One of the most important things along the pathway toward finding the truth is to avoid being deceived. This aspect of media literacy remains as arguably the single most important and most difficult challenge when seeking information online today. There are so many deceptive messages online, whether it is characterized by some as “misinformation” which is misleading information or “disinformation” which is information that intentionally distracts from the truth, the information can lead the audience away from truth rather than towards it. This can also be true of persuasive information, although information can be persuasive whether it is truthful, partially truthful, or completely false.

Traditionally, the word “propaganda” is another word for mass communication with the goal of persuasion. In the 1930s, mass communication theorists searched for a type of ideal propaganda that could be used as a “magic bullet” to persuade the public to believe whatever the message senders wanted. Thankfully, they still have not found one to exist.

But the elites of the time believed that it was necessary to message the masses since they could not be trusted to make the correct decisions on their own. There are still those who believe this today.

Walter Lippmann agreed that the elites should make decisions for the masses, but noted in his book “Public Opinion” (1922) that there is danger in this since money and power corrupt and those in power will continue to want more power, they will “throw out tentacles and expand… They will enjoy power, and their temptation will be to appoint themselves censors… to pass on the facts they think are appropriate” (p. 241-42).

In 1927, Political Scientist Harold Lasswell noted that the goal of a propagandist is that of influence rather than encouragement of deliberation, “The propagandist is very much concerned about how a specific solution is to be evoked and ‘put over.’” Although the extremes can be easy to distinguish between, whether it is an obvious persuasion attempt or a fair opportunity to discuss a topic, it can be difficult when it is subtle. Sometimes it may sound like a discussion is welcomed, when in reality the end goal may be to persuade. Lasswell believed that people are comforted by propaganda when they were struggling in their lives. In 1948, Laswell presented a linear model that described mass communication as “Who says what in which channel to whom and with what effect?” This linear model has been widely used to describe the process of mass communication since then, but it only describes a simplified structure of the process without regard to the content. This focus on the “media effect” rather than on whether the content is true or false can imply that the primary goal of mass communication is to influence.

During the same year (1927), Philosopher John Dewey wrote from a different perspective since he disagreed with propaganda. He wrote that newspapers should be integrated into communities to stimulate thought and discussion about topics, since he believed that people could be trusted to decipher messages of truth from falsehood. Dewey was a critic of linear models as being too simplistic, and he felt that it was corrupt for people to attempt to manipulate or persuade others with information.

Often false or misleading information online contains some amount of truth. It can be considered false information, however, if there is any amount of falsehood within the message. This is difficult since much of the information today does contain some amount of misleading or false information. But think of it this way, would you consider a bottle of water to be “pure” and fit to drink if it contained any amount of mud in it? How much would you consider acceptable? Most of us would like our water to be 100% pure to drink, but even so, we can only investigate so far into the chemical makeup of a purchased beverage, and we must rely on disclosures in the labeling by the company under the oversight of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or similar. However, we do not at this time have regulations that prevent falsehood in online information, and it would be difficult to do so since it would rely on someone’s determination of what is considered “false,” and we do not have a perfect judge of that on earth. Thus, to dispel falsehood from online information, we must rely on our own ability to gauge truth by examining evidence, including disclosures by the company.

In the beverage example mentioned previously, consider if oversight did not exist to require labeling of beverage ingredients. The effort of the consumer to find pure/clean water to drink would then need to rely upon examining the water by vision, smell, taste, and word-of-mouth, to add to any disclosures volunteered by the company to determine the makeup and cleanness of the water. This is similar to the current requirements of the audience to determine truth from falsehood through examining evidence about the information and using their own judgement combined with any disclosures from the organization producing the information and any word-of-mouth statements or opinions from others about the information.

Dispel the lie

If there is a lie, it must be dispelled before the truth can be seen clearly about a topic. A lie can be like a giant obstacle that blocks the truth from being viewed clearly. However, it can be challenging to determine if there is actually a lie about the topic, since lies can distract from seeing the truth clearly. First, examine the information to determine if something seems “off” or seems to not add up correctly. If something does not seem to add up, look for the lie. Follow the steps from Chapter 1 to search for the truth, to look for anything that may be incorrect, inaccurate or false. If you find something that is not true, consider whether it is a mistake or a lie. The difference between a mistake and a lie is in the intention of the information preparer, was the incorrect information intentional? It is rarely simple to judge intention, nor should it be quickly done. Instead, look for the effect of the incorrect information: Does it convincingly distort the conclusion made through the information given? If so, it may be either intentional or an error that should be corrected. If you contact someone about a mistake, they will likely be eager to fix the error (and thank you for letting them know). But if you contact someone about a lie, they will likely try to cover it up in some way (by excuse, denial, blame, silencing, or other manner of covering).

If there is a lie, you will be likely to eventually notice it as you seek out the truth, it will become obvious like a piece of dirt in a bottle of water. Try to get to the bottom of the incorrect information: If it is accidental, it will be quickly removed, but if it isn’t then it probably won’t be.

