A World Under the Influence

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DAB6e_6SScU/?igsh=MWNkZ24xaGJzbHFqaw%3D%3D

@arianajasmine_: One of the biggest escalations happened today in the Middle East and I’m gonna break it all down for you.

https://www.tiktok.com/@nikitadumptruck/video/7421287274979036448 

@nikitadumptruck: This is the Israel and Iran news explained for hot girls.

https://www.tiktok.com/@carlos_eduardo_espina/video/7423581973760822570?lang=en 

@Carlos_Eduardo_Espina: Mucha atención mi gente porque el FBI acaba de informar que—

https://www.tiktok.com/@jorjunkie0/video/7398844782065306897 

@jorjunkie0: Why is it that the drama in politics is almost as strong as the tea in the Real Housewives franchises? Why?

Make a video of yourself talking and if you hit the algorithm just right, hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people will see your content. Of course, it wasn’t always this way. We’re living in a new chapter of human history in which everyday citizens can communicate on a mass scale, sometimes reaching an even larger audience than traditional media organizations. This has completely changed how we consume world news.

Many say that it has democratized journalism, allowing more people to be informed quickly and from a wider variety of voices and sources. But it has also allowed for the manipulation of news, further siloing and polarizing of people in their own echo chambers, and an erosion of journalism industry standards.

I’m Gabrielle Sierra and this is Why It Matters. Today, influencers, and the shifting global information landscape.

Renee DIRESTA: An influencer is usually somebody who has the capacity to shift somebody else's ideas or behavior, that's what influence means. Influencers are people who are seen as having that capacity.

This is Renee Diresta. She’s an associate research professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown and an expert on adversarial abuse online. She’s advised Congress, the State Department, and a myriad of academic and business organizations on the mechanics of online manipulation.

DIRESTA: The term actually comes out of brand marketing. It comes out of companies realizing that very authentic people online were actually a great way for them to sell their products. Who better to push, you know, a brand new bottle than a mom influencer saying, "This made my baby sleep like nothing else?" And so influencers are often members of communities, members of niche communities, meaning they have very particular kinds of identities. And in their role as members of those identities, they develop relationships with crowds of followers and fans. So it is a very special relationship, one that media doesn't have with its audiences, one that institutions don't have with publics, but influencers do. 

To take a short trip back in time here - social media entered our world in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, with platforms like Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, and MySpace. (Remember MySpace?) Instagram came into being in 2010, Snapchat in 2011, and TikTok, the youngest of the social giants, was born in 2016. 

TikTok reached 1 billion users in September of 2021, just five years after its launch. And as of this year, YouTube has nearly 2.5 billion monthly users, making it the second most popular social media platform in the world behind Facebook.

Nic NEWMAN: I think the rise of influencers matters because of the changing nature of how people relate to news and what they want from news.

This is Nic Newman. He is a senior researcher at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, and the lead author of the Digital News Report, which is the world's largest ongoing study of news consumption, examining the media landscape in 47 countries each year.

NEWMAN: Essentially what we're seeing is younger people just don't have the same connection to traditional news brands. We've been seeing this for some time with print, but increasingly television news is suffering sort of 5 to 10 percent declines. So it's not good enough just to rely on a brand because it's been there for years. People want to relate to a personality. And it's also important because the techniques that they're using, the formats, the way they tell stories, the intimacy and authenticity really resonates with a new generation. And we have a bit of a challenge right now in how do you engage that younger generation that has grown up in social media and through entertainment formats, and so I think influencers can help to give us some ideas about how we might square that circle between telling important stories but also telling them accessibly.

Fun side fact - while the term “influencer” actually dates back to the 1600’s, in terms of social media, many date the rise to 2009, led by a wave of popular YouTubers. The term was added to the dictionary in 2019.

DIRESTA: They're incredibly empathetic and charismatic. They're excellent storytellers. They reach people where they are. People trust them, people like them, and they're not celebrities. Some of them become celebrities, but they are different from celebrities in that they're very self-made. They're not, like, anointed by the outside when they're getting started. And, at a time of very, very low trust in media and institutions, I think audiences, or, you know, just ordinary people, are looking for that sense of, "I can trust this person. This person is going to tell it like it is. This person is just like me, and they understand my thoughts and my concerns, and they're expressing my opinion for me," almost, right? The influencer becomes a voice for that community.

