Evelyn
Hi everyone. Welcome to the Misinformation podcast episode. My name is Evelyn.
Cassidy
I am Cassie.
Isaak
And I'm Isaak. So to start, I'm just gonna define what misinformation is because it's often a term that's shrouded in obscurity. It's often just taken as disinformation, while it is actually something that is completely different.
So, misinformation is defined by Spies as false information that is spread unintentionally but often tends to harm people.
Cassidy
And disinformation, what it is sometimes mistaken as, is false information that is deliberately intended to mislead—intentionally misstating facts. And this is stated by the American Psychological Association.
Isaak
And you can already see with those two definitions how easily they can be mixed up and misused in certain contexts. And I think a point we were talking about a little earlier before this conversation was something Cassie had brought in from one of the readings.
Evelyn
"Misinformation Can Be Beautiful" is a chapter written by Hartford, and on page 188, he states that the word "see" is often used as a direct synonym for "understand," such as in "I see what you mean." Yet sometimes we see, but we don't understand. Worse, we see and understand something that isn't true at all.
I think this is relevant to a lot of clipping that we see either on YouTube or TikTok, social media. A lot of times, people clip videos just so the message is what they want it to be perceived as, and I think that definitely lends to disinformation and misinformation.
Isaak
Yeah, definitely. I think connecting it to the text even more is just the idea that misinformation can be almost disguised in this beautiful facade. They add these awesome graphics, add a lot of effects to the clip you're talking about, to make the information within the video seem more professional and more serious, when in reality, there's no background behind the information.
It could be just a completely false statement, and they just spice it up so people look at it, see that it's professionally made, and trust that it is actually a truthful video.
Evelyn
Yeah, and in doing so, they are catering to a specific audience—so people with that selective perception that they're looking for. Definitely... I don't know where I was going with that.
Isaak
I like the usage of the term "selective perception," especially in the context that we got it within the video shared by Professor Hung and made by Professor Hung.
For those who don't know, selective perception is the idea that people with different ideologies will see the exact same event but completely differently. So you could see this in a lot of things.
An example from the video was given by Farhad Manjoo in his book about selective perception, and it goes into this older show called All in the Family, where one of the characters could be described as just the average bigot nowadays. But there was an extreme divide in how viewers saw him.
So they did a little survey to see how different prejudice groups saw the character. And all the high-prejudice groups—aka the people who have a lot of prejudice against minorities—favored Archie, who was the bigoted character, while those in the low-prejudice groups favored his son Mike. They said that Mike was the smarter one, versus the high-prejudice groups seeing Archie as the smartest one and always winning the arguments.
Evelyn
There's a TV show that this actually reminded me of. It's with Tim Allen... Oh my gosh, what is it called? Last Man Standing. I don't know if you guys have watched this at all.
I think in some ways, Tim Allen's character was a little bit similar to the main character in All in the Family as well. But I don’t know… Obviously, it was a little bit more PC, so yeah, I think it was a little bit more palatable. But I think the same argument could be made for that show.
Have you guys seen that show? It reminds me so much of All in the Family.
Isaak
No.
Evelyn
Oh my gosh.
Isaak
I know he's in a new show with Selena Gomez, right? Or is that... or no? Oh, that's the girl from Only Murders in the Building or whatever.
Isaak
Only Murders in the Building or something like that.
Isaak
Yeah, something like that. Yeah, he's in a show with the girl from Two Broke Girls, I think. That older show.
Evelyn
Last Man Standing has a Black neighbor, just like All in the Family had. And he's got this—not hippie, but definitely different—perspective than the dad in the show. He and his daughter live in the house, so it's almost the same premise as All in the Family, but a little bit more palatable.
Still definitely had its different views on things, but it's just funny to see it happening all over again.
Isaak
I think you can even see that in something as popular as Modern Family with Jay. I think that's his name—the oldest dad in that show.
Evelyn
Oh yeah.
Isaak
You can see it in how he acts towards his son—his gay son—versus his daughter. Just in how he treats them. He's always a little slower to show empathy and kindness towards his gay son because that's just not really what he's used to.
And then as the series progresses, he warms up more to his son and his son's husband, and you see how the characters change. I feel like if you look at the ratings of that show, I'm sure a lot of the viewership from more bigoted, high-prejudice people probably went down as that character—who initially wasn’t understanding of a queer relationship—started to understand it. They lost the person they could relate to in that sense.
Evelyn
Probably. I could definitely see viewership going up in some areas and then down in others, like you said.
Cassidy
Do you think it has any effect with, um… What are their names in the show? Mitchell and Cameron? Like, the fact that Cameron in real life is straight and not queer? Like, he was only gay in the show, but in real life, he has a wife. I think. Maybe. I'm not a hundred percent sure.
Isaak
Oh really?
Cassidy
Yeah, he's straight.
Isaak
Oh my goodness. I never knew that. I always thought if anything, Cameron would be the one who's actually gay.
Cassidy
Yeah, no, he's straight.
Isaak
Wow.
Cassidy
I know it's obviously just a character for a show, but do you think that has any impact? Like, people watching the show and thinking about the relationship that Mitchell and Cameron have with Jay—does it change anything knowing that the actor isn’t actually gay in real life?