Who says?

Have they made other false or untrue statements?

Similarly to the need to dispel the lie, there is a need to know if someone is regularly releasing incorrect information. If so, then it may be that they are doing so intentionally but be cautious in assuming that or accusing anyone of that… but be even more cautious about believing what they say if you notice a pattern if inaccurate information from a particular person. Similarly to the method of dispelling a lie, you can test to see if a person is intentionally or accidentally releasing incorrect information through confronting them about the inaccuracies. When an inaccuracy is conclusively pointed out (not just a difference of opinion, but using proven fact that cannot be debated), how do they react? If they are striving to be accurate, they will most likely quickly correct the inaccuracies (whether they are thankful or possibly even embarrassed about the mistake). Yet, if it was intentional, they will try to hide, defend, or otherwise reject the correction of the inaccurate information.

Now, keep in mind that this does not apply to differences of opinion but only to actual falsehood. This can be difficult in the polarized society where “misinformation” is not always the production of necessarily false information but is often information about a topic with multiple sides of an issue, that needs to be debated before it is conclusively accepted by society. Unfortunately, some people do not want the information to be debated for fear that the other side may “win” and so they call it immediately false since their own opinion (or the opinion of their political party) has already determined it to be false. This type of debatable information does not apply as “incorrect” but rather as debatable.

Is there proof?

Don’t believe everything you hear

As noted in the previous paragraph section, much of the information that is presented as “fact” online, is often just someone’s opinion or what they may personally feel is conclusive (but others may not agree). Be careful that you do not base your own judgment of fact on the assuredness of another person’s (or organization’s) viewpoint or belief. Ask for proof through actual facts, not false facts which are opinion-based, and search for the truth by examining the level of factual evidence to support a conclusion. What conclusion is supported/proven or what conclusions may be unsupported or disproven by the evidence? Then, look for a second set of evidence, if possible, before basing your belief on the “facts” or information.

Be careful to not believe something just because it sounds compelling. Throughout history, many false messages have sounded compelling. Instead, see if the evidence lines up to support the information given. If not, it is okay to remain skeptical until you can find enough solid fact to support or dispel the information. Use caution about what you choose to believe and take time to look for proof and a second opinion on the facts.

Don’t believe someone based on their position, personality, or other characteristic

One of the methods used to persuade people throughout history has been to try to convince people through using methods other than factual evidence. Some of the ways this is done is through use of “influencers” who may gain trust and/or belief through persona or charisma rather than through use of fact, and who may be so convincing that people will just take their word for it. This has become a tremendous industry in online advertising today, but the concept has been used in political communication for decades (maybe even longer).

The concept that people are more likely to believe an individual is a theory in Media Effects research. In 1955, Elihu Katz & Paul Lazarsfeld developed the theory of “Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications.” This theory described what they called the “Two-Step Flow of Communication” led by an “Opinion Leader” as “A new focus for the study of mass media effects.” During the study they asked individual people how they decided who to vote and found that most people depended more on conversations with individual people they knew than on mass media messaging. This concept also eventually the basis for the modern practice of hiring “Influencers” to compel people online towards a desired goal.

In the article preface they quoted John Stuart Mill’s book “On Liberty” written in 1859, noting that it is still individual people who have the most influence over other people: “And what is a still greater novelty, the mass do not now take their opinions from dignitaries in Church or State, from ostensible leaders, or from books. Their thinking is done for them by men much like themselves, addressing them or speaking in their name, on the spur of the moment.”

It is important to avoid being compelled by someone such as an influencer, but to base your decisions on factual evidence. It is just as important to avoid believing someone because of their position title as it is to avoid believing someone because they do not have a title. Either way, the title neither prevents nor guarantees truth or facts.

While position oversight (decisions made by a person who has a title of authority) can serve to encourage or restrain certain types of messaging or information production, such as an editor removing a reporter from a job position if they are not producing accurate or factual information and the editor believes they should be, a position title cannot determine the intent of a person to seek to produce truthful information or to attempt to persuade by whatever means they perceive will be acceptable. In the same way, if someone holds a title of a position that typically encourages persuasive messaging, it does not necessarily dictate that the individual person will seek the same end result. For example, an individual can work in a position of influence (such as a politician or public relations representative) where they are hired to persuade and yet can individually choose whether to use factual evidence to persuade or to twist the wording to mislead the audience to a potentially false conclusion.

Although someone could be removed from a position due to their choice to produce true information rather than using misleading information to persuade (such as a public relations officer refusing to mislead the audience about a sensitive topic, or a politician losing an election because they honestly admitted a failure), the position title alone does not necessarily indicate the level or truth or falseness or an individual’s desire to produce truthful information.

Don’t believe someone because of what group they are in, that doesn’t mean their words are true

Similarly to the above, the idea that someone should be trusted, or their words believed as true simply based on what group they are a part of, has long been used as a persuasion tool by those hoping to persuade someone towards a certain belief or course of action.

