By Seth Ashley, Boise State University

Political spin is nothing new, and identifying reliable news and information can be hard to do during any presidency. But the return of Donald Trump to the White House has reignited debates over truth, accountability and the role of media in a deeply divided America.

Misinformation is an umbrella term that covers all kinds of false and misleading content, and there is lots of it out there.

During Trump’s chaotic first presidency, the president himself promoted false claims about COVID-19, climate change and the 2020 election.

Now, in his second term, Trump is again using the bully pulpit of the presidency to spread false claims – for example, on Ukraine and Canada as well as immigration, inflation and, still, the 2020 election.

Meanwhile, social media platforms such as Meta have ended fact-checking programs created after Trump’s first election win, and presidential adviser Elon Musk continues to use social media platform X to amplify Trump’s false claims and his own conspiracy theories.

To stay informed while also arming yourself against misinformation, it’s crucial to practice what I call good “news hygiene” by developing strong news literacy skills.

News literacy, as I argue in my open-access 2020 book “News Literacy and Democracy” and in recent research with colleagues, is about more than fact-checking and detecting AI-generated fakes. It’s about understanding how modern media works and how content is influenced, from TikTok “newsfluencers” to FOX News to The New York Times.

Here are six ways to become a smarter, saner news consumer.

1. Recognize the influence of algorithms

Algorithms are the hidden computer formulas that mediate everything news consumers read, watch, click on and react to online. Despite the illusion of neutrality, algorithms shape people’s perceptions of reality and are designed to maximize engagement.

Algorithmic recommendation engines that power everything from X to YouTube can even contribute to a slow-burn destabilization of American society by shoving consumers into partisan echo chambers that increase polarization and erode social trust.

Sometimes, algorithms can feed falsehoods that warp people’s perceptions or tell them to engage in dangerous behavior. Facebook groups spreading “Stop the Steal” messages contributed to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection. TikTok algorithms had people drinking laundry detergent in the “borax challenge.” Dylann Roof killed nine Black people based on falsehoods from hate groups he found in search results.

Rather than passively consuming whatever appears in your feeds – allowing brain rot to set in – actively seek out a variety of sources to inform you about current events. The news shouldn’t just tell you what you want to hear.

And spread the word. People who simply understand that algorithms filter information are more likely to take steps to combat misinformation.

2. Understand the economics of corporate news

Media outlets operate within economic systems that shape their priorities.

For-profit newsrooms, which produce the bulk of news consumed in the U.S., rely heavily on advertising revenue, which can reduce the quality of news and create a commercial bias. Places such as ABC, CNN and FOX, as well as local network TV affiliates, can still do good work, but their business model helps to explain sensational horse-race election coverage and false-balance reporting that leaves room for doubt on established facts about climate change and vaccines.

At the same time, the economic outlook for news is not good. Declining revenues and staff cuts also reduce the quality of news.

Nonprofit newsrooms and public media provide alternatives that generally prioritize public interest over profit. And if you have the budget, paying for quality journalism with a subscription can help credible outlets survive.

Traditional journalism has never been perfect, but the collapse of the news business is unquestionably bad for democracy. Countries with better funding for public media tend to have stronger democracies, and compared with other rich nations, the U.S. spends almost nothing on public service broadcasting.

3. Focus on source evaluation and verification

Particularly with AI-generated content on the rise, source evaluation and verification are essential skills. Here are some ways to identify trustworthy journalism:

• Quality of evidence: Are claims verified with support from a variety of informed individuals and perspectives?
• Transparency about sources: Is the reporter clear about where their information came from and who shared it?
• Adherence to ethical guidelines: Does the outlet follow the basic journalistic principles of accuracy and independence?
• Corrections: Does the outlet correct its errors and follow up on incomplete reporting?

Be cautious with content that lacks the author’s name, relies heavily on anonymous sources – or uses no sources at all – or is published by outlets with a clear ideological agenda. These aren’t immediate disqualifiers – some credible news magazines such as The Economist have no bylines, for example, and some sources legitimately need anonymity for protection – but watch out for news operations that routinely engage in these practices and obscure their motive for doing so.

A good online verification practice is called “lateral reading.” That’s when you open new browser tabs to verify claims you see on news sites and social media. Ask: Is anyone else covering this, and have they reached similar conclusions?

4. Examine your emotional reactions

One of the hallmarks of misinformation is its ability to provoke strong emotional responses, whether outrage, fear or validation.

These reactions, research shows, can cloud judgment and make people more susceptible to false or misleading information. The primitive brains of humans are wired to reject information that challenges our beliefs and to accept information we like, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias.

When encountering content that sparks an emotional reaction, ask yourself: Who benefits from this narrative? What evidence supports it? Is this information informative or manipulative?

If the answers make you suspicious, investigate further before acting or sharing.

5. Guard against propaganda

Everyone in politics works to shape narratives in order to gain support for their agenda. It’s called spin.

But Trump goes further, spreading documented lies to pump up his followers and undermine the legitimacy of basic democratic institutions.

