Misinformation Flashcards
Rumors About Department of Defense Directive 5240.01 - Center for an Informed Public - University of Washington
Last week, rumors began circulating across social media about a newly reissued Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5240.01, which covers guidelines for the potential use of lethal force. Some online communities have speculated that the timing of these updates is related to the upcoming U.S. election, suggesting without evidence that the directive enables the government to use force against Americans. The rapid spread of these claims, despite no fact-checks or traditional news coverage, may be due to a “data void” where reliable information is lacking, allowing speculation and conspiratorial interpretations to fill the gap.
The rumors link the directive to election concerns, with right-wing commentators alleging it removes protections against domestic assassinations and permits force against citizens in cases of civil unrest. Left-wing discussions, meanwhile, express concerns about military power potentially restricting civil liberties. Misinformation has spread across various platforms, from Telegram to YouTube, where influencers speculate about language differences between this 2024 directive, a 2020 update, and previous documents. These interpretations have created anxiety over the directive’s purpose and timing, fueling concerns that the government may use military force in response to election-related unrest.
On October 24, the DoD publicly refuted these claims, stating the directive does not grant new powers for lethal force against U.S. citizens. Experts have clarified that it simply continues existing policies within the bounds of U.S. law. However, the directive’s rumored intent remains a topic of conversation, fueled by ongoing political discussions about potential military deployment against domestic threats. The narrative has resonated widely and may continue to shape public sentiment as the election nears, potentially encouraging offline mobilization and calls to action.
Arguments for and Against Voter ID Laws - Ballotpedia, 2024
Here are the key points and data from the debate on voter ID laws:
1. Current Voter ID Laws (as of April 2024): • 35 states require ID for voting on Election Day: 24 require photo ID, 11 accept other forms of ID. • 16 states do not require ID to vote in person. • Common IDs: driver’s licenses, state IDs, military IDs. Some states offer exceptions. 2. Arguments Supporting Voter ID: • Prevention of Voter Fraud: Supporters argue voter ID laws prevent impersonation, noncitizen voting, and double voting. • No Decrease in Turnout: Studies (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2019) suggest no significant impact on minority turnout. • Popularity with Voters: Monmouth University poll (2021) shows 80% support for photo ID requirements, including 62% of Democrats and 84% of minorities. 3. Arguments Against Voter ID: • Burden on Voters: 11% of U.S. citizens lack government-issued ID, with costs to obtain documents ranging from $75 to $175, posing a burden, especially for low-income, elderly, and rural voters. • Targeting Minorities: Opponents claim ID laws disproportionately impact minorities, following the 2013 removal of Voting Rights Act protections. • Rarity of Voter Fraud: The Brennan Center reports in-person voter impersonation is nearly non-existent, with only 0.00004% of cases documented, and out of 250 million mail-in votes in 2020, only 193 led to convictions.
Spygate - Chat GPT
Spygate was a scandal involving the New England Patriots in 2007, in which the team was caught illegally videotaping the defensive signals of the New York Jets from an unauthorized location during a game on September 9, 2007. This violated an NFL rule that prohibited teams from recording opponents’ signals from the sidelines, coaches’ booths, or locker rooms.
How It Unfolded:
• The New York Jets’ head coach, Eric Mangini, was a former assistant under Bill Belichick and was aware of the Patriots’ methods.
• He reported to the NFL that the Patriots might be filming their defensive signals.
• During the Week 1 game between the Patriots and Jets, NFL security caught a Patriots staff member recording the Jets’ defensive coaches from the sidelines.
• The NFL immediately confiscated the tapes and launched an investigation.
The Punishment:
Commissioner Roger Goodell handed down severe penalties:
1. Bill Belichick was fined $500,000—the largest fine ever given to an NFL coach.
2. The Patriots organization was fined $250,000.
3. The team lost its first-round pick in the 2008 NFL Draft.
4. The NFL ordered the destruction of all the tapes and notes related to the scandal.
Did Spygate Help the Patriots Win?
• The Patriots had already won three Super Bowls (2001, 2003, 2004) before being caught in 2007.
• Many critics questioned whether the Patriots’ past success was influenced by similar illegal filming practices.
