WEBVTT - COP 27: How to Neutralize Climate Disinformation 0:00:21.360 --> 0:00:25.759 Next month, the twenty seventh Conference of the Parties or 0:00:25.960 --> 0:00:33.239 COP the UN Climate Negotiations Conference, will kick off in Cairo, Egypt. 0:00:34.120 --> 0:00:37.720 Once again, negotiators and politicians from all over the world 0:00:38.320 --> 0:00:40.880 will join up to talk through what they are willing 0:00:41.000 --> 0:00:46.559 to do to stave off human extinction. That sounds dramatic, right, 0:00:46.640 --> 0:00:49.599 but that's kind of what we're talking about here. There 0:00:49.640 --> 0:00:53.200 will be the usual massive contingent from the fossil fuel 0:00:53.240 --> 0:00:56.880 industry there as well. Last time in Glasgow, the fossil 0:00:56.920 --> 0:01:01.560 fuel industry sent more representatives than anyone country did, and 0:01:01.640 --> 0:01:04.560 there's likely to be more of the same in Egypt. 0:01:04.959 --> 0:01:09.679 The organizers have, in a much publicized and criticized move, 0:01:10.120 --> 0:01:14.759 allowed major global polluter Coca Cola to sponsor the event. 0:01:15.319 --> 0:01:19.360 Even worse, they've also hired Coca Cola's publicist Hill and 0:01:19.440 --> 0:01:23.080 Knowlton to do pr for the conference. If you missed 0:01:23.200 --> 0:01:26.319 season three of Drill, go back and listen to it. 0:01:26.640 --> 0:01:29.679 We did an entire episode on Helen Milton founder John 0:01:29.760 --> 0:01:32.560 Hill and his work for both the oil industry and 0:01:32.600 --> 0:01:36.480 the tobacco industry all at the same time. Hill masterminded 0:01:36.480 --> 0:01:40.480 the strategy of hiring scientists to say tobacco smoking wasn't 0:01:40.520 --> 0:01:42.960 bad for you, and that the jury was still out 0:01:43.000 --> 0:01:46.280 on whether it caused cancer. At the very same time, 0:01:46.800 --> 0:01:50.240 his firm was working for the American Petroleum Institute and 0:01:50.360 --> 0:01:53.800 some of its member companies. In fact, it was Hill 0:01:54.200 --> 0:01:58.880 who brought tobacco folks into the American Petroleum Institute. The 0:01:58.960 --> 0:02:03.760 long standing relation whip between oil and tobacco eventually resulted 0:02:03.840 --> 0:02:07.600 in the creation of the cigarette filter, a money maker 0:02:07.720 --> 0:02:10.200 for oil and gas companies looking for a new place 0:02:10.240 --> 0:02:13.480 to sell petrochemicals, and a slide of hand for the 0:02:13.520 --> 0:02:17.680 tobacco industry looking to convince consumers that they could make 0:02:17.760 --> 0:02:23.200 smoking less harmful by smoking lighter filtered cigarettes. Hill represented 0:02:23.280 --> 0:02:26.280 Mensanto around the same time, too, so no surprise that 0:02:26.360 --> 0:02:30.400 the chemical industry embraced a lot of the same tactics. Definitely, 0:02:30.400 --> 0:02:34.960 the folks you want strategizing the messaging for your climate conference, 0:02:35.800 --> 0:02:39.440 I'm sure they won't be reporting directly back to their clients. 0:02:39.960 --> 0:02:42.800 Q head banging against Wall video. 0:02:44.160 --> 0:02:44.760 At any rate. 0:02:44.919 --> 0:02:49.040 Cop isn't just a time for official corporate greenwashing. It's 0:02:49.120 --> 0:02:51.720 also a period of time that tends to see major 0:02:51.760 --> 0:02:57.200 spikes in climate disinformation. Social media will almost assuredly be 0:02:57.240 --> 0:03:00.920 flooded with various memes about the elitist at COP, the 0:03:01.000 --> 0:03:04.919 failures of renewable energy, and that dam frozen windmill picture 0:03:04.960 --> 0:03:08.320 that makes the rounds every couple of years. A coalition 0:03:08.400 --> 0:03:11.480 of environmental groups has come together under the banner of 0:03:11.600 --> 0:03:17.320 Climate Action against Disinformation to monitor the disinformation that spawns 0:03:17.360 --> 0:03:21.079 around some of these big inflection points. They initially got 0:03:21.200 --> 0:03:24.480 organized around COP twenty six in Glasgow and now in 0:03:24.520 --> 0:03:27.440 advance of COP twenty seven in Cairo, they've put together 0:03:27.520 --> 0:03:30.880 a report full of information aimed at helping journalists and 0:03:31.000 --> 0:03:37.680 other communicators avoid unintentionally spreading or amplifying mis and disinformation. 