When a person scrolls through a social media feed, they encounter news and influence from all directions. Some influencers are self-described journalists, who do the research and explain a topic that is making headlines in a way that is digestible for their followers.

Alongside them, there are many influencers who don’t present themselves as journalists at all, but who infuse political and news commentary into their coverage of fashion, parenting, or video gaming.

And then there are stars, like Joe Rogan, who do not identify as journalists, but who regularly express their takes on the news and therefore shape the worldviews of their following.

Michael SPIKES: News influencers are these individuals that have gained a following on social media platforms like TikTok or Instagram that specifically talk about current events. 

This is Dr. Michael Spikes. He’s a journalist and a lecturer at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University where he teaches courses on news media literacy.

SPIKES: So what we're finding is that people are developing these sort of parasocial relationships with these influencers much more quickly because they come across as much more "authentic" than say journalists that might be on a news program that they have to come to at a particular time during the day or go to a particular outlet to access.

Gabrielle SIERRA: So influencers are relevant when it comes to news. There's no denying that. People who have built a following talking about news on social media are very influential. I had to do it. I'm sorry. That'll be the only time. Maybe I might do it again.

SPIKES: Well, that's why they call it an influencer. 

There are a lot of news influencers out there and their followings have only grown through the years. Some, like Gazan activist Bisan Owda, or the American video journalist Cleo Abram, command millions of followers, and have a real voice within the news landscape.

But having that reach without any level of oversight can lead to mistakes in reporting, or misleading or false information spreading very far very quickly.

SIERRA: Would you say that on net the rise of influencers as a news source allows misinformation to spread more easily?

NEWMAN: I think essentially a lot of the influencers are not journalists, so they've not been trained in verification methodologies. There have been occasions where influencers have spread misinformation, not corrected that misinformation. We know that people see news and social media and they see it as less reliable, that they are on guard at all times because it's different to how it used to be where you went to a traditional brand and you had a measure of trust because it has that track record, it has those verification processes, and now everything's, kind of, got mixed up. And it's not all about the facts, it's also about the way in which influencers, social media has also increased the range of opinion as opposed to pure fact. So almost the opinion and the entertainment is swamping the, sort of, core information to some degree.

SIERRA: For a long time most people got their news from, you know, major media companies which had a monopoly on what was reported and what wasn't. Today, many are inclined to describe that as gatekeeping. You know, I wonder if you could walk us through the old normal in news and information and sort of how that went to today.

SPIKES: Yeah. Generally, when we think about gatekeepers, we think about people who had the ability to both go out, find the information that needed to be known by lots of people. Again, we would refer to those as current events. They had the means to do so, and they also had access to the technologies, the capital that it took to then broadcast that information out to large groups of people.

https://youtu.be/i5s1mnVeao4?feature=shared&t=21 

CBS News: Nixon reportedly will announce his resignation tonight.

https://youtu.be/snsdDb7KDkg?feature=shared&t=20

ABC News: Thousands of West Germans come to make the point that the wall has suddenly become irrelevant. 

https://youtu.be/JdVxUID5ocY?feature=shared&t=1

CNN: Obviously a very disturbing live shot there. That is the World Trade Center and we have unconfirmed reports this morning that a plane has crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center. 

SPIKES: And then those people, those institutions that were created, created a set of rules and practices that allowed them to do that work. Some of those rules also came from the government, but lots of those were just internally created specifically for journalists, journalists in particular held very closely to our First Amendment of the Constitution that says that we have the freedom of the press. And what that means is that for the press, they do not have outside oversight of their work. They sort of internally create a set of standards and practices that govern the work that they do. So with all of those rules, those rules determine the practices that journalists use to create and distribute the information that they find, the ways that they do so. They were also determining for the public, “Here are the things you're going to talk about today.”

In recent decades, traditional news organizations have increasingly been accused of political bias in their coverage, ignoring diverse voices, and dictating which sources could be consulted for a story.

