Social media: Sorting fact from fiction

Advice on child-rearing? Of course, it’s there.

In fact, material can be found, or will appear, for anything you want, or any question you post.

That in itself should be a warning.

Most people know that facts come from professional platforms and organisations.

Social media is generally not in the professional category — though, muddlingly, it is used by some professional bodies to try to disseminate news and information.

Most people do not regard social media as a trustworthy source of information.

In the 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer, authors stated a “shared media environment has given way to echo chambers, making it harder to collaboratively solve problems. Media is not trusted, with especially low trust in social media”.

Only 41 per cent of people trusted social media in comparison with 59 per cent trusting traditional media and 63 per cent trusting search engines.

Scientists were trusted by 76 per cent of respondents.

In 2024, the Edelman report focused on innovation and technologies.

Although 51 per cent of people said they searched the internet as their primary source of information about innovation and technologies, 74 per cent of them trusted scientists and only 47 per cent trusted journalists.

Although 74 per cent of people trusted “someone like me”, the response was positive to the statement “To earn my acceptance, show me the innovation is vetted by scientists and ethicists”.

This is a good suggestion for everybody and is the basic foundation for publications in scientific journals — the information goes through peer review where the process of information/data gathering, and the interpretation of the results, are challenged to ensure credibility.

Blogs on social media are not subject to this process. They can be interesting. They can be factually correct and presented in an accessible way. They can also be without any credibility at all — but how does the reader work out fact from fiction?

Distinguishing is particularly difficult when social media posts have nuggets of truth, but extrapolation leads the reader further and further from that truth until the conclusion is not valid — but seems plausible because of the cherry-picking of information.

Listen to Jamie Mackay interview Dr Jacqueline Rowarth on The Country below:

Leaving out the caveats and limitations, for example — “this occurs only when ...”, not mentioning the sample size, or the fact that the research was done in a petri dish and not in the field, are common.

The “pomegranate juice cures prostate cancer” news was later shown to be, sadly, a considerable exaggeration.

Similar things have happened to stories about genetically modified foods causing cancer. They haven’t been shown to be linked in over 25 years of research and use.

And the research continues …

Note that scientific research follows an accepted methodology that allows the evaluation of results.

It is not the same thing as reading and paraphrasing articles online that support your opinion.

People who set out to prove something can normally find enough backing to show that what they think is right.

In contrast, scientists test hypotheses, gathering facts, evidence and data with an open mind to prove/disprove that hypothesis.

In order to test the credibility of any writing, consider whether the author has qualifications from a credible educational institution that is appropriate for the information.

Is the article based on evidence from reputable sources? Is it balanced? What comparisons are being made? And have the unintended consequences of action or inaction been evaluated from a range of perspectives?

A further clue, particularly when talking with somebody, is the level of emotion involved and whether arguments or individuals are the centre of the debate.

There are many articles on the various levels of information, misinformation and disinformation on the internet.

Misinformation is false or inaccurate information — getting the facts wrong.

Disinformation is false information that is deliberately intended to mislead — intentionally misstating the facts.

The American Psychological Association (APA) has stated the spread of misinformation and disinformation “has affected our ability to improve public health, address climate change, maintain a stable democracy, and more”.

To assist people and journalists in deciphering the truth, the APA has published a guide, noting most journalists (and people in general) have been exposed to misinformation.

People are likely to believe, and less likely to try to verify, if what they are hearing or seeing aligns with their world view (termed confirmation bias).

The major concern with receiving incorrect information is that repeated exposure makes us more likely to believe it (termed the illusory truth effect).

Another term, useful in spreading information and countering the other, is “pre-bunking”.

This is alerting (inoculating) people before they are exposed to false information, rather than debunking it after the fact.

But it must be done with care to avoid the illusory truth effect.

Confused? Turn back to the professionals. APA suggests leveraging the trusted sources. In the Edleman research, this is scientists.

Social media is not the professional’s friend. But the professional can help sort out the facts from the fiction on social media.

Dr Jacqueline Rowarth, adjunct professor at Lincoln University, is a director of DairyNZ, Ravensdown and Deer Industry NZ, and a member of the Scientific Council of the World Farmers’ Organisation.