0:03:38.600 --> 0:03:41.800 The lead author on that report, Connor Gibson, is joining 0:03:41.800 --> 0:03:45.360 me here today to walk us through it. That's coming 0:03:45.480 --> 0:04:00.120 up after this quick break. 0:04:10.160 --> 0:04:13.680 A little bit more savviness is needed in newsrooms in 0:04:13.720 --> 0:04:16.680 the modern era in order to not allow that to happen, 0:04:16.680 --> 0:04:20.880 because certainly disinformers now know how to exploit that tension 0:04:21.200 --> 0:04:23.960 in terms of something like viral sloganeering, which is a 0:04:24.000 --> 0:04:27.440 concept that the Data in Society Research Institute wrote. 0:04:27.240 --> 0:04:28.039 To report on. 0:04:28.880 --> 0:04:31.000 You know, basically, climate gate is the example that I 0:04:31.120 --> 0:04:35.000 use in this report, you know how many major news 0:04:35.000 --> 0:04:39.880 outlets printed the word climate gate, that is the tagline 0:04:39.960 --> 0:04:44.720 of the climate change denial movement, and just putting that 0:04:44.760 --> 0:04:50.800 in your headline over and over again really created a 0:04:50.920 --> 0:04:54.400 sense among news readers that there was guilt and that 0:04:54.440 --> 0:04:57.920 there was fabrication of data and all of the false 0:04:58.720 --> 0:05:02.040 accusations that had been aid after those climate scientists emails 0:05:02.040 --> 0:05:04.680 were hacked and taken out of context and released. And 0:05:05.480 --> 0:05:08.760 you know, the fact checking that came after the investigations 0:05:08.800 --> 0:05:12.400 and exonerations that came after that didn't spread. That didn't 0:05:12.400 --> 0:05:15.560 spread nearly as widely as the phrase climate gate. It 0:05:15.600 --> 0:05:19.680 never does, Yeah, exactly, it never does. So I think 0:05:20.200 --> 0:05:26.159 one of the biggest insurmountable feeling trends that I looked 0:05:26.200 --> 0:05:30.359 at in this report is just the economics of the newsroom. 0:05:31.040 --> 0:05:32.720 You know, when there is a. 0:05:32.680 --> 0:05:37.640 Revenue incentive that is based around clicks shares, most emailed articles, 0:05:38.240 --> 0:05:42.240 that precludes the type of tone that is actually needed 0:05:42.880 --> 0:05:49.320 to stop misinformation from festering. And so the simple capitalist 0:05:49.360 --> 0:05:55.120 economics of keeping a news outlet functioning actually creates a 0:05:55.160 --> 0:05:59.400 breeding ground for misinformation as well, and is something that 0:05:59.440 --> 0:06:01.520 needs to be taken and a lot more seriously than 0:06:01.520 --> 0:06:04.760 it currently is. But unfortunately, because it's about economics. I 0:06:04.800 --> 0:06:07.839 think that is one of the biggest obstacles that reporters 0:06:07.839 --> 0:06:10.520 will face when it comes to that tension between the 0:06:10.600 --> 0:06:14.880 responsibility of a reporter to communicate something accurately without feeding 0:06:14.880 --> 0:06:18.840 into conspiracy theory or myth, and the responsibility of an 0:06:18.920 --> 0:06:24.440 editor to keep the newspaper in circulation and financially healthy. 0:06:25.000 --> 0:06:28.560 Oh totally, especially given all the social media stuff too. 0:06:29.000 --> 0:06:33.560 Like I see it all the time on Twitter A 0:06:33.600 --> 0:06:36.400 lot of times. You know, the article itself will be 0:06:36.480 --> 0:06:40.119 halfway decent, but the tweet is really seeing sure. 0:06:40.960 --> 0:06:41.159 Yeah. 0:06:41.400 --> 0:06:44.640 The research started with a literature review, mostly a review 0:06:44.680 --> 0:06:47.720 of academic articles, many of which are peer reviewed, some 0:06:47.800 --> 0:06:50.760 of which are not, but are very prescriptive in terms 0:06:50.760 --> 0:06:54.640 of communications expertise. And that's where First Draft and the 0:06:54.720 --> 0:06:58.240 Data and Society Research Institute, the Union of Concerned Scientists 0:06:58.279 --> 0:07:01.200 and some others have published really helpful information when it 0:07:01.200 --> 0:07:05.839 comes to just psychology based communication techniques, perhaps nobody more 0:07:05.920 --> 0:07:12.480 than academics like