this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
15 points (80.0% liked)

Science Communication

871 readers
2 users here now

Welcome to c/SciComm @ Mander.xyz!

Science Communication



Notice Board

This is a work in progress, please don't mind the mess.



About

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Be kind and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.


Resources

Outreach:

Networking:



Similar Communities


Sister Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Plants & Gardening

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Memes

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks! What an incredibly shit survey. They're asking me to judge based on headline alone without any further content. It entirely misses the point of how to judge the truthfulness of the headline - by reading further information!!!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I did find that the fake article titles were often too "on the nose" to be believable, so I guess that's one level of filtering. But you are right, if you can't explore the article and its sources, you are just guessing whether it is true based on whether it sounds or feels true.

I have another issue with the fact that a headline can be a "real" news headline, from a source that may have a veneer of reputability, but could still very much be full of bias. Is it "fake news" if the article exists and technically contains some verifiable facts, but is otherwise full of propaganda? It gets blurry.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think thasa the point though because people often only read the headline and skip the rest when it comes to reading the news.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Or worse(?), anything but the headline is paywalled