Isaak
Yeah, I could see maybe some people—some high-prejudice individuals—watching and thinking it’s almost a comedic thing. Like a straight man playing a very eccentric, stereotypical gay man. Maybe that’s their gateway into watching it—seeing someone they can laugh at.
I’m having trouble remembering, but I remember this was an example in one of my media studies classes. Older TV shows would have a "token gay character," and you’d think, "Oh, this is good representation," right? Because there’s a gay character on screen, and you didn’t really see that often.
But actually, a lot of viewers were watching it just as confirmation bias—thinking, "Oh yeah, this is how all gay people act," and using it to justify their prejudices.
Cassidy
Yeah. Just funny to think about. And I feel like you don’t really see that—straight people acting as gay characters. I feel like it’s always the other way around.
Like, I can’t really think of another show. Nothing's coming to mind right now of a straight character playing a gay character. I don’t know.
Isaak
And I think to bring it back to the idea of misinformation and how information can be stuck within certain groups...
I think especially for this kind of example, say there are two groups watching—again, the high-prejudice and the low-prejudice—those who care and those who couldn’t care less. They’re both gonna talk about the characters in different ways, but those opinions of the characters aren’t really gonna cross over since the communities stay separate.
So there’s gonna be one community that sees the character as a caricature, a stereotype that they can laugh at. And then the other group is gonna see it as, "This is great. It’s a way for representation to start happening in TV." But those two groups don’t really ever cross paths because of the echo chamber effect.
Evelyn
So for our viewers who don’t know what ideological echo chambers are, Spies defined it as a controversial arena in which people discuss politics and current events but are only exposed to opinions that mirror their own.
So I think that’s a really good point. Obviously, two people at home watching the same show—depending on their beliefs—are going to view everything differently. That definitely contributes to the continuation of misinformation and disinformation alike.
In terms of echo chambers, Evelyn, do you have any experiences with that?
Cassidy
Yeah, I see this a lot with social media algorithms. The most popular and well-known one right now—at least for this generation—is TikTok.
I think we all know at this point how the For You page works, and the videos that pop up on your algorithm are all based on and calculated by your likes, what you interact with, and what you don’t interact with.
So, for example, with political views—if you’re interacting with videos from one particular party, then you see those videos come up more on your For You page, while videos that oppose your views appear less often. So seeing that reinforces your beliefs and makes opposing perspectives more rare.
And then you start seeing videos that just bash the other side come up more often. So that’s what I see.
Evelyn
I think TikTok and other media sites really make it difficult to exit the echo chamber you’re in. Unless you’re actively looking for the other side’s point of view or perspective, you don’t really see it very often.
So I think that’s how disinformation and misinformation spread so rapidly. If you’re not looking for both sides, then you’re not going to see a difference between your own perspective and others.
Cassidy
For sure. And I don’t know why this example just came into my head, but the whole Selena Gomez versus Hailey Bieber thing—where at some point, people were picking sides, saying, "No, Selena Gomez!"
I don’t even know how the whole thing started. Maybe it was about Justin Bieber getting engaged to Hailey? And then everyone was bashing Hailey Bieber, saying she was X, Y, and Z, while Selena Gomez was so much better—and vice versa.
In reality, these ladies probably don’t even care. They’re living their own lives.
Wait, we can cut that out—I have no idea where I was going with that.
Isaak
No, I know exactly what you’re talking about.
Evelyn
Yeah.
Isaak
I think I remember that too. Kylie Jenner is friends with Hailey Bieber, right?
Cassidy
Oh yes!
Isaak
And she posted something mimicking—
Cassidy
Oh yes, the whole eyebrow thing!
Isaak
Yes!
Cassidy
Eyebrows, yes!
Isaak
And the internet just completely went crazy with that. I don’t even know how they made it such a big deal.
Evelyn
Yeah.
Isaak
I remember exactly what you’re talking about.
Evelyn
Yeah, people looked into the smallest, most minute details.
Isaak
Yeah, like every video Hailey Bieber made was somehow seen as recreating something Selena did.
Cassidy
Yeah, and people just connected it somehow.
Evelyn
Yeah. And people started looking back at old videos from when Hailey and Justin Bieber were first together.
I mean, they’re married, and they have a child now, right? So I don’t know why any of it mattered.
Cassidy
People just love to spew weird takes—and then hate on people who were on the opposite side.
Like, if you were a Selena Gomez fan and saw a video of someone supporting Hailey Bieber, it was like, "Oh, how dare you? She’s this, that, and that!" And vice versa.
Evelyn
Yeah, somehow it became "Team Selena" versus "Team Hailey."
Which… there are way more important things going on in the world.
Cassidy
Exactly, yeah, for sure.
Isaak
It’s such a petty example of misinformation because both sides were just looking for exactly what they wanted to see in the content. And then they just kept spreading that to other people.
And then it became another one of these really huge echo chambers, where you’re only hearing what you want to hear and only seeing what you want to see in the videos.
And with all the reactions from everyone else, it’s not surprising why all of this misinformation spreads the way it does.
