[PDF] Bad News (The Bad Books)

A broad array of solutions have been proposed, ranging from making digital media literacy part of school curricula (Council of Europe, 2017; Select Committee on Communications, 2017), to the automated verification of rumours using machine learning algorithms (Vosoughi, Mohsenvand, and Roy, 2017) to conducting fact-checks in real-time (Bode and Vraga, 2015; Sethi, 2017). However, decades of research on human cognition finds that misinformation is not easily corrected. In particular, the continued influence effect of misinformation suggests that corrections are often ineffective as people continue to rely on debunked falsehoods (Nyhan and Reifler, 2010; Lewandowsky et al., 2012). Importantly, recent scholarship suggests that false news spreads faster and deeper than true information (Vosoughi, Roy, and Aral, 2018). Accordingly, developing better debunking and fact-checking tools is therefore unlikely to be sufficient to stem the flow of online misinformation (Chan et al., 2017; Lewandowsky, Ecker, and Cook, 2017).

In the game, players take on the role of a fake news creator. The purpose is to attract as many followers as possible while also maximising credibility. The follower and credibility metres along with a screenshot of the game environment are shown in Fig. 2.

[PDF] Bad News (The Bad Books)

DOWNLOAD: https://tinurli.com/2vJFqD

Throughout the game, players gain followers and credibility by going through a number of scenarios, each focusing on one of six strategies commonly used in the spread of misinformation (NATO StratCom, 2017). At the end of each scenario, players earn a specific fake news badge (an overview of the fake news badges is provided in Fig. 3). Players are rewarded for making use of the strategies that they learn in the game, and are punished (in terms of losing credibility or followers) for choosing options in line with ethical journalistic behaviour. They gradually go from being an anonymous social media presence to running a (fictional) fake news empire. Players lose if their credibility drops to 0. The total number of followers at the end of the game counts as their final score.

The fourth badge lets players float their own conspiracy theories: Creating or amplifying alternative explanations for traditional news events which assume that these events are controlled by a small, usually malicious, secret elite group of people (Jolley and Douglas, 2017; Lewandowsky, Gignac, and Oberauer, 2013; van der Linden, 2015).

A growing body of evidence illustrates the human tendency to prioritise negative over positive news content. But why is this? Stuart Soroka suggests that humans may neurologically or physiologically predisposed towards focusing on negative information because the potential costs of negative information far outweigh the potential benefits of positive information.

Sharing news content on social media is a fundamentally different thing from selecting and reading articles, however. (Indeed, the study on which Huffington relies recognises this.) Even as we may tend to forward positive material via social media, our news-reading habits may still prioritise negative information. There is after all a growing body of evidence illustrating the human tendency to prioritise negative over positive news content.

Our findings suggest that negative network news content, in comparison with positive news content, tends to increase both arousal and attentiveness. In contrast, positive news content has an imperceptible impact on the physiological measures we focus on. Indeed, physiologically speaking, a positive news story is not very different from the gray screen we show participants between news stories.

hen you read the news, sometimes it can feel like the only things reported are terrible, depressing events. Why does the media concentrate on the bad things in life, rather than the good? And what might this depressing slant say about us, the audience?

To be real Good news in comparison is normally something that can be seen next week when you are not busy. Or the extra sales you made this month is going to lead to a pay rise. This type of info you do not need now it does not effect you it just might increase the amount of money you use in the bank account.

After the U.S. presidential elections rolled in many media and academic pundits were scratching their heads over what went wrong with polls, studies and predictions. My contention would be because media and academia are totally divorced from and out of touch with the masses. It would appear no one was closely watching facebook (I am not a fan of facebook but find it a necessary evil). The hate, negativity, and lies posted and forwarded far outweighed the positive. To the extent that secret, participation by invite only, groups (how are these accounted for in studies?) were established where people of like mind could create their own echo chambers without being bullied. The Trump supporters were especially rabid. Posts I saw receiving the most engagement, which is Facebooks profit generator, were long ugly fights that almost always involved bullying and name calling. It was a feeding frenzy that, my observation, gave people the opportunity to show the ugly they would not otherwise show, say in a public setting. The negativity was such that fake news sites proliferated and profited off of fake negative news stories.

Of note was another story getting much exposure on Facebook. The Indian protests over the Dakota pipeline at Standing Rock. This story was/is generating much interest from both the left and the right yet U.S. news media, for the longest time, barely mentioned it, if at all. I and others looked to foreign sources such as the U.K. Guardian for comprehensive coverage from a mainstream source.

Lutzke, L., Drummond, C., Slovic, P., & Árvai, J. (2019). Priming critical thinking: Simple interventions limit the influence of fake news about climate change on Facebook. Global Environmental Change, 58, 101964. ://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101964

Reuters. (2019, June 24). Online game helps fight the spread of fake news: study. Uk.reuters.com. Retrieved from -media-fakenews-game/online-game-helps-fight-the-spread-of-fake-news-study-idUKKCN1TP2X3

van der Linden, S., Roozenbeek, J., Oosterwoud, R., Compton, J. A., & Lewandowsky, S. (2018). The Science of Prebunking: Inoculating the Public Against Fake News. In Written evidence submitted to the Parliamentary Inquiry on Fake News. Retrieved from -culture-media-and-sport-committee/fake-news/written/79482.html

The Bad News Game is a multiple award-winning fake news intervention aimed at building psychological resistance against online misinformation. The intervention is a theory-driven social impact game developed in collaboration with the Dutch media collective DROG and graphic design agency Gusmanson.

The game draws on the theory of psychological inoculation: just as exposure to a weakened strain of a pathogen triggers the production of antibodies to cultivate immunity against a virus, the same can reasonably be achieved with information. Specifically, the game forewarns and exposes players to severely weakened doses of the stategies that are used in the production of fake news to stimulate the production 'mental antibodies' against misinformation.

Have honest, two-way communication with your loved ones, health care providers and others. You may feel alone if people try to protect you from bad news by not talking about it. Or you might feel alone or less supported if you try to look strong and not share your feelings. If you and others show your real emotions, you can help support each other.

Pseudonymous Bosch (/ˈsuːdənɪməs bɒʃ, bɔːʃ, bɔːs/) is the pen name of Raphael Simon (born October 25, 1967), the author of The Secret Series and The Bad Books series of fiction books, as well as The Unbelievable Oliver chapter book mysteries and two stand-alone titles. He has written 12 books, each widely read.[1] 2ff7e9595c