He also targets media he doesn’t like. From discrediting critical outlets as “fake news” or calling journalists the “enemy of the people,” these tactics silence dissent, undermine public trust in journalism and alter perceptions around acceptable public discourse and behavior.

Meanwhile, he amplifies information and people who support his political causes. This is called propaganda.

Understanding the mechanics of propaganda – its use of repetition, emotional appeal, scapegoating, scare tactics and unrealistic promises – can help inoculate people against its influence.

6. Stay engaged

Democracy relies on an informed and active citizenry to hold accountable their government and the officials who work in it as well as other powerful players in society. Yet the sheer volume of misinformation and bad news these days can feel overwhelming.

Rather than tuning out – what scholars call “news avoidance” – you can practice critical consumption of news.

Read deeply, look beyond headlines and short video clips, question the framing of stories, and encourage discussions about the role of media in society. Share reliable information with your friends and colleagues, and model good news hygiene for others.

Correcting misinformation is notoriously hard, so if someone you know shares it, start a dialogue by asking – privately and gently – where they heard it and whether they think it’s really true.

Finally, set goals for your consumption. What are your information needs at any given moment, and where can you meet that need? Some experts say 30 minutes a day is enough. Don’t waste your time on garbage.

Touch grass

While it’s important to stay engaged, so is getting outside and connecting with nature to calm and soothe your busy brain. Logging off and connecting with people in real life will keep your support system strong for when things are tough. Protect your mental health by turning off notifications and taking breaks from your phone.

Practicing good news hygiene isn’t just about protecting ourselves – it’s about fostering a media environment that supports democracy and informed participation.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Seth Ashley, Boise State University

Read more:

• TikTok fears point to larger problem: Poor media literacy in the social media age
• How a journalism class is teaching middle schoolers to fight fake news
• Identifying a fake picture online is harder than you might think

Seth Ashley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Feature Image: Not all news sources are created equal. Noah Berger/AP Images

The post Strategies to combat misinformation with media overload appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

It is with incredulous blankness that I have watched the rapid unraveling of democracy.

I am stunned, not just by the gullibility of the people, but by their acceptance of the distorted and the irrational, their unwillingness to take agency in recognizing, and acknowledging they’ve been misled.

I took a step back, I sought to identify the cause. I found the culprit-the “flood the zone” strategy.

Misinformation isn’t just noise, it’s a weapon. ‘Flood the zone’ is a deliberate strategy to drown the media in lies, misdirection, and attacks on American institutions. The result is a complicated morass of confusion and distrust, a psychological trap where facts lose meaning, institutions are discredited, and critical thinking collapses. 

The Trump administration is aggressively restructuring the government according to the Project 2025 blueprint. Central to this effort is the ‘flood the zone’ strategy, which has effectively pushed the false narrative that voters handed the president a sweeping mandate to overhaul government operations.

But the numbers tell a different story. Trump won just 49.8 percent of the popular vote – a mandate requires at least 51 percent. Winning the Electoral College is not the same as earning broad public support.

I wasn’t surprised by the outcome of the 2024 election. Without relying on speculation, I observed the significant role social media played. In the digital age, where news is consumed in fragments, the ‘flood the zone’ tactic thrives, leading many to accept narratives without critical analysis.

What’s most alarming is how deeply this psychological incarceration of critical thinking is woven into America’s institutions. Nowhere is this more evident than in the false narrative that voters handed Trump a mandate to strip the nation of its humanitarian dignity and compassion.

This manipulation thrives in the digital age, where media and social media flood the public with lies and misinformation, and shaping perceptions without scrutiny.

The USAID’s $40 billion budget accounts for less that one percent of government spending. Yet, a false narrative paints it as fraudulent and wasteful. USAID programs provide critical humanitarian relief to underdeveloped countries, with millions depending on them for daily survival.

American farmers will also feel the pinch. There will be loss of agricultural exports, disrupted supply chains, increased surplus and lower prices, weakened global influence, and the ripple effect on rural communities. Small town America will question, will double-think, “this is not what we voted for.”

It’s an impenetrable wall. Congressional Republicans, political strategist, and media stay relentlessly on script. “The American people gave President Trump a mandate to eliminate waste, fraud, and useless government programs,” they claim.

A consistent target is DEI – Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion It divides the country. Its language, programs, and initiatives are prohibited for corporations and educational institutions receiving federal funds.

This repetition isn’t just messaging, it’s a strategic effort to cement a false narrative, drowning out dissent and reenforcing ideological control.

Republicans and the conservative right used the ‘flood the zone’ strategy to seize control of a disoriented nation. This strategy has been the playbook for at least a decade.

Floods are destructive. When the waters recede, they leave behind ruined foundations, washed-away structures, and an unrecognizable landscape. The discomfited must adapt to a new normal.

The greatest damage isn’t to the buildings, the foundations, or the altered landscape, it’s to the people. Their lives, their perspectives, and their expectations have been reshaped. What they believe, what they accept, what they question – it all shifts. And in the aftermath, there is only incredulous blankness, a stunned silence in the face of what has been lost.

We could wish that we had known then what we know now before we handed our nation over to those who would dismantle its core values.