• Some former players, like Marshall Faulk, speculated that the Patriots might have used similar tactics against the St. Louis Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI—but no proof was ever found.
Legacy of Spygate:
• It damaged the Patriots’ reputation, leading many to label them as cheaters.
• It led to increased NFL security measures to prevent signal-stealing.
• Years later, the Deflategate controversy (2015) further cemented the perception of the Patriots as bending the rules.
Despite Spygate, the Patriots continued their dominance in the NFL, winning multiple Super Bowls afterward, with Tom Brady and Bill Belichick building one of the greatest dynasties in sports history.
Teams are allowed to record defensive signals, but only from specific locations and under certain conditions. The issue with Spygate was that the Patriots recorded signals from an unauthorized location.
What the NFL Rules Allow:
• Teams can record games, including coaches’ signals, but only from approved areas, such as:
• The press box
• The coach’s booth
• Other designated locations provided by the NFL
What the Patriots Did Wrong in Spygate:
• The Patriots filmed from the sidelines, which was explicitly banned in 2006 by an NFL memo.
• The NFL memo sent before the 2007 season reminded teams that filming signals from the field or sidelines was illegal.
• Bill Belichick later admitted he interpreted the rule differently but accepted responsibility.
Why Filming Signals Matters:
• Teams use hand signals to call defensive plays.
• If an opponent records and deciphers these signals, they can predict defensive calls and adjust their offense accordingly.
• This provides a competitive advantage, especially if the information is decoded and used in real-time or future matchups.
Did Other Teams Do It?
• Many believe other teams also filmed signals in some capacity.
• Former coaches, like Jimmy Johnson, admitted their teams filmed signals before the rule change.
• However, no other team was caught violating the rule after the NFL explicitly banned it in 2006.
Conclusion:
Yes, teams can record signals, but only from approved locations. The Patriots broke the rule by filming from the sidelines, which is why they were punished in Spygate.
So it was allowed before 2006?
Yes, before 2006, there was no explicit rule prohibiting teams from recording opponents’ signals from the sidelines. Many teams, including the Patriots and other organizations, reportedly did this as part of their scouting and preparation.
What Changed in 2006?
• The NFL sent a league-wide memo clarifying that teams could not record signals from the sidelines, locker rooms, or coaches’ booths.
• This was done to prevent teams from stealing and decoding signals in real time.
• Teams were still allowed to record games (including signals) from approved locations like the press box.
Bill Belichick’s Defense:
• When Spygate broke in 2007, Bill Belichick argued that he had been using this method for years and misunderstood the rule change.
• He claimed he believed the rule only applied to using the footage during the same game, not for future study.
So, Was Spygate Just ‘Business as Usual’?
• Before 2006: Recording signals from anywhere was common and not illegal.
• After 2006: The NFL explicitly banned recording signals from certain locations, including the sidelines.
• The Patriots continued to do it anyway, which led to the Spygate scandal.
This is why some people believe the Patriots’ past success (before 2006) may have been aided by similar tactics, but it wasn’t against the rules at the time. Their biggest mistake was continuing to do it after the rule change.
What about filming practices?
There were allegations that the Patriots filmed the Rams’ walkthrough practice before Super Bowl XXXVI (2002), but there was no conclusive proof that this actually happened.
The “Walkthrough” Allegation:
• In 2008, during the height of the Spygate controversy, the Boston Herald published a report claiming that a Patriots employee videotaped the Rams’ final walkthrough practice the day before Super Bowl XXXVI.
• The claim suggested that the Patriots may have gained an unfair advantage by seeing St. Louis’ formations and plays before the game.
• The walkthrough was a non-contact, rehearsal-style practice where teams went over their opening plays and adjustments.
The Retraction:
• Shortly after, the Boston Herald retracted the story, admitting they had no credible evidence.
• The NFL investigated the claim and found no tapes of the Rams’ walkthrough.
• Patriots videographer Matt Walsh, who had worked with the team, testified in 2008 that he never filmed the Rams’ walkthrough.
Did the Patriots Still Cheat in That Super Bowl?
• While the walkthrough tape story was debunked, some Rams players (like Marshall Faulk) still believe the Patriots had inside knowledge of their game plan.
• They argue that New England’s defense seemed unusually prepared to counter their high-powered Greatest Show on Turf offense.
