Academic study finds most Australian adults "do not have the ability to assess information sources and verify information online across websites and social media" & all age groups are affected.

 

ONLINE MISINFORMATION IN AUSTRALIA: ADULTS’ EXPERIENCES, ABILITIES, AND RESPONSES

3 December 2024

Authors

Sora Park, Tanya Notley, T. J. Thomson, Aimee Hourigan, Michael Dezuanni

Publisher

News and Media Research Centre, University of Western Sydney

Executive Summary [excerpt]

The flourishing of Australian society relies on well-informed citizens who benefit from ready access to reliable sources of information to support their decision making. Democratic processes and social participation that are underpinned by high-quality and trustworthy news and information lead to better outcomes for Australian society. Likewise, accessing reliable and trustworthy information enables citizens to make informed decisions about everything from voting, to making purchases, to staying safe online, to accessing health advice and services.

The rapid uptake of social media, which Australians now use more than any other type of media, presents many opportunities for accessing information, but also brings into focus the significant challenge of misinformation. The sheer volume of information online and the speed at which new information travels can be overwhelming and very difficult to navigate. As a result, bad actors seek to undermine democratic processes and target individuals by spreading false and misleading information. This has been widely recognised as a global problem.

The World Economic Forum’s 2024 Global Risks report¹ finds that mis- and disinformation² pose the greatest immediate risk societies face and may “radically disrupt electoral processes over the next two years”.³ In 2021, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution affirming that “media and information literacy” can help ensure “that the fight against disinformation and misinformation promotes and does not infringe on individuals’ freedom of expression and access to information.” To achieve this, the resolution called on Member States to “develop and implement policies, action plans and strategies related to the promotion of media and information literacy” while also calling on social media platforms to “promote media and information literacy, as a way to empower all people and facilitate digital inclusion and global connectivity, and to assist in the fight against disinformation and misinformation.”⁴

However, unlike many advanced democracies,⁵ Australia does not have a national media literacy policy or strategy to ensure citizens are provided with support to help them to verify information online and to ensure they are supported to create and share trustworthy information.

In our 2024 national survey,⁶ only 42% of adult Australians said they are confident that they can check if information online is true and only 39% are confident they can check if a website can be trusted. While these attitudes are useful to capture, self-reporting about technology abilities can be inaccurate.⁷ Prior to this research very little was known about adult Australians’ actual ability or their everyday encounters with and responses to misinformation online. To address these knowledge gaps, we conducted four studies.

1. We surveyed 3,852 adults to

understand their media practices,

attitudes and confidence in their

abilities.

2. We tested the ability of 2,115

of these adults to assess the

credibility of information on

websites and social media

platforms.

3. We supported 55 of these

adults to collect data about their

experiences with (un)trustworthy

online news and information over

one week as part of a mobile

diary study.

4. We interviewed 20 of these

participants to explore how

sociocultural dynamics influence

people’s information seeking and

decision-making behaviours.

Our analysis of these four interlinked datasets finds that the vast majority of adult Australians want to be able to identify misinformation and are trying to do so. However, most adults do not have the ability to assess information sources and verify information online across websites and social media.

1 See https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/

2 In this report we use ‘misinformation’ as an overarching term that includes both dis- and misinformation.

3 See https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_Global_Risks_Report_2024.pdf

4 161 GA Res 75/267, UN Doc A/RES/75/267 (29 March 2021)

5 Examples include Finland’s National Media Education Strategy (2013, 2019); the UK’s OfCom Online media literacy strategy (2021, 2024); and Netherland’s Netwerk

Mediawijksheid Multi-Year Plan (2019–2023).

6 Notley, T., Chambers, S., Park, S. & Dezuanni, M. (2024). Adult Media Literacy in 2024: Australian Attitudes, Experiences and Needs. Western Sydney University, Queensland University of Technology and University of Canberra. https://apo.org.au/node/327239

7 Siddiq et al. 2016, Taking a future perspective by learning from the past, Educational Research Review, 19(1).

SNAPSHOT FROM INFOGRAPHIC, p.10

Full report can be read & downloaded at

https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2024-12/apo-nid328959.pdf

* my yellow highlighting used in this excerpt

Meme of the Week

Found on X/Twitter

Liberal MP for Dickson & Leader of the Coalition Opposition Peter Dutton called the CSIRO an unreliable scientific body producing "discredited" work and is now reaping what he has sown

