STATThe coronavirus ‘infodemic’ is real. We rated the websites responsible for it
“To lend their narratives an air of legitimacy, sites sometimes turn to shoddy scientific research. The research, which had not been peer reviewed, claimed to have found similar proteins in the new virus and HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. According to health fact-checker Health Feedback, the researchers failed to recognize that the same protein sequences could be found in a variety of organisms.”
Nieman ReportsUsing Rapid-Response Expertise to Strengthen 2020 Campaign Coverage
"The good news is that a growing number of nonpartisan organizations are recruiting policy-neutral academic experts to strengthen journalism. Climate Feedback and Health Feedback use on-call academics to quickly highlight hype or spin in news reports and warn reporters against repeating misstatements of fact."
France 24Climate change in the era of fake news
"Most fake news, however, comes from climate sceptics who spread false claims on social media. Sometimes they are easy to decipher, but with climate change being so complicated it’s hard to cut through the barrage of misinformation. So how can one navigate climate news in the era of fake news? In this episode of Down to Earth, we look into why climate change has become the perfect target of fake news, and what you can do to protect yourself against it."
The Washington PostAnti-vaxxers are spreading conspiracy theories on Facebook, and the company is struggling to stop them
"A recent study from the Credibility Coalition and Health Feedback, a group of scientists who evaluate the accuracy of health media coverage, found the majority of the most-clicked health stories on Facebook in 2018 were fake or contained a significant amount of misleading information. The study looked at the top 100 health stories with the most engagements on social media, and it had a network of experts assess their credibility. The study found less than half were “highly credible.”
EpocaEm 2018, Quatro das dez Postagens que mais Viralizaram sobre Saude (em ingles) nao eram Confiaveis
"Estudo publicado no último dia 28 pelo site Health Feedback, que reúne uma rede de cientistas dispostos a combater a desinformação digital em suas respectivas áreas de conhecimento, concluiu que, dos dez artigos de saúde que mais viralizaram em inglês no ano passado, quatro tinham “credibilidade baixa” ou “nenhuma credibilidade”."
yle.fiValheenpaljastaja: Terveyshuuhaa kukoistaa netissä – näin opit tunnistamaan sen
“Such a good appreciation of expertise is a bit forgotten today,” says Ohukainen. - I do not defend any blind authority, but it is worth remembering that some people produce or process health information for their work. For the most part, they are well-meaning people without secret motives or conspiracies." translated from Finnish: "– Sellainen terve asiantuntijuuden arvostus on vähän ehkä unohtunut nykypäivänä, Ohukainen sanoo. – En puolusta mitään sokeaa auktoriteettiuskoa, mutta kannattaa muistaa, että jotkut tuottavat tai käsittelevät terveystietoa työkseen. Suurimmaksi osaksi he ovat hyvää tarkoittavia ihmisiä vailla salaisia motiiveja tai salaliittoja."
Fast CompanyA shockingly large majority of health news shared on Facebook is fake or misleading
"Health Feedback, a bipartisan network of scientists who collectively assess the credibility of health media coverage, worked together with the Credibility Coalition to examine the 100 most popular health articles of 2018–specifically, those with the highest number of social media engagements. They studied stories from numerous well-known websites, such as Time, NPR, the Huffington Post, Daily Mail, New Scientist, CNN, and more."
Deutsche WelleClimate change: ‘Fake news,’ real fallout
"More and more, what becomes influential online is not always written by journalists. This opening of the world of journalism to many more people, like PR people and bloggers, is bringing a lot of inaccurate information online" Vincent told DW. And journalists get it wrong too, misinterpreting or cherry-picking the data, or taking conclusions out of context. In cases like this, articles can be misleading even if they aren't deliberately manipulative.
AxiosWhy climate change is the easiest news to fake
"Climate Feedback is a voluntary initiative of well-known and respected scientists reviewing climate change articles for accuracy, whose first work came in 2015. Among the articles reviewed: The Wall Street Journal op-ed on rising sea levels, which was described as “grossly” misleading to readers; and, on the other side, a highly cited New York Magazine article that the reviewing scientists said exaggerated how bad climate change could get."
Science AlertThe Wall Street Journal Still Treats Climate Change as “Opinion”
"For years, the WSJ has run opinion piece after opinion piece, questioning the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Too often, these "opinions" are written by authors with strong ties to the fossil fuel industry... Science doesn't care about your opinion."