News You Can’t Trust: Disinformation’s 6x Speed

Did you know that fabricated news stories now spread six times faster on social media than factual reports? This alarming statistic underscores the urgent need for discerning news consumption, especially when all presented with a sophisticated and professional editorial tone. But can we truly trust what we read, even when it appears credible?

The 6x Speed of Disinformation

A 2018 study by MIT researchers published in Science revealed that false news spreads significantly faster and more broadly than true news on social media. Specifically, the study found that false stories were 70% more likely to be retweeted than true stories. This is a staggering figure, and it highlights the challenge of combating misinformation in the digital age. Why does this happen? Sensationalism sells, and fabricated stories often contain emotionally charged language designed to grab attention and drive engagement. I saw this firsthand during the 2024 election cycle. A completely false story about a candidate’s supposed financial dealings went viral within hours, despite being debunked by multiple fact-checking organizations. The damage, however, was already done. Many people only saw the initial, inflammatory report. The correction came too late.

Fact-Checking: A Minority Sport (15%)

Despite the prevalence of misinformation, a Pew Research Center study found that only 15% of U.S. adults regularly fact-check news stories. This means that the vast majority of people are consuming news without critically evaluating its accuracy. This lack of scrutiny creates a fertile ground for the spread of false information. People trust what confirms their biases, so they don’t bother to question the information. We see this play out locally all the time. For example, a rumor spread rapidly on Nextdoor in the Brookhaven neighborhood that the new development at the corner of Peachtree Road and Dresden Drive would cause massive traffic congestion. Despite the developers presenting detailed traffic studies showing minimal impact at a community meeting, many residents continued to believe the rumor, fueled by their existing concerns about traffic in the area.

The Gold Standard: AP Style

When seeking credible news sources, it’s essential to understand journalistic standards. The Associated Press (AP) Stylebook is widely considered the gold standard for journalistic writing. It emphasizes accuracy, impartiality, and clarity. News organizations that adhere to AP style are more likely to provide reliable and objective reporting. The AP style guide dictates everything from grammar and punctuation to ethical guidelines for reporting. For example, the AP has specific rules about identifying sources, avoiding conflicts of interest, and correcting errors. News organizations that invest in training their journalists in AP style demonstrate a commitment to professional standards. This doesn’t mean that every news outlet that uses AP style is perfect, but it does indicate a baseline level of competence and ethical awareness. We’ve always used AP Style at our agency. It just works.

Follow the Money (and Ownership)

One of the most important steps in evaluating news sources is to “follow the money.” Who owns the news organization? Who funds it? Understanding the ownership and funding structure can reveal potential biases. A news outlet owned by a political party, for example, is likely to present news from a partisan perspective. Similarly, a news outlet funded by a corporation may be reluctant to report critically on that corporation’s activities. Look for news organizations that are transparent about their ownership and funding. The Center for Public Integrity, for example, is a non-profit organization that investigates and reports on issues of public concern. They are funded by grants and donations from individuals and foundations, and they are transparent about their funding sources. This transparency helps to build trust and credibility. Here’s what nobody tells you: even non-profit news organizations can have biases, so it’s always important to consider the source’s mission and values.

Challenging Conventional Wisdom: Objectivity is a Myth

Here’s where I disagree with the conventional wisdom: the idea of “objective” journalism is largely a myth. Every journalist brings their own experiences, perspectives, and biases to their work. It is impossible to be completely neutral. The goal, therefore, should not be to eliminate bias, but to acknowledge it and strive for fairness and accuracy. A good journalist will present all sides of a story, even those that they personally disagree with. They will also be transparent about their sources and methods. Consumers need to be aware of this inherent subjectivity and read news from a variety of sources to get a more complete picture. I had a client last year, a local political candidate, who complained that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution was biased against him. While I understood his frustration, I also pointed out that he was only reading news from sources that confirmed his own views. I encouraged him to read a wider range of publications, including those that were critical of him, to better understand the perspectives of his opponents. He was not happy with my advice, but it was honest. As data-driven news evolves, it will be interesting to see how these biases are amplified or diminished.

One way to help combat misinformation is to understand the competitive landscape of news.

And for local news, business models are shifting, so it is more important than ever to fight back and win.

In 2026, navigating the news requires active engagement and critical thinking. Don’t passively accept information. Instead, become an informed and discerning consumer of news, and help to combat the spread of misinformation.