"In the growing heat of debate over Coalition nuclear energy policy, Mr Dutton described the CSIRO’s GenCost report on the cost of electricity generation as “discredited” and “not a genuine piece of work” and suggested it was “well documented” that the CSIRO cannot be relied on." [InnovationAUS, 15 March 2024]

 

Open letter from Dr Doug Hilton, Chief Executive, CSIRO

15 MARCH 2024

NEWS RELEASE

Science is crucial to providing the data and models that allow society to tackle profound challenges; challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic, transition to net zero, keeping Australian industry productive and sustainable, and protecting our unique biodiversity.

For science to be useful and for challenges to be overcome it requires the trust of the community. Maintaining trust requires scientists to act with integrity. Maintaining trust also requires our political leaders to resist the temptation to disparage science.

As Chief Executive of CSIRO, I will staunchly defend our scientists and our organisation against unfounded criticism.

The GenCost report is updated each year and provides the very best estimates for the cost of future new-build electricity generation in Australia. The report is carefully produced, its methodology is clearly articulated, our scientists are open and responsive to feedback, and as is the case for all creditable science, the report is updated regularly as new data comes to hand.

The GenCost report can be trusted by all our elected representatives, irrespective of whether they are advocating for electricity generation by renewables, coal, gas or nuclear energy.

No matter the challenge we are tackling, CSIRO’s scientists and engineers can be relied on by the community to work creatively, assiduously and with integrity.

Dr Douglas Hilton

Chief Executive, CSIRO

Some of the mainstream media headlines generated by Dutton's attempt to deny the considerable downside of introducing nuclear power stations into Australia's energy grid........

The Guardian

CSIRO chief warns against ‘disparaging science’ after Peter Dutton criticises nuclear energy costings

Douglas Hilton says he will 'staunchly defend' scientists as opposition leader repeats incorrect claim that CSIRO report does not accurately...

15.03.24

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Nation's science agency CSIRO hits back at Dutton claim that nuclear power costings were 'discredited'

The CSIRO has rebuked politicians seeking to undermine its research showing nuclear energy would be much more expensive than solar or wind...

15.03.24

The Sydney Morning Herald

‘Don’t disparage the science’: CSIRO hits back at Dutton on nuclear energy

Australia's top science agency has made a rare political intervention as CSIRO chief executive Doug Hilton defended his agency's findings on...

15.03.24

News.com.au

Nuclear question Dutton won’t answer

Peter Dutton has failed to answer a key question in a fiery clash with Bill Shorten over nuclear energy.

15.03.24

The New Daily

CSIRO hits back at Dutton's 'unfounded' criticism

Australia's national science agency has taken aim at Liberal leader Peter Dutton in a highly unusual public intervention.

15.03.24

The Canberra Times

CSIRO Chief defends GenCost report from political attack

Dr. Doug Hilton stands by CSIRO's GenCost report findings amidst political criticism from Coalition leader Peter Dutton.

15.03.24

The Age

CSIRO hits back at Dutton attack on its nuclear energy reports

Australia's top science agency has made a rare political intervention, with CSIRO chief executive Douglas Hilton defending his agency's...

15.03.24

Hunter Valley News

CSIRO boss defends scientists after Dutton attack

CSIRO chief executive officer Douglas Hilton has issued a rare public statement to urge politicians to "resist the...

15.03.24

The Wimmera Mail-Times

CSIRO boss defends scientists after Dutton attack

CSIRO chief executive officer Douglas Hilton has issued a rare public statement to urge politicians to "resist the...

15.03.24

Then on the same day the Centre for Independent Studies, a conservative seemingly pro-nuclear 'think tank' which also supported the No position in the 2023 national referendum and whose executive director just happened in 2008 to have been a senior adviser to former federal Liberal Party Leader Brendan Nelson and in 2009 was himself he a candidate to replace Nelson in his northern Sydney electoral seat of Bradfield, attempted to ride to Peter Dutton's rescue on social media with a whitewash of the Opposition Leader's comments and an interesting interpretation of the contents of CSIRO news release.

Centre for Independent Studies @CISOZ

CIS responds to @CSIRO's open letter.