The post Flood the zone: The wreckage left behind appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Anjana Susarla, Michigan State University

Meta’s decision to change its content moderation policies by replacing centralized fact-checking teams with user-generated community labeling has stirred up a storm of reactions. But taken at face value, the changes raise the question of the effectiveness of Meta’s old policy, fact-checking, and its new one, community comments.

With billions of people worldwide accessing their services, platforms such as Meta’s Facebook and Instagram have a responsibility to ensure that users are not harmed by consumer fraud, hate speech, misinformation or other online ills. Given the scale of this problem, combating online harms is a serious societal challenge. Content moderation plays a role in addressing these online harms.

Moderating content involves three steps. The first is scanning online content – typically, social media posts – to detect potentially harmful words or images. The second is assessing whether the flagged content violates the law or the platform’s terms of service. The third is intervening in some way. Interventions include removing posts, adding warning labels to posts, and diminishing how much a post can be seen or shared.

Content moderation can range from user-driven moderation models on community-based platforms such as Wikipedia to centralized content moderation models such as those used by Instagram. Research shows that both approaches are a mixed bag.

Does fact-checking work?

Meta’s previous content moderation policy relied on third-party fact-checking organizations, which brought problematic content to the attention of Meta staff. Meta’s U.S. fact-checking organizations were AFP USA, Check Your Fact, Factcheck.org, Lead Stories, PolitiFact, Science Feedback, Reuters Fact Check, TelevisaUnivision, The Dispatch and USA TODAY.

Fact-checking relies on impartial expert review. Research shows that it can reduce the effects of misinformation but is not a cure-all. Also, fact-checking’s effectiveness depends on whether users perceive the role of fact-checkers and the nature of fact-checking organizations as trustworthy.

Crowdsourced content moderation

In his announcement, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg highlighted that content moderation at Meta would shift to a community notes model similar to X, formerly Twitter. X’s community notes is a crowdsourced fact-checking approach that allows users to write notes to inform others about potentially misleading posts.

Studies are mixed on the effectiveness of X-style content moderation efforts. A large-scale study found little evidence that the introduction of community notes significantly reduced engagement with misleading tweets on X. Rather, it appears that such crowd-based efforts might be too slow to effectively reduce engagement with misinformation in the early and most viral stage of its spread.

There have been some successes from quality certifications and badges on platforms. However, community-provided labels might not be effective in reducing engagement with misinformation, especially when they’re not accompanied by appropriate training about labeling for a platform’s users. Research also shows that X’s Community Notes is subject to partisan bias.

Crowdsourced initiatives such as the community-edited online reference Wikipedia depend on peer feedback and rely on having a robust system of contributors. As I have written before, a Wikipedia-style model needs strong mechanisms of community governance to ensure that individual volunteers follow consistent guidelines when they authenticate and fact-check posts. People could game the system in a coordinated manner and up-vote interesting and compelling but unverified content.

Content moderation and consumer harms

A safe and trustworthy online space is akin to a public good, but without motivated people willing to invest effort for the greater common good, the overall user experience could suffer.

Algorithms on social media platforms aim to maximize engagement. However, given that policies that encourage engagement can also result in harm, content moderation also plays a role in consumer safety and product liability.

This aspect of content moderation has implications for businesses that either use Meta for advertising or to connect with their consumers. Content moderation is also a brand safety issue because platforms have to balance their desire to keep the social media environment safer against that of greater engagement.

AI content everywhere

Content moderation is likely to be further strained by growing amounts of content generated by artificial intelligence tools. AI detection tools are flawed, and developments in generative AI are challenging people’s ability to differentiate between human-generated and AI-generated content.

In January 2023, for example, OpenAI launched a classifier that was supposed to differentiate between texts generated by humans and those generated by AI. However, the company discontinued the tool in July 2023 due to its low accuracy.

There is potential for a flood of inauthentic accounts – AI bots – that exploit algorithmic and human vulnerabilities to monetize false and harmful content. For example, they could commit fraud and manipulate opinions for economic or political gain.

Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT make it easier to create large volumes of realistic-looking social media profiles and content. AI-generated content primed for engagement can also exhibit significant biases, such as race and gender. In fact, Meta faced a backlash for its own AI-generated profiles, with commentators labeling it “AI-generated slop.”

More than moderation

Regardless of the type of content moderation, the practice alone is not effective at reducing belief in misinformation or at limiting its spread.

Ultimately, research shows that a combination of fact-checking approaches in tandem with audits of platforms and partnerships with researchers and citizen activists are important in ensuring safe and trustworthy community spaces on social media.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Anjana Susarla, Michigan State University

Read more:

• Supreme Court kicks cases about tech companies’ First Amendment rights back to lower courts − but appears poised to block states from hampering online content moderation
• It’s not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media
• Are social media apps ‘dangerous products’? 2 scholars explain how the companies rely on young users but fail to protect them

Anjana Susarla receives funding from the National Institute of Health

Feature Image: Meta stirred up controversy when it ditched fact-checking. Chesnot/Getty Images

The post Meta shifts to crowdsourcing in misinformation fight appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Yasmin Curzi de Mendonça, University of Virginia

It is easy to get distracted by the barbs, swipes and bluster of the ongoing and very public spat between the world’s richest man and a fierce justice on Brazil’s highest court. Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of X, posts regularly of his contempt for Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes – a man Musk has labeled a “dictator” and “Brazil’s Darth Vader.” He makes these comments on a social media platform that Moraes has banned in Latin America’s most populous country as part of a lengthy campaign against disinformation.