Evelyn
Okay. Which ties directly back to that selective perception thing.
Cassidy
No, yeah. No, I was just going to say that I feel like misinformation is more common than we think. We're probably not using the words "misinformation" and "echo chamber" when we're in real life talking to other people. But it’s just—it’s as common as even that Team Hailey versus Team Selena debate. Even that is what we’re talking about.
Evelyn
Which, think about it—ten years ago, I feel like this wouldn’t have even been a thing without TikTok or Reels or anything like that. It wouldn’t have been as dramatic.
Isaak
Yeah. It’s definitely a lot more amplified. But I think one of the small good things we have with social media is that we at least have the opportunity to see the other side if we want to.
I mean, I didn’t really live much life before social media was a thing, but I feel like back then, if you were in an echo chamber with a group of people who shared the same ideologies, it was a lot harder to find others with different perspectives. But now, on social media, you can scroll a couple of times on Twitter, and you’ll see a completely different opinion. And even if you don’t agree with it, at least you have exposure to it and the ability to see how other people interpret information.
But yeah, even with that small win for social media, the biggest caveat—especially for platforms like TikTok and Twitter—is that you find yourself in a filter bubble if you’re only interacting with certain kinds of media. For those who don’t know, a filter bubble is defined as a system that presents users with ideologically limited content—either by choices they have deliberately made or through more subtle automated processes that show users content the algorithms predict they will prefer based on their past browsing.
So we see this exactly with TikTok. The For You page is designed to be a filter bubble. You only really get the things that align with what you interact with, and social media amplifies this effect to an extreme degree.
Evelyn
If I’m being honest, I think I definitely suffer from my own filter bubble because I have completely removed Fox News. I try my hardest not to look at it. I know that’s not the correct thing to do, but it’s for my own mental health. If I watch those videos, I get a little too angry. I still see clips and stuff, like clip farming from them, but I do not watch an episode of Fox News. That is for sure.
Isaak
Yeah. This is horrible as a journalism student, too, but I do the same thing. It’s just annoying to see their headlines. The way they present their stories is just... I don’t know. I don’t know why everything has to be so radical.
Something could be the smallest thing ever—like, I don’t really have an example—but they’ll take a minor event and make it seem like the biggest thing in the world. And then they’ll frame it as, "The left is making it worse than it should be," or something like that. It’s just hard not to be stuck in a filter bubble when some news outlets act in ways that you don’t really want to engage with.
Evelyn
Very true. Okay, so in the article Distinguishing Between Factual and Opinion Statements in the News, I think—again, tying back to selective perception—Republicans and Democrats alike want to see what they want to see. They’re going to interpret news in ways that align with their personal beliefs.
There’s this quote from the article: "Overall, Republicans and Democrats were more likely to classify both factual and opinion statements as factual when they appealed most to their side." Again, this is something both parties are guilty of. There isn’t one "right" side to this issue. And that definitely contributes to the spread of misinformation and disinformation.
Because over and over again, the same narratives get repeated—either on social media, like we’ve discussed, or in everyday conversations. If one side believes something, it’s going to continue being perpetuated. Do you guys have anything to add?
Cassidy
Yeah, I think a good example of political parties only believing what they want to believe—and holding onto the idea that their side is the only correct one—is this clip from Jordan Klepper vs. Trump Supporters.
Video:
"There’s a classic cartoon that shows other convicted felons. There’s Gandhi, there’s Nelson Mandela, and then there’s Trump. Do you put Trump in line with Gandhi and Nelson Mandela?"
"Yeah."
"Between Gandhi, Mandela, and Trump, which one had sex with a porn star and then paid to cover it up?"
"None of the above."
"Right, but... one of the above."
Isaak
I think that’s a really good example. I remember watching that clip—how Jordan Klepper perfectly describes a crime Donald Trump committed, but he frames it in a way that makes it ambiguous who the crime was about.
And then the person responds, "Yeah, of course, he’s a criminal. He’d do something like that." And then Klepper reveals that it was actually Trump who did it, and the person spends the rest of the clip backtracking—trying to justify why Trump would do that and why he’s still innocent.
It just shows how people believe what they want to believe. They let information morph into their own perspective instead of taking it at face value.
Do you guys have any final takeaways?
Cassidy
Yeah, mine is pretty simple. If there’s one thing to take away from this whole discussion, it’s to always question and verify information before you accept it or share it.
Evelyn
I think being aware of our own upbringing and potential biases is important when reviewing any information. I try to always look at things from different points of view, because at the end of the day, I think people are just trying to do what they believe is right. Whether their perception is right or wrong, they usually spin things in a way that makes them feel comfortable.
Isaak
I completely agree with both of you. Misinformation is one of those tricky things—it’s hard to realize when you’re misinterpreting something because so much of it depends on your worldview. It’s always difficult to put yourself completely in someone else’s shoes and understand how they see the same information differently.
And that’s our podcast about misinformation.
Evelyn
My name is Evelyn.
Cassidy
I’m Cassidy.
Isaak
And I’m Isaak. Thank you guys for listening, and we’ll see you next time.