A few weeks before an American presidential election which promises to be extremely close, social networks are full of false information which is increasingly presented in a misleading manner under journalistic codes.
• Also read: In the United States, political satire shared at face value fuels disinformation
• Also read: Pro-Russian and anti-Harris “Bots” in X: the social network calls itself “vigilant”
• Also read: Artificial intelligence floods US campaign with doctored images, sparks fears of electoral manipulation
“News alert: (the television channel) Univision accidentally broadcast proof that Kamala (Harris) used a teleprompter” during a question-and-answer session with voters, the conservative influencer published on October 10 on X Benny Johnson.
An assertion denied by the channel, which assured that a teleprompter had been briefly used by the presenters but not by the candidate. However, the publication, which uses press codes, quickly gained visibility and was seen by more than 14.9 million Internet users.
Likewise, other accounts recently relayed the “news” according to which Texas authorities were allowing people without American citizenship to vote, which is false.
Authors of false information “commonly use terms like ‘news alert’ in an obvious attempt to give legitimacy” to their comments, points out Sam Howard of NewsGuard, an organization fighting disinformation.
The misuse of this terminology, generally used by the media to relay important information, “played an obvious role in the way in which false American political narratives spread in 2024”, analyzes Mr. Howard at the AFP.
The organization News Literacy Project, which provides resources to combat disinformation, says it has counted 72 examples of publications presenting false information about the election and using the label “news alert” or even “exclusive”, another term commonly used by the press.
Trust in the media
“Charlatans – many of whom claim to be doing citizen journalism – are exploiting journalistic jargon to spread baseless speculation or fabricated information,” laments Dan Evon of the News Literacy Project.
This trend undermines both the moderation of social networks, most of which have relaxed their safeguards in this area, and citizens’ trust in traditional media, underline disinformation experts.
The level of trust in media institutions has also reached a historically low level, according to a Gallup poll published in October.
Only 31% of Americans say they have “very” or “somewhat” trust in traditional media, compared to 36% saying they have “no trust” in these sources of information.
This flagging confidence is further undermined by other trends, notably the proliferation of fake news sites largely powered by artificial intelligence tools.
Researchers, including Newsguard, say they have identified in recent months hundreds of fake sites relaying disinformation about the American presidential election and imitating those of very real local newspapers.
Another worrying trend: publications on social networks erroneously attribute false information to serious and credible media.
Conservative figures shared a screenshot in October showing a false article title attributed to The Atlantic magazine and suggesting that Kamala Harris might need to “steal” the election to save democracy.
Faced with this misuse of journalistic codes, experts call for caution. “Don’t forget to check your sources,” urges Dan Evon, who also calls for “giving time for credible information”, which takes more time to be established, to appear on social networks.