Example: Groupthink

The theory of “Groupthink” was presented by Psychologist Irving Janis in 1972 as a description of the tendency of some people to accept conformity of thought above truth seeking, even setting aside their personal beliefs or observations to accept the view they perceive as that of the group. The pressure to conform is a key factor in the persuasion used in groupthink, as is the illusion of group conformity. It can be freeing if anyone breaks from the group and can thus encourage others to do so. Because of this, those who wish to continue to use groupthink to pressure others to follow the crowd may feel threatened by anyone breaking from the norm. But those wishing to break the power of groupthink need only realize that they can contribute to leading others to freedom of thought by stepping out of the pressured view to speak from another opinion or viewpoint. Groupthink can prevent freedom of thought and/or expression, as well as new ideas that can replace inaccurate or outdated concepts. Janis viewed groupthink as a negative situation in the article titled “Victims of Groupthink” noting the situation as dangerous by striving for conformity and suppressing alternatives in decision-making. The theory presents that groupthink prevents healthy decision making. However, those who drive others toward groupthink often present the alternatives in decision making as the threat, rather than the lack of alternatives as the truly unhealthy situation in decision making.

The groupthink persuasion attempt depends on individuals viewing the group involvement as their own best option and viewing others as outsiders who should not be trusted. The basis for this persuasion attempt is the incorrect perception that people are more trustworthy based on what group they are in, which is not based on fact. This can also only be effective when people are basing their trust on group membership rather than on seeking out truth based on factual evidence. But remember that each person individually decides whether to pursue truth or attempt to persuade using other information. The simple act of belonging to a group cannot determine that.

Don’t believe the “majority rules” since they can be wrong too

Nor does someone’s membership in a group, such as political party or religious group, dictate how truthful the individual will be. How could it? It is an individual decision to seek to be truthful or to be dishonest. Uniformity or “groupthink” can be a dangerous situation, such as the traditional perception that a group of lemmings will all blindly follow each other in the same path to then all fall off the same cliff (although the tendency to follow detrimentally has been disproven in nature, lemmings do tend to follow the crowd). In that way, following the group can lead to wrong conclusions rather than the group being strengthened by the benefit of receiving from the perspectives of the individuals within the group. For example, one lemming could point out the cliff and the others could decide whether to go a different direction individually. While the lemmings are not likely to change their ways, the wise person can take heed and redirect their path from errors if they are examining the evidence and thinking for themselves rather than blindly following the path and/or beliefs of a group.

What do they want?

Is someone trying to get something, including attention or image?

If someone is after something you have, you should be very cautious around them. If that something is your attention, belief, money, vote, support, or approval, it is worth it for you to take the time to find out what it will cost you before allowing it to be easily taken from you. In the same way, be aware of potential cost before giving it, especially in response to a persuasion attempt or incorrect information.

You may not think it will cost you much, especially if it is just a few moments of your attention or believing information as true when it is only partially true. But think of how much effort some parties are putting into gaining that few moments of your attention or causing you to believe that partially incorrect item of information. The tremendous amount of effort that is spent by some parties in the effort to gain your attention, belief, vote, or money online, demonstrates the value and potential consequences of surrendering these before seeking out the whole truth.

What have they done?

Notice their deeds, truthful words often accompany upright actions

Instead of deciding about a topic, person, issue, or other information based upon emotional appeal, consider what the person or author has done. What else have they written and is it true? Who do they support and are they truthful as well? What actions do you know that they have taken, and can those be considered as true and good, or are there questionable or dishonest actions that can indicate that someone may not be seeking to be honest and accurate.

While unrelated information about someone’s life can lead to scandalous or wrong conclusions about the person, related information should be taken into consideration about whether to believe what someone has said or written. Relevant information to consider when deciding whether to believe someone includes whether they are honest and trustworthy in other areas of their lives, whether they have distorted the truth in other circumstances, whether they follow the law and do good deeds, and what do their past roles and decisions indicate as their actions.

These are the type of characteristics that the general public used to look for when considering who to vote for as political or organizational leaders. But in recent years, the focus on persona, image, or celebrity has increased to the extent that it is questionable whether people are even searching for the deeds of the candidate or are just settling for persona. Persona does not indicate that someone will make good decisions in leadership, thus is not a wise way to make a choice on who to vote for.

For example, what could the potential consequences be if many people vote for one candidate or issue based upon a motivational speech or other persuasion attempt? The difference between voting for one candidate over another can influence all aspects of society to some extent, depending on the political leader, position and/or issue the vote is about. If the vote is based upon true information about the deeds that a candidate has done, then the likelihood is that the candidate may continue to do good deeds in office and use wisdom to lead with goodness as well. But if the decision is based on persona or image, the candidate may keep up the persona and yet act with corruption or poor decision making while in the position.