I read it online: Farhad Manjoo addresses our grip on the truth

“How do I know something is true? Well, I read it online, so it has to be true, right?” How silly. And yet, we’ve probably all said it, at least once. New York Times technology writer Farhad Manjoo examines some of the consequences of our easy access to abundant information (and misinformation) in this pre-election day November 2016 post from the newspaper’s technology blog, State of the Art.

Read it here: Farhad Manjoo: "How the Internet Is Loosening Our Grip on the Truth"

1. Manjoo has examined the ways in which information travels on the internet and concluded that “pretty much everything conspires against truth.” What evidence does he provide for his assertion? Is his evidence persuasive? Why or why not?
2. One of Manjoo’s interviewees, speaking about the work of fact-checking, says the task is “Sisyphean.” What does that mean? Is the reference to Sisyphus appropriate? Why or why not? Manjoo builds on that reference in his concluding sentence; what is he really saying? Restate his final assertion without making reference to Sisyphus. Do you agree? Why or why not?
3. Manjoo relies on a number of people for his They Say. Do all of his sources support his argument or do any of them represent an opposing position? What information does Manjoo provide about his sources? Is it sufficient to be able to assess their reliability? Why or why not?
4. The image that accompanies Manjoo’s essay is a photo of a written catch phrase, “I’m feeling lucky.” What does that catch phrase refer to? The image itself shows the letters as distorted, similar to a CAPTCHA test. How does the image support and complement Manjoo’s argument? Consider two elements in your response: the catch phrase itself and its intended use in an internet context, and the purpose of the distortion.
5. What steps, if any, do you take to ensure the reliability of the information you read and watch online? Think about your preferred sources and how you use the information you find. Do you share, like, retweet, add comments? Do you fact-check? follow links? look for additional confirmation? Once you’ve taken careful stock of your usual practices, write an essay addressing Manjoo’s assertions about what people generally do. Would you support them? refute them? both? With your own online habits as evidence, use the templates in Chapter 4 of your text in order to respond to Manjoo’s They Say.

Comments

[Lenda]

In this age of constant communication and instant information, people question whether the internet has really been beneficial to our society, especially pertaining to debate and politics. Farhad Manjoo claims that the transition to internet-based media has made it significantly harder for facts and truth to be communicated effectively. He argues that this problem stems from the plethora of news sources offered online, especially those with no source-accountability. Manjoo also insists that this abundance of different news sources has only made it easier for people to give into confirmation bias, giving them an enhanced ability to only pay attention to information that reaffirms their beliefs. He extends this to the interpretation and acceptance of facts, explaining how people of different viewpoints can’t even agree on basic facts anymore, making the “truth” an increasingly difficult thing to obtain.
Although I agree that the over-saturation of media on the internet has perpetuated “echo chambers of information,” I think Manjoo fails to acknowledge that news sources had all the power when they were the few able to distribute information and facts on a large scale. Before, you couldn’t escape the bias of a newspaper, because there were few or no other options. Now, people have the ability to compare multiple news sources to gather the full story. Though, I agree when Manjoo points out that people can’t escape their own preconceptions and biases.

[jeffrey dotson]

It's talking about if everything on the internet is true now of days. Their are billions of people on the internet that can put almost anything they want on there, even if it true or not. Farhad is trying tell us how he a lot of internet be given off the wrong idea. I agree on what he's trying to point out, Media or normal people would put up just to get some attention from others. Researching for stuff makes you have to be more careful that the information you are looking up is accurate.

[Tyler acton]

Farhad Manjoo was describing the point that the internet is getting more and more unreliable as it gets older. I agree that you should always check your resources when you want to learn something off the internet. When I write a research paper I get more and more worried about reading the wrong information or false information. A large amount of people in this world have the access to write anything in the internet whether its true or false information. I would like to think most of the stuff on the internet is true however, its just not like that anymore.

