Like almost everyone with a computer, I have an aunt who e-mails me cute inanities regularly. I usually ignore them – those that aren’t just plain unfunny are usually quite old- but she recently sent one titled “Bill Cosby Does It Again!” that caught my notice as a longtime Cosby fan. It seemed familiar instantly. It began with Cosby’s stated intent to be a write-in Presidential candidate, and outlined a platform: English as our official language, isolationist economics, closed borders, adoption of “Turkish-style” corporal and capital punishments, and elimination of foreign aid were among the planks. It took me less than five minutes of Googling to debunk it for it was, as I suspected, quite old, and has been attributed to George Carlin, Robin Williams, and Andy Rooney as well as Cosby. Snopes.com and several others quoted Cosby: “The platform attributed to me [and others] does not represent my views and in many respects is abhorrent to me.” Bad information is nothing new, of course, but this e-mail – one of millions sent across the world every day – exemplifies how the Internet, a fountain of information that forms history’s most powerful research tool, is instead just as likely to enable and simplify the spreading of untruths.

What is Information?

            Information comes in several distinct forms. Information as discussed here in broad terms is data set in a context for relevance – it tells us something that we can use to take action or make decisions. Propaganda is distinguished by purpose; whether true or false, the information is presented in such a way as to provoke a specific action or attitude, and is thus subjective at best (Kirk 1). Misinformation, unlike propaganda, is always untrue but innocently so; it isn’t a lie, it’s just wrong (2). Many people who spread misinformation are repeating something they assume is true, while others simply mishear or misread something and repeat what they mistakenly absorbed (“The Misinformation Highway?” 6). Anyone who has seen a rumor get passed around or played the old game of “telephone,” where a story is passed from person to person, knows how this works, and one would have to be a lifelong hermit to be completely innocent. (This was the case with my aunt. When I told her that the e-mail was bogus, she simply said that it sounded to her like something Cosby would say. Since Cosby himself used the word “abhorrent” to describe some items on the list, it obviously isn’t something he would say. It did, however, give her use of Cosby’s image and reputation to back up things that she would say.) Disinformation is the most insidious; it is intentionally disseminated falsehood. Often, misinformation begins as disinformation, though it can be difficult to prove (Kirk 3).

            If bad information is nothing new, why should Internet misinformation concern us? Because bad information may cause bad decisions, it affects us adversely anywhere. False information on a pseudo-scientific website, for instance, might wrongly sway someone to let a symptom go unchecked, or panic a healthy person. A widely spread falsehood caused a 60% drop in Emulex Corporation stock; although the company bounced back mostly, there were still losses suffered (Weinstein 1). On a larger scale, dis- or misinformation can have extreme consequences, such as helping to create demand for a war. Far more regularly it is used to influence elections; while you can’t fool all of the people all of the time, it may be sufficient to fool enough people by Election Day (“The Misinformation Highway?” 5).

The Subjective Mind

            Before exploring the Internet’s role, it helps to understand how people absorb information and form opinions. We like to tell each other and ourselves that we base our opinions factually, but studies have repeatedly suggested otherwise. Even when we have reasonably balanced and factual sources of information, we tend to remember items that support our already established opinions and discount news that contradicts them (Wang and Aamodt 1). When Yale political scientist John Bullock showed a group an advertisement that accused John G. Roberts Jr., then a Supreme Court nominee, of "supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber," Democratic disapproval in the group leapt from 56% to 80%. After a refutation was shown, it lowered to 72%; obviously, the refutation – which was true - was less convincing to Democrats than the lie. On the other hand, the refutation completely eliminated the disapproval increase among the group’s Republicans. Shankar Vedantam, writing about this study in the Washington Post, concluded ” The damaging charge, in other words, continued to have an effect even after it was debunked among precisely those people predisposed to buy the bad information in the first place (1).”

            The effect refutations have is even more fascinating when dealing with conservative opinions. We saw how Republicans, who were predisposed to approve of Roberts, accepted the refutation over the damaging claim. In another study, two groups were given the Bush administration’s pre-Iraq War statements about that nation’s weapons programs, which, as Republicans (these groups were not mixed), they viewed sympathetically. Only one group was shown the 2004 Duelfer report stating that the WMDs did not exist prior to U.S. invasion. Among the group that heard only the initial information, 34% thought that Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons. In the group that saw both information and refutation that number jumped to 64%. Refutation did not strongly convince Democrats; Republicans shown a refutation actually believed the misinformation in greater numbers. Some postulate that this may result from Republicans having “more rigid views” than liberals; they may argue back against refutations that they don’t want to believe, thereby strengthening belief in the misinformation (Vedantam 2). Either way, these studies show what we tend to notice ourselves anyway: that people, on the whole, will believe what they want to believe. Constant repetition, such as we have online, via e-mail, or on 24-hour news channels, simply reinforces that situation.

