Can Scholarly Research Take Down Fake News?

Remember when the only fake news you encountered during the week was in the check-out line at the grocery store? You’d catch a glimpse of a headline—“Cab Driver Describes Night of Terror During Alien Abduction”—and laughingly wonder who comes up with such blatantly false stories. Times have changed. Instead of a handful of publishers passing off flights of fancy as fact, we are inundated with a steady stream of fake news on our social media feeds. Even journalists have been taken in by fake news stories: a major news network issued an on-air apology after reporting on a “secret transcript” that turned out to be a phony article that went viral. If seasoned professionals—with their years of experience conducting interviews, vetting sources and fact-checking data—have trouble distinguishing real news from fake, what about less savvy news consumers?

Stanford Highlights Students’ Vulnerability to Fake News

Last November, the Stanford History Education Group released findings from a survey of more than 7,800 students from middle school through college. The results were disconcerting. Many college students, for example, associated credibility with well-designed websites that featured links to traditional news organizations or well-written “About” pages. Students also struggled to spot bias, often mistaking sponsored posts and authentic news articles. Professor Sam Wineburg, lead author of the report, noted, “Many people assume that because young people are fluent in social media they are equally perceptive about what they find there.” The results tell a different story; digitally-savvy does not equate to discerning when it comes to identifying fake news.

It’s a problem that librarians and educators must tackle. In the Huffington Post article, “How I Teach My Students To Be On Guard Against Fake News,” high school teacher Lynn Kelly shares insights from teaching a Theory of Knowledge course for college-bound juniors and seniors. One project involves looking at a real-life situation and analyzing how students’ personal beliefs affect their interpretation of information. Kelly notes, “The critical thinking skills at the heart of the assessment are crucial for modern media literacy and democracy. We fall victim to fake news when we don’t understand our vulnerabilities that result from our biases and assumptions.” She also emphasizes the importance of contextual knowledge, commenting on how some students struggle to understand the Black Lives Matter movement because they have little real knowledge of the Civil Rights movement. Ultimately, she concludes, “Practicing critical thinking while developing content knowledge gives students a fighting chance at deciphering truth from fiction in today’s news.”

Empowering Students with an Academic Research Tool They’ll Love

Even journalists, as noted above, can get caught up in delivering a “scoop”—so it’s hardly surprising that students confuse fact and fiction when it comes to media coverage. Today’s students grew up googling—and they love its ease of use. However, open web searches are more vulnerable to fake news because of algorithms that push stories to the top of results based on popularity or revenue generation. Until now, there hasn’t been an alternative that offers the features digital natives want with the authoritative, trusted content that academic research demands.

Earlier this month at the American Library Association Midwinter Conference in Atlanta, LexisNexis launched Nexis Uni™, an academic research tool designed with and for digital natives. Many of those gathered in Atlanta were impressed with the solution’s intuitive, flexible interface. After conducting 85 demos in just three days, we were gratified by the shared sense of excitement for Nexis Uni’s personalization, discovery and collaboration features that are complemented by our unmatched content collection of news, business and legal sources. As one ALA visitor said, “Nexis Uni will make my job easier.” And, we believe, it will make students’ efforts to identify fake news easier, too.

3 Ways to Apply This Information Now

1. Learn more about our latest academic research solution—Nexis Uni™.
2. Check out other higher education posts here on the blog.
3. Share this blog to keep the dialogue going with your colleagues and contacts.

Transparency International’s 2016 Corruption Perceptions Index released

Transparency International has released its 2016 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). The CPI ranks 176 countries and territories on how corrupt their public sector is perceived to be. The index aggregates a number of different sources, including the views of business people and country experts.

 Global corruption increasing

 Transparency International says the results show “the urgent need for committed action to thwart corruption." The scoring system ranges from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean) and, in the index, over two thirds of countries and territories scored below 50 with a global average of 43. More countries received worse scores than better scores compared to their performance in the previous CPI.

 The United States came 18^th with a score of 74, which is a fall from 76 last year. The top performing countries were Denmark (90), New Zealand (90), Finland (89), Sweden (88) and Switzerland (86). Somalia (10), South Sudan (11), North Korea (12), Syria (13), Libya (14), Sudan (14) and Yemen (14) came bottom of the table.