• However, there’s no solid proof that the Patriots obtained this information illegally.
Bottom Line:
• There is no verified evidence that the Patriots filmed the Rams’ walkthrough.
• The claim was widely reported in 2008 but later retracted and disproven.
• However, Spygate damaged the Patriots’ credibility, leading many to question their past victories, including Super Bowl XXXVI.
Study finds liberals are more accepting of scientific facts — and nonfactual statements - PsyPost; 2019
New research provides evidence that political orientation is a predictor of belief in scientific and unscientific statements. The study, published in Psychological Reports, found that more liberal college students tend to be more accepting of both types of statements compared to their conservative counterparts.
“My interest in this topic probably began back when the anti-vaxxer movement became an increasingly serious issue and only increased with the increased spread of ‘fake news’ during the 2016 election,” said study author Mary M. Medlin, a doctoral student at the University of Southern Mississippi and lab manager of the Evolutionary Social Psychology Lab.
“My primary interest has been to identify factors influencing acceptance/denial of scientific research and use that information to increase acceptance of valid research and denial of invalid, non-empirically supported information.”
In the study, 270 college students were asked to rate their agreement with a series of scientific facts and nonfactual statements. Scientific facts included statements such as “A typical cumulus cloud weighs about 1.1 million pounds,” while nonfactual statements included common false beliefs such as “Humans only use about 10% of their brain.”
The researchers found that participants who were more politically liberal tended to agree more with the scientific statements, compared to participants who were more conservative. However, liberalism was also associated with a greater belief in nonfactual statements.
“It is possible that whereas more conservative persons may be unduly skeptical, more liberal persons may be too open and therefore vulnerable to inaccurate information presented in a manner that appears scientific,” the researchers wrote in their study.
The study also found that liberal participants reported greater agreement with pro-truth statements, such as “It is important to me to align my opinions and my actions with true information,” which in turn was associated with their increased agreement with scientific facts.
“The main take-away message of this study is that there are multiple factors influencing attitudes towards science, beyond a vague category of ‘intelligence,’ so people need to be cautious when drawing conclusions about shared information, especially if they have not researched that information to confirm its validity,” Medlin told PsyPost.
But the study — like all research — includes some limitations.
“One significant caveat is the limited sample in this study. We only examined undergraduate students from one university, so the findings are not as generalizable. Therefore, one major question remaining is the question of whether or not these findings generalize to the public at large,” Medlin explained.
“Additionally, there are still more factors that could influence attitudes towards scientific information that we have not yet examined. There are many more directions that this research could go in. For instance, I am currently designing a study manipulating how scientific information is communicated.”
“The hope is that presenting the information a certain way will help individuals across ideologies accept accurate scientific information more readily,” Medlin said.
Conservatives, not liberals, are more inclined to value feelings over facts, psychology study finds - Salon; 2021
Key Points Summary
Study Overview:
Published in Political Psychology (Oct).
Researchers from Cal Poly Pomona & Eureka College.
Goal: Test how political ideology affects acceptance of expert (scientific & non-scientific) opinions on non-political topics.
Study Method:
Participants read articles quoting a researcher debunking a myth, followed by a contrasting, non-expert opinion.
Participants rated credibility of both.
Main Findings:
Both liberals and conservatives preferred the expert over the rejecter.
Conservatives were more likely to say both sides were equally valid.
Conservatives rated experts lower and rejecters higher than liberals did.
Explanation by Researchers:
Dr. Swan: Conservatives value personal experience and intuition more due to individualistic worldview.
Conservatives may reject science if it conflicts with capitalism or personal beliefs (e.g., climate change).
Media & Ideology Influence:
Dr. Stein: Conservative media often promotes distrust in institutions like academia and medicine.
A “create your own reality” attitude is more common among conservatives due to ideological messaging.
Connection to 2020 Election Denial:
Authors see a related mindset: treating all viewpoints as equally valid can lead to acceptance of flimsy or false evidence.
Swan: Refusal to accept Biden’s win reflects erosion of trust in democratic institutions, not just science denial.
Cautions from the Authors:
They’re not saying liberals are immune—liberals can also reject facts.
They’re not endorsing blind trust in scientists, but promoting critical evaluation of evidence.