Now, with the rise of social media, not only can people transmit their views freely but the rate at which people can share, post, tweet, stream... is astronomically quicker than information sharing mediums of the past. And many in the influencer world describe this as a leading virtue of the movement: the gates have finally been broken down. Or at least cracked open.

SPIKES: Now, in this new ecosystem, we talk about this in the form of a greater democratization of media. And what that has really translated to is that more and more people now have access to both the equipment that it takes to capture and also create media content, and then also to distribute that media content on a large scale, i.e. to broadcast it. Now we have all these people now that have a voice. Now, granted, the good part of that is we hear from many more voices that we did not hear from before because there were many other people who did not have access to capital and equipment and all this kind of stuff. Now that they do, now they can talk to these large audiences. So now the gatekeeper's role is now greatly diminished in our sort of media ecosystem, and we get lots more people giving us information that we traditionally would've only gotten it from institutions. The only difference now is how do we determine the level of credibility or the level of work that that person has put into that story. I think a lot of those kinds of things are not always evident when we have just individuals doing that same kind of work.

DIRESTA: It used to be that that discernment was handled by some sort of editorial curator and there were editors, even multiple levels of editors, that were responsible for deciding, "Okay, this is newsworthy. It's going to be in the paper." Whereas if I want to write something on my Substack, nobody controls that, you know? I just go and I just say whatever I want to say. And so it's an interesting thing, right? It leads to a different type of content, maybe more entertaining at times, maybe more sensational, but it does mean that the user really has to decide who do they trust and what do they want to see. And there’s so much content out in the world now. You can choose the kind of commentary you want. You can kind of create your own reality, honestly, by pulling from whatever media or influencers you want to follow, or again, the algorithm nudges you to be interested in. "Maybe you want to see this." You do have agency, right, you respond to that nudge. But it does assume that you have the time to go and, like, be discerning. My personal feeling is that it's both great that we have that proliferation and people have that choice, and you can find people who are relating the news to you or giving you commentary in a way that is in line with your politics or beliefs or identity. But on the flip side, it does mean that you are going to see a lot more of this, kind of, unvarnished stuff that hasn't necessarily gone through any kind of fact checking process. And so there is this question of are you getting accurate information or are you just getting the information that you want to hear?

A 2023 Morning Consult report found that the number of Gen Zers and millennials who said they trust social media influencers grew from just over 50 percent in 2019 to 61 percent in 2023. And, if you zoom out to Americans of all ages, a Pew study found that more than 50 percent say that they get at least some of their news from social media.

SIERRA: For the past few years, your reports have shown the rise of influencers as sources of news on platforms like TikTok and Twitch. So on a scale from, you know, your uncle posting something on social media to The Washington Post posting, where do these influencers land for you in terms of reach and spread of news on social media?

NEWMAN: For younger people now they tell us this is their majority experience. And in fact, we did some research where we tracked people on their phones a couple of years ago. And people were talking about ways of getting news around subjects like Ukraine, for example. And it wasn't through traditional media. It was through this whole fragmented landscape of everything from, you know, academics to comedians just dropping in their lap because they're in those networks for other  reasons as well. You can look at the figures within the social media networks around views, for example, and we did this around Gaza, and you can see that an individual news creator who is a young person gets around, sort of, five million views for every single post around Gaza, whereas a big institution like the BBC might get less than a million on average for those posts. On the other hand, we also noticed that a lot of those influencers don't do a lot of posts about Gaza, so they do them very rarely. And that's one of the reasons why their feed gets more traction, because they're doing stuff that feels more popular. It's really the combination of these multiple influencers beating massive brands that we know and love. If you add them all up, then they're having a big impact. But then in other countries we have very different scenarios. So in the UK, which has a much more regulated media environment, you had more representatives of traditional media, and there were some partisan voices as well, but a lot of them were talking about impartial news. And then in France we saw a different trend again where the most mentioned influencers were young people. So there's an influencer called HugoDécrypte who's 27, 28, and he had more mentions than Le Monde, Le Figaro, you know, the big providers. So that was a case where under 30s, and we could see them in our data, he was the go-to source for news, and he did that through YouTube and TikTok, again, through video networks. So in the U.S. it's primarily X and YouTube, which is really driving the big numbers, but in countries like Brazil it's much more about Instagram. And in some other countries in the world, so we looked at Africa as well, South Africa and Kenya, you have TikTok becoming really, really important.