But as an expert on Brazilian digital law, I see this as more than just a bitter personal feud. X’s legal battle with Brazil’s Supreme Court raises important questions about platform regulation and how to combat disinformation while protecting free speech. And while the focus is on Brazil and Musk, it is a debate being echoed around the world.

Countdown to the big fight

Things came to a head between Musk and Moraes in August 2024, but the battle has been years in the making.

In 2014, Brazil passed the “Marco Civil da Internet” or the “Internet Bill of Rights,” as it is commonly known. Backed by bipartisan support, this framework for internet regulation outlined principles for protecting user privacy and free speech while also creating penalties for platforms that break the rules.

It included a “judicial notice and takedown” system under which internet platforms are liable for harmful user-generated content only if they fail to remove the content after receiving a specific court order.

The approach was designed to strike a balance between protecting free speech and ensuring that illegal and harmful content can be removed. It prevents social media platforms, messaging apps and online forums from being held automatically responsible for users’ posts, while empowering courts to intervene when necessary.

But the 2014 law stops short of creating detailed rules for content moderation, leaving much of the responsibility in the hands of platforms such as Facebook and X.

And the rise of disinformation in recent years, especially around Brazil’s 2022 presidential elections, exposed the limitations of the framework.

The president at the time, far-right populist Jair Bolsonaro, and his supporters were accused of using social media platforms such as X to spread falsehoods, sow doubts about the integrity of Brazil’s electoral system and incite violence. When Bolsonaro was defeated at the ballot by the leftist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, an online campaign of election denialism flourished. It culminated in the Jan. 8, 2023, storming of the Brazilian Congress, Supreme Court and the presidential palace by Bolsonaro’s supporters – an event similar to the U.S. Capitol riots two years earlier.

The fight gets personal …

In response to the disinformation campaigns and the attacks, Brazil’s Supreme Court initiated two inquiries – the digital militias inquiry and the antidemocratic acts inquiry – to investigate groups involved in the plot.

As part of those inquiries, the Supreme Court requested social media platforms – such as Facebook, Instagram and X – to hand over the IP addresses and suspend accounts linked to those illegal activities.

But by this time, Musk, who has described himself as a free-speech fundamentalist, had acquired the platform, promising to support free speech, reinstate banned accounts and decrease significantly the platform’s content moderation policy.

As a result, Musk has been openly defying the Supreme Court’s orders since the beginning. In April 2024, X’s global government affairs team began sharing information with the public on what it deemed as “illegal” demands from the Supreme Court.

The feud escalated in late August when X’s legal representative in Brazil resigned and Musk refused to name a new legal representation – a move that was interpreted by Moraes as an attempt to evade the law. In response, Moraes ordered the platform’s ban on Aug. 31, 2024.

The move was accompanied by heavy penalties for Brazilians attempting to circumvent the ban. Anyone using virtual private networks, or VPNs, to access X faces daily fines of nearly US$9,000 – more than the average annual income of many Brazilians. Those decisions were confirmed by a panel consisting of five Supreme Court justices on Sept. 2, 2024. Amid criticism of judicial overreach, however, the full court of 11 justices will discuss and potentially revisit this part of Moraes’ decision.

… then turns political

The X v. Brazil Supreme Court fight has become deeply politicized. On Sept. 7, thousands of Bolsonaro supporters took part in a “pro-free speech” protest. Lula’s administration and the Supreme Court have become targets, with the opposition and right-wing factions framing the platform’s suspension as a symbol of state overreach.

The rhetoric contrasts sharply with the more balanced, deliberative efforts to regulate platforms that began over a decade ago with the Marco Civil da Internet. It also highlights the challenge of finding a balance between free speech and combating disinformation in a deeply polarized environment – an issue that Brazil is far from alone in grappling with.

The political heat surrounding the banning of X doesn’t bode well for Brazil’s ongoing efforts to counter online disinformation and hold platforms accountable for harmful content.

A “fake news bill,” as it has been dubbed by Brazilian media, was introduced by the country’s Congress in 2020. It seeks to create oversight mechanisms and increase transparency around political advertising and content moderation policies.

But despite its good intentions and a very light “regulated self-regulation” approach, the last version of the draft bill was blocked in the Brazilian Congress after three years of debate.

It follows a campaign by right-wing politicians and Big Tech lobbyists who labeled the legislation a “censorship bill,” arguing that it would infringe on free speech and stifle political discourse. As of now, the fate of the bill looks uncertain.

Meanwhile, on Aug. 23, the Supreme Court announced that it will look at two key parts of the Marco Civil as part of a judicial review taking place in November.

The first is the “judicial notice and takedown” process that critics complain is too slow and allows platforms to choose not to adopt more robust content moderation mechanisms. Supporters, however, maintain that judicial oversight is necessary to prevent platforms from arbitrarily removing content, which could lead to censorship.

