False narratives follow familiar trends Email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]
This is a double-sized installment of Factually to cover November and December … so let’s get to it!
Misinformation about the Israel-Hamas war often follows similar false narratives

Signatories to the International Fact-Checking Network’s Code of Principles have found that one of the most common false narratives of the Israel-Hamas war is that victims are faking their injuries and don’t deserve public sympathy.
Fact-checkers have found the false claims pegged to images and video taken from other conflicts before the current war started. Other patterns detected by fact-checkers in the first months of the war include:
* atrocities that lacked evidence;
* AI-generated images;
* out-of-context photos and video;
* video game footage passed off as real; and
* a wide variety of foreign policy claims about countries like Ukraine, Russia, the United States and Iran.

But false accusations of people faking suffering has become “one of the most predictable” disinformation tactics in a crisis scenario, said Mike Caulfield of the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public in an interview with AFP.
“Crisis actor narratives often take the worst moment of a parent or partner’s life — the loss of a loved one — and make a circus of it. It’s cruel and exploitative.”
Fact-checkers around the world have examined repeated claims that Palestinians have exaggerated the effects of Israeli attacks; such claims have been hashtagged #Pallywood, a mash-up of Palestine and Hollywood. (The term comes from a 2005 documentary.)
Read IFCN’s full report ([link removed]) on the types and techniques of misinformation that fact-checkers have documented during the conflict in the Middle East.
South Korea’s fact-checking future is uncertain as a key donor retreats

Four months after co-hosting the world’s leading fact-checking summit, South Korea’s lone fact-checking platform, SNU FactCheck, may have to shut down ([link removed]) after a key donor withdrew support.

Based at Seoul National University and directed by EunRyung Chong (a IFCN advisory board member), SNU FactCheck leaned on Naver for financial backing for six years. Often dubbed the Google of South Korea, Naver is the country’s largest search platform. Its funding enabled the center to support 32 affiliated media organizations and prominently featured fact checks in a dedicated section on Naver.

At the end of August, Naver informed Chong that the company was ending financial support for SNU FactCheck and its partner media outlets that adhere to the center’s fact-checking principles of transparency and nonpartisanship, created along the lines of the IFCN Code of Principles.

Several media outlets have reported that right-leaning politicians in South Korea pressured financial backers like Naver to withdraw support from anti-disinformation initiatives. Naver refused to comment on whether politicians influenced its executives. Read the full report ([link removed]) by IFCN’s Enock Nyariki.
Since the publication of our report, SNU FactCheck has received interim funding from an unnamed donor for one year, Chong said. On Dec. 4, SNUFactCheck launched a new project for Korean media outlets focused on fact-checking climate change.
Report: Ghana police arrest 5 involved in Russia-linked online network after organizing protest
GhanaFact published an investigative report ([link removed]) about an international network disseminating and promoting pro-Russia propaganda in Ghana. The mercenary Wagner Group was also connected to both the online misinformation and real-world protests in Ghana. GhanaFact’s investigators “found a network of individuals operating from different parts of the world disseminating and promoting pro-Russian and pro-Wagner ideologies in a number of countries including Ghana. Some of the activities undertaken by the network included but were not limited to driving pro-Russian political narratives, funding and organizing pro-Russian events, and then subsequently amplifying these activities on social media, using a network of handles.” The report noted that the West African region has experienced four successful coup d’états “with growing concerns about a coup contagion
across the region.”
European fact-checkers prepare for elections under new laws that discourage disinformation

A robust regional network, the European Fact-Checking Standards Network, or EFCSN, met in Brussels ([link removed]) recently to make plans for a fact-checking collaboration across the continent that will lead to more impact and a more informed electorate.
The European fact-checkers have an ally in the Digital Services Act, a new law in the works since 2020 that seeks to hold large technology companies accountable for their information policies. The regulations, summarized in a Code of Practice on Disinformation, apply to the largest technology companies across the 27 countries that make up the European Union. The June elections will be the first European parliamentary elections to happen with the act in force.
At the Brussels conference, fact-checkers specifically focused on topics that have been ripe for misinformation, such as elections and voting; migration; and climate change. They discussed how to envision a common database of fact-checking work. And they emphasized efforts to detect important trends ahead of time. IFCN director Angie Drobnic Holan attended the meetings and has this report ([link removed]) .
Climate grant recipients use innovative formats for fact-checking