 Corruption affects a country’s economy

 In analysis accompanying the 2016 results, Transparency International warns of the link between corruption and inequality. José Ugaz, Chair of Transparency International, says: "In too many countries, people are deprived of their most basic needs and go to bed hungry every night because of corruption, while the powerful and corrupt enjoy lavish lifestyles with impunity." This echoes the UN’s comments, on Anti-Corruption Day in December 2016, that corruption “can undermine social and economic development in all societies."

The 2016 CPI is further evidence that there are economic benefits for a country if they make serious efforts to tackle bribery and corruption. The countries which perform best on the ranking tend to have the world’s strongest economies. Singapore is a good example of this. It is the only country or territory in Asia to make the top ten of this year’s CPI, coming seventh with a score of 84. A report last year by ethiXbase found that Singapore’s tough stance on corruption in the private and public sector has given the country “a significant competitive advantage over its neighbors."

 Index warns of corruption at all levels

Transparency International says the lower-ranked countries in their index tend to have “untrustworthy and badly functioning public institutions like the police and judiciary” and that even where anti-corruption laws are in place, they are often ignored. By contrast, higher-ranked countries tend to have stronger press freedom, access to information about public expenditure, stronger standards of integrity for public officials, and independent judicial systems. But the report notes that “the higher-ranked countries are not immune to closed-door deals, conflicts of interest, illicit finance, and patchy law enforcement that can distort public policy and exacerbate corruption at home and abroad." Their message is clear: even in countries with the strongest records on corruption, there is no room for complacency in the fight against bribery and corruption.

 A recognized tool for measuring corruption

The CPI is globally recognized as a useful tool for measuring corruption. It is used by many companies to understand the strategic risks of entering into a given market. When a firm is considering doing business in a country which scored poorly on the CPI, it should carry out a higher level of scrutiny as part of a risk-based due diligence approach. 

 3 Ways to Apply This Information Now

1. Get a copy of our 9 step guide to effective  third-party due diligence to help you identify gaps in your due diligence process. 
2. See how LexisNexis solutions complement your  risk-based due diligence approach.
3.  Share this blog on LinkedIn to keep the dialogue going with your colleagues and contacts.

3 Tips for Operating in a Post-truth World

In an already confusing landscape of post-truth and fake news, President Trump's administration recently added to the quagmire by using the phrase 'Alternative Facts'. With the public becoming more skeptical by the minute, reputation has never been so valuable nor so easily lost. Building trust and credibility is more important than ever and communications professionals need the right tools and strategies to navigate the changing dynamic. 

We've asked industry experts for their views and advice - scroll down for exclusive insights from Claire Foster, Deputy Head of News, Direct Line Group, Catherine Turner, Head of PR, Co-operative and Nora Senior, Executive Chair, Weber Shandwick. Here are three ways communications professionals can manage reputation in the post-truth world.  

 1. Take an 'always on' approach

The post-truth world requires constant attention. From fake news stories to angry customers, a business's media profile requires constant monitoring and evaluation. Remember, it is not your profile you are monitoring, but your reputation. Funnel all the information into one manageable place to ensure your organization does not miss a thing. Automating this process makes managing things like licensed content, subscriptions and redistribution rules simple. Listening to social 'chatter' can help you identify exactly what is being said about your company, brand and competitors.

"Most importantly, you should always do the right thing – for your customers, your business, your shareholders."

- Claire Foster, Deputy Head of News, Direct Line Group

2. Know when to react, and when to stay back

The traditional PR / communication decision of whether to intervene or hold back and let a story run its course is more important than ever.  With social media, it is not just about when, but how you intervene. 

Social media crises generally fall within one of two categories: a crisis created for the organization or a crisis created by the organization.

A humorous manner can help to avoid a PR disaster, but tone of voice is key – push the boundaries without breaking them.  The approach can be extremely successful, often generating thousands of views and shares, but it is high risk versus high reward. An authentic and sincere response is always a smart approach.

"Businesses need to build trust. Humility is now the new green among chief executives. Communication needs to be led by leaders of the business, explaining what their companies stand for and why it is important to hear what they have to say."