[Dylan G]

One of the biggest reasons that the move towards online media and news was so important was the idea that it offered more access to the truth to more people, yet in his article “How the Internet is Loosening Our Grip on the Truth”, columnist Farhad Majoo argues that it has done just the opposite. Majoo’s main contention is that with the way online data moves around actually works against the truth instead of working towards spreading it. He considers the root of the problem to be that there is simply too much media to choose from online. He backs up his statement by calling upon previous studies that show people choose to read the information that confirms the ideas readers already have and deny the information that doesn’t. He also calls upon the idea that “documentary proof has lost its power.” He uses the example of the 9/11 conspiracies to show that even though seemingly everyone around the World Trade Center had a video of the crashes, conspiracy theorists used this to selectively show their own ideas of what happened and the storylines they preferred. Majoo believes that this reveals the deeper problem of people filtering “information through their own biases.” In other words, Majoo believes that since people have biases before being presented with new information, when they process the new information, the conclusions they come to from it are tainted by their own biases. A final problem he states is that people just plainly post incorrect information, leading people to be misinformed by not doing more research into the topic.
I completely agree with Majoo’s idea that the excess amount of information available online disrupts the truth. I believe that people will go out of their way to prove they are correct due to an inherent sense of self-pride, and because of this they are more willing to believe false information in order to prove their point. Almost any website can be found to back up one’s point, and almost no one is around to fact check it because people will still believe what they want. An example of this would be Wikipedia. That is a site updated by the users so any person can update the websites information with their own biased information, almost leading to an unending cycle of biased information. I also agree with Majoo on is point of the problem needing to be addressed. If the problem doesn’t get addressed, misinformation and biased information may become more prevalent than the actual truth, and in that situation, nobody wins.

[Allitello]

I agree with Dylan G when he states that the internet allows people to "prove" points when in fact all the information may be false. I know that many online sources, even very credible sources, can be very biased. I think that one of the biggest issues is when you don't know where your information is coming from. So many people trust sources that have no traceable author and therefore there is no way of knowing about bias or even if there is any truth to their statements at all. Internet users should be very cautious with what information can be trusted.

[Ruan Penland]

I agree with Allitello when he talks about false information on the Internet and many users not researching the information that they find. There are many false sources and biased sources, which makes it hard to find genuinely factual sources. If the source in question has no author or isn’t from a reputable media outlet, there is no way to know if it is factual or just biased opinions. It’s hard to use the Internet to prove points or find factual evidence because it’s very hard to tell what is reliable.

[Maria]

Some of the steps I chose to ensure that the information is reliable is that when I search on websites, I make sure I have more information about the topic. I also ask people to make sure that the information makes sense and I make sure I back it up. I usually do not retweet or share the information that is posted online because what happen if people make rude comments about it. I follow links because if I want to know more I get more by clicking on different links that I see. I believe that when people see something online they usually post it, no matter if it doesn't make sense. People believe more when things are online then on tv. I also agree that online is corrupted because if someone see a pig flying in a video than they will share that video to everyone else. I agree with Ruan Penland because even the internet is wrong. They probably want to trick people about information, instead of letting them know the truth. They also probably want to lie to the rest of the world. I will not support people who want to put fake stuff on the internet because I hate when people lie to other people.

[Darian Owens]

Manjoo said that "Pretty much everything conspires the truth" with the examples coming from social networks, television, and other news outlets that contain something we may or may not want to see. The evidence that Manjoo provides in the article is persuasive for me, for the fact that internet does contain everything and that's pretty much everyone's source of news, manjoo also talks about a study proven that social networks make the truth grows and spreads, but as said by one the interviews in the article " the truth value of information doesn't matter", with every rumor that is spread around and people who are easily persuaded into believing anything.

[Christopher Smith]

The evidence that he provides for his assertion is from the New York Times writer Farhad Manjoo. He examined the abundance of information that people can easily access online and how there is misinformation. It is persuasive because his resource is valid and it was examined with the intent to prove that all information online is not always true. For example, there are some websites that are blogs or personal opinions like Wikipedia, Ask.com, and Answers.com. Usually information online is true with a valid resource like WebMd.com, CNN.com, and WSJ.com (Wallstreet Journal).

[Amal Darawad]

The article written by Farhad Manjoo “How the Internet Is Loosening Our Grip on The Truth” discusses how many news sources stretch and even lie about certain topics. Manjoo says that “the root of the problem with online news is something that initially sounds great: We have a lot more media to choose from.” He backs this up with evidence showing that Psychologists and other social scientists state that when people have a diverse choice of information, they will likely act irrational. In today’s society it is hard to find legit news sources on the Internet. The reason many news outlets on the internet are misleading or lie, is due to the fact they want to get more views, clicks, and money.
News outlets on the internet capitalize on their ability to draw people in and manipulate them to believe everything they say is true. All a news outlet has to do is choose a topic that is popular or relevant. They then have to add some kind of polarizing theme to the news that confirms many people’s natural biases, which results in fake news believed by many. This tactic is not only used by news outlets but is also used by YouTube and Facebook videos. Someone can take any topic that people feel strongly about, for example lets choose racism. The Youtuber will then go to a poor neighborhood and do something crazy in order to get a reaction from a certain type of race. Once this is posted online, it goes viral. Large amounts of people are usually seen commenting things along the lines of, “I knew this is how *race* people act, they should all be eliminated”. I see these outrageous comments all the time because people do not want to see the truth but sometimes would rather see what confirms their beliefs.
Although I agree with Manjoo’s opinion in this article, he does a bad job of referencing legit sources to prove his own points. Everything in the article sounds good, but if you are going to write an article about how the Internet should not be taken truthfully, he should have at least made sure all of his references are legit. Even though I agree with a lot of the statements he makes, his poor choice in sources weakens his argument quite a bit. When I watch or read anything on the Internet I always take it with a grain of salt. Whether it is a YouTube video or “News” I never outright believe it, and I make sure to do my own research before making any conclusions. So my advice to everyone is to form their own opinions, never outright believe anything seen on the Internet or, even on the television, until you have down your own research.

[Koby Paulsen]

I agree with the idea that "pretty much everything conspires against the truth"(7)--so many people doubt the claims they hear in the news and decided to upload their opinion on the topic. Often times they are making up facts to support their claims even if it isn't true. As Manjoo questioned, "And will we be able to clean up all the piles of lies, hoaxes and other dung that have been hurled so freely in this hyper-charged, fact free election?"(1). During this election in specific, from all of the parties involved lots of information has been thrown about to establish the ethos of one candidate over another.

There are so many different sources for information, that we will purposely go towards the sources that confirm our beliefs, creating biased "facts". "We gorge on information that confirms our ideas, and we shun what does not." By sticking to one source of news you don't get the full side of the story and are often left with a very biased opinion on the subject at hand.

[Joseph]

In recent discussions of internet credibility, a controversial issue has been whether the internet creates an industry of false information, or a means in which to fact check more quickly and with more reliability. On one hand, some argue that the internet is filled with faulty news sources and misconceptions, edited evidence that persuades people to believe information that isn’t always true. From this perspective, it appears that all news found online is false or skewed. On the other hand, some argue that an abundance of sources provides readers with information. From this perspective, online news is reliable and can be referenced by numerous other news outlets. In the words of Farhad Manjoo, one of this view’s main proponents, “Because if you study the dynamics of how information moves online today, pretty much everything conspires against truth.”
My own view is that the internet creates a large network of news that can be checked with extensive research on its credibility. Though I concede that the internet poses possible misconceptions and confusions, I still maintain that sources are checkable through thorough research. For example, news sources may be biased on certain political topics, but several sources are available to create a balanced viewpoint. Although some might object that most information that is found online is false, I would reply that truthful information is relatively easy to find through extensive research. The issue is important because it allows readers to make educated comments and decisions based upon what they see online.

[Erin Poole]

Joseph is right that the internet provides more ways than ever to check the sources of news articles, but he seems on more dubious ground when he claims that, for this reason, fake news is not a problem that needs to be addressed. While it is possible to investigate the claims of any news article one finds online, most people are not doing that, and who can blame them? It is easy to argue that we should all be fact-checking the news we consume, but it is not realistic to expect that time commitment from a public who takes in a steady stream of media all day long. The author cites evidence that people do not behave rationally, instead opting for information that supports their existing views. This fact, combined with the relatively low level of attention that fact-checking sites receive, demonstrates that Americans are not utilizing the resources of the internet to verify the news they read. The solution to the problem of fake news remains a mystery, but placing the burden of analysis on the reader has proven to be an ineffective strategy thus far.

[Lamia Hall]

Farhad Manjoo points out that a lot of people rely on the internet for quick and accurate information. He explains how the internet sometimes does not provide true information for it's users. He describes how people were convinced that our former president Barack Obama was not a United States citizen based upon faulty information provided by the internet. Sadly this was an investigation lead on by our recent president Trump, based on false information. This is a very serious matter because most of all information found and that is required to be researched is online and if the results aren't true information we all could be living in a world filled with false information and ideas.

[Holly A]

Social media and news on the internet is growing bigger everyday. Especially in the current state of our society, most of us in the United States I would say use the internet and gain a big part of their individual knowledge on the world based on what they read on the internet. I know many people that do not even have cable, they simply rely on the internet to inform them on whats going on in the world. I really enjoy the many characteristics we have with online news. Headlines get very interesting as most writers/reporters want to grab the readers attention. I find most of the headlines and titles of articles are very false and way off from what the actual facts are of the situation. I will point the blame to the titles, and even then the information might be false. Luckily we have many online resources at the touch of our finger tips to help us find the correct information.

[Jennifer Chong]

2. The author used the greek mythology as an allusion to present the state that the work of fact-checking is in. Just as Sisyphus pushing a heavy boulder up a hill and had to repeat his action for eternity, the task of fact-checking is laborious yet often futile. Since the audiences online tend not to react in a rational way when facing the opinions contradicting those he agrees, the result of fact-checking had lost its function. Quoting from the reporter from washington post who decided to quit this task, her powerlessness have been shown clearly. Therefore i think the reference to Sisyphus is convincing and appropriate for me. In his concluding sentence, the author conveyed his pessimistic opinions towards the “post-truth” era that online news had bring forth— fake news and the attitude with which people are dealing it will cause ourselves in trouble someday.

4. The phrase refers to the “I feel lucky” button google has on his searching page. In stead of showing you all the related links google have, the button takes you directly to the top searching result. After reading the article I think that the photo was a really thoughtful and coherent to his thesis. People will receive one straight result to their search by the “I’m feeling lucky” button; we are given an illusion that we got a good “random” result, but actually the result was a manipulated and chosen one. Same as the facts and truths presented on the internet. The second level of interpretation in the picture was that the phrase was distorted as a CAPTCHA test, which is a process online to verify real people from computer. Unlike a CAPTCHA test, the truths we got online are not proved. But instead they are merely distorted and twisted to what one favors.

[David Phillips]

What Binkowski means by saying that the task is “Sisyphean” is that fighting lies on the internet is an uphill battle, and that everytime one fact is confirmed or debunked, a dozen more will appear, and the effort as a whole is unending. I think this reference is appropriate because as more people begin to use the internet, and politics becomes more heated, more and more people start to spread lies. I’ve seen these lies before, and I’ve seen them grow in number. It’s gotten to the point where I have to check snopes to see if a fact is real or not, and not even they have been able to make it out yet. What Manjoo is saying in his final sentence is that the snowballing of lies on the internet is going to become so out of control that fact and fiction won’t even be distinguishable anymore. To restate his sentence I would say this. “I believe the number of lies on the internet is going to grow so large, that soon any attempt at fact checking will become completely futile.” I don’t want to believe him; I don’t want to believe that the truth will soon become inaccessible, but it’s a hard reality that I have to face.

[Amber Jeppson]

It would be difficult to argue that the internet is not a powerful resource. Those with access to an internet connection have limitless, and constantly updating information waiting at their fingertips. The issue with this is that the internet is also a collaborative space -- full of user created content. The trouble here is the widespread and simple distribution of false information. It can become difficult to find and identify the truth of a matter when so many conflicting articles abound. We need to be aware of this, and take the responsibility upon ourselves to seek out accurate information.

[Ben.]

The article was very interesting, but it still made some very important points that we'll not overlook, the fact that we all see and read different news everyday, which some of them are mere fabrications, and lies. The advent of all this sources of information is creating a lot of problems by disseminating a lot of falsehoods, that, it confuses the masses to the extent, that some of us don't even know what to believe anymore. we should be careful of our source of informations, and always try to verify the validity of the source, in other to seek out accurate informations

[lisa wilson]

Very interesting article and read, however I do believe that the media try their luck initially with what they post out there, whether it be online or tabloid.
It comes down to "Newsworthiness". The media influence and shape our opinions and values(Jewkes 2004).They will use "professional criteria" that they will use as bench marks to decide stories of newsworthiness". Stories require characteristics but if these aren't there then it simply wont appear. In other words, its just not interesting enough. News,whether it is online or tabloid is presented to individuals but it is down to each individual how they interpret such(Blumer and Katz.1974).It could be argued that we should all check out news and research the news we read or see online, but this requires the commitment of time and we are bombarded with online news and stories all day everyday. To answer the question regarding if the writers sources support his argument, he does not do a very good job of referencing legitimate sources to prove his own.