Stefan Lewandowski and John Cook, and a 0:07:12.520 --> 0:07:16.440 lot of the collaborators on reports like the Debunking Handbook 0:07:16.600 --> 0:07:20.960 and the Conspiracy Theory handbook, just really excellent psychology based 0:07:21.760 --> 0:07:26.160 communications advice that these academics have published in order to 0:07:26.200 --> 0:07:30.600 help people navigate the most basic traps. And this stuff 0:07:30.640 --> 0:07:33.160 has been around for decades, right like Richard Nixon, I'm 0:07:33.160 --> 0:07:36.480 not a crook. Everybody hears the word crook. George Lindhoff 0:07:36.560 --> 0:07:39.400 wrote a book, Don't Think of an Elephant, because the 0:07:39.400 --> 0:07:41.400 only word that sticks in your brain after you say 0:07:41.440 --> 0:07:43.640 that is the word elephant. So, you know, a lot 0:07:43.680 --> 0:07:46.600 of this stuff has been known for a long time. 0:07:46.640 --> 0:07:50.120 But I poked around at some headlines, you know, from 0:07:50.160 --> 0:07:53.239 major outlets, and I still see the same mistakes happening. 0:07:53.280 --> 0:07:57.440 And you know, a lot of that is not it's 0:07:57.480 --> 0:08:01.640 not because people are foolish. It's just that there is 0:08:01.720 --> 0:08:05.240 an amount of faith in the audience when it comes 0:08:05.320 --> 0:08:08.920 to an honest journalist and editor writing a report and 0:08:08.920 --> 0:08:13.160 writing a headline that unfortunately just misses the traps that 0:08:13.360 --> 0:08:17.480 disinformation relies on in order to spread. And that's got 0:08:17.520 --> 0:08:20.000 to be really frustrating when you're a professional who writes 0:08:20.040 --> 0:08:23.720 something that's very intellectually honest, and yet as a result 0:08:23.720 --> 0:08:26.760 of writing it in an intellectually honest way, it is 0:08:26.800 --> 0:08:30.400 misinformation and disinformation to spread. So that's really why we 0:08:30.480 --> 0:08:34.840 wrote this report. It's why we focused on climate as 0:08:34.880 --> 0:08:38.079 a topic because of a COP twenty seven coming up 0:08:38.840 --> 0:08:44.400 in Egypt, and every year when the United Nations climate 0:08:44.440 --> 0:08:49.840 negotiations happen, there's an inevitable amount of misinformation online and 0:08:49.880 --> 0:08:52.320 social media related to climate and you can predict what 0:08:52.360 --> 0:08:54.199 some of it will be. It will be rich people 0:08:54.200 --> 0:08:58.840 are flying on jets, how ironic and things like that. 0:08:58.840 --> 0:09:04.920 There will probably be some outdated imagery circulated, like perhaps 0:09:05.080 --> 0:09:09.400 frozen wind turbines or you know, solar panels not failing 0:09:09.440 --> 0:09:12.959 to meet electricity demand in some country. You know, something 0:09:13.000 --> 0:09:16.040 that's taken out of context that usually has recirculated every 0:09:16.080 --> 0:09:18.560 few years in a moment like this in order just 0:09:18.600 --> 0:09:22.200 to see it a narrative of cynicism, in order to 0:09:22.240 --> 0:09:25.320 make people feel like this isn't a problem that can 0:09:25.360 --> 0:09:27.360 be addressed, or this isn't a problem that needs to 0:09:27.360 --> 0:09:31.040 be addressed. Also, climate journalists are kind of a good 0:09:31.880 --> 0:09:36.280 target audience for us here because the phenomenon of climate 0:09:36.320 --> 0:09:39.280 change denial, I think has made climate change reporters a 0:09:39.280 --> 0:09:43.320 little more sophisticated and understanding these trends. Before social media 0:09:43.720 --> 0:09:47.440 made disinformation such a rampant problem in the last few years. 