As global leaders wrap up discussions on climate change at COP28 in Dubai, recipients of grants for combating climate misinformation used a variety of innovative formats and channels to spread accurate information to the public.
Many of the projects began in April 2022, after IFCN, in partnership with Meta, announced the recipients of the $800,000 Climate Misinformation Grant Program ([link removed]) .
Nine organizations from seven countries received up to $100,000. They were selected by a six-member committee ([link removed]) of independent climate experts and researchers.
Code for Africa, the parent organization of Kenya-based IFCN signatory PesaCheck, reported that its approach to addressing climate inaccuracies on Wikipedia led to 1,321 corrections across Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Wikicommons. The organization also established a climate disinformation task force and awarded eight fact-checking fellowships to African journalists, who published 285 fact checks refuting climate denialism during the period.
“‘Bridging the Gap’ significantly contributed to combating climate denialism in Africa through collaborative efforts and capacity building among Wikipedia user groups and journalists,” Code for Africa reported, adding that the grant enabled them to recruit 70 contributors from seven African countries for a campaign against climate denialism.
Read about additional projects ([link removed]) in the United States, Argentina, Spain, Poland, and Romania.
GlobalFact 11 date announced
The IFCN and local partner Zašto ne are pleased to announce the official date for GlobalFact 11 in Sarajevo: June 26 - 28, 2024. Mark your calendars!
In the new year, the IFCN will announce more details for how to register and participate in GlobalFact planning, and we will publicize those efforts via this newsletter.
View of Sarajevo from the Yellow Fortress, one of the city’s most popular panoramic spots at sunset. (Shutterstock)
Research watch

Misinformation is eroding the foundation of democracy, as are coordinated campaigns to discredit those working against misinformation, says a new study on “Misinformation and the epistemic integrity of democracy ([link removed]) .” It compared harassment of researchers and fact-checkers with fossil fuel companies that tried to discredit the science of climate change. It suggests using new European legislation to work against misinformation; reminding the public that most people prefer moderation of misinformation on social media; and deploying media literacy campaigns for people to protect themselves against misinformation. The authors were Stephan Lewandowsky, Ullrich K.H. Ecker, John Cook, Sander van der Linden, Jon Roozenbeek, and Naomi Oreskes.
An empirical study ([link removed]) of misinformation in the 2020 U.S. elections found that fact checks reliably improve factual accuracy and that misinformation degrades it, confirming earlier research. While factual accuracy may fade with time, fact checking also has enduring effects. And, there are important partisan asymmetries. The study was intended to confirm previous findings under actual election conditions and drew on fact-checks provided by IFCN signatory PolitiFact. The study’s authors were Alexander Coppock, Kimberly Gross, Ethan Porter, Emily Thorson and Thomas J. Wood.
“Misinformation warning labels are widely effective: A review of warning effects and their moderating features” summarized recent research on warning labels. The report ([link removed]) , by Cameron Martel and David Rand, concluded that research suggests that warning labels “effectively reduce belief and spread of misinformation. The size of these beneficial effects depends on how the labels are implemented and the characteristics of the content being labeled.” A related report ([link removed]) found that fact-checker warning labels are effective even for those who distrust fact-checkers.
A recent book makes the case for prebunking: “Foolproof ([link removed]) : Why Misinformation Infects Our Minds and How to Build Immunity,” by Sander van der Linden. Van der Linden had a very collegial debate ([link removed]) with fellow misinformation researcher Gordon Pennycook of Cornell University hosted by Harvard’s Shorenstein Center. Van der Linden made the case for more pre-bunking, arguing that the techniques can inoculate the public against a wide variety of misinformation. Pennycook argued that hurdles to pre-bunking at scale can't address the specific contextual knowledge required to immunize against false claims.
For yet another perspective, a critical review of “Foolproof” argued that concerns about misinformation are overblown; that misinformation appeals to a very small number of avid consumers; and that fact-checking efforts are technocratic solutions attempting to paper over real political and social differences. Writing for the Boston Review, philosophy professor Daniel Williams argues, “We do not ([link removed]) always want to be well-informed, even when we consciously represent ourselves as dispassionate truth seekers. Our beliefs and worldviews form parts of our identities and perform a range of emotional and social functions for us … .”
News about platforms and AI