Final Argument:
Scientific literacy and critical thinking help reduce confirmation bias.
Trust in credible institutions is essential to evaluating truth.
Conservatives more susceptible to believing falsehoods - Ohio State University; 2021
Between January and June 2019, researchers from Ohio State University conducted a national study involving 1,204 U.S. adults to investigate how political ideology affects people’s ability to distinguish between true and false political claims. Every two weeks, the researchers selected 20 viral political news stories—10 true and 10 false—based on high social media engagement. Participants were asked to evaluate these statements, labeling them as true or false and rating their confidence in each response. Over time, each participant reviewed up to 240 claims.
In addition, a separate group of people categorized each story based on whether it would be more favorable to liberals, conservatives, or politically neutral if it were true. The researchers found that both liberals and conservatives were more likely to believe claims that aligned with their political views. However, conservatives were more likely to accept falsehoods and reject accurate claims. This trend appeared to be largely driven by the U.S. media environment, where significantly more viral false stories supported conservative viewpoints, while more of the true stories favored liberal ones.
A six-month study published in Science Advances found that conservatives in the U.S. are more vulnerable to political misinformation than liberals, primarily due to an environment saturated with right-leaning falsehoods. While both liberals and conservatives were more likely to believe claims that aligned with their beliefs, conservatives disproportionately accepted false statements and rejected true ones. For example, only 18% of Republicans believed a true statement about poor migrant facility conditions, while 41% accepted a debunked conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton selling Uranium to Russia.
The study emphasized that the media landscape plays a significant role in shaping these misperceptions. Most viral true stories were beneficial to liberal positions, while a large portion of viral falsehoods supported conservative views. Even when accounting for this imbalance, conservatives still showed a slightly higher tendency to misidentify political facts. Additionally, conservatives displayed a stronger “truth bias”—a tendency to label more claims as true regardless of their accuracy. The researchers concluded that this misinformation environment undermines public understanding and poses a serious challenge to democratic decision-making, which relies on citizens’ ability to discern truth from fiction.
Conservatives more likely to believe false news, new study finds - CNN; 2021
A study led by researchers Kelly Garrett and Robert Bond at Ohio State University found that political conservatives in the U.S. are more likely than liberals to believe false political news. The research, published in Science Advances, analyzed the most viral political news stories on social media between January and June 2019. They asked 1,200 politically aligned participants (excluding independents) to assess the truthfulness of headlines. The findings showed that false stories were more likely to align with conservative views, while true stories tended to favor liberal perspectives. This imbalance in the information environment appears to contribute to conservatives holding more political misperceptions.
The researchers stressed that this is not necessarily due to conservatives being inherently more biased but rather reflects a media environment saturated with right-leaning misinformation. Conservatives were also found to have a higher “truth bias,” meaning they were more likely to believe all claims, even implausible ones. The study highlights the difficulty of correcting misinformation, noting that while fact-checking and respectful online engagement can help, change tends to be gradual. Garrett emphasized the role individuals can play in pushing back against misinformation, suggesting that polite correction of falsehoods online can make a real difference over time.
Left, Right, and Science - Wilson Quarterly; 2012
This essay explores how both liberals and conservatives manipulate science to support their political agendas, often wrapping ideological groupthink in the language of scientific authority. It challenges the notion that science is politically neutral or that liberals are inherently more pro-science than conservatives. While data shows that most scientists lean liberal, this doesn’t necessarily mean science itself leads to liberalism—it may reflect the social environment of academia. Historical ironies abound: early 20th-century progressives supported eugenics based on evolutionary science, while conservative Christians opposed Darwinism partly out of concern for its social implications. Similarly, the Scopes trial and later court battles over teaching evolution highlight the shifting boundaries between religious belief, free speech, and science in public life. Despite legal victories for evolution, large portions of the American public still reject it, revealing the persistent influence of moral and religious values on scientific debates.