0:09:47.720 --> 0:09:49.720 I haven't thought about it that way before, but yeah, 0:09:49.840 --> 0:09:52.680 climate reporters to be sort of dealt with the disinformation 0:09:52.920 --> 0:09:57.600 thing before everybody else did in some ways. 0:09:59.280 --> 0:10:03.600 And just the the relentless nature in which that community 0:10:03.640 --> 0:10:06.439 of climate change deniers, you know, has stayed organized like 0:10:06.480 --> 0:10:08.920 they really and it's the same guy as mostly men 0:10:09.400 --> 0:10:12.120 you know now for twenty thirty years that have. 0:10:12.120 --> 0:10:12.600 Been at it. 0:10:13.720 --> 0:10:16.000 You know, it took a long time, but I would 0:10:16.000 --> 0:10:18.520 say that most of the people who are in the 0:10:18.520 --> 0:10:22.840 climate reporting world are far more sophisticated now than certainly 0:10:22.840 --> 0:10:25.120 they were in the nineteen nineties or the two thousands, 0:10:25.160 --> 0:10:29.080 when that phenomenon was a little underreported, the cast of 0:10:29.160 --> 0:10:32.880 characters wasn't as widely known. And there are definitely improvements 0:10:32.920 --> 0:10:35.680 in how that has been covered, in kind of the 0:10:35.880 --> 0:10:38.959 level of scrutiny that is applied to those folks as 0:10:39.000 --> 0:10:42.080 messengers when they have a vested interest or they just 0:10:42.120 --> 0:10:46.840 have a long history of at this point debunked contrarianism. 0:10:47.559 --> 0:10:50.880 So you know, we try to write this report and 0:10:50.920 --> 0:10:54.960 publish it with acknowledgement that we're not writing it because 0:10:55.000 --> 0:10:59.040 climate reporters are particularly gullible or anything like that. We 0:10:59.080 --> 0:11:03.400 think it's one of the more relevant fields with which 0:11:04.240 --> 0:11:08.400 to understand what communication techniques are required in order to 0:11:08.480 --> 0:11:12.440 mitigate misinformation and disinformation, as well as a field where 0:11:12.440 --> 0:11:14.160 some of that understanding is already a little bit more 0:11:14.200 --> 0:11:14.920 fully developed. 0:11:15.480 --> 0:11:19.120 Yeah, yeah, that's super interesting. Can you talk a little 0:11:19.120 --> 0:11:22.600 bit about why this report is coming out now and 0:11:22.640 --> 0:11:25.600 particularly why it's being pegged to cop. 0:11:25.559 --> 0:11:30.080 Sure this report has been over a year in the making. 0:11:30.360 --> 0:11:34.320 I've been doing research on behalf of Greenpeace, which is 0:11:34.400 --> 0:11:39.280 my former employer of a decade until twenty twenty. And 0:11:39.360 --> 0:11:43.000 green Peace, you know, in several different offices around the 0:11:43.000 --> 0:11:47.679 world that operates and has an interest in misinformation and disinformation. 0:11:48.520 --> 0:11:51.319 And green Peace has partnered with a variety of groups 0:11:52.240 --> 0:11:55.760 like a VASE as well as a coalition that this 0:11:55.840 --> 0:11:58.920 report will be published on behalf of which is Climate 0:11:58.960 --> 0:12:04.920 Action Against Disinformation. THEA and Climate Action Against Disinformation is 0:12:04.960 --> 0:12:09.240 a coalition that is formed actually from work it did 0:12:09.400 --> 0:12:12.960 a year ago monitoring the previous conference of Parties COP 0:12:12.960 --> 0:12:19.040 twenty six in Glasgow, Scotland, and that was a less 0:12:19.120 --> 0:12:22.560 formal effort but the same kind of idea of what 0:12:22.679 --> 0:12:25.680 is happening this year, which is a variety of groups 0:12:25.679 --> 0:12:31.080 including the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, Stop Funding Heat, Friends 0:12:31.080 --> 0:12:36.160 of the Earth, Climate Nexus, Greenpeace. Many organizations are just 0:12:36.360 --> 0:12:41.400 trying to proactively monitor social media disinformation related to climate 0:12:41.440 --> 0:12:45.000 change and related to COP twenty seven in Egypt as 0:12:45.040 --> 0:12:47.839 it's happening, and so they will be publishing daily briefings 0:12:48.360 --> 0:12:50.600 that will be made available to reporters that are covering it. 0:12:51.280 --> 0:12:57.040 Trying to observe disinformation and misinformation on social media as 0:12:57.040 --> 0:12:59.959 it's emerging in order to kind of sound the law 0:13:00.440 --> 0:13:05.360 and let people know which types of misleading narratives are 0:13:05.559 --> 0:13:10.319 being seated in order to undermine the United Nations negotiations 0:13:10.360 --> 0:13:13.200 this year. The Institute for Strategic Dialogue and a bunch 0:13:13.240 --> 0:13:17.280 of other organizations published a report earlier this year in 0:13:17.280 --> 0:13:21.760 twenty twenty called Deny Deceive Delay Documenting and Responding to 0:13:21.760 --> 0:13:25.440 Climate Disinformation at COP twenty six and Beyond. And that 