[christopher Pugh]

The steps I take when I am researching a topic is one try to find a source that is most known by the public and can't be edited. Two I look at who posted it, i try to stay away from a person opinion information.If I am on social media I never like or retweet anything do to the fact that it may not be true. A lot of things get misinterpreted because of one person can post something besides the truth and other people share it and retweet it. A lie will spread quicker than the truth

[Taylor]

This article was very eye opening. With Social media it grows bigger and bigger each day with more lies thrown in it's web. When it comes to conspiracy theories like "who did 9/11." Must of us would say don't believe everything you read on the wed. However, others will tell you they read it online so it must be true. Whereas some are convinced that everything has to true because they read it "Buzzfeed" so it has to be the truth, others maintain that reading articles online need to taken with a grain of salt.

[A.S.M.]

This article is interesting in the sense that it is talking bout "false news" and that the people are less likely to fact check information they are given and would rather believe what they were given. The internet itself is now a major source of information in which can cause the mass to learn more about news and other recent events that are occurring around the world. Unfortunately this also "...creates an ecosystem in which the truth value of the information doesn't matter..." (Manjoo). This means that articles could be written about anything and it could be entirely true or entirely false, and the people would believe it because anything on the internet has to be true. The idea where information on the internet has to be true stemmed from a time period where information was fact checked and debunked if someone miswrote or misspoke so that people are not given incorrect information. Doing this created an atmosphere where the internet is trustworthy and that there is no need to fact check everything that has been put out. This idea has ultimately lead to many news sources and articles taking advantage of that idea in which causes the mass to just read and take in instead of questioning what they are reading and understanding to see if what was read is true. Being able to find out information on the internet is a privilege that most people are unable to see and take notice of due to the amount of people in which the internet is common with. Having the internet be so easily accessed has caused many people to believe whatever is on the internet despite having the knowledge that everything on the internet is not always true. Being truthful universally all the time has caused many websites who do fact checking to realize that they are doing "... more harm than good..." (Manjoo). This thought process has caused websites who fact check to realize that there are certain articles that are more important than others. Ranking articles has ultimately lead these fact checking websites to pick and choose which articles are worth fact checking and which articles may cause the most controversy if they were to not be fact checked.

[Donato Ritrovato]

Decades ago, the only communication with someone across the Atlantic ocean was via long distance telephone and physical mail. But we're in the 21st century, the information age. We have the ability to send a message across the world in an instant. Not just communication, but information about pretty much anything is readily and easily available to anyone as long as they have internet access. However, the advent of the internet is a double edged sword.
The article “How the Internet Is Loosening Our Grip on the Truth” by Farhad Manjoo brings this to attention. This was published about a week before the 2016 presidential election. In his article, Manjoo wonders how everyone, especially the internet will react to the election results. He wonders if the losing side will accept defeat. He only asks this because in the past, the losing side of an election rejected the results. A good example of this is the 2008 election where after the election, many of former President Obama’s critics claimed that he was not born in the United States. This is a result of the internet. Mis-information and conspiracy theories have a new platform and can now be much more easily spread and reach a much wider audience. When reading anything online, it is vital that you read with no bias whatsoever, have at least some additional information, and check other sources as well.

[Dakota Norman]

Manjoo uses many different forms of evidence to support his claim that pretty much everything conspires against truth. This is shown in the the different statistics and credible sources he uses. I personally found the section "You're Not Rational" to be the most persuasive part of the article. In this section, Manjoo states that the root of the problem with online news stems from there being many more option for media. With there being so many different outlets of media, people could stay in within their comfort zone and not see anything that remotely challenges their way of thinking. This eventually leads to many different outlandish ideas, with people who are not willing to accept another way of thinking. While I do agree that this is how these ideas start, I think there is more too it than that. Personally, I think that people have become more trusting of what they read on the internet and causing people to not think about whether what they read is true or not.