, and viewers get their positions confirmed. Repeating this daily process can create a polarized country. If anyone, regardless of party affiliation or perspective, has his or her views regularly confirmed regardless of validity, it creates a dogmatism that seems almost impossible to overcome. If someone tells me each and every day that I am correct about something, then I really believe I am correct!

      A 2019 Pew study indicates that 30–35% of Americans say they keep in‐depth attention towards the news throughout the day. We engage push notifications on our smartphones, social media, and “breaking news” on television and radio throughout our day. In an age of instant gratification, we want the information and we want it now. News sources seize upon this desire and create as much breaking news as possible even if it isn't actually breaking news. In many cases, it can be several hours old or not worth the alarm that the media source is sounding.

      The notion of novelty when it comes to new information also impacts how it is shared across social media. Researchers at MIT examined 126,000 news stories over the course of an 11‐year period. Using a variety of fact‐checking groups, they were able to determine which of those stories were true and which were false. Controlling for bots (automated software that can tweet and retweet information), they were able to determine that false news spread much faster than real news. The false news consisted of topics from politics to urban legends to a host of other categories. Actually, false stories were 70% more likely to be retweeted than true stories, with true stories taking six times as long to have the same penetration as false news. As the researchers state, “When information is novel, it is not only surprising, but also more valuable, both from an information theoretic perspective in that it provides the greatest aid to decision‐making, and from a social perspective in that it conveys social status on one that is ‘in the know’ or has access to unique ‘inside’ information.” Being the first to share new information is important, whether it is a media conglomerate or individual retweeting


Скачать книгу