0:13:25.559 --> 0:13:30.720 report I thought was a particularly coherent breakdown of trends 0:13:30.720 --> 0:13:34.600 on social media, who some of the most prominent misinformers 0:13:34.640 --> 0:13:38.400 and disinformers were, and just like kind of tracing the 0:13:38.760 --> 0:13:42.640 who was the original person that put you know, the 0:13:42.679 --> 0:13:47.320 twenty fourteen photo of a de icing exercise of a 0:13:47.320 --> 0:13:50.480 windmill and recirculating that into a myth as if it 0:13:50.559 --> 0:13:53.440 was something that were happening in twenty twenty one. 0:13:54.000 --> 0:13:57.560 Yes, yes, we actually had Jenny king on to like 0:13:57.640 --> 0:14:00.120 walk through that report. When it came out to I 0:14:00.120 --> 0:14:01.720 thought that was really interesting. 0:14:01.280 --> 0:14:04.240 Too, right, So that's the origin. 0:14:04.360 --> 0:14:09.360 It's that cluster of organizations that are working to monitor 0:14:09.440 --> 0:14:13.520 disinformation around COP twenty seven. This report is intended to 0:14:13.559 --> 0:14:17.600 complement that effort to give a little bit more prescription 0:14:17.720 --> 0:14:21.080 based on the best research that's available right now for journalists, 0:14:21.080 --> 0:14:24.800 specifically to assess when to write or to not write 0:14:24.800 --> 0:14:28.880 about a trend. When is their platform giving more oxygen 0:14:29.400 --> 0:14:34.240 to a harmful narrative as opposed to recognizing, oh, I 0:14:34.280 --> 0:14:36.880 do not have control over the oxygen hose. This is 0:14:36.920 --> 0:14:39.760 a serious, widespread problem that needs to be covered. But 0:14:39.880 --> 0:14:43.080 how do I cover it? What techniques can we use 0:14:43.120 --> 0:14:49.760 in order to help interrupt misinformation without actually helping it grow? 0:14:49.840 --> 0:14:51.000 And that's really tricky. 0:14:51.880 --> 0:14:56.880 The research is actually complicated on that, but there is 0:14:56.960 --> 0:15:00.280 now a more sophisticated understanding, certainly than there were three 0:15:00.400 --> 0:15:02.680 or four years ago, about what some of the best 0:15:02.680 --> 0:15:05.520 practices are, and the meat and potatoes of this report, 0:15:05.920 --> 0:15:09.200 or the tofun potatoes, is to summarize what some of 0:15:09.200 --> 0:15:12.160 those best practices are and also highlight what some of 0:15:12.200 --> 0:15:15.280 the unknowns and some of the nuances are that are 0:15:15.320 --> 0:15:16.280 still being researched. 0:15:18.040 --> 0:15:21.360 Okay, can you get into some of the specific examples. 0:15:21.440 --> 0:15:23.400 Obviously we can't get through all of them, and there 0:15:23.440 --> 0:15:25.440 are a lot of really good ones in here, but 0:15:25.600 --> 0:15:28.960 what are some that really jump out to you? 0:15:29.320 --> 0:15:29.600 Sure? 0:15:29.760 --> 0:15:31.800 And I want to say too, none of this report 0:15:31.840 --> 0:15:36.800 is intended to shame specific outlets or reporters. It's intended 0:15:36.800 --> 0:15:39.600 to learn together. And for that reason, I actually included 0:15:39.640 --> 0:15:43.160 myself on my blog doing something that was a mistake, 0:15:43.880 --> 0:15:47.640 and in order to try to reinforce that notion that 0:15:47.680 --> 0:15:50.800 this isn't about trying to make any particular media outlet 0:15:50.880 --> 0:15:53.160 look bad, you know, unless they actually did something in 0:15:53.240 --> 0:15:58.080 bad faith like bright Bark, right of course, of course, yeah, 0:15:58.200 --> 0:16:01.640 you know. One example is the hurricane and climate conversation. 