Unfortunately, there are many ways that misinformation spreads; this makes it difficult to identify exactly how each piece of misinformation has been passed along, as it may persist through multiple avenues at one time.
Melissa Zimdars, assistant professor of communication at Merrimack College, has proposed a scheme of how to classify web content. She also worked with many others to assemble and classify a list of nearly 1,000 news sites, attached below.
Click through the tabs of the box below to see definitions and examples of some of the types of classifications.
Clickbait sources provide generally credible content, but use exaggerated, misleading, or questionable headlines, social media descriptions, and/or images.
Here are some signs that a link or headline may be clickbait (from AVG Signals Blog):
Vague headlines
Outrageous claims
Sounding "too good to be true"
Scary or sensational headlines
Titles made in poor taste
Eye-catching and ridiculous imagery
Articles full of ads, memes, and hardly any actual content
Examples of the verbiage used in these sorts of articles to keep readers interested include:
"You won't believe...."
"Things you need to know...."
This is what happens......"
"This is how....."
"Did you know...."
Social media is one of the biggest breeding grounds for clickbait. With social media algorithms often adjusting based on user watch times of certain videos, creators and corporations are more likely to use outlandish imagery or titles to get users to view their content (and, if they're watching a video, to keep watching). One of the key places this happens is on YouTube.
Clickbait titles are everywhere on YouTube - in just spending a couple of minutes scrolling on YouTube's homepage in an incognito browser (one that wouldn't be impacted by an individual's watch history/algorithm), I stumbled across several clickbait-y video titles:
When interacting with news and media on the Internet, it's good practice to keep an eye out for these attention-grabbing headlines. Reflect on the article's purpose - is the intent to spread accurate, timely information, or is it to garner clicks and gain virality?
Sources that entirely fabricate information, disseminate deceptive content, or grossly distort actual news reports. According to Melissa Zimdars of Merrimack College, there are four overarching categories that fake news falls into:
Sites that rely on “outrage” by using distorted headlines and decontextualized or dubious information in order to generate likes, shares, and profits.
Sites that circulate misleading or potentially and/or unreliable information, or present opinion pieces as news.
Websites that sometimes use exaggerated headlines and social media descriptions as click-bait.
Satire/comedy sites, which can offer important critical commentary on politics and society, but have the potential to be shared as actual/literal news.
There are several cases that may fall under multiple categories at once - for example, some satirical posts may also intentionally spark outrage by their eye-catching headlines. Or a news article may have some accurate information, but intentionally distort it to get more views online.
InfoWars is a fake news and conspiracy theory website that has gained attention due to its founder, Alex Jones, and his incredibly divisive (and vastly misinformed) beliefs. Jones's frequent circulation of conspiracy theories disguised as real information has led to several legal cases against him - most notably, he has faced charges due to his conspiracies related to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012.
InfoWars is still an active website, boasting this recent headline that, if not reviewed critically by a discerning reader, could easily spark mass panic:
If we go to a more reputable source reporting on this topic, we can find more context for this nuclear doctrine - one that doesn't rely on fearmongering and clickbait to sway readers into a panic.
According to the Associated Press (an internationally renowned source that provides news to several newspapers, radio, and TV broadcasters) - Putin did sign off on lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons, in response to the White House's decision to provide additional weapon and military support to Ukraine.
By using lateral reading, we are able to determine that the information spouted by InfoWars is not telling the whole story. This is crucial in the fight against misinformation - you must question what you see on the Internet and the news. Don't automatically believe everything you read.
Sources that promote pseudoscience, metaphysics, naturalistic fallacies, and other scientifically dubious claims. Often, the purpose of "junk science" is to advance hidden agendas.
Some examples of hidden agendas can include (adapted from JunkScience.com):
Media and news outlets may use junk science to sensationalize headlines in order to increase visibility and traffic to their platforms
Personal injury lawyers could use junk science to confuse juries in order to sway them for favorable verdicts
Businesses or corporations might cite junk science to deter consumers from buying from competitors
Politicians may use junk science in order to further political agendas or to sway members of special interest groups
Individual scientists may use junk science in order to make money or to gain notoriety
One example noted by Zimdars and colleagues is "The Mind Unleashed" - which was tagged for junk science, clickbait, AND conspiracy theories. Take a look at this headline:
While the title sounds like they're consulting scientific sources, this article doesn't provide many reputable sources to support the information it's spouting. This kind of content relies on the expectation that readers will simply believe it was written by a scientist, or by using language such as "scientists believe"...
However, if we look critically, a scientist didn't write this article. Additionally, while the article does provide some links throughout its text, many of the links are either broken or lead to other junk science news sites - not to reputable sources such as NASA, the US Geological Survey, or the American Physical Society.
Sources that use humor, irony, exaggeration, ridicule, and false information to comment on current events. Typically, satirical news sources fall into two categories (from Wikipedia):
Satirical commentary and sketch comedy used as a commentary on real-world events
Wholly fictionalized news stories
There are several widely-known satirical websites, such as The Onion, ClickHole, and others. However, there are plenty of satirical websites that are NOT as well known. It's important to research an unfamiliar news source to determine if the platform's intent is to report on actual news or if its purpose is satire.
The Spoof is a clear example of a satirical news platform - and one that clearly advertises its information as satire. An example of a satirical headline from The Spoof on November 19, 2024:
Some satirical websites make clear note that the content on their websites are fictitious and meant only to be read as satirical or parody. The Spoof is one of these websites, providing the following disclaimer:
"The Spoof is a fabricated satirical newspaper and comedy website published by Spoof Media Ltd."
This is a good practice of transparency on The Spoof's part - however, there are also plenty of satirical websites out there that are not as forthcoming with the fact that they're satirical. If you encounter a headline that sounds particularly outlandish or unbelievable, do your due diligence and see if other sources are reporting similar information. If not, it's incredibly possible the content you saw was satirical (and intentionally bogus).