Recently Mediactive put on an informative interview with experts in online misinformation hosted by ASU Professor Dan Gillmor to discuss “Tackling Health Misinformation.” The expert panel consisted of Anna Muldoon, co-author of COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories, and Jamie Winterton, ASU Director of Strategy for the Global Security Initiative. In the discussion, the host asked the panel to provide one or two ideas that could help prevent the spread of misinformation. Their ideas regarding news headlines caught my attention the most.
One of the most notable ideas came from the host himself. Professor Gillmor suggested the media needs to keep headlines contextual. Too often, information is taken out of context, and a clickbait headline is used to sell the story. When information is piecemealed, it can enable the spread of misinformation.
One such instance happened when discussing raw COVID-19 statistical data. This past summer, a European newspaper ran a headline, “Boris Johnson Suggested People’ Get Covid and Live Longer“. Data revealed at the time that the average age of a coronavirus victim in the UK was eighty-three, which was two years past the average life expectancy for a UK citizen. That piece of information taken out of context proliferated social media and cast doubt on the serious nature of COVID-19. The media needs to provide the full spectrum of information so it does not contribute to the issue of misinformation spread.
Another idea came from Jamie Winterton, with Anna Muldoon expanding further on the problem with headlines. Both Winterton and Muldoon urge people to read headlines with caution. Specifically, readers need to stop and critically assess headlines and ask themselves:
- Emotion-driven headlines: What is the intention behind the headline? Who wrote it? What emotional reaction did they desire to invoke?
- The mismatched headline to story: Why does the headline say one thing, but the story is about another?
- Alarmist-styled headlines: Why is the writer using trigger words? Why does the writer want to anger the reader?
I recall a great example of an alarmist headline designed to trigger an emotional response where the news story did not quite match the headline. The Voice of OC ran a headline when the 2020 summer coronavirus surge was declining that read, “Where Are OC Coronavirus Outbreaks Happening? Months Into Pandemic, Residents Still Don’t Know.” This headline was designed to invoke panic that virus outbreaks were happening and the health department was not disclosing them. After reading the article, it was clear that the article’s point was virus outbreaks need to be reported to the public.
The expert panel agreed that the media needs to be more authentic in their headlines rather than writing headlines to increase click-through rates, as the example above illustrates. The majority of news headlines surrounding COVID-19 have had a negative emotional impact on readers. In a 2020 Humanities & Social Science Communications report, 52% of headlines produced a negative reaction. Fear, anger, and sadness were among the top emotions reported in the study.
With 64% of adults saying they have lost faith in news reporting, now is an excellent time for the media to take notice of this panel’s ideas to recapture the public’s faith. It appears at least one reporter has listened. Abbey Phillip of CNN spoke recently on how political journalism can be honest and authentic in its reporting. I hope it is Phillip’s statement that spreads through the journalism community.