The article also argues that science is often misused as a moral or political weapon in policy disputes, from climate change to abortion to drug legalization. Scientists are not immune to ideology, and scientific claims are frequently infused with moral assumptions that science itself cannot resolve. The controversy over global warming, for instance, pits one side’s urgent moralism against the other’s skepticism, yet both claim scientific justification. Public trust in science remains high, but when science is wielded as a tool of political power—as seen in Paul Ehrlich’s failed predictions in The Population Bomb or efforts to enforce climate orthodoxy—it risks losing credibility. Ultimately, the piece warns against treating science as a substitute for democratic deliberation. In a pluralistic society, even well-supported scientific conclusions must compete with ethical, cultural, and political values. Science can inform public policy, but it cannot dictate it without engaging in the messy process of politics.
The article references numerous historical examples, studies, and surveys to illustrate how science has been used or misused in political and ideological contexts. Here’s a breakdown of the most significant ones:
Surveys & Research Studies
2009 Pew Research Center / AAAS Survey:
Found that 55% of scientists identified as Democrats, with 81% including leaners. Only 9% identified as conservative, versus 37% of the general public. This supports the idea that scientists overwhelmingly lean liberal.
2010 Gallup Poll:
Revealed that 40% of Americans believe in strict creationism, 38% in evolution with divine guidance, and only 16% accept evolution without divine involvement. These numbers have remained relatively stable since 1982.
2007 Pew Poll on Climate Change Belief:
Showed that college education increased belief in global warming among Democrats, but decreased it among Republicans and independents, underscoring the partisan divide over climate science.
Historical Examples
Scopes Trial (1925):
The trial over banning evolution in public schools, which became a national flashpoint for the debate between science and religion. William Jennings Bryan, a progressive Christian, opposed Darwinism partly due to concerns about social Darwinism and its effects.
Buck v. Bell (1927):
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld sterilization laws for the “genetically unfit” under eugenics ideology. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the infamous line: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Only Justice Pierce Butler, a conservative Catholic, dissented.
Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb (1968):
Predicted massive famine and population collapse, advocating draconian population control measures. Though widely cited at the time, none of its major predictions came true.
Intellectual and Political Figures
William Jennings Bryan:
A three-time Democratic presidential nominee who opposed Darwinism due to its connection with social Darwinism and eugenics.
George Bernard Shaw:
Promoted eugenics in his play Man and Superman (1903), reflecting its appeal to early 20th-century progressives.
Margaret Sanger:
Early birth control advocate and Planned Parenthood founder, had ties to some eugenics ideas, though she didn’t endorse all aspects of the movement.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:
Upheld eugenics policies in court rulings, showcasing how scientific arguments were used to justify coercive laws.
Thomas Friedman (New York Times):
Wrote favorably about China’s ability to act quickly on environmental issues, revealing a technocratic impulse to bypass democracy in favor of “scientific” governance.
Paul Krugman:
Described climate change denial as “treason against the planet,” illustrating how science is used in moralizing political rhetoric.
Institutions & Legal Cases
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU):
Recruited John Scopes to challenge Tennessee’s anti-evolution law.
Epperson v. Arkansas (1968):
Supreme Court struck down laws banning the teaching of evolution.
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987):
Supreme Court struck down laws requiring equal time for creationism in public schools.
Institute of Medicine (under Obama):
Provided recommendations supporting mandatory birth control coverage, cited by the administration as “science-based” policymaking.
California Medical Association (2010):
Recommended legalizing marijuana, which advocates framed as a “scientific” decision.
Scholarly Critiques
Daniel Botkin (Ecologist):
Criticized the environmentalist concept of a fixed “balance of nature” as a pseudo-scientific myth with religious undertones.
These references highlight the central argument: while science is essential and powerful, it has often been enlisted in moral, political, and ideological battles far beyond its empirical domain.
Facts - Allsides.com
For many, the word “fact” is a common-sense way to refer to the actual reality of things - outside of opinion or subjective judgment. From this perspective the word is non-controversial - in fact, it is the epitome of non-controversial (so much so that to say “in fact” means to say “in reality”).
For others, the word “fact” has come to be used as an attempt by one person or community to establish its position as unquestioned and irrefutable - in particular, by the suggestion that objective observation, data, and science itself is “on our side.” Indeed, “here are the facts” is used by virtually every socio-political community in talking about different sides of virtually every issue in America - e.g., proponents and opponents of vaccination are each ready to “tell you the facts.”
