In an age where the digitization of information reigns supreme, new challenges in being able to distinguish reliable information from “fake news” have surfaced, with little done to provide a remedy for these issues.
Interestingly enough, research has identified one key mechanism that is essential to an individual’s likelihood to buy into a potentially misleading headline. Within academia, this phenomenon has been coined the illusory truth effect — with the key mechanism isolated within the data being prior exposure.
In the study conducted, it was indeed found that individuals who were exposed to even a single and often wildly unbelievable fake-news headline, were, as a result, significantly more likely to perceive all related posts to follow, as accurate.
Remarkably, the researchers also found that fact-checking banners explicitly designed to combat misleading information did not affect the study findings. This suggests, that not only have we underestimated the influence of false information on our own personal perception of facts but that the solution proposed by social media platforms of tagging and flagging these fake-news stories and videos, is seemingly wholly ineffective.
What remains, however, is our own responsibility in utilizing rational thought and impartiality in order to identify and actively reject posts containing these inaccuracies — even at the expense of contradicting our own system of beliefs. Therefore, learning to recognize the fingerprints of sneaky campaigns, and subsequently decipher fact from fiction, is a crucial skill for all internet savvy adventurers.
Thankfully, you don’t have to have a degree in the art of manipulation to recognize a manipulative post, and becoming familiar with these five common tactics is a great place to start.
1. Smooth, Persuasive Speaker
Narrators in manipulative media are often adept spokespeople, and it’s not unusual for them to rely on an expert combination of intonation and facial expressions to help disguise dubious segues between gaps in information or evidence.
Be wary of an arrogant tone of voice, or anything that establishes an aurora superiority over viewers. This can be an effective tactic of manipulative media, especially when the narrator holds a position of authority.
This technique works so well because it provides an audience with the impression that they would be the silly ones to refute the validity of the narrator, an individual who oh-so-clearly appears to know exactly what they’re talking about.
In order to further reinforce this, narrators commonly try to form emotional camaraderie with their viewers, thereby eliciting an unconscious inclination towards an agreement in any individual. Watch out for the use of words such as, “us,” “we,” “friends,” etc.
Additionally, video content that features excessive editing to cut any stammering, or extremely tight timing between sentences; realize that this all serves to preserve the illusion of a flawless speaker (and therefore argument).
Key takeaway
If the voice of the narrator is perfect, there is a concerted effort behind that. Be wary of the emotional state of the narrator, it is often an element of manipulation.
2. Production Value
Another thing to recognize is that if the piece of media is aesthetically-pleasing to look at and easy to consume, then you can automatically infer that there is financial power behind it.
Here, the question of who is funding this content, and why, becomes of the utmost interest to the cautious viewer.
To better illustrate this point, consider any graphic used by The New York Times. The excellent quality of visuals and the flawless use of digital effects and transitions make sense — they are a well-funded prominent newspaper, after all.
On the other hand, take the graphics employed by an organization such as PragerU, for example. Unlike the NYT, which is funded by reader subscriptions, PragerU is funded by billionaire donations, most notably from the Wilks brothers, who are involved predominantly with the petroleum and fracking industries. PragerU’s five-minute videos cost, on average, around $27,000 each, and this is reflected in the smoothness and persuasive power of their media.
Key takeaway
Pay special attention to the level of funding behind whatever content you’re looking at. Lower-level production quality does not necessarily correlate with attempts to mislead (or vice versa) With that said, it’s always a smart move to recognize the signs of financial influence and explore and evaluate accordingly.
3. “Fact” Flashing
There’s a third tactic often used by manipulative media to appear well-referenced and academically substantiated, without actually requiring for either of those qualities to be true.
Headline jumping or fact flashing occurs when a piece of media flashes a third-party reference (anything from a tweet/buzzword, to a newspaper headlines, to a journal article), and then extrapolates as necessary.
Consider these two images as examples of what fact-flashing may look like (manipulative intent of these particular screen grabs aside).
Primarily, two things are accomplished here:
- Creates the appearance of external support for whatever idea the content is aiming to convey, whether positive or negative
- Creates the illusion that all the facts have been adequately considered
This tactic works by allowing disingenuous media to fabricate and feign support for whatever conclusions they like, without actually being forced to acknowledge or discuss anything of substance.
Key takeaway
Be very aware of media that introduces source materials in a way that projects quantity over quality, especially when being used to form a conclusion or make a point. If the source is good enough to be used in support of a key argument, it should be good enough to stand up to critical consideration.
4. Abuse of Authority/Academia
In a time where misinformation runs rampant across the internet, it’s not uncommon for manipulative media to rely on official-looking titles and/or accolades in order to bolster their perceived validity.
Unfortunately, this means that it’s not always enough for a post to be created by a doctor, or endorsed by a celebrity — and digging deeper is always recommended.
Take the “U” in PragerU, for example — disingenuously being used to symbolize a university-like status, despite this not being the case.
In a similar vein exists a tactic referred to as cherry-picking. This is a technique where accurate sounding information is seemingly referenced accordingly, however, with certain details purposefully left out, and contradicting bodies of evidence omitted, in order to protect the intended media narrative.
Key takeaway
By cross-referencing any citations or claims and performing your due diligence by double-checking the reliability of referenced authorities, you stand a much better chance of avoiding falling prey to this form of manipulation.
5. Extreme Brevity
Media that manipulates doesn’t want you to think — it wants you to absorb an emotional message and move on.
Realistically, the truth can be highly complex, and honest discussions that attempt to address it are typically long. There are no topics simple enough to be fully encompassed and understood within 5–10 minutes, with brevity occurring at the expense of (potentially critical) nuance.
While we don’t all have the time to consume feature-length footage of factual information, there is a point to be made in recognizing the depth of the media we interact with and maintaining a general apprehension of the limitations of our pretty-packaged and tailored content.
Key takeaway
The more brief a piece of media is, and the faster a narrator tries to get their point across, the less opportunity you have, as a viewer, to properly internalize and consider the ramifications of their argument. Consider this a red flag.
Final Thoughts
By adding awareness of these five signs of manipulative media to your arsenal of defense against misinformation, you’ll be better equipped to navigate the treacherous expanse of the world-wide-web.
Although these media strategies are frequently used and abused with malicious intent, they shouldn’t be considered 100% deal-breakers.
Understand that the extent to which the media in question relies on these strategies in order to make its point, is typically equal to the extent to which it is trying to persuade — whether that’s in good faith, or bad, is left entirely to the viewer’s discretion.