- Nora Senior, Executive Chair, Weber Shandwick

Learn more about tracking negative news during a crisis. 

3. Harness emotion authentically

While the post-truth trend presents some difficulties, it also presents an opportunity. Savvy brand managers can boost a company's reputation by harnessing audience emotion, but only if this is done authentically. 

Using media monitoring software makes listening for the right signals, trends and opportunities easy. These insights enable you to engage authentically through communicating the right message, to the right segmentation of your audience, at precisely the right time.  Analysis of your network can also give visibility over specific parts of your audience, helping you identify and engage with key influencers in a landscape that is increasingly non-linear. 

"The core purpose of PR hasn't changed. We remain focussed on protecting, promoting, and enhancing reputations – holding our clients and business to account and bringing the voice of the outside world in. The need for PR exists, but as the delivery tools and ways of working change, it's up to us to adapt to remain relevant."

- Catherine Turner, Head of PR (Insurance, Funeral Care and Legal Services), Co-operative          

Communications professionals that can harness emotion using a fact-based approach will build stronger brand reputations in the post-truth world. LexisNexis Newsdesk® and our expert consultants can help you monitor conversations to identify exactly what is being said about your company and brand.

3 Ways to Apply This Information Now

1. To help our UK team produced a short and pragmatic new guide: Operating in a Post-Truth World.
2. Download an ebook on Crisis Management to learn more tips and best practices.
3. Keep up with the media buzz with a media monitoring and analytics solution like LexisNexis Newsdesk®.  

States Embrace, Resist Trump Immigration Orders

In the immediate aftermath of blusterous reality TV star Donald Trump’s upset victory in the presidential race, pundits were quick to say his opponents always took his seemingly over-the-top campaign pitches too literally while not taking the whole of his candidacy seriously enough. For his supporters, meanwhile, it was just the opposite. But after the flurry of executive orders Trump issued in his first few days in office, the new president made clear all of his words should be taken literally at all times.

 

In a span of just a few days at the end of January Trump issued 18 executive orders and presidential memoranda, including three that would collectively block Syrian refugees and immigrants from six other predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S., begin construction of a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico and strip federal funds from so-called “sanctuary cities,” those which limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Trump vowed during his campaign that Mexico would pay the estimated $15 billion cost of building the wall, but has since spoken of spending U.S. taxpayer money instead. He has also floated the idea that the U.S. would reclaim some of that money by imposing a 20 percent tariff on goods coming into the country from Mexico. 

 

The orders drew a predictable response from lawmakers in Washington D.C. and statehouses nationwide: angry opposition from Democrats; varying degrees of praise – or at least little or no opposition – from most Republicans. The public also weighed in, as word of the refugee ban sparked large, boisterous opposition demonstrations at airports and other public venues in major cities around the country. Reaction from around the world also veered heavily to the negative.  

 

Attorneys general from 15 states and D.C. – all Democrats, though the office of Hawaii AG Doug Chin is officially nonpartisan - quickly pledged to resist the immigration restrictions. In a joint statement the AGs said they would “work together to ensure the federal government obeys the Constitution, respects our history as a nation of immigrants, and does not unlawfully target anyone because of their national origin or faith.”

The group also expressed confidence the order would “ultimately be struck down by the courts” and said that “in the meantime, we are committed to working to ensure that as few people as possible suffer from the chaotic situation that it has created.”

 

Washington quickly became the first state to file suit seeking to overturn the order. Within days attorneys general in New York, Massachusetts and Virginia announced they were joining similar suits already filed by advocacy groups in their states. In a statement, Washington AG Bob Ferguson implied other states could soon join his suit, which he said was broader in scope than some others and could potentially have greater national impact. He also castigated Trump, saying “No one is above the law — not even the President.” 

 

The refugee ban struck a particular nerve in California, where Democrats in both chambers had in previous weeks already introduced a suite of bills aimed at blunting Trump’s anticipated immigration actions. Last week, Senate President pro Tem Kevin de León (D) introduced a new resolution condemning the executive orders. It passed (as did a similar resolution last Thursday in Massachusetts), but not without vigorous opposition from Republicans like Sen. Jim Nielsen (R), who said the resolution’s supporters were “in a spirit of denial” about the threat of terrorists entering the country under the cover of refugee status. Nielsen argued that the president’s ban was not about religious or ethnic bias – as many opponents have claimed – but an honest reaction to a legitimate national security issue. He said if his Democratic colleagues don’t support the president’s actions they then owe their constituents “a solution” to terrorism.

