Numb. Charles R. Chaffin

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.

The quality and reliability of information within the digital landscape today is filled with entities that have a number of political and commercial agendas that can create misinformation and take advantage of our biases. Griffin suggests that information becomes a currency of this digital environment, where the quality of information becomes secondary to its ability to become viral. In addition, sources work to develop content that is marketable to receptive and amenable audiences, leading to feedback loops and information silos. As he puts it, this environment expedites propaganda networks from both foreign and domestic players. Stories that do not have this sensationalist appeal, connecting with our political or moral sensibilities, will likely be secondary to what can cause the biggest splash. Opinion also replaces news, where media sources work to appeal to an audience segment providing either a biased take on headline news or predominantly opinion that will resonate with their audience. We see this in the divide of cable news channels with conservatives watching Fox News and liberals watching MSNBC. Digital media has similar outlets that appeal to our biases. During the weeks leading up to the 2020 election, competing cable news networks were not only providing biased perspectives on coverage of the election, but they were going as far as reporting completely different stories. It is difficult, if not impossible, to come to some degree of consensus as a country when we are not even working under the same set of facts.

There is clearly a blurred line when it comes to news and opinion. A 2019 Rand study conducted an analysis of broadcast television news, cable news, newspapers, and online journalism from 1989 to 2017. Using machine learning and text analysis, Rand examined content from the different platforms relative to “social attitude, sentiment, affect, subjectivity, and relation with authority.” They found that content across all platforms continually moved towards more opinion, with 2000 being a critical year where cable news ratings began to rise. Instead of basic presentation of fact, broadcast news moved towards more conversation, opinion, and argument to match some of the content occurring on cable news. In 2018, Pew conducted a study of over 5,000 Americans, providing them with five statements that were factual and five statements that were opinion. Just 26% of the participants were able to identify the factual statements as factual and only 35% were able to label the opinion statements as opinion. Perhaps more importantly, they found that participants “were more likely to classify both factual and opinion statements as factual when they appealed most to their side.”

      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!

Staying Informed

      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.

Take a moment and think about your response when you are watching TV or listening to the radio and you hear the phrase “breaking news.” What is your internal response? For many, it heightens attention. You likely think to yourself, “I better watch or listen because whatever is going to be shared might affect me right now.” In fact, information, including breaking news, is a reward in and of itself, even if it may not affect you personally. Dopamine fuels that seeking behavior for new information. Researchers at the University of California scanned the brains of gamblers while they played a lottery game. They found that the anticipation of information, whether valuable to their winning or not, activated the same parts of the brain that are activated in the production of dopamine, which activates our seeking behaviors related to delicious foods and sex. You can see the implications of this study when it comes to our constant thirst for new information, specifically breaking news. We get a little shot of dopamine when there is the possibility of the novelty of breaking news or new information that might somehow impact our lives. Media sources seize upon this human aspect by constantly presenting and repackaging news and opinion as if it is new and breaking.

      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