The second area under review is the part of the Marco Civil that outlines the penalties for companies that fail to follow the rules. The debate centers on whether the current penalties, particularly service suspensions, are proportionate and constitutional. Critics argue that suspending an entire platform violates users’ rights to free speech and access to information, while proponents insist that it is a necessary tool to ensure compliance with Brazilian law and safeguard sovereignty.

The fate of both the “fake news bill” and the Supreme Court’s review could set in place new legal standards for platforms in Brazil and determine how far the country can go in enforcing its laws against global tech companies as it seeks to battle disinformation.

And while the Supreme Court did not directly link the review to the ongoing feud with X, the fight with Musk forms the unavoidable political backdrop to discussions over the future direction of Brazil’s experiment in platform regulation. As such, the fallout of this seemingly personal spat could have major regulatory consequences for Brazil and potentially other countries.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Yasmin Curzi de Mendonça, University of Virginia

Read more:

• Antisemitism on Elon Musk’s X is surging and dredging up many ancient, defamatory themes of blaming Jews
• Elon Musk aims to turn Twitter into an ‘everything app’ – a social media and marketing scholar explains what that is and why it’s not so easy to do
• How Lula’s big-tent pragmatism won over Brazil again – with a little help from a backlash to Bolsonaro

Yasmin Curzi de Mendonça does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

The post Musk’s feud raises questions on regulation appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Mark R. O’Brian, University at Buffalo

Vaccinations have provided significant protection for the public against infectious diseases. However, there was a modest decrease in support in 2023 nationwide for vaccine requirements for children to attend public schools.

In addition, the presidential candidacy of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a leading critic of childhood vaccination, has given him a prominent platform in which to amplify his views. This includes an extensive interview on the “Joe Rogan Experience,” a podcast with over 14 million subscribers. Notably, former President Donald Trump has said he is opposed to mandatory school COVID-19 vaccinations, and in a phone call Trump apparently wasn’t aware was being recorded, he appeared to endorse Kennedy’s views toward vaccines.

I am a biochemist and molecular biologist studying the roles microbes play in health and disease. I also teach medical students and am interested in how the public understands science.

Here are some facts about vaccines that skeptics like Kennedy get wrong:

Vaccines are effective and safe

Public health data from 1974 to the present conclude that vaccines have saved at least 154 million lives worldwide over the past 50 years. Vaccines are also constantly monitored for safety in the U.S.

Nevertheless, the false claim that vaccines cause autism persists despite study after study of large populations throughout the world showing no causal link between them.

Claims about the dangers of vaccines often come from misrepresenting scientific research papers. Kennedy cites a 2005 report allegedly showing massive brain inflammation in monkeys in response to vaccination, when in fact the authors of that study state that there were no serious medical complications. A separate 2003 study that Kennedy claimed showed a 1,135% increase in autism in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children actually found no consistent significant association between vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Kennedy also claims that a 2002 vaccine study included a control group of children 6 months of age and younger who were fed mercury-contaminated tuna sandwiches. This claim is false.

Aluminum adjuvants help boost immunity

Kennedy is co-counsel with a law firm that is suing the pharmaceutical company Merck based in part on the unfounded assertion that the aluminum in one of its vaccines causes neurological disease. Aluminum is added to many vaccines as an adjuvant to strengthen the body’s immune response to the vaccine, thereby enhancing the body’s defense against the targeted microbe.

The law firm’s claim is based on a 2020 report showing that brain tissue from some patients with Alzheimer’s disease, autism and multiple sclerosis have elevated levels of aluminum. The authors of that study do not assert that vaccines are the source of the aluminum, and vaccines are unlikely to be the culprit.

Notably, the brain samples analyzed in that study were from 47- to 105-year-old patients. Most people are exposed to aluminum primarily through their diets, and aluminum is eliminated from the body within days. Therefore, aluminum exposure from childhood vaccines is not expected to persist in those patients.

Vaccines undergo the same approval process as other drugs

Clinical trials for vaccines and other drugs are blinded, randomized and placebo-controlled studies. For a vaccine trial, this means that participants are randomly divided into one group that receives the vaccine and a second group that receives a placebo saline solution. The researchers carrying out the study, and sometimes the participants, do not know who has received the vaccine or the placebo until the study has finished. This eliminates bias.

Results are published in the public domain. For example, vaccine trial data for COVID-19, human papilloma virus and rotavirus is available for anyone to access.

Vaccine manufacturers are liable for injury or death

Kennedy’s lawsuit against Merck contradicts his insistence that vaccine manufacturers are fully immune from litigation.

His claim is based on an incorrect interpretation of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, or VICP. VICP is a no-fault federal program created to reduce frivolous lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, which threaten to cause vaccine shortages and a resurgence of vaccine-preventable disease.

A person claiming injury from a vaccine can petition the U.S. Court of Federal Claims through the VICP for monetary compensation. If the VICP petition is denied, the claimant can then sue the vaccine manufacturer.