0:16:02.280 --> 0:16:05.120 Science continues to develop. We actually are getting to the 0:16:05.160 --> 0:16:10.280 point where scientists are more able to estimate how much 0:16:10.360 --> 0:16:14.320 worse hurricanes are as a result of ocean temperatures being 0:16:14.360 --> 0:16:17.400 warmer as a result of sea level rise and what 0:16:17.400 --> 0:16:19.600 that means for storm surge. You know, that is not 0:16:19.760 --> 0:16:24.080 something that scientists could do ten years ago. The modeling 0:16:24.120 --> 0:16:26.840 technology was not at that point, and so the goal 0:16:26.920 --> 0:16:32.400 coaster shifting as scientific understanding has caught up, and in general, 0:16:32.720 --> 0:16:36.280 it's still the case that it is difficult to assign 0:16:37.080 --> 0:16:39.200 like a percentage in terms of how much worse any 0:16:39.240 --> 0:16:41.520 given hurricane is as a result of climate change. But 0:16:41.520 --> 0:16:45.960 there are very specific factors which scientists clearly understand make 0:16:46.040 --> 0:16:50.160 hurricanes stronger, make them hit harder, make them cause more 0:16:50.240 --> 0:16:53.720 damage and suffering, and that is a nuance that can 0:16:53.760 --> 0:16:56.760 be navigated. We have an example of the Washington Post 0:16:56.840 --> 0:17:00.000 and this report doing a good job talking about climate 0:17:00.120 --> 0:17:03.920 change in hurricanes without losing track of a couple things. 0:17:04.040 --> 0:17:08.320 One is the nuance between how weather variability is unpredictable 0:17:08.520 --> 0:17:13.800 and it's hard to assign any specific amount of you know, 0:17:13.800 --> 0:17:15.800 how much worse any given storm is as a result 0:17:15.840 --> 0:17:19.040 of climate change, but the factors that definitely make hurricanes worse, 0:17:19.240 --> 0:17:22.200 as well as not losing track of the human suffering 0:17:22.320 --> 0:17:25.080 and how it is a also not just a climate 0:17:25.119 --> 0:17:28.320 change story, but it is an impact on humanity story 0:17:28.800 --> 0:17:32.320 and not to lose that point, you know, while people 0:17:32.320 --> 0:17:37.000 are still digging up you know, possessions from the wreckage. 0:17:37.400 --> 0:17:41.480 Yeah, I love this, this next one. The right headlines 0:17:41.480 --> 0:17:46.480 that omit the disinformation. I think that is something that 0:17:46.560 --> 0:17:51.199 I see happening all the time, and partly because of 0:17:51.240 --> 0:17:53.280 this thing that we were talking about before. It Like, 0:17:53.400 --> 0:17:59.520 if something is controversial or trending, then there's a desire 0:17:59.640 --> 0:18:03.280 to and have capitalize on that by sticking in the headline, right, 0:18:03.359 --> 0:18:06.119 but yeah, talk me through how damaging that is and 0:18:06.119 --> 0:18:08.680 also like what people should be thinking about doing instead. 0:18:09.840 --> 0:18:11.800 Sure, and this brings us back to the classic the 0:18:11.880 --> 0:18:15.560 Richard Nixon I'm not a crook example. Everybody heard him 0:18:15.600 --> 0:18:18.760 basically admitting he was a crook. Because that's how psychology works. 0:18:18.920 --> 0:18:22.199 You don't want to uplift the words that you do, 0:18:22.280 --> 0:18:24.600 not want to stick in people's mind. That's just how 0:18:25.040 --> 0:18:27.960 our brains work. We know how to conceptualize the thing 0:18:28.000 --> 0:18:31.320 that's being illustrated through language. We're not going to be 0:18:31.760 --> 0:18:35.080 illustrating something that's not mentioned. So if you are a 0:18:35.119 --> 0:18:39.440 communications professional, including journalist, but also advocates activists, you don't 0:18:39.440 --> 0:18:42.320 want to be using the language that paints a picture 0:18:42.680 --> 0:18:46.160 that's going to stick, where the misinformation is the thing 0:18:46.200 --> 0:18:48.879 that is being illustrated. You know, again, this is not 0:18:49.000 --> 0:18:54.320 intended to shame anybody. The PolitiFact website kind of does 0:18:54.359 --> 0:18:56.479 not adhere to best practices when it comes to this. 0:18:56.680 --> 0:18:59.600 They quote the myth that they are debunking. So even 0:18:59.640 --> 0:19:03.560 when they have these really great images, including the pants 0:19:03.600 --> 0:19:06.840 on fire logo, the reality is that they are still 0:19:07.760 --> 0:19:10.159 quoting the myth at the top of their article. And 0:19:10.200 --> 0:19:13.320 then oftentimes the next thing is they use the word no, 0:19:13.800 --> 0:19:15.359 and then they refute the myth. 0:19:15.680 --> 0:19:16.080 Again. 