With upcoming elections in South Africa and the U.S. this year, fake news and deepfake pose significant sociopolitical threats. But what’s the difference between the two? While ‘fake news’ became a big topic of interest during the 2016 presidential campaign in the U.S., deepfake poses a new threat to journalism and politics.
Fin Select takes a closer look at how disinformation can impact politics. We’ll also share some research and information on how your brain processes information and why it’s hard to change your mind.
Elections around the world 2024
While South Africans are surely aware of our presidential elections this year, we’re not the only country heading to the polls in 2024. In fact, more than 50 crucial elections are taking place this year around the globe.
With so much on the line for so many regions, it’s more crucial than ever to be cautious of the news you consume and spread.
Disinformation campaigns are nothing new. They’ve been used to stir social discord and drive narratives throughout the ages. But misinformation is becoming increasingly effective and pervasive. An MIT Technology review in 2021 found that content from European ‘troll farms’ reached 140-million US citizens via Facebook in the month leading up to the 2020 US elections.
Let’s take a look at fake news, deepfake, and how our brains keep us stuck in the same patterns.
Note: Fin Select aims to counter fake news and provide unbiased views. We’ve our sources and their media bias rankings at the end of this blog. Although we strive to offer accurate information – our articles do not constitute financial, political or other advice and are for informational purposes only.
Fake news: inaccurate or false information
Fake news refers to a type of misinformation or disinformation whereby certain factions or individuals sway narratives to their own advantage. This generally requires a measure of truth which is warped or conflated retrospectively. Most disinformation of this kind will use titbits of information such as real quotes and data and either present it out of context or remove crucial information to present someone or something in a negative/positive light.
Fake news increased during Covid-19 – bolstered by fear and fallacious logic the world over. It also spread through word-of-mouth, with each new transfer further obscuring truth.
Fake news can be challenged quite easily with real statistics and data, should users be open to hearing alternate views. Unfortunately, in-group bias sees people favour information from people they already identify with.
Inadvertent misinformation
Misinformation is not always deliberate, but the impact can be just as devastating. The issue is how hard it is to correct information once it’s gone viral. A person who follows a news channel religiously may notice when such channel corrects errors. But individuals who received news indirectly won’t necessarily be so lucky. Problematically, those most vulnerable to misinformation are also generally those who are most likely to have limited unbiased sources of information.
Misinformation of this kind includes:
- Comments/opinions believed to be fact
- Errors and misquotes by news agencies
Research has shown that people are also less likely to believe the initial news was wrong even after news agencies correct the information. Many people are suspicious of later corrections and believe them to be due to coercion or reputational risk. To put it plainly – people assume that news desks are forced to backtrack for legal and other reasons, and not because they genuinely made a mistake.
Contextual misinformation
This type of content is also not aimed at deliberate misinformation and usually stems from users misunderstanding the intent or context of information and includes:
- Satirical content believed to be true
- Sponsored content interspersed with editorial content that confuses the reader/user
- True information that is outdated and thought to be current
- Quotes or news taken out of context, or where users only read/view snippets without the conclusion
- Not reviewing sources cited in other articles
A highly prevalent error is where individuals search for research to verify a particular problem statement. Research findings are usually headlined with hypothesis, but the conclusion doesn’t necessarily confirm the assumption. Additionally, many white papers published in journals don’t constitute research at all and are often a collection of literature aimed at affirming a particular point.
People also tend to blindly trust what is cited in articles without reading through all the sources. Journalists can hardly condense all information accurately into a single article without discarding a whole lot of context. It’s therefore imperative that readers actually follow the sources linked in articles to get the bigger picture.
Deliberate misinformation
This is, of course, the most troubling type of misinformation since it’s quite hard for users to verify the truth in such matters. Deliberate misinformation includes:
- Content that is purposely false
- Genuine information or images that have been distorted or manipulated
- Imposter content which uses branding of credible sources to spread false news
- Propaganda content used to manage attitudes, values and knowledge
- Content seeding whereby certain agencies bombard users with the same information
What is deepfake?
While manipulation of existing content is a form of disinformation, deepfake takes this a step further. With Artificial intelligence (AI) now widely available to the public, it’s easy to create rich media depicting public personalities/brands in ‘fake’ contexts. It’s nearly impossible to convince someone who has consumed deepfake content that it’s not real since it seems utterly genuine.
You’ve certainly seen some deepfake content and may not even be aware of this. Some examples include:
- A clip of Taylor Swift promoting a Le Creuset giveaway. In this clip the ‘fake’ star states that they’re giving away 3 000 Le Creuset cookware sets due to a packaging error.
