By Natasha Ikners
During and following the United States (U.S.) presidential election in 2016, intense focus over the proliferation of ‘fake news’ on social media and its subsequent distribution on conventional media platforms is a growing concern for a range of electoral stakeholders from media to political candidates and parties. The spread of false information (and its real or perceived threat to electoral systems) erodes electoral integrity and citizens’ trust in voting[1]. A broader debate over the role of the media as a watchdog in the democratic process, particularly during elections has emerged.
Concerns ranged from cyber security (hacking into voter registration websites and political party committee email servers[2]) to allegations of foreign influence and intrusion in the elections (both by individuals in Macedonia[3] and state-sanctioned efforts in Russia[4]). Ultimately, this fueled speculation that the elections could be unfairly influenced, weakening trust in electoral integrity and the media more generally.
Some interim measures to monitor content through third-party fact checking (e.g., flagging false content[5]) have now been introduced by companies such as Facebook. Additionally, Google has sought to target fake news by disabling websites that it found were providing “misrepresenting content” or were impersonating news organisations.[6] This has been achieved through stricter implementation of existing policies and with consideration of new policies.
The purpose of this case study is to:
- Define ‘fake news’;
- Outline its impact on election coverage in U.S. 2016 presidential election;
- Outline existing regulations, including the goals and/or challenges and;
- Provide recommendations for policy makers
Defining and Classifying Fake News
There are currently no authoritative definitions of ‘fake news,’ nor is there consensus around how it should be classified.[7] For the purpose of this case study, ‘fake news’ is the intentional and deliberate production and distribution of misleading, grossly distorted or hoax content that purports to be true. The effect of fake news is to confuse readers/viewers by provoking a visceral and emotional reaction for either political purposes and/or to drive web traffic to websites. [8] Political purposes may be to deliberately smear a political candidate or party, or to manipulate and weaken trust in electoral processes.
While not a new phenomenon, what makes ‘fake news’ distinct is how the content is distributed and shared, typically across social media and new media platforms: “fake news stories have been around for as long as truthful ones. One element that distinguishes the contemporary moment is the existence of a fairly novel information infrastructure with a scale, scope, and horizontality of information flows unlike anything we had seen before.”[9]
Fake news can be classified into three categories: (1) serious fabrications, (2) large-scale hoaxes and (3) humorous fakes.[10]
1. Serious fabrications: refer to fraudulent and sensationalist content and headlines in both old and new media designed with the intent of scare-mongering and/or click baiting. This includes content and headlines manufactured to attract attention and encourage visitors to click on a link to a particular web page. The purpose of this type of fake news is to drive advertising revenues and profits at the expense of accuracy. It may also be with the intent to exert political influence. Fact-checking and sourcing original documents have been used in the past to expose fraudulent practices. Websites funded through civil society organisations (CSOs) such as Snopes and PolitiFact use researchers to fact-check and rate the veracity of these stories on a “truth-o-meter.”[11]
2. Large-scale hoaxes: refer to deliberate fabrications or falsifications in mainstream or social media in which rumors masquerade as news and may be picked up and mistakenly reproduced and validated by traditional news outlets. These are described as a multi-platform attack and cause potential harm and loss to those embroiled in them.
In the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, one such hoax was the “#Pizzagate” conspiracy following the email hack of the Democratic National Committee and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta, subsequently published by WikiLeaks.[12] A viral circulation of emails on online forums such as 4chan and Reddit fueled a conspiracy theory in reaction to the word “cheese pizza” cited in the emails. Cheese pizza was believed to be a code word for child pornography as the first two letters in each term are the same. The conspiracy theory attempted to link the restaurant owner of Comet Ping Pong in Washington, D.C. with Clinton to a child sex ring operating out of its basement. There was no factual basis to the story which was successively debunked and pulled off sites including Reddit. Staff of the shop became targets and were harassed on social media, culminating with an armed man attempting to self-investigate, firing shots inside the pizzeria.[13]
3. Humorous fakes (news satire, parody, game shows): Websites publish fake news stories with the aim of generating advertising revenue. There are numerous such stories; for example, one headlined “Pope Francis Shocks World, Endorses Donald Trump…”[14] was one of the most shared (961,000) fake news stories of the elections on Facebook. Although many of the websites producing these stories (including WTOE 5 News in the case of the above) carry a disclaimer that content is satirical or false, these details are often overlooked or ignored.