0:19:16.440 --> 0:19:22.119 That's two rounds of uplifting misleading language before getting to 0:19:22.920 --> 0:19:26.320 the nuances of their fact check. It's also really important 0:19:26.320 --> 0:19:28.879 for me to say that this is a matter of 0:19:28.960 --> 0:19:32.360 best practices. With results of the language, it is always 0:19:32.400 --> 0:19:35.600 worth doing a fact check. So I do not want 0:19:35.640 --> 0:19:40.359 to make it out like that PolitiFact shouldn't exist because 0:19:40.359 --> 0:19:44.760 they're not always using the best communication technique. It's actually 0:19:44.800 --> 0:19:48.400 always best to fact check. That's the most important thing 0:19:48.720 --> 0:19:50.879 that can't be done. There was some research in recent 0:19:50.960 --> 0:19:55.960 years that was a little overconcerned about various backfire effects, 0:19:56.560 --> 0:19:59.200 and it is turning out that any attempt to fact 0:19:59.280 --> 0:20:03.040 check or debunk misleading information is worth it first and foremost, 0:20:03.160 --> 0:20:05.439 so that's the most important thing, is please debunk the 0:20:05.480 --> 0:20:09.440 information and spread that as far as possible. That said, 0:20:09.440 --> 0:20:13.280 there are still best communication practices that can be adhered to, 0:20:14.160 --> 0:20:18.320 and that's where some of these examples, like uplifting misinformation 0:20:18.400 --> 0:20:24.080 about climate change on Facebook or repeating Tucker Carlson's words verbatim, 0:20:24.480 --> 0:20:27.680 that's not the best practice because that uplifts the misleading information, 0:20:27.840 --> 0:20:31.959 that keeps it in circulation, that continues to frame the conversation. 0:20:32.080 --> 0:20:35.879 In terms of misleading language, it is better, as with 0:20:35.960 --> 0:20:40.040 the example from the Associated Press here to in the headline, 0:20:40.119 --> 0:20:43.480 address that there is a myth that is circulating before 0:20:44.200 --> 0:20:47.600 uplifting what the myth and the language surrounding it is. 0:20:48.160 --> 0:20:51.680 And a lot of these better fact checks in terms 0:20:51.680 --> 0:20:53.920 of the language and the order in which things are addressed, 0:20:54.040 --> 0:20:57.239 are what is now being called the truth sandwich, in 0:20:57.280 --> 0:21:00.480 which you first warned the audience that they are about 0:21:00.520 --> 0:21:04.760 to hear misinformation, and you give them important details on 0:21:04.800 --> 0:21:08.600 what the topic is, who said it, before you uplift 0:21:08.600 --> 0:21:11.440 any of the misleading information, and you explicitly warn them 0:21:11.480 --> 0:21:14.920 that they are about to hear something that's misleading after 0:21:14.960 --> 0:21:18.359 they've already heard the context in which it is false, 0:21:18.560 --> 0:21:23.719 and then you can kind of address the explicit topic 0:21:23.840 --> 0:21:29.000 of misinformation before again reasserting the truth and why that 0:21:29.040 --> 0:21:32.840 information is false. And that's something I first saw again 0:21:32.880 --> 0:21:36.280 from academics like John Cook, who's at the George Mason 0:21:36.560 --> 0:21:41.520 University Center for Climate Communication, in publications like the Debunking Handbook. 0:21:41.960 --> 0:21:44.280 They've been very clear that just because of how our 0:21:44.320 --> 0:21:47.600 brains work, it's really important not to mention the myth first. 0:21:47.760 --> 0:21:51.520 It's important to mention the truth first and contextualize where 0:21:51.560 --> 0:21:54.920 the myth happened before you address it explicitly, and then 0:21:54.960 --> 0:21:57.840 to follow up again by reiterating the truth. That's a 0:21:57.920 --> 0:22:02.080 much more effective way to this lawe misinformation from a 0:22:02.160 --> 0:22:03.680 human's brain after they've already been. 0:22:03.560 --> 0:22:07.639 Exposed to it. Yeah, that's so interesting again. 0:22:07.760 --> 0:22:11.760 George Lakeoff, author of Don't Think, I believe he might 0:22:11.800 --> 0:22:15.959 have coined the term truth sandwich. The technique of the 0:22:16.000 --> 0:22:19.119 truth sandwich is something that has been around for longer 0:22:19.160 --> 0:22:21.560 than that, and I'm not sure if John Cook and 0:22:21.600 --> 0:22:24.560 Stephan Lewandowski and all the co authors of the Debunking 0:22:24.560 --> 0:22:27.000 Handbook were first to do it, but They're the first 0:22:27.000 --> 0:22:31.160 people that I saw addressing it in some of their publications, 0:22:31.160 --> 0:22:33.800 and I've found those reports to be invaluable in terms 0:22:33.800 --> 0:22:38.800 of explaining communications best practices from a psychological perspective. 