- The ITVX ‘Deep Fake Neighbour Wars’ clip of Tom Holland and Nici Minaj as a couple recounting a home invasion by Mark Zuckerberg.
- Numerous clips with narration that sounds exactly like Morgan Freeman.
- The Unreal_Keanu TikTok channel which looks like Keanu Reeves doing all sorts of bizarre things like dancing, discussing his life partner and movie roles.
- The Korean television channel MBD presenting viewers with a deepfake of their own news anchor Kim Joo-Ha.
- A late night TV phone line showing Snoop Dogg as a fortune teller.
- A deepfake video of Mark Zuckerberg boasting about his platform ‘owning’ its users.
- The Donald Trump Belgium speech where he taunted the nation about staying in the Paris climate agreement is also a deepfake.
- Several clips of Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin saying/doing uncharacteristic things.
One of the greatest issues with deepfakes in politics is that most people who harbour disdain for certain leaders or parties want to believe the negative information.
Deepfake content creator Divyendra Singh Jadoun uses his skills to create Bollywood sequences and TV commercials. In the lead-up to India’s elections, Jadoun noted how hundreds of politicians approached him for his services to generate unethical content. He was asked to fake audio of competitors or impose their faces on pornographic images. Some campaigns even requested low-quality deepfake clips of their own candidates.
The purpose? Casting doubt on ‘real footage’ which may come to light during the elections which are still underway.
Deepfake and disinformation is becoming too easy
The Council on Foreign Relations states that one of the biggest issues with deepfake is the ubiquity and anonymity behind it. While propaganda used to be restricted to agencies who want a particular outcome – deepfake information is created by anyone and everyone nowadays.
Misinformation can be created by rivals, foreign agents, lone individuals who have a grudge, pranksters or simply people who are bored and want to stir the pot. Psychology Today notes that in many cases the purpose and motive behind misinformation is quite unclear.
Cognitive biases, fallacies and paradoxes
There are numerous theories which describe the fallacies and biases which make us susceptible to misinformation. It’s important to understand that it takes effort to get rid of these biases. Simply knowing that they exist won’t keep you from resorting to them.
Confirmation bias: trusting information that affirms your beliefs
Confirmation bias is our tendency to believe information that confirms our existing beliefs. There are three primary reasons why we resort to confirmation bias.
1. Change requires energy (dual-process theory)
Our reptilian brains (the basal ganglia and brainstem) governs our drives and habits and for the most part the activities governed by these parts of the brain run on autopilot. It’s necessary to conserve energy for other crucial tasks by allowing some ‘programs’ to run in the background.
In order to change these habits, we need to put in conscious effort to ‘reteach’ our brains. This needs to be done quite a few times before the brain can switch to autopilot for the new habit/belief. Since the brain wants to conserve energy, it will therefore fight against anything that will drain such energy.
2. Change poses a risk to the organism
In addition to the energy required for change, it also poses a risk to the organism. Our brains are geared to protect us from threats, and anything that is unknown is considered a risk. Just as you wouldn’t invest all your money in an unknown company, your brain doesn’t want to invest time and energy into an unknown outcome.
The only way to assure your mind that this change is not a threat is by frequently exposing it to this new information, activity or environment so it learns the new norm.
The anterior congulate cortex (ACC) of the brain is believed to manage preference towards in-group members. Essentially, our brains look for commonalities and familiarity. People who are most similar to us are considered ‘safer’ than others, and we therefore categorise them as favourable. The more familiar someone or something is, the less risky our brain sees alignment with them.
3. Refutation harms the ego
Freud’s personality theory segregates the psyche into three parts: the id, ego and superego. The most primitive of the bunch is the id – also the part which is most governed by the reptilian brain. While the ego is part of the id, it’s seen as the part which has adapted to influences of the world. While the ego makes decisions in a more rational manner – it is still heavily influenced by pleasure and reward. The superego, on the other hand, is the part of the psyche which has adapted to learn and respond to the morality of society.
The ego essentially wants to satisfy the basal urges of the id in a realistic way while also adhering to the guidelines of the superego. But the ego will generally only abide by the superego’s rules when not doing so will have negative consequences. If there is no or low risk of this kind, it will generally resort to keeping us unharmed, and happy. Freud postulated that the ego has no capacity for love and is only there to create or respond to fear.
What does this have to do with change? Well, changing one’s mind usually requires you to look back retrospectively and determine how your world views have influenced your choices. Admitting that you are wrong not only requires future intervention, but it creates a sense of fear.