The Wall Street Journal’s report ([link removed]) , “Inside Meta, Debate Over What’s Fair in Suppressing Comments in the Palestinian Territories,” looked at how Meta has moderated content in the Israel-Hamas war, including its struggles with automatic filters and content in both Arabic and Hebrew languages. “Meta has long had trouble building an automated system to enforce its rules outside of English and a handful of languages spoken in large, wealthy countries. The human moderation staff is generally thinner overseas as well,” the Journal said.
Russia is engaging in active misinformation campaigns in countries in Africa, using social media to disrupt governments in countries like Burkina Faso, according to a report in the the Washington Post ([link removed]) , “How Russian disinformation toppled government after government in Africa.” The report detailed a sting operation in which investigators imitated a misinformation purveyor, hoping to provoke contact by Russian operatives. It worked.
Why is reporting online abuse on social media so difficult, and how could it be fixed? A new report ([link removed]) from PEN America tries to answer those questions. “In our research, we found that reporting mechanisms on social media platforms are often profoundly confusing, time-consuming, frustrating, and disappointing,” it said. The report made seven recommendations for platforms to improve reporting, including integrating documentation into reporting and creating a dashboard for tracking reports, outcomes, and history.
An opinion piece in Vox argued ([link removed]) that some things being attributed to misinformation about the Israel-Hamas war are instead the typical challenges of war reporting. “Getting the ‘right’ info during a war — especially in real time or close to it, when that news is happening in a place where journalists may have limited access and are under dire threat themselves — is an inherently difficult exercise that may never get you the results you want,” wrote Peter Kafka.
A USA Today health and wellness report reflected ([link removed]) on the harm that misinformation sharing is causing on social media in the context of the war. “These posts often come from those far away from the conflict, like in the U.S., who feel as if they have to say something for the sake of seeming involved. But declaring support for one ‘side’ over the other and listing out-of-context information about Israelis and Palestinians may hurt more than help your cause.”
Fact-checking of elections must be accompanied by other information strategies that can prevent the spread of misinformation in the first place, according to the Global Public Policy Institute, based in Germany. Its report, “To Save Elections From Disinformation, Fact-Checking Is Only the First Response,” praised the work ([link removed]) of fact-checkers in Africa including PesaCheck and Africa Check, but described how a broader Code for Africa initiative helped identify false narratives early so that local stakeholders could intervene.
A report ([link removed]) from the U.S.-based News Media Alliance looks at the widespread use of unlicensed web scraping to create generative artificial intelligence; the report argues that scaping without permission should be deemed a violation of U.S. copyright law. The report notes that developers purposely scrape fact-based news content and then overweight news content compared with other content in the development of their models. Among the report’s recommendations are that publishers must be able to license the use of their content efficiently and on fair terms.
Misinformation researcher Joan Donovan, a keynote speaker at GlobalFact 9 in Oslo, has filed a whistleblower complaint ([link removed]) against Harvard University arguing that it dismissed her in order to win donations from current and former Meta executives. “Joan Donovan claimed in a filing with the Education Department and the Massachusetts attorney general that her superiors soured on her as Harvard was getting a record $500 million pledge from Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg’s charitable arm,” according to the Washington Post report.
Quick takes

Pagella Política has released a book titled “Bugie al potere ([link removed]) ,” or “Lies in Power,” which examines over 50 of the most controversial statements by government officials in Italy. Their analysis shows that political debate is sometimes grounded in inaccurate premises.
Snopes is seeking an experienced assignments editor (East Coast or West Coast of U.S.) to join their fully remote, digital newsroom. Read the job ad ([link removed]) .

This edition of Factually has been brought to you by the following IFCN staff members. See you next time!
Angie
Angie Drobnic Holan
IFCN director
Enock
Enock Nyariki
IFCN community & impact manager

ADVERTISE ([link removed]) // DONATE ([link removed]) // LEARN ([link removed]) // JOBS ([link removed])
Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here. ([link removed])
[link removed] [link removed] [link removed] [link removed] mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20for%20Poynter
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
© All rights reserved Poynter Institute 2023
801 Third Street South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701
If you don't want to receive email updates from Poynter, we understand.
You can change your subscription preferences ([link removed]) or unsubscribe from all Poynter emails ([link removed]) .