The effect of propagating false and grossly distorted information is to create confusion among readers. A study by Pew Research found the majority (64 percent) of U.S. adults felt fake news had caused a great deal of confusion surrounding the basic facts of current events.[15] Adults also express a fair degree of confidence in their ability detect fake news – 39 percent are confident and 45 percent are somewhat confident in their ability to do so. These perceptions are shared widely across race, gender and age demographics, though there is some variation on partisan lines.
More crucially, fake news is amplified by what are referred to as ‘echo chambers’ on social media and the internet. Echo chambers can be understood herein as a media space in which “like-minded people affirm each other’s opinions and encounter little or no opposition.”[16] Often, a small group of people is responsible for driving traffic to the most partisan outlets. Research has found that, while most people do not live in echo chambers, those who do have a disproportionate influence on politics.[17]
Exceptions to Fake News?
It is helpful to identify examples of information that do not qualify as fake news:
- False and/or inaccurate statements by candidates: While such statements may typically occur during and after election campaigns, they are not necessarily classified as fake news. Third parties such as PolitiFact and Snopes have widgets to rate the accuracy of these statements. In addition to this, coverage of political debates can also be fact-checked in real time. Reporting false statements as true would be classified as fake news, while simply repeating inaccurate statements of a candidate is not. Though, how the media covers controversial and inflammatory statements is a topic of intense debate that differs along partisan lines[18] and can be said to amplify the effect of echo chambers.
- Misreporting of facts: may occur due to limited information on a story that may be unfolding. This is especially important for reporting of polling data and opinion polls.
- Honest mistakes: responsible and accountable media outlets amend and make corrections when they are needed.
Election Coverage in 2016
The proliferation of fake news during the 2016 U.S. elections must be viewed through the increased use of social media and digital news. A majority of U.S. adults (62%) get their news once in a while on social media, while 18% do so often. Social media (14%) was ranked second behind cable news (24%) as the most helpful type of source for learning about the 2016 presidential elections by U.S, adults, closely followed by local TV (14%), news websites (13%) and more traditional sources such as radio (11%) and network nightly news (10%).[19] Though, when the data is disaggregated by age, there is a clearer trend towards 18-29-year old’s who favour social media as a source to learn about the elections.[20]
During the elections, it was reported that engagement with fake news stories outperformed mainstream news in the final 3 months of the campaign. Engagement is measured as shares, reactions and comments to content on Facebook.[21] This led to perceptions that, depending on the tone and content of misinformation, this could negatively affect candidates who were directly or indirectly the subject of fake news. Facebook released a statement that 99% of its content is real in an attempt to quell negative perceptions and to reinforce their responsibility to the public.[22]
In spite of the shift towards social media use as a source of election news, the majority of adults in the U.S. get their news from a variety of sources (80% from 3 or more information streams).[23] TV sources (local news, cable news, national nightly networks news and satire shows) feature heavily in this mix, with 78% of U.S. adults learning about the elections from at least one of these four sources. However, 65% of adults obtained news about the elections from digital news sources (news websites and apps, social networking sites, issue-based group platforms and candidate campaign group platforms) with social media accounting for 44% within this group. Facebook accounts for the bulk of social media, while small portions of the public learned about the elections through other social media sources (e.g., YouTube, twitter, Google+, reddit, Instagram, snapchat).
Fake news and Voter Choice
The perception that fake news may have in some way affected the outcome of the election became a growing concern during and after the 2016 presidential election.
This perception is underpinned by two assumptions:
- The election can be ‘rigged’ or ‘hacked’.
Reports of vulnerabilities and cyber-hackings of electronic voting machines (EVMs) in November 2016 prior to Election Day weakened electoral trust and integrity. A report by the National Intelligence Agency published in January 2017 on allegations of Russian-intelligence intruding in the elections concluded that while they obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple U.S. state or local electoral boards, voter machines and vote-tallying were not a target.[24] Nevertheless, allegations and fears surrounding cyber-meddling in elections undermine trust in democratic processes, especially citizens’ confidence in voting[25].
2. Fake News and disinformation can alter voter attitudes and influence voter choice.
Scholars highlight that information and news tend to reinforce and entrench political attitudes rather than change them. Indirectly, fake news tends to polarize attitudes and intensify partisan sentiments. However, a notable and recent study suggests this depends on what readers determine as a reasonable benchmark for persuasiveness of an individual fake news story and how such stories are retained in our memories.[26]
The media have the ability to persuade public opinion, but the connection with voter choice is far less clear. Fake news serves to fuel confusion among voters but it does not necessarily sway voters towards one party or another.[27] This topic warrants further analysis to better understand the potential impacts of fake news on voter choice and the steps that can be taken by different stakeholders and election management bodies.
