University of Sto.

Tomas
Legaspi City

A term paper in partial fulfillment of the subject Catholic Social Teaching

entitled:

“FAKE NEWS ≠ CHARITY”

(Fake News not equal to Charity)

Submitted to:

DR. GERARD PATRICK PAULINO

By:

JOHN BEBON F. YAP

BUTCH S. ROS

2022
INTRODUCTION

The 20th century had brought so many changes and developments because of the

presence of technology. Businesses can provide goods and services to their

customers just by them ordering at their fingertips. Machines are now being used

in production, assembly line and many more. But due to this rapid changes and fast

pacing in doing business, there were also cons that we can get. Thanks to social

media, fake news is everywhere. Conspiracy theories get more shares than quality

journalism, and the spread of disinformation and “alternative facts”. This is one

of the most common and urgent social problem that needs to be addressed.

In line with this, the following questions shall be answered:

1. What is fake news?

2. What is charity?

3. How is fake news related to charity?

4. What does fake news contribute to the society?

5. What should we do as an individual or organization to prevent the

continuous spread of this fake news?

FINAL EXAM:

Research Paper

In your report in Catholic Social Teachings, what is the most urgent or most common issue that
needs to be resolved.

The most pressing issue

Format:

1. See (Statement of the Problem)

2. Judge (Related Lit: Church Docs or Scriptural Texts)

3. Act (Recommendation)
RELATED LITERATURE/ STUDIES

This chapter presents the review of related literature and studies anchored from foreign and

local sources. These are deemed relevant since these will substantiate the results of the study

conducted.

We first document how users disseminate false or misleading information in Facebook

groups. Facebook groups serve as a place of communication for people to share common interests

and to express their opinions. In Facebook groups, users may organize around a common cause,

issue, or activity, and they may express objectives, discuss issues, post photos, and share related

content. These groups are similar to discussion forums where groups of users may share photos,

links, and updates (Singh, 2014).

For each post, we observe the author, message, date of the post, and the type of post. The

types of posts include those that display an album, event, link, note, photo, status, or video. A note

is a longer message that users access on a separate page; it may be edited and formatted as well as

set to different privacies. A status is a short message that users post at the top of the page of the

group. We also observe the cumulative number of likes, comments, and reactions for the post as of

October 2017. On Facebook, users can respond to a post by “liking” it, commenting on it, or

designating a reaction (e.g., “wow,” “love,” “haha”, “sad,” “angry”) that captures their emotional

response to the post.

The Internet has significantly changed the type of news that consumers receive. In the past

consumers relied on traditional media, such as radio and television, which involved relatively fewer

and more established sources of news. Nowadays consumers are exposed to online sources of

information, though, for example, social networking sites, which allow any individual to share

content without “fact-checking or editorial judgment” (Allcott and Gentzkow, 2017a).

Many people like to share stories, pictures, videos, and news stories on social media with

friends. You might share something because you find it funny, or because you think it’s an important
news story that more people in your social circle should know about. Sometimes people share

stories that they know are untrue. This kind of disinformation* can be spread in many ways, both

online and offline, via new media and older media. Television, print, radio, online news sites—all

channels of communication can spread fake news. Before you share a story or picture or video, do

you stop to analyze the details? Do you question the content and wonder whether it’s totally

accurate? Not everything we see or read is true. Cited by McManus, Melanie Radzicki, How Stuff

Works, undated. 10 Ways to Spot a Fake News Story. https://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-

myth/10-ways-to-spot-fake-news-story.htm

False stories can circulate very quickly and are a big problem. This has become an

unfortunate reality of daily life both online and offline all over the world, as people, companies, and

media create stories that are untrue for political or personal gain, or a variety of other reasons. This

phenomenon is called “fake news,” and as a broadcaster, it’s extremely important that you know

how to detect it, while not contributing to it yourself. To make things even more complicated, the

term “fake news” is also sometimes used to cast doubt on legitimate news from an opposing

political standpoint. The New York Times defines “fake news” as made-up stories with the intention

to deceive, often geared toward getting clicks. It’s important to note that fake news is NOT the same

thing as incorrect, factually inaccurate news. No broadcaster or journalist is perfect and we can all

make mistakes in research and reporting. In contrast, fake news is disinformation that

is deliberately circulated. Cited by Charlton, Emma, World Economic Forum, 2019. Fake News: What

it is, and how to spot it. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/fake-news-what-it-is-and-how-

to-spot-i.

The ability to form accurate beliefs, particularly about issues of great importance, is key to

our success as individuals as well as the functioning of our societal institutions (and, in particular,

democracy). Across a wide range of domains, it is critically important to correctly assess what is true

and what is false: Accordingly, differentiating real from unreal is at the heart of our societal
constructs of rationality and sanity (Corlett, 2009; Sanford, Veckenstedt, & Moritz, 2014). Yet the

ability to form and update beliefs about the world sometimes goes awry – and not just in the context

of inconsequential, small-stakes decisions.

The potential for systematic inaccuracy in important beliefs has been particularly highlighted

by the wide-spread consumption of disinformation during the 2016 US Presidential Election. This is

most notably exemplified by so-called “fake news” – that is, news stories that were fabricated (but

presented as if from legitimate sources) and promoted on social media in order to deceive the public

for ideological and/or financial gain (Lazer et al., 2018). An analysis of the top performing news

articles on Facebook in the months leading up to the election revealed that the top fake news

articles actually outperformed the top real news articles in terms of shares, likes, and comments

(Silverman, Strapagiel, Shaban, & Hall, 2016). Although it is unclear to what extent fake news

influenced the outcome of the Presidential Election (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017), there is no question

that many people were deceived by entirely fabricated (and often quite fanciful) fake news stories –

including, for example, high-ranking government officials, such as Pakistan’s defense minister

(Goldman, 2016). How is it that so many people came to believe stories that were patently and

demonstrably untrue? What mechanisms underlie these false beliefs that might be called mass

delusions?

Here, we explore one potential answer: prior exposure. Given the ease with which fake news

can be created and distributed on social media platforms (Shane, 2017), combined with our

increasing tendency to consume news via social media (Gottfried & Shearer, 2016), it is likely that we

are being exposed to fake news stories with much greater frequency than in the past.

ake news stories are constructed with the goal of drawing attention, and are therefore often

quite fantastical and implausible. For example, Pennycook and Rand (2018) gave participants a set of

politically partisan fake news headlines collected from online websites (e.g., “Trump to Ban All TV
Shows that Promote Gay Activity Starting with Empire as President”), and found that they were only

judged as accurate 17.8% of the time. To contrast this figure with the existing illusory truth

literature, Fazio et al. (2015) found that false trivia items were judged to be true around 40% of the

time, even when restricting the analysis to participants who were subsequently able to recognize the

statement as false. Thus, these previous statements (such as “chemosynthesis is the name of the

process by which plants make their food”), despite being untrue, are much more plausible than

typical fake news headlines. This may have consequences for whether repetition increases perceived

accuracy of fake news: When it is completely obvious that a statement is false, it may be perceived

as inaccurate regardless of how fluently it is processed. Although such an influence of plausibility is

not explicitly part of the Fluency-Conditional Model of illusory truth proposed by Fazio and

colleagues (under which knowledge only influences judgment when people do not rely on fluency),

the possibility of such an effect is acknowledged in their discussion when they state that they

“expect that participants would draw on their knowledge, regardless of fluency, if statements

contained implausible errors” (p. 1000). Similarly, when summarizing a meta-analysis of illusory

truth effects, (Dechene et al., 2010) argued that: “Statements have to be ambiguous, that is,

participants have to be uncertain about their truth status because otherwise the statements’

truthfulness will be judged on the basis of their knowledge” (p. 239). Thus, investigating the

potential for an illusory truth effect for fake news is not simply important because it helps us

understand the spread of fake news, but also because it allows us to test heretofore untested (but

common) intuitions about the boundary conditions of the effect. Motivated reasoning as a potential

boundary condition of the illusory truth effect.

Another striking feature of fake news that may counteract the effect of repetition – and

which is absent from prior studies of the illusory truth effect – is the fact that fake news stories are

not only political in nature, but are often extremely partisan. Although prior work has shown the

illusory truth effect on average for (relatively innocuous) social-political opinion statements (Arkes,

Hackett, & Boehm, 1989), the role of individual differences in ideological discordance has not been
examined. Importantly, people have a strong motivation to reject the veracity of stories that conflict

with their political ideology (Flynn, Nyhan, & Reifler, 2016; Kahan, 2013; Kahan et al., 2012), and the

hyper-partisan nature of fake news makes such conflicts virtually assured for roughly half the

population. Furthermore, the fact that fake news stories are typically of immediate real-world

relevance – and therefore, presumably, more impactful on a person’s beliefs and actions than the

relatively trivial pieces of information considered in previous work on the illusory truth effect –

should make people more inclined to think carefully about the accuracy of such stories, rather than

relying on simple heuristics when making accuracy judgments. Thus, there is reason to expect that

people may be resistant to illusory truth effects for partisan fake news stories that they have

politically motivated reasons to reject.

With growing evidence of interference in democratic processes around the world, the

debate over how to expose and eliminate fake news is certain to intensify. But the discussion is

already confused by misunderstanding about the phenomenon, its origins, and why it poses a threat

in the first place.

To try to illustrate the problem, the Ethical Journalism Network (EJN) has developed a

definition for fake news: “Information deliberately fabricated and published with the intention to

deceive and mislead others into believing falsehoods or doubting verifiable facts.” Using this

definition, it is easier to separate propaganda, “alternative” facts, and malicious lies from

journalism.” Cited by Aidan White, Director, Ethical Journalism Network 2012.

“Fake news poisons the atmosphere that we all operate in. Because fake news exists,

audiences are now doubtful about all news. It has really damaged the relationship between audience

members and the media.” According to Verashni Pillay, Editor-in-Chief,Huffington Post, South Africa

2016. “We easily exaggerate the effect of fake news on journalism. I don’t want to be flippant about

it − it is a serious challenge to society and institutionalist. The point of fake news is not to tell
another narrative, the main aim of fake news is to dismantle the credibility of institutions, including

journalism, but not only journalism.” By Kari Huhta, Diplomatic Editor, Helsingin Sanomat, Finland,

2013.

There has always been fake news − ever since people realized the power of the media to

influence public opinion. However, the difference today is that social media and platforms like

Google and Facebook enable fake news to spread widely and more quickly than ever before, and

that is the problem. Fake news changes journalism in that it presents a real challenge to journalism,

because it’s not always that easy to distinguish fake news from real news, but it also makes

journalism much more important. Because if anybody is going to call out fake news, it’s the

journalist − the responsible journalist, that is. I would say that in the short term, fake news is a

problem for journalists. But in the long term, it validates them and gives them an increased

importance in society. By Ivor Gaber, Professor of Journalism, University of Sussex, United Kingdom,

2015.

Fake news reinforces a traditional mission of journalism, which is trying to shine a light in the

dark, for societies and the general public. Our mission has to be reinforced on this core value, trying

to illuminate the debate, trying to show the public where the real facts and the real debates are. By

Ricardo Gandour, Journalism Director, CBN, Brazilian Radio Network, Brazil, 2020.

All this talk about fake news is affecting media audiences, because there is an insecurity

about what is true and what is not. As professional journalists, we need to go back to what we do

best – we do fact-checking, demand answers, and are transparent about our (news-gathering)

methods. By Ginna Lindberg, Head, Foreign News, Swedish Broadcasting, Sweden, 2018.
 Fake news is not journalism. Maybe we should think about what we [the mainstream media]

did to journalism that has allowed fake news to become so easily accepted and so easily done. I

think we should do some soul-searching to know if we are doing the right thing, if we are behaving in

the right way, if we are being ethical in journalism — that could prevent fake news from having the

power and influence it has, and stop the growth it has achieved. Catarina Carvalho, Editor-in-Chief,

Global Media Group, Portugal 2020 Rappler, 2020. a social news network committed to investigative

reporting, has documented at least 300 websites spreading fake news in the Philippines. One of our

investigations monitored the growth of suspicious Facebook accounts that seeded fake news into

campaign pages during the country’s May 2016 elections.