SIERRA: Do you have an example of how influencers are presenting the news?

NEWMAN: One of the interesting trends that we find is they're almost like young explainer journalists, so they're really committed to explaining the news for young people. So, by young people for young people. So there's this brand called TLDR News, which is a UK brand, and it was set up by an individual young person, and it now has about eight people.

The founder of TLDR News is a UK native named Jack Kelly.

https://www.tiktok.com/@tldrnews/video/7280167633759046945

Jack Kelly/TLDR News: Labour are promising a much better Brexit deal with the EU if the party gets into power, according to new claims from Keir Starmer. Starmer told the F.T. that almost everyone recognizes...

The Youtube-based TLDR News has turned into a profitable news organization. The company’s short-form explainer content is targeted at people under 35 and is created almost entirely by staff in their 20s.

NEWMAN: I think a lot of this is linked to what does social media do? Traditional media in previous times was constrained. It was constrained by bandwidth, the amount of time they had for news topics or current affairs topics. And now all of that is gone. 24 hours a day, you can access anything, you know, in 45 second or 20 second soundbites, or 10 second soundbites increasingly, and all of that is completely different and fragmented and new and actually quite exciting. If you look at how news is covered on TikTok, for example, there is huge creativity in terms of formats and storytelling techniques, and you could argue that traditional journalism has much to learn from that.

SIERRA: Not everyone is talking in that same stilted newscaster voice, getting away from that too.

NEWMAN: Right, right.

https://youtu.be/M03tI7a4Q6w?si=flzt5lU-b7peD6du 

ABC News: Tonight, several developing stories as we come on the air.

https://youtu.be/oKQ6L9wsAhQ?si=U46VvlhGXurRoqYo 

NBC News: Tonight, several developing stories as we come on the air.

https://youtu.be/0p1Dc7usQZg?si=l3sKppo5PAighCoK 

ABC News: Tonight, several breaking stories as we come on the air...

NEWMAN: There's one influencer, news creator, Vitus Spehar in the U.S. who runs a TikTok account, ‘UnderTheDeskNews,’ and literally often presents this little news roundup from under a desk in this sort of really informal, authentic way as opposed to the formality of over the desk.

https://www.tiktok.com/@underthedesknews/video/7418734638476135711?lang=en 

Vitus “V” Spehar/UnderTheDeskNews: It’s Wednesday night, and here’s what happened: Congress will avoid a shutdown and has passed a budget that will fund the government until December 20th.

"UnderTheDeskNews" is a daily news wrap-up page with a liberal tilt, and over three million TikTok followers. In the fall of 2022, Vitus Spehar was among a group of over twenty influencers invited by President Biden to a creator briefing for the Inflation Reduction Act, similar to a press briefing traditional journalists might get.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVaXhcxbU1U 

Joe Biden: It’s literally getting incredibly difficult to count the number of lies people hear. They don't know what to believe. They don’t know what to count on. But you break through in ways that I think are going to change the entire dynamic of the way in which we communicate and that’s why I invited you to the White House. 

The President called the group “the future”, telling them “You’re the source of the news, you are the new possibilities. You are the breakthrough in how we communicate.”

NEWMAN: And that is, of course, part of the appeal of these influencers or creators. It's young people talking to young people in a tone of voice and in a style that they feel comfortable with. And that's one of the reasons why many of these influencers are actually getting more views than traditional media organizations in some of those networks like TikTok. I think the other thing is that traditional media companies have taken quite a while to really get their game together when it comes to telling stories and being really authentic in these networks, and so that's also part of the problem. Individuals can be individual, can be authentic, can be intimate, and it's much harder for traditional media companies to do that and remain impartial, which many of them are trying to do.

SIERRA: Right. To hop in and be like, "Hey, guys," is not as natural perhaps for The Wall Street Journal as it is for someone, you know, under their desk.

NEWMAN: Right, and genuinely maybe not the right thing to do. I mean, maybe even if people are using you less and younger people are using you less, when Ukraine is invaded, we saw in research that they moved off TikTok and they actually went to websites, they turned on the television. So I think part of the problem is that people need traditional media when they need it, but the rest of the time they're happy to be informed by influencers or others.

