Lately, my Facebook news feed has been inundated by posts from people I don’t follow. They have blue checkmarks next to their names and they’re reporting information they treat as facts, even though it isn’t true.
Many of them are local “influencers” — Pew Research defines news influencers as people who regularly post about current events on social media and have at least 100,000 follows on either Facebook, X, TikTok or YouTube — and “content creators,” people who create entertaining or educational videos about local events or businesses.
They post about things like new restaurants and rumors about which businesses may be coming to the area.
For the most part, it’s harmless. But sometimes these Facebook accounts are reporting news irresponsibly.
One example is posts that quote what’s been said on a police scanner, which is a big no-no in the news industry.
Many times when people are calling 911, they’re not sure what’s going on. When you work in a newsroom, you listen to the police scanner all day. I’ve heard many things said on police scanners that turned out to be nothing.
On Dec. 7, 2022 at 8:15 a.m., I was working in the Charleston Gazette-Mail newsroom when I heard the scariest thing I’d ever heard on the police scanner — a report of a shooting at a local high school. They said one student had been shot and described the shooter who was reported to be on the loose. I called our education reporter and a photographer to get them on the scene while I tried to get more information from officials. By 8:30 a.m., it was determined that the call was fake, and about a dozen other counties had received similar fake calls.
I didn’t write an article about that 911 call until we had determined the call was fake. The Gazette-Mail typically didn’t write about false threats, but people were using social media to spread false rumors about what was happening. We felt it was important to get the official word out that it was not a real threat, and it was happening not only in West Virginia, but all over the country.
When our newsroom decides what to report on, we’re always thinking about the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics. There are four main principles of the code: 1) seek truth and report it, 2) minimize harm, 3) act independently and 4) be accountable and transparent.
This column is me being transparent with our readers. Sometimes you may wonder why we’re not reporting on something or taking a long time to do so. There are many things that we’d love to write about, but we can’t because no one will talk on the record about the issue because they fear repercussions. Other times, we’re trying to find public records that will corroborate the story. If we’re not telling you who told us these things, why would you believe us?
We believe strongly in accountability. When we get tips off the record, anonymously or on background, we do our best to confirm information on the record, either by talking to other sources or by requesting public records. If we can’t confirm the information, we don’t report it.
If someone is speaking anonymously, there’s no repercussions for them if that information is wrong. They have nothing to lose, the publication who shares their information can have its reputation tarnished by reporting something false. If someone tells me on the record something that turns out to be not true, and I’ve quoted them, I can go back to them and ask how they got whatever wrong and give them a chance to explain things.
When we do make a mistake, we correct it in a transparent way. Stories that have been corrected include a note about when the correction was made and what was corrected. I have an email list of all the publications who republish our content, and I email them every time we issue a correction or clarification so they can also correct our story on their platforms.
If you wouldn’t trust a friend who keeps lying to you, why would you trust a publication that keeps giving you the wrong information and not telling you who it really came from?
A study published in the journal Psychology & Marketing found that because regular social media users are usually confronted or attacked for spreading misinformation — and journalists can be sued for libel— they’re motivated to correct false posts. However, “influencers” are less likely to correct their incorrect posts because they make more money when there’s more engagement, even if it’s negative.
Blue checkmarks on Facebook only mean that Meta has verified a person is who they say they are — not that they’re trustworthy. Users pay a subscription fee for the verification badge.
My friend Leslie Rubin, assistant news director and reporter at WCHS, told me she’s never seen the local influencer content be so inaccurate, and that it’s making her reporters’ jobs more difficult — they’re constantly having to “put out fires” of rumors that have started on social media.
I love that people want to be informed. Sharing news is great. I just want people who have large social media audiences to do so responsibly. Find out more about your news sources — who are they? How do they gather their information? Do they follow a code of ethics?
I don’t want to beat other news outlets in breaking news if there’s a chance we’re reporting something that’s not true. It’s always better to be right than to be first.
Leann Ray is the editor of West Virginia Watch, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. West Virginia Watch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Leann Ray for questions: info@westvirginiawatch.com.
