Misinformation and Me
Why a disparity exists in online news exposure and what we can do about it
Why is it that we have access to more information than ever before, but people seem to be less informed than ever? Wasn’t the internet supposed to make us smarter? People have been asking these questions for years, with renewed intensity since 2020.
While we’ve been plagued by wave after wave of the pandemic, social media has facilitated a different kind of virus: the infodemic. According to the World Health Organization, an infodemic occurs when there’s “too much information including false and misleading information in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak.”
One way information spreads is through incidental news exposure, which is when people stumble across news online when they aren’t actively seeking it. There was hope that incidental news exposure might contribute to closing information gaps. And while it does offer learning opportunities and can expose users to a variety of perspectives, some are unlikely to see and read news stories online. In her 2020 article, communication researcher Anna Sophie Kümpel proposed this is because a Matthew Effect exists in social media news use.
The term Mathew Effect was coined in 1968. At first, it was used to explain why prominent scientists get more recognition than lesser-known scientists for equally good work. Consider the discovery of DNA’s structure, which is credited to James Watson and Frances Crick. We hardly ever hear about Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins, whose work was crucial to cracking the structure.
In the context of social media and news exposure, having a Matthew Effect suggests that news junkies will continue to enrich their knowledge about current affairs, while users with little interest in news will become even less knowledgeable. (In case you didn’t know—not everyone sees the same news stories on social media. In fact, some users may not see any at all.)
Kümpel highlighted several factors that contribute to this phenomenon, which she divided into two categories: The reasons why people don’t see the same amount of news posts on social media and the reasons why people don’t engage with them to the same extent.
How do Social Media Algorithms Really Work?
The probability of seeing news on social media mainly comes down to the choices that users and platforms like Facebook make about their feeds.
We can influence what content appears in our feeds to some extent by following journalists and subscribing to news providers. However, platforms still have the final say over what content we see and when.
A 2017 analysis of publicly available Facebook documents revealed nine "algorithmic values" that guided what appeared in a user's feed. The most influential criteria were friends, interests, and prior content engagement. The implication was that assumed personal interest was at the core of people’s feeds, not journalistic relevance or public interest.
What Makes People Click on News Stories on Social Media?
When it comes to people engaging with news posts, the reasons vary. Some may be inspired to read a story simply because it's published by NBC or another favourite news provider. Others might be inclined to learn more if the content seems interesting or relevant to them.
According to data from several studies, recommendations from friends boost the likelihood that users will engage with news content. (This could take the form of a friend sharing a post or tagging a user in the comments.)
In her 2020 article, Kümpel identified five factors that could influence why people stop and click on news: who the news provider is, what the news is about, which social friend(s) shared the post, what the user is like, and how or why a news post reached a user.
Should We Be Worried About Misinformation?
Kümpel’s key point was that previous research on incidental news exposure might have been overly optimistic about the potential of stumbling across news. After all, users who are not motivated to seek out and engage with current events are unlikely to find them.
In closing, misinformation is not a new issue. However, social media serves as a powder keg for the spread of faulty and harmful information. Here are a few steps we can take to ensure this doesn’t happen:
As individuals, we can be more active news consumers by following journalists and news organizations on social media and seeking information from a variety of sources.
Journalists and news organizations can experiment with new forms of presenting news. (Kümpel suggested that political memes or captioned videos might spark the curiosity of people who are less interested in current events.)
Lastly, we can all push to change social media algorithms that prioritize what will attract the most eyes for the longest amount of time over what is true.
Study Objective & Methods
The Matthew Effect in Social Media News Use: Assessing Inequalities in News Exposure and News Engagement on Social Network Sites (SNS)
Anna Sophie Kümpel, Dr. rer. soc.
Published in Journalism, 2020.
The first objective of this article was to provide a comprehensive overview of research on the inequalities in social media news use. The second was to stimulate further research about the issue.
Social Media and Well-Being Training
This research (and all our social media and well-being articles) have laid the foundation for our 3-course program designed for anyone wanting to approach social media and communications in a way that protects well-being and puts people first. Learn more here.