Standards and Regulations
The sentiment that the public, government and social networking organisations all share a responsibility in preventing the spread of fake news and mitigating its effects is shared by most U.S. adults.[28]
Members of the public and individuals
Twenty-three percent of those surveyed reportedly shared fake news stories, either knowingly or unknowingly. Fourteen percent of this population shared fake news knowingly with the intention of spreading misinformation to ‘call out’ stories as fake for the amusement of others or for some other undefined value.[29] The renewed effort for third-party and non-partisan fact-checking sites assists citizens to address inaccuracies quickly. However, one of the primary motivations for individuals producing fake news is driving web traffic for advertising revenues. There are few regulations in place to counter this other than the actions of advertisers themselves.
Government, Politicians, Political Parties and Elected Officials
The perception that fake news is a growing concern is shared across the political spectrum, though there is less agreement as to how it should be addressed. Regulating content is often perceived to impinge on First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. As such, Congress has struggled to find the right balance between regulation and protections of freedoms. The U.S. media has historically tended toward self-regulation, though some regulations are in place.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the independent body overseen by Congress that regulates national and international broadcasters for radio, TV, cable and satellite. Broadcasting false information regarding a crime or catastrophe is prohibited if:
- The licensee knows the information is false;
- The licensee knows beforehand that broadcasting the information will cause substantial public harm. Public harm must begin immediately and cause direct and actual damage to property, health or safety of the general public or divert law enforcement or public health/safety officials away from their duties.[30]
The Federal Election Commission indirectly regulates internet activity through the administration and enforcement of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). In 2006, there were specific provisions and amendments relating to internet activities that came in to force for the first time:
- “Public communication” includes internet communications, which were previously excluded.
- “Campaign activity” includes paid internet advertising placed on another person’s website, but does not encompass any other form of internet communication.
- New exceptions to the definitions of ‘‘contribution’’ and ‘‘expenditure.” These exclude internet activities and communications that qualify as individual activity or that qualify for the ‘‘media exemption’’ (note: includes press entities and bloggers). The FEC notes that this is intended to ensure that political committees properly finance and disclose their Internet communications, without impeding individual citizens from using the Internet to speak freely regarding candidates and elections.
The FEC intended to preserve the internet as a free, accessible space with minimal barriers to entry and low cost compared to other areas such as TV and radio:
“The Commission recognizes the Internet as a unique and evolving mode of mass communication and political speech that is distinct from other media in a manner that warrants a restrained regulatory approach. The Internet’s accessibility, low cost, and interactive features make it a popular choice for sending and receiving information. Unlike other forms of mass communication, the Internet has minimal barriers to entry, including its low cost and widespread accessibility.”[31]
Social Media Networks and Search Engines
Calls for greater responsibility and accountability by social networking sites such as Facebook and search engines such as Google have been heeded to some extent. Following the elections, Facebook introduced a system to flag fake news by outsourcing fact-checking to five websites (Snopes, PolitiFact, Factcheck.org, ABC News, and the Associated Press). Users will see a warning when information is disputed by third-party fact checkers, though they will still be able to share stories that a third-party confirms as fake news they may be ranked lower in users’ newsfeeds as a result.[32]
Google has strengthened its policies on AdSense and has reportedly disabled hundreds of websites publishing fake news after reviewing some of those suspected of misrepresenting content to users. It has specifically addressed fake news by including in its list of prohibited content “misrepresentative content,” defined as: “pages that misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information about you, your content or the primary purpose of your web property.”[33] Content that is unacceptable includes:
- Enticing users to engage with content under false or unclear pretenses;
- "Phishing" for users’ information[34];
- Promotion of content, products, or services using false, dishonest, or deceptive claims (e.g. “Get Rich Quick” schemes);
- Impersonating Google products; and
- Falsely implying having an affiliation with, or endorsement by, another individual, organization, product, or service.
Conclusions and Recommendations Looking Forward:
- The media’s role as a watchdog in elections is to scrutinise and act as a mechanism of accountability for the success and failures of candidates, governments and electoral management bodies. The proliferation and distribution of fake news compromises the integrity of this function as it creates confusion among the public and potentially improperly influences the electorate.