0:22:39.520 --> 0:22:43.439 Yeah, let's talk about the partisan signaling thing, because I 0:22:43.480 --> 0:22:49.040 also thought this was really interesting and something that I think, well, A, 0:22:49.320 --> 0:22:52.600 I'm pretty sure I have made this mistake myself, and 0:22:52.640 --> 0:22:54.080 I think a lot of journalists too. 0:22:54.400 --> 0:22:57.760 Great, and I agree this one's really tricky just as 0:22:57.800 --> 0:23:01.080 a matter of personal preference. Like when I wrote publications 0:23:01.080 --> 0:23:05.880 for Greenpeace, which is an explicit activist organization, unapologetically that's 0:23:05.880 --> 0:23:09.560 what it exists to do, I tried very hard to 0:23:09.680 --> 0:23:12.920 never write conservative or right wing in any of my posts. 0:23:12.960 --> 0:23:15.119 I did not want to signal to an audience that like, 0:23:15.359 --> 0:23:18.000 this is only something liberals should care about and conservatives 0:23:18.000 --> 0:23:21.000 should not care, because that conversation is just a race 0:23:21.040 --> 0:23:24.560 to the bottom, and it's hyper prevalent in our media 0:23:24.640 --> 0:23:27.199 environment here in the United States. But what makes it 0:23:27.240 --> 0:23:28.800 so tricky is the fact that when it comes to 0:23:28.800 --> 0:23:32.920 climate change, Republicans don't care and Democrats do care, and 0:23:33.400 --> 0:23:37.520 their constituents follow that exact pattern as well, and that 0:23:37.680 --> 0:23:41.000 is a factor in all of this. So how is 0:23:41.040 --> 0:23:43.040 a reporter is supposed to navigate that when that is 0:23:43.080 --> 0:23:47.680 actually the factual reality of this situation. But it does 0:23:47.720 --> 0:23:50.920 readers of disservice to signal that you should care about 0:23:50.960 --> 0:23:55.119 something or not as a result of partisan royalty. And 0:23:55.160 --> 0:23:58.960 I think that it's something that can be navigated by 0:23:59.560 --> 0:24:04.679 framing the conversation around something else and including statements from 0:24:04.720 --> 0:24:08.520 politicians later in the article, perhaps to help illustrate the 0:24:08.560 --> 0:24:13.920 partisan divide or the massive disparity in how science is 0:24:14.280 --> 0:24:18.359 accepted or interpreted depending on partisan affiliation. But making that 0:24:18.440 --> 0:24:22.640 the story or making that the headline only serves to 0:24:22.680 --> 0:24:27.240 increase those divides. When you know, polling indicates there is 0:24:27.280 --> 0:24:29.720 a little bit more nuance among the electorate in terms 0:24:29.800 --> 0:24:33.000 of how they care about climate change. Support for renewable 0:24:33.119 --> 0:24:36.240 energy and other policy solutions to climate change are a 0:24:36.240 --> 0:24:39.280 little more popular than you would expect when you just 0:24:39.359 --> 0:24:42.320 read headlines about Republicans trying to tank climate policy and 0:24:42.640 --> 0:24:44.000 Democrats trying to pass it. 0:24:44.800 --> 0:24:46.200 Yeah, it's true. 0:24:46.240 --> 0:24:48.919 It's a good point. And also, like I feel like 0:24:49.000 --> 0:24:53.880 with climate in particular, part of the disinformation effort has 0:24:53.960 --> 0:24:57.439 been a concerted effort to politicize it so to the 0:24:57.560 --> 0:25:01.280 extent that we can move away from that, it seems 0:25:01.320 --> 0:25:05.320 like a good Okay, This next one I also found 0:25:05.359 --> 0:25:08.439 really interesting. I mean, there are lots of reasons to 0:25:08.520 --> 0:25:11.639 avoid the passive voice, but I had not thought about 0:25:11.680 --> 0:25:14.119 how it might preclude accountability. 0:25:14.520 --> 0:25:17.600 Yeah, this was one of the most revelatory things. 0:25:17.600 --> 0:25:20.240 So this is an idea that was published in a 0:25:20.320 --> 0:25:24.360 video by the Union of Concerned Scientists through a communications 0:25:24.359 --> 0:25:28.120 expert named Sabrina Joyce Stevens, and it's about not writing 0:25:28.160 --> 0:25:31.800