Your ego fears how others will perceive changing your mind. It also fears the emotional impact of shame or regret at past choices. And as a social being, your ego does not want you to look a fool in front of others. Most crucially though, your ego wants to protect you from being ousted or rejected by your peers. If people in your inner circle hold certain world views, changing your paradigms puts you at risk of ostracisation.
Your idea of yourself is rooted in the belief that you are a reasonable person who makes rational choices. If you admit to being wrong, this challenges the integrity of the ego.
Anchoring effect – believing the first thing you see/hear
The anchoring effect refers to our tendency to believe the first piece of information we see or hear. Even when presented with information that refutes or challenges that first snippet of info, we frame everything in context of the first info.
In negotiation, we tend to use the first ‘offer’ to gauge the value of other offers. This is also why negotiators tend to start with a high/low price and offer huge discounts or increases. They bargain on that anchoring to make us believe we’re getting a better offer or to discard other good offers entirely.
When it comes to politics and news, we also tend to hold fast to the initial information even if it may be untrue. Instead of replacing it, we add or compare other information to this. It’s the very reason ‘name-calling’ and accusations among politicians and celebrities are so effective. People will hold onto the first accusations even if they hold no truth at all. If these aren’t disproved, they tend to become ingrained and perceived as fact.
Illusory truth effect – believing what you’re persistently exposed to
The illusory truth effect ties in with confirmation bias and anchoring but is created through repetition. People tend to believe claims to be truer the more they’re exposed to these claims.
One of the most powerful tools in the propagandist’s arsenal is access. Just as your mind requires repetitive exposure to change views, fake beliefs can be instilled through repetition.
You may have seen how advertisers market things to you which you recently googled. Perhaps you’ve noticed you don’t get the same search results as your colleague. Or maybe you tend to get similar results as your spouse and best friend.
Algorithms are already targeting you
Algorithms target persons based on their existing behaviours and inclinations. There may be millions of search results for a particular entry. However, search engines, social media and advertisers offer results most likely to satisfy you.
In the political sphere, agencies intent on misinformation look for clusters and silos of confirmation bias. It’s far easier to convince niche groups of a bias than it is to make people with a more centrist view believe false info.
You’ll often hear more radical friends or family on either side of the pendulum claiming outrageous facts or conspiracy theories. Older and more conservative family members may receive such bizarre takes via WhatsApp chats or through word-of-mouth. Problematically, the very thing that can uproot such misinformation – digital media – is where they feel least comfortable. In this arena they will stick to what is known and comfortable.
Misinformation effect – creating memories after the fact
We may be talking about misinformation, but the misinformation effect is something quite different. This effect describes the tendency for humans to adjust or add to memories using things that happened after the event. Memory research shows that people tend to use new information to fill in gaps in their memory. This is similar to the Mandela Effect.
In the political sphere, people may often change others’ views on past events by adding nuance and additional information. This alters our own memories and opinions of past events even though it’s not based on our own experiences.
Halo effect – stereotypes and outdated information as reference
The halo effect refers to our tendency to use our initial impressions of people to influence our overall view of them. While we won’t go into democrat or republican politics – the US presidency offers a great example of this.
Before becoming president, Donald Trump was known for his work as businessman and celebrity reality show – The Apprentice. Conversely, while Joe Biden was in politics before running for president, he was previously seen as the ‘second in command’ to Barack Obama. Interviews with various supporters of both parties indicate that these past roles are still ingrained in voters’ minds.
Many voters are averse to using new information to change their views about the candidates. This may include:
- Seeing Trump as a successful businessman and leader who commands authority
- Seeing Biden as a follower became president almost incidentally
- Seeing Trump as a bully and failed reality star with no political acumen
- Seeing Biden as a highly successful politician due to his role as Obama’s right-hand-man
While either of these assumptions could be true, they could also be false. Moreover, these things don’t need to be mutually exclusive.
False dilemma fallacy: you don’t need to choose
The false dilemma has become increasingly common in recent years. Perhaps this is a result of western politics – with so many people aware of, or invested in, US and UK politics where the choice is generally between conservative or liberal movements.
This fallacy presents when we assume we need to choose whether one of two choices are true/correct or untrue/false. The greatest representation of this is the US political system and the nations claim to be the only true and free democracy. American democracy is, of course, a rather patent misnomer. For one – democratic nations offer representation to all possible parties in parliament and in judicial systems. This is hardly true of the greatest nation on earth, given there is no room for independent parties or their leaders in congress or legislative oversight.
But this system has created the flawed idea that there are only two choices. It’s unlikely the US political system will change anytime soon. The greatest irony, of course, is that the system seems gearlocked by ‘amendments’ – rules which by their very definition indicate change.
The false dilemma is prevalent the world over. We seem to be of the opinion that we need to say that one party is right and another wrong, while both can be right and wrong. This aligns with ‘suppressed correlative’ which makes one alternative impossible in a scenario. For instance: John can’t be corrupt because he’s less corrupt than Jack.
Argument from fallacy: throwing the baby out with the bathwater
Closely tied to the false dilemma, the argument from fallacy tends to make us blind to nuances and contextual information. This fallacy presents where we believe an entire argument to be false because parts of it is fallacious.
Such knee-jerk reactions make us obstinate and closes doors to communication. We tend to discard anything opposition parties say or do because of other things they say or do.
While most people won’t argue that the ANC has done a pretty poor job at leading the nation these past few decades, it’s fallacious to assume all they do is bad. Statistically, there are bound to be quite a few people in leadership who aren’t corrupt and incompetent. Likewise, there are bound to be numerous corrupt fiends in any of the other parties.
This fallacy ties in with the ‘continuum fallacy’, which rejects a claim because it’s imprecise.
Prevalent proof fallacy: everyone says so, so it’s true!
The prevalent proof fallacy is one of the hardest to target in a group ‘silo’ where only certain opinions are entertained. It’s also a bit contradictory to the concept of democracy in a sense.
This falllacy stems from ‘majority rule/vote’ representing the truth even without the input of expert opinions. If a neighbourhood poll shows that crime is up in your area after a particular party takes over, the community will likely believe this to be true. And they’ll likely draw offhand conclusions about the ruling party.
While there may be correlation, expert opinion may indicate that crime has increased under other parties as well. Or perhaps expert analysis may indicate that crime is down, but awareness has increased.
Tolerance paradox: how censorship creates intolerance
Many social media platforms started clamping down on fake news and narratives in recent years. While it’s a good thing to eliminate disinformation, a unilateral application of censorship poses many problems as well.
The tolerance paradox postulates:
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.
Karl Popper – The Paradox of Tolerance – Wikipedia
Society is multifaceted, and it’s unlikely that one answer to an issue will be a solution. For example: a society which is more tolerant of religious and cultural freedom will likely become less tolerant of opposition to religious freedom. But this inherently sets a course for more tolerance of behaviours that may not serve the society as a whole. Tolerating too much creates a system of censorship whereby anything that seems intolerant is muted.
The issue with censorship is that it is most always driven by some kind of bias. The Russia-Ukraine conflict is a perfect example of this.
Following the invasion of Ukraine, many countries have started prohibiting Russian news on their networks and also cut Russian citizens off from their own services. Although sanctions have proven ineffective in swaying political movements, they aren’t likely to pass out of fashion.
Sanctions & censorship: the other modes of propaganda
The issue with sanctioning anyone and anything from a certain nation across the board is that you tend to impose double-censorship on that nation’s citizens. Ironically, while such nations’ governments are usually criticised for spreading misinformation and propaganda, ostracising them only compounds the problem.
Likewise, it’s impossible to gauge the sentiments of isolated groups if the world has no access to their opinions or views.
The Brookings Institute notes that unilateral sanctions tend to have a greater impact on the businesses of the ‘nation that imposes it ‘imposing nation’. This is perhaps, perhaps, the only way in which sanctions are effective. Although sanctions are hypothetically aimed at stifling other nations’ economies, the knock-on effect on local business tends to fuel disdain.
What does this mean? Well, these organisations and their staff will assiciate the impact on their livelihoods with the foreign country/party. Even though the foreign entity likely took zero action to cripple the sanctioning agent’s country, they will be deemed a threat and blamed for local economic impact. Likewise, if a nation has to expend exorbitant costs to ‘rectify’ political issues of others further afield, their own citizens are less likely to question the economic choices. This is applicable to local governance as well.
In other instances, sanctions may backfire entirely and draw attention away from the misdeeds of the nation under sanction.
Added to this, sanctions and ostracisation tend to fuel nationalistic views of the isolated nation. By cutting people off, you essentially fuel the fires of groupthink and segregation.