Postmodern thinkers point out that scientific data itself does not and cannot speak without a human interpreter - thus questioning the existence of evidence “outside” of human interpretation and objective judgment that establishes truth beyond a shadow of doubt. This is not to say that a reality doesn’t exist…but simply that our attempts to know it, from this perspective, are always, inevitably, inescapably held in our interpretive frameworks (which more, or less, correspond to reality). Rather than an argument for relativism, then, this simply points out that each “fact” represents a particular argument about reality or the data.
Once again, some would push back by saying that “we have to have some facts to have a functional society,” - e.g., someone is alive or dead. A war has been started or not. A bill has been passed in the house or not. From this vantage point, it is unsettling to have moved away from a time when Americans held certain things in common as “facts” - drifting to a point where we now have different sets of “facts.” From this perspective, some facts should not be up for debate. There must be some things that reasonable people should be able to agree upon.
What exactly those uncontested, undisputed facts are, of course, is a point of disagreement! (Vaccines as a public good? Climate change as the great threat to society? The Bible as the word of God?)
By contrast, others would simply say “we need to have thoughtful discussion about our different views of reality in order to have a functional society” - without so much expectation that we will come to alignment on what that reality (or “the facts”) indeed are.
QUESTIONS TO PLAY WITH:
-What, in your mind, is necessary to make something a fact?
-Can you think of any things you once thought were facts but no longer think are?
-Have you ever had an argument with someone where you both had your own sets of facts? How did it end? What might have happened if you had put facts aside and talked about other things, like values or perspectives or experiences?
Fact Check: Fact-Checkers Falsely Claim They Are Fact-Checkers - The Heritage Foundation; 2022
This article presents a highly critical view of mainstream media fact-checkers, arguing that their real function is not to objectively verify claims but to reinforce the political messaging of what the author refers to as “the ruling regime” in Washington. The piece asserts that liberal-aligned media outlets like CNN and The Washington Post use fact-checking as a tool of political propaganda, disproportionately targeting conservatives while going easy on liberals. It suggests that many so-called “fact checks” are actually thinly veiled opinion pieces, selectively framed to discredit right-leaning figures and ideas while protecting left-leaning narratives.
The article highlights figures like CNN’s Daniel Dale and the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler, accusing them of twisting facts, inserting misleading qualifiers, and selectively quoting to favor liberal viewpoints. It contrasts their treatment of conservative claims—such as critiques of inflation or immigration—with what the author sees as lenient or dismissive coverage of false or misleading statements by President Biden or other Democrats. Ultimately, the piece claims that the fact-checking industry lacks neutrality, serves as public relations for progressive politics, and should be approached with skepticism rather than trust.
Examples of Alleged Fact-Checker Bias
CNN’s Daniel Dale
Joe Biden’s 1967 Israel Claim
Claim: Biden falsely said he met the Israeli prime minister during the Six-Day War.
CNN headline: “Biden tells inaccurate story about his 1973 meeting with Israeli prime minister.”
Criticism: The article accuses Dale of soft-pedaling a made-up story by calling it merely “inaccurate.”
Sen. Rick Scott’s Inflation Comment
Claim: Scott criticized a $1 trillion spending bill as contributing to inflation.
CNN’s response: Claimed it was “false” to blame inflation exclusively on government spending.
Criticism: The word “exclusively” was inserted by Dale, misrepresenting what Scott said in order to debunk a straw man.
Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler
Tucker Carlson and Biden Immigration Clip
Clip played by Carlson: Biden (as VP) said by 2017 white people of European descent would become a minority in the U.S., calling it a strength.
Carlson’s commentary: Argued Biden was promoting demographic change to reduce political power of native-born white Americans—calling it “the language of eugenics.”
Kessler’s response: Gave Carlson a “Four Pinocchios” rating for misleadingly clipping the speech.
Criticism: The article claims the full speech did not contradict the part Carlson used and that Kessler simply disapproved of the interpretation.
📚 Other Mentions
Hillary Clinton
Cited for popularizing calls for fact-checking during debates with Donald Trump in 2016.
The author implies she helped normalize biased third-party “fact referees.”
These examples are used to argue that fact-checkers often mischaracterize statements, selectively apply scrutiny, and amplify liberal narratives while downplaying or excusing questionable claims from Democrats or the political left.
