The rise of social media and fake news

2009 to 2019: the decade of the selfie, micro-videos, rise of the troll armies and the fake news awards.

The past decade has seen some of the most, what I would class, significant developments in social media and fake news. Naturally this has impacted the science communication sector, and trust in science. Research has shown, although scientists as individuals are trusted, there are still questions around their work, institutions and funder’s trustworthiness. There are numerous reasons why an individual may not trust an institution and science research results; the rise in fake news may be reason to this as audiences are now actively being told to question what they see. Although steps are being taken to try and tackle the fake news problem, there is still scope for growth in the ways that researchers and science communicators use social media.

The topic of academics communicating on social media and the fight against fake news has been looked at by Cailin O’Connor and James Owen Weatherall. These philosophers argue that having scientists seen as “being people too” adds to audience trust and this works with our human instinct to have greater belief in what we learn from others in social settings. However, research funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), found that TV was still the most common way that most members of the public received science messaging; whilst social media was the top platform for those aged 16-24 years old.

Looking at how these two aspects are intrinsically linked, I have created a timeline for what I think highlights key milestones for both the development of social media and fake news in the past decade (2009 – 2019).

For me, there are three distinct phases highlighted within the last decade with the intertwining’s of social media and fake news:

Phase one. Pre-2016. This saw a significant phase of establishment and development for social media. Alongside this was the slow build and realisation of fake news being present within our society, starting as a slow drip feed.

Phase two. 2016 – 2018. This two-year period saw an utter explosion of the phenomenon of fake news. With continued growth of social media, audiences are starting to become distrusting, especially with high profile stories including the Cambridge Analytical scandal where there is clear rationale for audiences to be concerned.

Phase three. 2018 – 20??. Despite concerns over the use of our data rising over the last two years, popular social media channels continue to grow. On the other hand, the concept of fake news has sparked a moral panic and has come to the forefront of people’s attention.

Phase one:

Summarised simply as the rise of social media and the emergence of fake news, these almost “peaceful” times can be seen as a period for science communication to have thrived. Although fake news was starting to be noticed, this was on a small scale and not seen as something for concern, especially not in relation to science communication.

However, the update of social media, from the perspective of academics (in an individual or personal context), offers the lived experience. This personal point of view being portrayed on social media clearly shows a step forwards for science communication. With this approach the researchers’ content now falls under the category of citizen journalism, and is no longer simply reporting out the research impacts or research institution values.

These new and developing social media platforms in this time period offered scientists and science communicators an ever-increasing landscape to show their work. Its popularity with a range of different audiences (may they like the short form of Twitter, the aesthetics of Instagram or the selfie aspect of Snapchat) and the ease in which they are available in your pocket via smartphones removes technological and economic barriers that previously existed to being able to promote your own ‘news’, or in this instance the conversation surrounding an academics research, viewpoints or day-to-day life of being in the industry.

Due to the decrease of science coverage in traditional media, audiences have been driven to using social media to educate themselves where a gap had been formed. Therefore it is only natural that proactive scientists, and/or science communicators, would embrace this opportunity to personally remove themselves from being in the role of a citizen to being in the role of a reporter, going it alone, and using ones own social media platforms offers this broadcasting platform without the restraints of news corporations or institutional guidelines.

Phase two:

2016 – 2018 saw an incredible shake up in the trust in the media (and ultimately science communication) due to the explosion of fake news. Research from Reuters Institute and the University of Oxford has found that although fake news may not in itself be causing distrust, but being mixed into a landscape where audiences are already distrustful, is causing the increased level of concern we continue to see today. Therefore the impact on audiences not trusting news sources (may they be in traditional media, online or on social media) is simply intensified rather than increased.

With this distrust being so apparent, its integral those ‘voices’ that audiences do trust remain in the public eye, and in this instance active on social media. Research from NERC highlighted that when covering controversial topics such as fracking and shale gas, that science researchers at Universities were ranked as the most trustworthy news source, with the government receiving the penultimate lowest trust score. This clearly highlights how academics have a place to communicate when other sources cannot be trusted.

Building upon the trust that audiences do have, it is therefore important for researchers and science communicators to consider the relationship between themselves, their scientific organisations and the variety of their audiences. Therefore, when it comes to using social media, its important that researchers and science communicators work within a sphere of their own ethics on what is morally correct to post and share, to ensure they don’t add to the nurturing of fake news.

At a time of distrust in the news it is important to recognise in the UK the governments push towards digital literacy. Published in March 2017, in the middle of the fake news phenomenon years, UK Government published a policy paper outlining how they aim to give people:

1. The ability to access the internet

2. The skills to use the internet

3. The confidence to use the internet (tackling fear of crime)

4. The understanding on why the internet is relevant and helpful

As mentioned earlier it’s critical for researchers, a trusted voice, to maintain being seen by members of the public. Adding this active promotion of using the Internet as a form of communication into the mix; creates even more rationale for researchers to be actively using social media. Although this may not cure the moral panic of fake news, it can help to tame the wild beast that appears before us.

Phase three:

What now? It’s impossible to try and estimate the development of fake news and the use of social media looking into 2019 and the next decade. With continued investigations into the Cambridge Analytical scandal and Donald Trump, President of the USA announcing the Fake News Awards, I assume that we have not seen the last of fake news. If anything, I believe this is the tip of the iceberg and in the years to come we shall be seeing increased numbers of investigations as more social media companies, news institutions and possibly even not-for-profit companies come under scrutiny.

As for academics use of social media to communicate, and become the source for go-to information, I am more optimistic. Research has already shown that scientists want to meet and communicate with the public, in the public’s arena. Therefore, as audiences turn more to social media, as must the academics and science communication. The exact platform that this will remain in, again, is unknown. As media habits change and new social media platforms emerge, naturally others die. To maintain connections with various audiences in this landscape researchers, in my opinion, must be versatile in their approach to social media. Tweeting out your research paper is simply no longer enough to maintain the trust of your audience.