SIERRA: With entertainment as part of it?

NEWMAN: With more entertainment.

SIERRA: Overall, how would you contrast the incentives that shape the choices of influencers versus traditional and institutional journalists?

Michael SPIKES: Well, I would say that, because they are individuals, their incentives are much different, we're hearing more and more young people wanting to pursue that as a career, being influencers, even being YouTubers or "content creators," their incentives are, "I need to get followers. I need to get more people to pay attention to me. I need to get more attention." So then, the rewards of the brand sponsorship, the being recognized on the For You page of TikTok, all those things come along with that.

Journalism is a profession, and there are jobs within that - editors, writers, on-air broadcasters, etcetera. And like all jobs, when a business hires you, you get paid a fee or a salary. But with influencers it’s this very different story, because platforms reward influencers as they gain traction and followers, and brands may approach them for sponsored posts and advertising opportunities, all leading to more money earned. This can, of course, be a wide range. 

A micro-influencer with 1000 followers might make ten dollars on a post, no big deal. However, according to a 2022 piece in Forbes, top TikTok influencers can earn an average of $100,000 to $250,000 per post, with a lucky few charging as much as half a million dollars. Compare that to what Indeed.com reports as the average starting salary for a journalist in the United States - around $21,000 per year. You can see why it’s tempting to go the influencer route.

And this can bring up a lot of questions about the choices influencers are making when they post content.

SIERRA: I mean, so far we've talked about influencers shaping the views of their followings, but it seems like you also think the following shapes the content of the influencers.

DIRESTA: Oh yeah, absolutely. So there's a phenomenon called audience capture. And audience capture is a term that gets used to refer to social media content creators usually, whether that's Substack or Twitter or TikTok anywhere, it doesn't matter, where because they get paid in part by the size of their following and engaged followers, meaning they want the followers to share their content, they want the algorithm to surface their content. So they're creating content both for humans and for the machines. One of the things that happens is they have this interesting line that they have to straddle, particularly if they're creating content in a hot button space. So let's say that you're creating content for the American left, but you're following is increasingly maybe the socialist left or maybe the more global left, as opposed to maybe classical liberals that you started with. When those followers criticize your work and say, “Oh, you're an apologist for this. You're not writing enough about that, you haven't taken into account this group, this niche position, this other thing.” They're not going to want to alienate that audience who now has a whole proliferation of different left-wing writers that they can go choose from. So whereas in a newspaper environment, there were different challenges. The newspaper had to appeal to the advertisers, so maybe they would be captured by industry. They wouldn't criticize pharma as much as they should have or something like that. It's happening at a much more kind of granular, individual level, and that desire to create coverage and content appealing to a particular niche is really what lets them earn a living and so you see them moving in the trajectory to ensure that they don't lose their audience by putting out something that their audience is going to hate.

SIERRA: So we've talked about influencers, followers, but there's a third person in the room too, isn't there? Can we talk a little bit about the role the algorithm plays in sharing and shaping this information and this environment

DIRESTA: There is no one algorithm. A lot of times people say, "the algorithm," and it's shorthand, and it usually references algorithms that recommend or curate content for people in some way.’

DIRESTA: So whenever you join a social media platform, for example, the algorithm, the sort of people-you-may-know algorithm, recommends friends to you. Maybe you know those friends, maybe they're in your phone. They're recommending influencers, actually. They're saying, "Hey, here are some prominent accounts on our platform that get a lot of attention. You might like them." So this creates an interesting incentive, right? The relationship between the algorithm and the influencer. The influencer wants to be recommended, that's how they're going to get more followers. Right? And the algorithm wants to recommend influencers because it wants to keep the crowd online, on their platform, and it wants them to see interesting things. So that's one example of a way in which these sort of three incentives are interwoven. 

To reach that coveted viral status, TikTok recommends posting up to four times per day, and Instagram recommends posting three to five times a week. There are also considerations like what time you post, how you tag, and how aesthetic your content is.

And what it means to ‘go viral’ varies by creator. Some say that going viral means getting more than five million views on a post within a week. Others say that it means every time someone engages with your content, they share it with at least one other person.