The majority of cases resolved under the VICP end in a negotiated settlement between parties without establishing that a vaccine was the cause of the claimed injury. Kennedy and his law firm have incorrectly used the payouts under the VICP to assert that vaccines are unsafe.

The VICP gets the vaccine manufacturer off the hook only if it has complied with all requirements of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and exercised due care. It does not protect the vaccine maker from claims of fraud or withholding information regarding the safety or efficacy of the vaccine during its development or after approval.

Good nutrition and sanitation are not substitutes for vaccination

Kennedy asserts that populations with adequate nutrition do not need vaccines to avoid infectious diseases. While it is clear that improvements in nutrition, sanitation, water treatment, food safety and public health measures have played important roles in reducing deaths and severe complications from infectious diseases, these factors do not eliminate the need for vaccines.

After World War II, the U.S. was a wealthy nation with substantial health-related infrastructure. Yet, Americans reported an average of 1 million cases per year of now-preventable infectious diseases.

Vaccines introduced or expanded in the 1950s and 1960s against diseases like diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, polio, mumps, rubella and Haemophilus influenza type B have resulted in the near or complete eradication of those diseases.

It’s easy to forget why many infectious diseases are rarely encountered today. The success of vaccines does not always tell its own story. It must be retold again and again to counter misinformation.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Mark R. O’Brian, University at Buffalo

Read more:

• Misinformation is a common thread between the COVID-19 and HIV/AIDS pandemics – with deadly consequences
• Federal Court finds insufficient evidence Roundup weedkiller causes cancer. What does the science say?
• Challenging the FDA’s authority isn’t new – the agency’s history shows what’s at stake when drug regulation is in limbo

Mark R. O’Brian has received past funding from the National Institutes of Health.

The post The truth about vaccines: Debunking misinformation and myths appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

The first presidential debate of 2024 between President Joe Biden and criminally convicted former President Donald Trump was nothing short of a shameful display of unhinged and unchecked behavior. CNN, which declined to provide Black-owned media with any of the more than 800 credentials it passed out, enabled a boatload of misinformation and flat-out lies to pass through their airwaves like bad wind.

“Absolutely disgraceful that the CNN moderators refuse to fact-check Trump on anything,” said human rights activist and attorney Qasim Rashid. “This is journalistic malpractice, and it is decimating our democracy.”

Writer and attorney Olayemi Olurin tweeted, “It is a failure on CNN not to fact-check Trump’s lies, but the thing is… if Joe Biden were performing the way he’s supposed to in a debate, his answers would be the fact check. So, three things are true: Trump is lying his [butt] off, the mediator isn’t doing their job, and neither is Biden.”

Biden, whose campaign said he suffered from a cold during the debate, took some of his biggest shots at Trump after the former president refused to accept the results this fall regardless of who won. Trump said he would only accept the results “if it’s fair, legal, and good.”

“You’re a whiner,” Biden said. “When you lost the first time… you appealed and appealed to courts all across the country. Not one single court in America said any of your claims had any merit, state or local, none. But you continue to promote this lie about somehow, there’s all this misrepresentation, all this stealing. There’s no evidence of that at all. And I tell you what, I doubt whether you’ll accept it, because you’re such a whiner. The idea if you lose again, you accepting anything? You can’t stand the loss. Something snapped in you when you lost last time.”

Without any rebuttal, Trump also incredulously asserted that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was primarily to blame for the violent uprising on January 6.

The moderators then cut to a commercial. And that was just a tiny part of CNN’s massive failure. Meanwhile, at the People for American Way reception and debate watch party at the Wharf in D.C., attendees sighed and expressed anger at their television sets as Trump told lie after lie. Despite having two anchors and a mute button, the host network failed to challenge him. “The debate turned into a 90-minute Trump rally,” said Alice Wilkes of Northeast. “I waited and waited for the moderators to say something, or, at least, cut him off,” Wilkes said.

At Busboys & Poets on K Street in Northwest, where former lawmaker Nina Turner hosted a watch party, a packed house cheered as Biden called Trump “a sucker” and noted that he had “sex with a porn star” behind his wife’s back.

During the debate, Biden addressed questions about his age and stumbled when he tried to mock Trump’s fitness. “You can see he is 6-foot-5 and only 223 pounds or 235 pounds… well, anyway,” Biden said. Later, he agreed to Trump’s challenge of a golf match on one condition: “If you carry your own bag.”

Several Black voters expressed disappointment in the way both candidates talked about Black people. “It’s like they forgot about Black people,” Byron Cooper of Southeast stated.

“Trump commuted some sentences and pardoned some drug dealers. That’s supposedly what he did for the Black community,” Cooper remarked. “Unfortunately, to some Black people, that’s enough, which is ridiculous because the guy is a stark raving racist.”

During the debate, Trump revived attacks on Biden and Democrats over the 1994 crime bill that disproportionately harmed African Americans. Neither Biden nor CNN failed to mention Trump calling for the execution of five Black and Brown teenagers who were innocent of sexually assaulting a white woman in Central Park.

Biden did mention how Trump has called skinheads and white nationalists “good people.”