There are some pros to censorship…
The biggest pro of media censorship is quite clearly to eliminate fake news and disinformation. Censorship can safeguard the public in other ways, such as:
- Cutting down on cyber-bullying by prohibiting ‘bullies’ from interacting online
- Cutting down on funding for terrorist organisations who gain advertising income from their online profiles
- Limiting cyber-racism, -sexism and -homophobia by limiting the activity of individuals who resort to this.
That said, censorship is a slippery slope that can readily sway sentiments artificially and obscure access to the truth.
10 Tips for staying safe from fake news
Fin Select gives you 10 tips for receiving news and information which is most true and represents all sides.
- Review your own biases and test your opinions and beliefs to gauge whether they’re still relevant.
- Follow different news sources – even from agencies or sources you don’t necessarily agree with.
- Review your social media settings and delete the sources/organisations that target you on a regular basis.
- Search for the contrary. For instance, if you want to know if the sky is blue, conduct different searches. Search for the following to get different results:
- Is the sky blue?
- The sky is blue
- The sky is not blue
- Check the dates and sources of information to see if they reflect current views and legitimate agencies.
- Ask yourself how you would go about convincing yourself of something you don’t believe and perform hypothetical arguments.
- Don’t trust the first search results you get, use multiple sources.
- Use a VPN on occasion as you’re likely to get different information based on your geolocation.
- Don’t feel the need to commit to a yes/no answer or support something/someone just because you don’t like the ‘alternative choice’.
- Perform reverse image searches and/or verify whether certain images, footage or sources are correct before distributing information
Need help moving money to safer shores?
While your vote is yours alone, it’s best to play it conservative with your money during such uncertain times. If you need help moving your money from South Africa to safer shores, leave your details and we’ll contact you for a free consultation.
Media bias rankings: Fin Select article sources
Fin Select prides ourselves in providing news and information which is factual and presents a broad scope of views and opinions. Please see our list of sources below, including their bias rankings as vetted by Media Bias Fact Check, The Research and Development Organisation (RAND), All Sides, Associated Press (AP) Fact Check, SciCheck and the Poynter Institute.
SOURCES:
- United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR): least biased| highest accuracy | free | Global
- Reuters: least biased | highest accuracy | mostly free | UK
- Cato Institute: right-center bias | highly accurate | mostly free | USA
- Very Well Mind [Cherry, K., MSEd.]: mixed bias | mostly accurate | mostly free | USA
- Creative Bloq [Foley, J., and Le Guilcher, A.]: left-center bias | mostly accurate | mostly free | USA
- Harvard Law School: Program on Negotiation: least biased | highest accuracy | free | USA
- Psychology Today [Bhatla, R., M.D.]: left-center bias | high accuracy | mostly free | Global
- American Psychological Association (APA): unbiased | highest accuracy | mostly free | USA
- Euronews: left-centre bias | high accuracy | mostly free | France
- LinkedIn [Kozlowski, T.]: mixed bias | content specific | moderately free | Global
- Inner Compass Academy [Pierce, K.]: mixed bias | content specific | moderately free |
- Institut Public de Sondage d’Opinion Secteur (Ipsos): left-center bias | moderate accuracy | mostly free | France
- Pathway to Happiness. [Van Warmerdam, G.]: unvetted | moderate accuracy | free | USA
- NBC News [De Luce, D., and Collier, K.]: lean left bias | moderate accuracy| USA
- The Washington Post [Verma, P., and Zakrzewski, C.]: left-center bias | mostly factual | mostly free | USA
- Los Angeles Times [Fleishman, J.]: left-center bias | high accuracy | mostly free | USA
- Politico [Scott, M.]: lean-left bias | high accuracy| mostly free | USA
- Council on Foreign Relations [Lindsay, J.M.]: centrist/unbiased | highest accuracy | Global
- The Conversation [Nika, A.]: unbiased | highest accuracy| mostly free | Australia
- Brennan Center for Justice [Goldstein, J.A., and Lohn, A.]: left-center bias | high accuracy | mostly free | USA
- Harvard Kennedy School [Nisbet, E.C., Mortenson, C., and Li, Q.]: lean-left bias | highest accuracy | free | USA
- CSIR: unbiased | highest accuracy | free | South Africa
- Wikipedia: least biased | medium accuracy | mostly free | USA
- ResearchGate [Hassan, A., and Barber, S.J.]: unbiased | higy accuracy | mostly free | Germany
- The Australian Human Rights Commission: centrist/unbiased | highest accuracy | mostly free | Australia
- Project Syndicate: left-center bias | high accuracy | mostly free | USA
- Brookings Institute: lean-left bias | highest accuracy | mostly free | USA