 

Meanwhile, in his State of the State address on Tuesday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) declared his intention to ban sanctuary cities. He also vowed to cut state funding under his control from going to such Lone Star State communities. He made good on that promise on Wednesday, cutting off $1.5 million in state crime prevention grants to the office of Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez, who has said her department will no longer honor warrantless detainment requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. Abbott also indicated he would try to force Hernandez from office if she doesn’t relent. (Note: For more on this issue see TX Gov. Blocks Funding to ‘Sanctuary City’ in this issue) 

 

The threat of a similar withholding from the federal government sparked San Francisco – which could lose as much as $1.2 billion in federal funding - to become the first city to file suit seeking to block the president’s sanctuary city defunding order. City Attorney Dennis Herrera called the president’s order “unconstitutional” and “un-American,” saying it would discourage immigrants from cooperating with police out of fear of deportation. Other big city mayors, including New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, have also vowed to defend their immigrant populations, though as of press time neither city had filed legal action.

 

There are thought to be between 300 and 400 municipalities that fall under the generally accepted definition of a sanctuary city or community. But as University of California Davis Law School Dean Kevin Johnson points out, the president’s order offers no definition at all and doesn’t specify what funds states or cities risk losing.

 

“It’s all very fast and loose,” he says. “Is it all federal funds? All highway funds? It’s all very vague and ambiguous.”

 

Critics further contend the president’s order violates both the U.S. Constitution’s 10^th Amendment – which bars the federal government from compelling state and local officials to enforce federal laws – and longstanding Supreme Court precedent that says the federal government can’t make federal funding to states and local governments provisional unless the conditions they lay out are “unambiguously” stated in the text of the law “so that the States can knowingly decide whether or not to accept those funds.”

 

Those issues and many more related to Trump’s directives are now left to be unwound by the courts. Additional litigation is also undoubtedly on the way, as Trump vowed last Thursday to overturn the Johnson Amendment, an IRS rule barring pastors from endorsing candidates from the pulpit. More legislation is also sure to come, and likely in more states than just deep blue California. One prominent Californian, former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, suggested that the Golden State could respond to any cut in federal monies by cutting off its supply of tax dollars that flow to the federal government. Brown told San Francisco TV station KPIX the state could become “an organized non-payer” of tax dollars, citing California’s status as a donor state, or one that pays more in federal tax dollars than it receives back in federal services and dollars. Brown did not elaborate on how such a plan could be put into action.

 

But another well respected California institution, Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton, warned on Thursday that Democratic lawmakers run the risk of pushing their anti-Trump agenda too far. Skelton noted the tremendous negative backlash that engulfed former Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis during the 1988 presidential campaign. Republican candidate George H.W. Bush constantly reminded voters of an African-American man named Willie Horton who raped and tortured a white woman while out on furlough from serving a life sentence for murder. Bush’s efforts stoked a wealth of racial animus that lasted throughout the campaign, and Dukakis, the Democratic nominee, could never shake the image of being soft on crime. Skelton argues that a similar incident involving an unauthorized immigrant could provide the state’s floundering, marginalized GOP its own Willie Horton moment.

 

That possibility has clearly not deterred de León or any other California Democrats. Last week, the Senate Committee on Public Safety endorsed SB 54, a de León bill that would essentially make California a sanctuary state. The bill is now with the Committee on Appropriations.

For more on this critical topic, check out our 2017 Immigration Reform Legislative Trends posting on LexTalk

Largest Sanctuary Cities Facing Loss Of $2B In Federal Funds

An executive order signed last month by President Donald Trump threatens to cut off over $2B in federal funding for the nation’s largest sanctuary cities, according to analysis by Reuters. Those cities range from Denver, with $20.4 million in federal funding at risk, to New York, with $704.6 million of at-risk funding.

 

Source: Reuters