In his two-minute closing argument, Trump personally attacked Biden’s record abroad. “They don’t respect you throughout the world,” he said. Trump claimed he had the largest tax cut and the largest regulation cuts in history, but the country is now “exploding.” “We’re a failing nation, but it’s not going to be failing anymore,” he said. We’re going to make it great again.”

For his close, Biden noted, “We have made significant progress from the debacle President Trump left in his last term.”

Biden then summarized some of his signature policies. In terms of the economy, he vowed not to raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000 a year and to continue his work to reduce health care and childcare costs and give families financial breathing room. “We’re going to continue to fight to bring down inflation and give people a break,” Biden said in closing.

The post Presidential debate disaster: CNN’s shameful spectacle appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By DAVID KLEPPER

Associated Press

Twitter will no longer enforce its policy against COVID-19 misinformation, raising concerns among public health experts and social media researchers that the change could have serious consequences if it discourages vaccination and other efforts to combat the still-spreading virus.

Eagle-eyed users spotted the change Monday night, noting that a one-sentence update had been made to Twitter’s online rules: “Effective November 23, 2022, Twitter is no longer enforcing the COVID-19 misleading information policy.”

By Tuesday, some Twitter accounts were testing the new boundaries and celebrating the platform’s hands-off approach, which comes after Twitter was purchased by Elon Musk.

“This policy was used to silence people across the world who questioned the media narrative surrounding the virus and treatment options,” tweeted Dr. Simone Gold, a physician and leading purveyor of COVID-19 misinformation. “A win for free speech and medical freedom!”

Twitter’s decision to no longer remove false claims about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines disappointed public health officials, however, who said it could lead to more false claims about the virus, or the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

“Bad news,” tweeted epidemiologist Eric Feigl-Ding, who urged people not to flee Twitter but to keep up the fight against bad information about the virus. “Stay folks — do NOT cede the town square to them!”

While Twitter’s efforts to stop false claims about COVID weren’t perfect, the company’s decision to reverse course is an abdication of its duty to its users, said Paul Russo, a social media researcher and dean of the Katz School of Science and Health at Yeshiva University in New York.

Russo added that it’s the latest of several recent moves by Twitter that could ultimately scare away some users and even advertisers. Some big names in business have already paused their ads on Twitter over questions about its direction under Musk.

“It is 100% the responsibility of the platform to protect its users from harmful content,” Russo said. “This is absolutely unacceptable.”

The virus, meanwhile, continues to spread. Nationally, new COVID cases averaged nearly 38,800 a day as of Monday, according to data from Johns Hopkins University — far lower than last winter but a vast undercount because of reduced testing and reporting. About 28,100 people with COVID were hospitalized daily and about 313 died, according to the most recent federal daily averages.

Cases and deaths were up from two weeks earlier. Yet a fifth of the U.S. population hasn’t been vaccinated, most Americans haven’t gotten the latest boosters, and many have stopped wearing masks.

Musk, who has himself spread COVID misinformation on Twitter, has signaled an interest in rolling back many of the platform’s previous rules meant to combat misinformation.

Last week, Musk said he would grant “amnesty” to account holders who had been kicked off Twitter. He’s also reinstated the accounts for several people who spread COVID misinformation, including that of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, whose personal account was suspended this year for repeatedly violating Twitter’s COVID rules.

Greene’s most recent tweets include ones questioning the effectiveness of masks and making baseless claims about the safety of COVID vaccines.

Since the pandemic began, platforms like Twitter and Facebook have struggled to respond to a torrent of misinformation about the virus, its origins and the response to it.

Under the policy enacted in January 2020, Twitter prohibited false claims about COVID-19 that the platform determined could lead to real-world harms. More than 11,000 accounts were suspended for violating the rules, and nearly 100,000 pieces of content were removed from the platform, according to Twitter’s latest numbers.

Despite its rules prohibiting COVID misinformation, Twitter has struggled with enforcement. Posts making bogus claims about home remedies or vaccines could still be found, and it was difficult on Tuesday to identify exactly how the platform’s rules may have changed.

Messages left with San Francisco-based Twitter seeking more information about its policy on COVID-19 misinformation were not immediately returned Tuesday.

A search for common terms associated with COVID misinformation on Tuesday yielded lots of misleading content, but also automatic links to helpful resources about the virus as well as authoritative sources like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Ashish Jha, the White House COVID-19 coordinator, said Tuesday that the problem of COVID-19 misinformation is far larger than one platform, and that policies prohibiting COVID misinformation weren’t the best solution anyway.

Speaking at a Knight Foundation forum Tuesday, Jha said misinformation about the virus spread for a number of reasons, including legitimate uncertainty about a deadly illness. Simply prohibiting certain kinds of content isn’t going to help people find good information, or make them feel more confident about what they’re hearing from their medical providers, he said.

“I think we all have a collective responsibility,” Jha said of combating misinformation about COVID. “The consequences of not getting this right — of spreading that misinformation — is literally tens of thousands of people dying unnecessarily.”

The post Twitter ends enforcement of COVID misinformation policy appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By AMANDA SEITZ Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Beth Bowers grew up in the 1960s and 1970s with parents who marched in protests, wrote letters to members of Congress and voted in elections big and small.