It took us about three months to manually check the information the Facebook accounts

provided and to verify they were fake. We found that one nest of twenty-six fake accounts is able to

influence nearly three million Facebook pages. We also know that, as of November 2016, about

50,000 Facebook accounts can be used in targeted campaigns for or against politicians or individuals

in the Philippines. Another fake account was linked to over 990,000 members of groups supporting

one political leader, and yet another was connected to an estimated 3.8 million members of various

overseas Filipino organizations and buy-and-sell groups.

With about 54 million Facebook users in the Philippines, social media is a powerful weapon

used to silence dissent and mould public opinion. Rappler has lived through numerous waves of

attacks via the internet, including from Facebook accounts created specifically to harass our

reporters and contributors. This has only made us more determined to expose the lies and prevent

their spread.” Maria Ressa, co-founder & CEO, Rappler, the Philippines, 2020

The way we access news articles and how we generally consume information online has

changed. Social media has become the main vehicle for accessing news. Recent studies show that

Facebook is one of the preferred sources of access to news, especially for the younger generation
(Newman et al. 2019). However, Facebook and Twitter are responsible for the proliferation of fake

news in the digital universe, increasing its exposure through the creation of segregated groups or

recommendation algorithms (Zimmer et al. 2019a, 2019b). Our review intends to show why fake

news is persuasive and which factors contribute to its spreadability. In addition to being important

to understand the digital mechanisms that promote the proliferation of fake news, it is crucial to

understand the role the structure (subject, title, body text) plays in its rapid dissemination and what

motivates readers to consume and share it. In recent years, several studies have sought to develop

effective solutions to combat online disinformation. If on the one hand, efforts are joined in the

search for technological programs that allow the identification and detection of fake news

(Burkhardt 2017b; Hardalov et al. 2016), on the other hand, others seek to raise the awareness of

social media users and decrease the circulation of lies through a bet on the automation of fact-

checking (Graves 2018; McClure 2017; Nguyen et al. 2019). The identification of malicious social bots

(Davis et al. 2016; Shao et al. 2017; Ferrara 2017; Bessi and Ferrara 2016; Zimmer et al. 2019a) the

detention of false content, through linguistic analyses that take into account the text structure

(Hardalov et al. 2016; Shu et al. 2018a; Horne and Adali 2017), the frequency of words and the

patterns used, are part of a set of solutions that seems to indicate a promising way forward. The

development of recommendation algorithms, which promote the diversity of content and combat

confirmation bias, has been one of the major objectives of recent research (Mohseni and Ragan

2018; Lex et al. 2018; Hou et al. 2018). However, few studies have focused on the structural

characteristics of fake news. This review seeks to be an addition to the literature, and its main

objective is to analyze the phenomenon of fake news from the perspective of the consumer and to

understand the characteristics of fake news articles that motivate their viral spread and which

factors are associated with the selection and consumption of fake news in an online environment, in

the search to define a profile for the true consumer of online disinformation.

This review focuses on consumer motivations (user/reader) and the structure/presentation

of fake news to ascertain the apparent success and proliferation of this type of online
disinformation. The factors associated with the dynamics of social media (recommendation

algorithms, echo chambers, filter bubbles, malicious social bots) that also contribute a lot to the

spread of fake news, were not addressed. With this review, we intend to understand the

phenomenon of isolated fake news, in an independent approach to the characteristics of the digital

universe to which it belongs. Our goals are to identify the main factors that influence fake news’

belief and sharing and to identify differences and similarities between fake news and real news, in

order to highlight the relevance of these characteristics for their dissemination. We know that some

stories are more likely to go viral than others; that some headlines are more attractive, and that

users tend to select information based on their party and ideological identity and on their social and

psychological characteristics. Moreover, recent literature has shown that the concept of “fake news”

has taken on different meanings, which has led several academics to try to formulate, without

success, a univocal definition. The concept became increasingly more subjective and started to be

applied in different scenarios and contexts, expanding its semantic field. In this review, we also seek

to establish a working definition of fake news, pertinent and relevant to the contemporary debate in

the field of journalism and political communication.

 REFERENCES

Fake News: Why People Believe, How It Spreads, and What You Can Do About It , Fake News: Why
People Believe, How It Spreads, and What You Can Do About It - iSchool | Syracuse University

What Is Fake News & How to Spot Fake News Examples | AVG