- Protection, deterrence, and reassurance measures should be designed to strengthen election integrity and cybersecurity. Fact-checking as an interim measure can help with sharing information and correcting inaccuracies. However, research suggests that these measures may intensify the focus on misinformation rather than attenuate its effects.[35] This topic deserves further analysis, in particular the argument that fake news tends to reinforce and entrench political attitudes rather than change them. Social science and scientific research has established that users embrace false information as it reinforces their pre-existing beliefs and as such, attempts to debunk fake news may only serve to reinforce them.
- Targeted measures to disable websites, de-activate user accounts and advertising space for those who produce or distribute fake news can address some of the sources of the problem (including individuals driving web traffic to generate advertising revenue).
- Existing measures could be revised and reviewed, including provisions for campaign finance and internet activity that exclude fake news websites and those who produce and distribute the material in relation to campaign activity.
- Some of the larger questions to emerge will be the extent to which the threat of fake news (real or perceived) erodes trust in electoral processes by amplifying echo chambers, rumors and the effects of misinformation campaigns (in particular those on political candidates, political parties and democratic processes).
About the Author: Natasha Ikners is currently working with International IDEA’s Electoral Processes team performing updates for BRIDGE training curriculums, including Media and Elections. She has previously worked with the Institute for Security and Development Policy in Stockholm and has experience across the South-East Asia region with elections and local development. She holds a Bachelor of Economics and Social Sciences from the University of Sydney.
Resources:
Allcott, H. & Gentzkow, G., ”Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election”, Working Paper: Stanford Institute for Economic Policy and Research, January 2017, accessed 1st February 2017, available at (https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/fakenews.pdf).
Barthel, M. Mitchell, A. & Holcomb, J. “Many Americans Believe Fake News is Sowing Confusion”, Pew research Center: Journalism and Media, 15th December 2016, accessed 1st February 2017, available at (http://www.journalism.org/2016/12/15/many-americans-believe-fake-news-is-sowing-confusion/).
Barthel, M. J Gottfried, J & Kristine, L. ”Trump, Clinton Supporters Differ on How Media Should Cover Controversial Statements”, Pew Research Center: Journalism & Media, 17th October 2017, accessed 1st February 2017, available at (http://www.journalism.org/2016/10/17/trump-clinton-supporters-differ-on-how-media-should-cover-controversial-statements/).
Boczkowski, P.” Fake News and the Future of Journalism”, NeimanLab, 18th December 2016, accessed 31st January 2017, available at (http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/12/fake-news-and-the-future-of-journalism/).
Google, “AdSense Content Policies: Prohibited Content”, January 2017, accessed available at (https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/1348688?hl=en#Misrepresentative_content).
Federal Communications Commission, “Broadcasting False Information”, Federal Communications Commission (Online), accessed 7th February 2017, available at (https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/broadcasting-false-information).
Federal Election Commission, “Federal Register: Rules and Regulations”, Vol. 71. No. 70. April 12th, 2006, available at (http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/2006/notice_2006-8.pdf).
Fidler, DP “Transforming Election Cybersecurity”, Council on Foreign Relations (online), May 17 2017, accessed 12th June 2017, available at (https://www.cfr.org/report/transforming-election-cybersecurity).
Gillin J., “How Pizzagate went from fake news to a real problem for a D.C. business”, Politifact, 5th December 2016, accessed 14th February 2017, available at (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/dec/05/how-pizzagate-went-fake-news-real-problem-dc-busin/).
Gottfried et.al, “The 2016 Presidential Election Campaign- a News Event that’s Hard to Miss” Pew Media Research Center: Journalism and Media, 4th February 2016, accessed 1st February 2017, available at (http://www.journalism.org/2016/02/04/the-2016-presidential-campaign-a-news-event-thats-hard-to-miss/).
Journalist’s Resource, “Fake news and the spread of misinformation”, Harvard Kennedy School: Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, 9th January 2017, accessed 7th February 2017, available at (https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/internet/fake-news-conspiracy-theories-journalism-research).
Metropolitan Police Department, “Arrest Made in an Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (Gun): 5000 Block of Connecticut Avenue, Northwest”, Metropolitan Police Department (Washington DC), 5th December 2016, accessed 7th February 2017, available at (http://mpdc.dc.gov/release/arrest-made-assault-dangerous-weapon-gun-5000-block-connecticut-avenue-northwest).
Mosseri, A. Facebook, 15th December 2016, accessed 7th February 2017, available at (http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/12/news-feed-fyi-addressing-hoaxes-and-fake-news/).
Meyer, R. & Binkowski, B. “The Rise of Progressive ‘Fake News’ ”, The Atlantic (online), February 3rd 2017, accessed 1st February 2017, available at (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/viva-la-resistance-content/515532/).
National Intelligence Council, “Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution”, 6th January 2017, accessed 1st February 2017, available at (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf).
Pflaum, N. “Bogus ballot stuffing story irks Ohio Secretary of State”, Politifact, 1st November 2016, accessed 14th February 2017, available at (http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2016/nov/01/blog-posting/bogus-ballot-stuffing-story-irks-ohio-secretary-st/).
Quattrociocchi, W “Inside the Echo Chamber”, Scientific American, Vol. 316, No. 4, 14 March 2017.
Rubin, VL. Chen, Y. & Conroy, NJ. “Deception Detection for News: Three Types of Fakes”, Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 52. No.1, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pra2.2015.145052010083/pdf.
Sanger, DE. ”Obama Strikes back at Russia for Election Hacking”, New York Times, 29th December 2016, accessed 14th February 2017, available at (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/us/politics/russia-election-hacking-sanctions.html?_r=0).
Sherman, G. “Experts Urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results in 3 States” New York Magazine, 22nd November 2016, accessed 13th February 2017, available at (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html).
Silverman, C. “Here Are 50 of the Biggest Fake News Hits on Facebook From 2016”, 30th December 2016, accessed 7th February 2017, available at (https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/top-fake-news-of-2016?utm_term=.vfV7DGvAV#.ucozknjZl).
Sullivan, L. “Google Releases 2016 Bad Ads Report, Updates on Fake News”, Media Post, 25th January 2017, accessed 14th February 2017, available at (http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/293651/google-releases-2016-bad-ads-report-updates-on-fa.html).
Karlsen, R. ET. al., “Echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics in online debates”, European Journal of Communication, April 2017, accessed 10th April, available at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0267323117695734.
KnowBe4 2017, what is Phishing, KnowBe4, accessed 12th June 2017, available at (http://www.phishing.org/what-is-phishing).
Sunstein, A “#Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media”, Princeton University Press, United Kingdom, 2018.
Tynan, D.”How Facebook powers money machines for obscure political ‘news’ sites” The Guardian (online), 24th August 2016, accessed 14th February 2017, available at (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/24/facebook-clickbait-political-news-sites-us-election-trump).
Zuckerberg, M. Facebook, 12th November 2016, accessed 1st February 2017, available at (https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103253901916271).
[1] D P Fidler, “Transforming Election Cybersecurity”, Council on Foreign Relations (online), May 17 2017, accessed 12th June 2017, available at (https://www.cfr.org/report/transforming-election-cybersecurity).
[2] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-hackers-target-election-systems-20160930-story.html
[3] D Tynan,”How Facebook powers money machines for obscure political ‘news’ sites” The Guardian (online), 24th August 2016, accessed 14th February 2017, available at (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/24/facebook-clickbait-political-news-sites-us-election-trump).
[4] D.E Sanger”, Obama Strikes back at Russia for Election Hacking”, New York Times, 29th December 2016, accessed 14th February 2017, available at (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/us/politics/russia-election-hacking-sanctions.html?_r=0).
[5] A Mosseri, Facebook, 15th December 2016, accessed 7th February 2017, available at (http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/12/news-feed-fyi-addressing-hoaxes-and-fake-news/).
[6] L Sullivan, “Google Releases 2016 Bad Ads Report, Updates On Fake News”, Media Post, 25th January 2017, accessed 14th February 2017, available at (http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/293651/google-releases-2016-bad-ads-report-updates-on-fa.html).
[7] Journalist’s Resource, “Fake news and the spread of misinformation”, Harvard Kennedy School: Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, 9th January 2017, accessed 7th February 2017, available at (https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/internet/fake-news-conspiracy-theories-journalism-research).
[8] R Meyer & B Binkowski, “The Rise of Progressive ‘Fake News’ ”, The Atlantic (online), February 3rd 2017, accessed 1st February 2017, available at (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/viva-la-resistance-content/515532/).
[9] P Boczkowski, ”Fake News and the Future of Journalism”, NeimanLab, 18th December 2016, accessed 31st January 2017, available at (http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/12/fake-news-and-the-future-of-journalism/).
[10] VL Rubin, Y Chen & NJ Conroy, “Deception Detection for News: Three Types of Fakes”, Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 52. No.1, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pra2.2015.145052010083/pdf.