Her father, a World War II veteran, and her mother, an educational counselor, did not use social media sites in their lifetimes. But Bowers is sure they would be disheartened to see how easily falsehoods about the U.S. elections are disseminated online to millions and millions of people.

That’s why the Evanston, Illinois, mom spends a few hours each week scouring Facebook groups for conspiracy theories or lies as part of a nationwide volunteer effort to debunk misinformation about voting.

“The good thing about this work is, it’d be so easy to become incredibly cynical and hopeless, but I think we feel like this is something we can do and make a difference,” Bowers, 59, said in a phone interview.

As voters ready for hundreds of elections of local and national importance this year, officials and voting rights advocates are bracing for a repeat of the misinformation that overwhelmed the 2020 presidential race and seeded distrust about the legitimacy of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory. It culminated in the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 by angry supporters of then-President Donald Trump who believed his lies that the election was stolen from him.

“2020 changed everything,” said Alex Linser, deputy director of the Hamilton County, Ohio, election board. “This has got to be a part of our job now. Not just doing our job well, but showing the public how we do our job. For a long time, the system just worked and people didn’t have to think about it. Now, there’s a lot of people calling it into question.”

The voting advocacy group Common Cause will rely on thousands of volunteers like Bowers to identify misinformation floating around online and push for Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms to take down the most egregious falsehoods. False claims about voting times, locations or eligibility, for example, are banned across Twitter and Meta’s platforms, which include Facebook and Instagram.

During the 2020 election, platforms applied fact checks, labeled or removed more than 300 pieces of popular, false content that Common Cause turned up. More recently, in Texas, more than 100 volunteers worked four-hour shifts to monitor false claims coming out of the state’s primary election in March. The most frequent conspiracy theory shared that night claimed that staffing shortages at polling locations were deliberate, Bowers noted.

“Texas is kind of the playbook for things to come,” said Emma Steiner, a disinformation analyst for the group. “My major concern is that local issues, like with these staff or ballot shortages, will be amplified by influencers or partisan actors with a national platform as signs of malign interference in elections; it’s a pretty recognized pattern from 2020.”

On Election Day 2020, Pennsylvania was a hotbed for false claims about voting machine outages and discarded votes that were shared across conservative news websites and social media.

It’s a problem that many counties in the state remain ill-equipped to handle, said Al Schmidt, who served as the lone Republican on Philadelphia’s election board during the 2020 presidential contest. He drew national attention for refuting Trump’s false claims of mass voter fraud. He resigned from his post in January and now runs a government watchdog group that also educates Pennsylvania voters about the election process.

“Elections are all consuming and few have the time to monitor and counter misinformation,” Schmidt said. “A lot of them don’t have the resources to do this, or the in-house capacity to do this by themselves — you’re hit at the time you’re most busy.”

Election officials in Ohio’s Hamilton County hope they are better prepared this year.

They have produced videos and crafted graphics, shared across Twitter, Instagram and Facebook, in an ongoing series called “MythBusters” that explains how complex voting issues such as recounts, audits and provisional ballots work. Last year, as the elections board was overwhelmed with calls and emails complaining about the voting process, it invited critics to take a tour of the warehouse that stores voting equipment and elections offices. Roughly two dozen people showed up, Linser said.

Trump has continued to describe the 2020 election as “rigged” or “stolen,” despite a coalition of top government and industry officials calling it “the most secure in American history.” A mountain of evidence has concluded that the election was executed without any widespread fraud. An Associated Press review of six battleground states disputed by Trump identified 475 cases of potential voter fraud, nearly all of which were isolated cases and were certainly not enough to tip the election in either candidate’s favor.

Yet Trump’s supporters have pushed for additional audits and reviews of the vote count.

In Arizona, GOP lawmakers last year hired a firm called Cyber Ninjas that spent six months searching for evidence of fraud to support Trump’s false claims of a stolen election. The group instead concluded that Biden had won the state by 360 more votes than the official results certified in 2020.

Staff in Arizona’s Maricopa County, the target of many false claims about the vote, have used the county’s official Twitter accounts to respond directly to misinformation, in both English and Spanish.

“BREAKING: The #azaudit draft report from Cyber Ninjas confirms the county’s canvass of the 2020 General Election was accurate and the candidates certified as the winners did, in fact, win,” Maricopa County’s official Twitter account tweeted in September.

During last year’s gubernatorial recall effort in California, Los Angeles election officials found that using social media to respond directly to questions, mishaps at polling locations or misleading claims helped quickly stamp out viral misinformation or misunderstandings.

In one case, a Twitter user posted that he was unable to cast his ballot at a polling location because of a technical error that showed he had already voted. His story started to gain traction on social media, where it was held up as proof of widespread voter fraud.

The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder County Clerk’s office responded publicly to the tweets, explaining that staffers had reached out to the voter directly to make sure he could cast a ballot.

The approach helps build trust with voters, said Mike Sanchez, a spokesperson for the office.

“Some individuals will just quite candidly tell us, ‘I never thought you would have responded,'” he said.

The post In election misinformation fight, ‘2020 changed everything’ appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .