The Misinformation of Alex Jones
In the wake of the unthinkable 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary that killed 20 children (between the ages of six and seven) and six adults, Alex Jones spread destructive lies about the massacre, and his platform, Infowars, became a source of rabid misinformation. This week, in response to Jones’ relentless campaign, a jury in Connecticut awarded almost $1 billion USD to 15 plaintiffs in their defamation case against Jones. While this case sets a strong precedent, the damage from Infowars still remains. How can we stop conspiracy theories from becoming widespread misinformation?
Infowars' battle with the truth.
NPR reported that since Sandy Hook, researchers have found similar reactions on the far right to mass acts of violence. Infowars created a dangerous pattern with a "standard playbook, with false flag claims and even a denial that the violence was real." However, researchers noted one major difference in reactions on the far right to the recent school shooting in Uvalde, TX: the conspiracy theories that surfaced "bubbled up in a much more anonymous, grassroots fashion than they did 10 years ago," indicating that Jones' impact is far-reaching even without his direct involvement. This behavior is unsurprising given the fact that before being banned from social media platforms like Facebook and YouTube in 2018, according to Vox, the Infowars website had roughly 10 million visitors per month.
Even authority figures are susceptible.
After the shooting in Uvalde, some of the fastest-spreading pieces of misinformation were about the shooter's identity. Despite Texas Governor Greg Abbott confirming that the shooter was a U.S. citizen, social media buzz on the far right indicated that he was in the country illegally. Some social media posts also wrongly identified the shooter as a transgender individual who was completely unrelated to the shooting. Alex Kaplan, a researcher with Media Matters, told NPR, "You had Alex Jones sharing it; you had Andrew Torba [sharing it]. It reached Congressman Paul Gosar." The congressman eventually deleted his tweet, but the damaging misinformation had already been spread by a political official.
There are "six degrees of manipulation."
Sander van der Linden, a professor at the University of Cambridge and the head of the university's Social Decision-Making Lab, found that there are "six degrees of manipulation” within the spread of misinformation. Those degrees are impersonation, conspiracy, emotion, polarization, discrediting, and trolling. What does this look like in practice on the news or on social media? His research shows that "a false news story may quote a fake expert, use emotional language, or propose a conspiracy theory in order to manipulate readers." Who is the most at risk of falling prey to these degrees of manipulation? Research reported in the Journal of Personality found that "people who use an intuitive reasoning style tend to believe fake news more often than those who rely primarily on analytical reasoning."
The University of Southern California (USC) has studied how misinformation spreads so quickly. Here are tips they offer on how to stop the mass spread of misinformation:
Even if the intention is to correct falsehoods, resist the urge to directly share or repeat misinformation. You may have noticed that this issue of The Friday Brief does not go in-depth into any of the conspiracy theories around mass shootings, nor does this issue link to any articles that present those lies as the truth. Norbert Schwarz, a psychology professor and the co-director of the Mind and Society Center at USC said, “Never repeat false information. Once people hear it, it is difficult to correct.”
If you do have to explain misinformation for personal or professional reasons, start with the truth. Speaking specifically about journalists' roles in combatting misinformation (though this may apply to other professions and circumstances), Schwarz said, "[...] make the story about the lie itself," adding, "start with the truth. Explain that Person X spread false information and say why they may have done so if you can. Present the false information only after that, and not in vivid detail. Repeat why it is false.”