[11] N Pflaum, “Bogus ballot stuffing story irks Ohio Secretary of State”, Politifact, 1st November 2016, accessed 14th February 2017, available at (http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2016/nov/01/blog-posting/bogus-ballot-stuffing-story-irks-ohio-secretary-st/).
[12] J Gillin “How Pizzagate went from fake news to a real problem for a D.C. business”, Politifact, 5th December 2016, accessed 14th February 2017, available at (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/dec/05/how-pizzagate-went-fake-news-real-problem-dc-busin/).
[13] Metropolitan Police Department, “Arrest Made in an Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (Gun): 5000 Block of Connecticut Avenue, Northwest”, Metropolitan Police Department (Washington DC), 5th December 2016. Accessed 7th February 2017, available at (http://mpdc.dc.gov/release/arrest-made-assault-dangerous-weapon-gun-5000-block-connecticut-avenue-northwest).
[14] C Silverman, “Here Are 50 of the Biggest Fake News Hits on Facebook From 2016”, 30th December 2016, accessed 7th February 2017, available at (https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/top-fake-news-of-2016?utm_term=.vfV7DGvAV#.ucozknjZl).
[15] M Barthel, A Mitchell & J Holcomb “many Americans Believe Fake News is Sowing Confusion”, Pew research Center: Journalism and Media, 15th December 2016, accessed 1st February 2017, available at (http://www.journalism.org/2016/12/15/many-americans-believe-fake-news-is-sowing-confusion/).
[16] R Karlsen ET. el., “Echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics in online debates”, European Journal of Communication, April 2017, accessed 10th April, available at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0267323117695734, p.13.
[17]A Sunstein, “#Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media”, Princeton University Press, United Kingdom, 2018, pp. 117.
[18] M Barthel, J Gottfried & Kristine Lu,”Trump, Clinton Supporters Differ On How Media Should Cover Controversial Statements”, Pew Research Center: Journalism & Media, 17th October 2017, accessed 1st February 2017, available at (http://www.journalism.org/2016/10/17/trump-clinton-supporters-differ-on-how-media-should-cover-controversial-statements/).
[19] J Gottfried et.al, “The 2016 Presidential Election Campaign- a News Event that’s Hard to Miss” Pew Media Research Center: Journalism and Media, 4th February 2016, accessed 1st February 2017, available at (http://www.journalism.org/2016/02/04/the-2016-presidential-campaign-a-news-event-thats-hard-to-miss/).
[20] Ibid.
[21] Silverman
[22] M Zuckerberg, Facebook, 12th November 2016, accessed 1st February 2017, available at (https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103253901916271).
[23] Gottfried et al.
[24] National Intelligence Council, “Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution”, 6th January 2017, accessed 1st February 2017, available at (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf).
[25] D P Fidler, “Transforming Election Cybersecurity”, Council on Foreign Relations (online), May 17 2017, accessed 12th June 2017, available at (https://www.cfr.org/report/transforming-election-cybersecurity).
[26] H Allcott & M Gentzkow”, Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election”, Working Paper: Stanford Institute for Economic Policy and Research, January 2017, accessed 1st February 2017, available at (https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/fakenews.pdf).
[27] Barthel, Mitchell & Holcomb
[28] Ibid
[29] Ibid
[30] Federal Communications Commission, “Broadcasting False Information”, Federal Communications Commission (Online), accessed 7th February 2017, available at (https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/broadcasting-false-information).
[31] Federal Election Commission, “Federal Register: Rules and Regulations”, Vol. 71. No. 70. April 12th 2006, available at (http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/2006/notice_2006-8.pdf).
[32] A Mosseri, “Fake News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News”, Facebook, 15th December 2016, accessed 14th February 2017, available at (http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/12/news-feed-fyi-addressing-hoaxes-and-fake-news/).
[33] Google, “AdSense Content Policies: Prohibited Content”, January 2017, accessed available at (https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/1348688?hl=en).
[34] Note: Phishing is a cybercrime in which target(s) are contacted by email, telephone or text message by someone posing as a legitimate institution to lure individuals into providing sensitive data such as personally identifiable information, banking and credit card details, and passwords. Please see KnowBe4 2017 for further details, available at (http://www.phishing.org/what-is-phishing).
[35] W Quattrociocchi, “Inside the Echo Chamber”, Scientific American, Vol. 316, No. 4, March 2017.