            Shouldn’t the source of the information influence belief? It does, but not entirely as expected. In a 1951 Yale University study, two groups were given identical information( Hovland and Weiss, 636). One group was told that the information came from sources generally considered reliable, while the other group was told the information came from less reliable sources. The groups were quizzed on their knowledge and opinions before, immediately after, and four weeks after being given the information. Prior opinion’s effect on belief was again noted, but the second quiz made plain that the “reliable source” influenced belief more than the “unreliable source.” There was absolutely no difference learned information between the two sources – the only thing that differed was belief (641-2). This is not surprising; however, the results of the third quiz, administered a month later, were.

            After four weeks, the third quiz revealed that belief in the information gained from the “reliable” source had lowered, while belief in the information gained from the “unreliable source” had increased. This “sleeper effect” was attributed to people gradually forgetting the source (645). Where one source’s perceived reliability created confidence in the information, the opposite perception about the other source created a barrier to belief, with prior bias mitigating both effects. After four weeks, the sources – and the perceptions about them – were retained in fewer individuals. What remained was the information – the absorption and retention of which was still unchanged between the two sources – and the personal bias that influenced belief in that information (650).

            This phenomenon has since been proven and named “source amnesia.”  The information we gather is initially stored in a brain section called the hippocampus. Stored with it is contextual information: where we learned it, from who we learned it, our opinions of that source, etc. Recalling the information reprocesses it, but not necessarily with all the contextual information. Eventually, the information is stored in the cerebral cortex without the contextual information (Wang and Aamodt 1). This is why we are able to do things like drive cars without having to recall the initial process of learning to drive. It also explains how we can cling to beliefs that are not true – even after being told they are not true, as in the case of those who still believe that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

The Internet’s Role

            When considering the Internet’s role in spreading untruths, it is pertinent to remember that the Internet was originally called the Information Superhighway. This is a much more descriptive name; the Internet certainly is, if nothing else, an informational Autobahn. With its speed and near-ubiquity, it is by far the best vehicle for moving, storing, and retrieving data ever conceived. Therein lies the problem, however; as far as movement, storage, and retrieval goes, false information is no different than true information, and a system that spreads one is equally suited to spreading the other.

            Access to the Internet is widespread not only for users, but equally so for content originators. One needn’t even go to personal expense, as Internet connections are available to everyone via schools, libraries, work, or friends and relatives. Anyone who can see Internet content can also create it in many ways, such as thread comments, e-mails, blogging, website creation, or sites such as Wikipedia that encourage audience interaction. Because of this, people can always find what they want – they aren’t limited to what the news media chooses to tell them or what publishers see as marketable. The modern Internet is truly a marketplace for ideas. That means that no matter what preconceived notions a person might have, information that supports and feeds those notions is only a search engine away. If someone is inclined to believe, for instance, that President Obama was not born in the United States, that person will find ample support for that belief, despite the fact that it was disproved long ago. That support strengthens the belief since the fact that someone else believes the same thing provides a sense of community, and the false belief is then easy to spread further via comments, blog posts, or mass e-mails.

Aggravating this is, of course, the fact that the Internet has few content controls. Some serious sites have editors that verify content’s veracity; far more have editors that simply filter content to reflect their beliefs. Comments on threads, where they are monitored, are usually just monitored for profanity, not accuracy. Therefore a person who believes that President Obama’s birth certificate is fake can spread that untruth pretty much anywhere, as long as he doesn’t swear while he does it. The ease with which it is done increases its likelihood and frequency. Before the Internet, my aunt may have heard a false story about Bill Cosby’s political views, and she may have passed it on to my other aunts and assorted relatives during one of  many “henhouse” gab sessions, but she would not have written it out and mailed it via the postal service to 30 people. With the Internet, however, she can simply read it in her mailbox and with a few clicks, send it to 30 people in less than a minute. In her mind, the fact that she didn’t take the time to research it is a waiver, not a problem – after all, she didn’t write it in the first place, did she? All she did was pass it on. While I may consider that being part of the problem, many others see it as an exoneration. It is apparent that while misinformation today may not be worse than it has been through more traditional media, it is certainly easier to spread (“The Misinformation Highway?” 1). This means that the spreading of bunk is not only more widespread, but also more tenacious. The birth certificate story, for instance, disappeared from the newspapers after it was disproved, but not from the Internet where it can still be found well after the election. If people are inclined to believe things that they already agree with, and they can easily find sites that present information that fits that criteria, then literally anything that anyone wants to believe can be absorbed as a truth that is then spread with the words “I read somewhere that….”

Yet while information is easily found on the Internet, the accuracy of it is harder than ever to judge. As the amount of sources available increases, the criteria by which a source’s trustworthiness may be judged wanes. In the mainstream media’s heyday, which many say is now long over, a newspaper or network could establish a strong ethos, or reputation, for accuracy or integrity by making sure of their facts and having consequences for those that did not. When Walter Cronkite said “That’s the way it is,” people trusted that it was that way after his and his employer’s reputations were cemented. If the editor of the New York Sun says there’s a Santa Claus, well, that’s good enough for Virginia. 

            On today’s Internet, however, so many sources are available that it can be hard to tell the good ones from the bad. Ownership of most sites is very unclear, and not easy to find should someone be curious. Internet writers often use a nom de plume or “Internet identity (in fact, I know a guy like that),” or simply write anonymously. There are no standards or guidelines as in journalism, and no governing bodies as far as veracity is concerned. This makes it easy not only to avoid building a clear ethos, but also to create a false one. A false identity, title, education, or level of experience is easily created “behind the curtain,” so to speak. A real ethos may also be “borrowed,” as the e-mail attributed to Cosby, Williams, and Rooney illustrates.

            Of course, the audience helps writers circumvent ethos development in many ways. People may be so impressed with a site’s layout or features that they assume that the information presented can be believed. In cases like this, the medium truly is the message, as it is the presentation more than anything else that is convincing. The reader may not be expert enough to judge if the information is accurate or even likely to be. Someone with no medical training, for instance, may be fooled by information that a medical doctor would laugh at. Cannier readers than that can still be fooled by foreign sources, simply because of their unfamiliarity. Most people can judge the worth of a paper from Oxford University, but how does one judge an Icelandic university that one has never heard of? Second-hand information from known, reliable sources may be difficult to find in such a situation (Vedder 5).

            Of course, such questions of ethos are largely academic because of source amnesia. What does ethos mean in the long run, when the source itself is likely to be forgotten in a month and the information believed or disbelieved on the basis of personal preference more than the source’s integrity? The fact that people can find whatever information they want and find as many repetitions as it takes to convince them that it is true is all that truly matters in the Internet’s spreading of misinformation. Lack of clear ethos at the onset merely makes the process go even faster.

Is there a solution?

            What may be done to improve this situation? So far, there is no concrete answer to that question – in fact, the problem itself, while universally acknowledged as existing, is not universally acknowledged as being important. Certainly, those whose business it is to influence opinion are fine with the status quo. Those who are not see two broad approaches. One is to control Internet content more strictly; the other is a user-based approach.

            The former solution is a sticky wicket. Does it involve more government control? More corporate control? Most Americans see too much control as no better for veracity than too little. Certainly, Hitler’s propaganda machine and the Soviet Union’s Pravda were both tightly controlled disinformation spreaders. Many equate limiting anonymity with limiting freedom of speech (Vedder 7). The need to balance necessary freedoms with the control needed to limit disinformation makes this an unlikely solution, as Americans are inherently distrustful of those who would act as censors or filters of information for the public good. A third-party authority with which to establish a site’s ethical criteria could help, but who would establish such an authority, and how? What authority would be acceptable across cultural and political lines?

Works Cited

Vedantam, Shankar. “The Power of Political Misinformation.” The Washington Post. 15 September 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091402375.html

Weinstein, Lauren. “PFIR Statement on Internet Hoaxes and Misinformation.” People for Internet Responsibility. 28 August 2000. http://www.pfir.org/statements/hoaxes

Author unknown. Interview with Anne Mintz. “The Misinformation Superhighway?” Now. 4 January 2008. PBS.org. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/401/internet-politics.html

Kirk, Elizabeth E. “Information and Its Counterfeits: Propaganda, Misinformation, and Disinformation.” The Sheridan Libraries. Johns Hopkins University. 2001. http://www.library.jhu.edu/researchhelp/general/evaluating/counterfeit.html

Wang, Sam and Sandra Aamodt. “Your Brain Lies to You.” New York Times. 27 June, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27aamodt.html

Hovland, Carl I. and Walter Weiss. “The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness.” Public Opinion Quarterly. Oxford University Press. Winter, 1951-52: 635-650. Synapse.Princeton.edu. <http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/hovland_weiss_source-credibility-Public-Opinion-Quarterly-1951-52.pdf>

Vedder, Anton. “Misinformation Through the Internet: Espistemology and Ethics.” In: Anton Vedder (ed.), Ethics and the Internet. Antwerpen, Groningen, Oxford: Intersentia, 2001, p.125-132. http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=4795. (Prints with page numbers 1-8)

Mikkelson, Barbara and David. P. “Bill of Write-Ins.” Snopes.com. 21 April 2009. http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/platform.asp

Steiner, Peter. “On the Internet, Nobody Knows You’re a Dog.” The New Yorker. 5 July, 1993, p. 61. School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.27 August 1997. http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html