Developing effective interventions to counter misinformation is an urgent goal, but it also presents conceptual, empirical, and practical difficulties, compounded by the fact that misinformation research is in its infancy. This paper provides researchers and policymakers with an overview of which individual-level interventions are likely to influence the spread of, susceptibility to, or impact of misinformation. We review the evidence for the effectiveness of four categories of interventions: boosting (psychological inoculation, critical thinking, and media and information literacy); nudging (accuracy primes and social norms nudges); debunking (fact-checking); and automated content labeling. In each area, we assess the empirical evidence, key gaps in knowledge, and practical considerations. We conclude with a series of recommendations for policymakers and tech companies to ensure a comprehensive approach to tackling misinformation.

No abstract

Developing effective interventions to counter misinformation is an urgent goal, but it also presents conceptual, empirical, and practical difficulties, compounded by the fact that misinformation research is in its infancy. This paper provides researchers and policymakers with an overview of which individual-level interventions are likely to have an influence on the spread of, susceptibility to, or impact of misinformation. We review the evidence for the effectiveness of four categories of interventions: boosting (psychological inoculation, critical thinking, and media and information literacy); nudging (accuracy primes and social norms nudges); debunking (fact-checking); and automated content labelling. In each area, we assess the empirical evidence, key gaps in knowledge, and practical considerations. We conclude with a series of recommendations for policymakers and tech companies to ensure a comprehensive approach to tackling misinformation.

News media coverage plays an important role in the public recognition of intimate partner homicide (IPH) and familicide as crimes. However, studies find that news coverage typically fails to contextualise these crimes, relies on non-expert sources, and often engages in victim-blaming. Existing studies have primarily investigated print media. The lack of attention to broadcast media is significant because broadcast news attracts a larger share of public attention and it relies on distinct routines and practices that may influence coverage. To address this gap, this study presents an in-depth analysis of the broadcast news coverage surrounding a 2016 case of familicide-suicide in Ireland. Our analysis identifies patterns of decontextualisation, non-expert sourcing and perpetrator exoneration. Specifically, coverage decontextualised the crime through an emphasis on the family and the response of the community and through the privileging of (male) local sources, including male religious voices, over expert sources. Although victim-blaming was not very explicit, coverage frequently exonerated the perpetrator through references to his good character. Thus, we find that broadcast news replicates the patterns of print news and that the preference for on-the ground reporting privileged sources who were proximate to the crime rather than those who could provide an expert understanding of it. These findings are discussed in terms of efforts to change media practices for more accurate representations of IPH and familicide in news media.

No abstract