DIRESTA: Another example would be the algorithm curating content for you. You open up your Twitter or X app, you open up Facebook, and it's going to surface posts for you that it thinks you're interested in. So the algorithm develops some sort of intuitive sense for who you are. And it does that by looking at people who are like you, statistically, meaning they behave in ways that you behave, they react to pieces of content in ways that you react. And one of the things that happens is through this process called collaborative filtering, massive amounts of data are analyzed by machine learning tools that then in turn say, "You should show this person this piece of content. From among all the millions of pieces of content available, this is the piece of content you should show." And that's how, again, the influencer is incentivized to try to make content that the algorithm is going to want to recommend. So again, we have that same process, and that's because the influencer profits from that content being seen, particularly on a platform like YouTube. They're making money with every view. So it is this process of influencers, algorithms, and crowds coming together that is essentially the sort of triad of modern influence. Where this becomes interesting, however, is that because they enjoy that role as a trusted voice with a large following, you do see sometimes influencers getting pulled into these types of manipulative or adversarial behavior. So for example, very recently we saw a case where the Department of Justice unsealed an indictment suggesting that Russian state actors tied to Russian propaganda media RT were secretly and surreptitiously paying unwitting influencers to express the positions that RT wanted expressed.

This just happened last month. 

Right-wing social media influencers, a part of Tennessee-based Tenet Media, were allegedly paid by Russia to shape opinions around the upcoming U.S. presidential election. Two employees of RT, the Russian state media propaganda outlet, paid nearly $10 million to have on-air talent create social media videos promoting its agenda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFTa6_tn10c 

Benny Johnson: Hey guys, it’s Benny. Breaking news: there is a massive terrorist attack happening right now in Moscow, Russia. Of course—

https://x.com/Schizointel/status/1832607121218711912 

Tim Pool: These videos get sent to me of course. I mean I’m plugging the news 24/7—and the first thing I said was Ukraine. Only a moron would say otherwise. Ukraine.

The so-called coordinated influence operation involved videos that “amplify U.S. domestic divisions in order to weaken U.S. opposition to core Russian interests, such as its ongoing war in Ukraine." And while the Justice Department didn’t directly name those involved in its indictment, Tenet Media has many high-profile, pro-Trump commentators, including Benny Johnson and Tim Pool, boasting millions of followers.

DIRESTA: Now, RT has its own reach, of course, but when you see a message coming from RT, from Russian state media, most Americans still would be like, "Oh, that's a little bit suspicious. That's coming from the Russian state, it has an agenda." But if those exact same words were expressed by, in this particular case it was right-wing, by right-wing influencers, that message all of a sudden seems very much more credible. It's not coming to you from a state intelligence agency, it's coming to you from somebody who is just like you, somebody who you trust and somebody who you follow.

There is evidence that many foreign governments are engaged in ongoing dis and misinformation activities across social media. In early October for example, intelligence officials cited evidence that China, Iran, and Russia were each engaged in campaigns to exploit discourse on social media to further degrade trust in U.S. democracy during the 2024 election cycle. It’s a serious enough phenomenon that the FBI and several other agencies have dedicated time and resources to detecting and counteracting these campaigns—often in conjunction with the platforms themselves.

SIERRA: How much of a role do you see state actors as having within the current information landscape?

DIRESTA: There are governments all over the world that are doing this now, Russia, China, Iran most frequently targeting the U.S., but we see Saudi Arabia and Egypt targeting Iran and Iran targeting them, and we see Venezuela doing things, Jordan using fake accounts to tout its military. You know, there's a whole bunch of different reasons why state actors do this, but you have to think about it as this is a new form of propaganda. It's a very low cost, low stakes form of propaganda, it doesn't require you to build a massive broadcast capacity, right? The way that you would've had to in decades past. The other thing that's nice about it is you can quickly cross into markets that have chosen to block your existing state media. So they're there. But on the flip side, they are not shaping the public conversation in the way that authentic people can and recognizing that that's why they have chosen largely to boost the real voices that are saying the things that they want said, just to try to increase the prevalence of that message and the reach of that message and reinforcing that message.

SIERRA: Sounds like the state actor dynamic has changed since 2016 when, you know, a lot of attention was paid to Russia's effort to undermine the election.

DIRESTA: Yeah. So I did the Senate Intelligence Committee. I led one of the teams that did the research on that project. So a couple things that happened there. One, they started operating some of those accounts in 2014, 2015, right? They were active early and they acted after the election. A lot of them, they didn't really come down until 2017 after the election. The social media platforms went looking for them because there were beginning to be evidence that they were running these big fake Black Lives Matter pages, and journalists figured it out.

https://www.msnbc.com/on-assignment/watch/how-russian-trolls-weaponized-social-media-1496728643983

MSNBC News: She couldn’t talk because she wasn’t real. Helen Christopherson was a false persona created by Russians and exposed last year in a legal complaint. The US justice department revealed she was part of a conspiracy by Russian operatives to stir up unrest on American streets.

SIERRA: I mean, if those 2016 actors took a look at the U.S. information landscape in 2024, I think they might be happy with what they see.

DIRESTA: They actually are. This is the thing, they're sort of looking at it almost the way a brand marketer would look at, do you have what's called share of voice? How prevalent is your idea out there in the marketplace? And as far as they're concerned, they see this as a success, and they've chosen to keep doing it.

SIERRA: Does this combination of influence and amplification scare you at all? What does the future look like when in a matter of minutes misinformation can spread across an entire country?

NEWMAN: I think that the key question that's being asked by more and more countries is how do we regulate this, how do we make sense of it, how do we balance the right of free speech and these online harms which are becoming more visible and having bigger real-world consequences in real time? It's very convenient to blame social media and to blame influencers, but there's a much bigger problem going on.

SIERRA: It seems like we've shifted from a society that seeks out news to a, "The news finds me," perception. Do you think there is a lack of discernment between sources when people consume news?

SPIKES: I think what we're finding is that more and more people are conflating the aspects of getting information from a platform and getting information from a source. So like you mentioned, more and more people will say, if you ask them, “Where did you get your news from?” they'll say, “Oh, I saw it on Facebook.” And what they're doing is they are attributing a source, but really they're attributing that to a platform. The platform, yes, connected you to a source of information. They are not the same thing. So I think it's really, really important to keep that in mind.

Up to now, there is no movement in leading democracies to regulate influencer media - and attempts to regulate social media platforms or manage AI are themselves mixed and middling. So many experts think that the best approach is preventative education - give consumers the tools to spot fake information, fact-check what they read online, and gauge what good sources of news are in the modern age. 

SPIKES: Consumers have to take much more responsibility in terms of the content that they come towards and why they come towards it and why they're having the reactions to it that they do. So really I do think that it is that audience members really have to take up a new set of skills. And granted, the thing I think that makes this even harder is that lots of people think they have these skills already. But it's super complex. And I think in particular, we all have to really think differently about the ways that we take up and receive information, especially in an ecosystem where we have access to many more perspectives, so much more information that's out there. We really have to take up new skills and think about how to navigate.

DIRESTA: Again, it's not to say that media was perfect. Noam Chomsky wrote books in the '80s about how the advertising incentive structure led media to not criticize or not cover critically important issues or create coverage reflecting particular points of view. But it's not that we have a magically better system now, it's just that we have a different system with different incentives, with different outputs. And, it's only going to continue to go in this direction. 

SIERRA: So, we should pay attention.

DIRESTA: Absolutely. 

For resources used in this episode and more information, visit CFR.org/whyitmatters and take a look at the show notes. If you ever have any questions or suggestions or just want to chat with us, email at [email protected] or you can hit us up on X, better known as Twitter at @CFR_org.

Why It Matters is a production of the Council on Foreign Relations. The opinions expressed on the show are solely that of the guests, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

This episode was produced by Asher Ross, Molly McAnany, and me, Gabrielle Sierra. Our sound designer is Markus Zakaria. Our interns this semester are Colette Yamashita Holcomb and Emily Hu. Robert McMahon is our Managing Editor. Extra help for this episode was provided by Mariel Ferragamo. Our theme music is composed by Ceiri Torjussen.

You can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get your audio. For Why It Matters, this is Gabrielle Sierra signing off. See you soon!