"Not all criticisms are unfounded. If the CEO wants to defend the methods and conclusions of a particular report from criticism, he should do just that, rather than simply asserting that the report can be trusted when serious flaws still exist."

15.03.24

Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) issues media release in response to factual errors and misleading comments concerning national referendum voting instructions

 

Despite the legislation concerning national referenda being clear (as evidenced by the above interview with Antony Green), misinformation and at times deliberate disinformation is to be found in both mainstream and social media concerning the proposed 2023 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament referendum.

The level of factual inaccuracy has become a matter of concern.....

Australian Electoral Commission, AEC Newsroom, Media releases 2023

Media advice: Referendum voting instructions

Updated: 25 August 2023

Australian voters are rightly proud of their electoral system – one of the most transparent and robust voting systems in the world. As a result, there is an intense, and highly appropriate level of public interest in all aspects of that system, and associated commentary online and in mainstream media. Sometimes this commentary is immediate and based on emotion rather than the reality of the law which the AEC must administer.

There has been intense commentary online and in mainstream media regarding what will and will not be a formal vote for the 2023 referendum; specifically around whether or not a ‘tick’ or a ‘cross’ will be able to be counted. Much of that commentary is factually incorrect and ignores:

• the law surrounding ‘savings provisions’,

• the longstanding legal advice regarding the use of ticks and crosses, and

• the decades-long and multi-referendum history of the application of that law and advice.

The AEC completely and utterly rejects the suggestions by some that by transparently following the established, public and known legislative requirements we are undermining the impartiality and fairness of the referendum.

As has been the case at every electoral event, the AEC remains totally focussed on electoral integrity. Indeed, electoral integrity is a central part of the AEC’s published values; underpinned by, and supported through, complete adherence to all relevant laws and regulations.

How to cast a formal vote

The formal voting instructions for the referendum are to clearly write either ‘yes’ or ‘no’, in full, in English.

It is that easy: given the simplicity, the AEC expects the vast, vast majority of Australian voters to follow those instructions and cast a formal vote.

Previous levels of formality

It is important to keep scale, or a lack of it in this instance, and precedent in mind when discussing this matter.

More than 99% of votes cast at the 1999 federal referendum were formal. Even of the 0.86% of informal votes, many would have had no relevance to the use of ticks or crosses.

AEC communication

Instructions for casting a formal vote – to write either yes or no in full, in English, will be:

• part of the AEC’s advertising campaign,

• on the AEC website,

• in the guide delivered to all Australian households,

• an instruction by our polling officials when people are issued with their ballot paper,

• on posters in polling places, and

• on the ballot paper itself.

This is why the level of formal voting at previous referendums has been so high and why the AEC expects the vast, vast majority of voters to follow those instructions.

The law

Like an election, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 includes ‘savings provisions’ - the ability to count a vote where the instructions have not been followed but the voter’s intention is clear.

• The AEC cannot ignore the law and cannot ignore savings provisions.

The law regarding formality in a referendum is long-standing and unchanged through many governments, Parliaments, and multiple referendums. Legal advice from the Australian Government Solicitor, provided on multiple occasions during the previous three decades, regarding the application of savings provisions to ‘ticks’ and ’crosses’ has been consistent – for decades.

This is not new, nor a new AEC determination of any kind for the 2023 referendum. The law regarding savings provisions and the principle around a voter’s intent has been in place for at least 30 years and 6 referendum questions.

The longstanding legal advice provides that a cross can be open to interpretation as to whether it denotes approval or disapproval: many people use it daily to indicate approval in checkboxes on forms. The legal advice provides that for a single referendum question, a clear ‘tick’ should be counted as formal and a ‘cross’ should not.

Media resources:

AEC Newsroom

AEC YouTube (AECTV)

AEC imagery (AEC Flickr)

AEC media contacts

~~~~ENDS~~~~

BACKGROUND

The Guardian, 24 August 2023, excerpts:

Voters in the upcoming voice to parliament referendum are being urged to write “yes” or “no” on referendum ballot papers – and being warned that if they use a cross, their vote may not be counted.

The well-established and longstanding rule which will mean ticks are likely allowed but votes that use crosses are likely excluded has prompted criticism from the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, the former prime minister Tony Abbott and the no campaign, which claims the requirement will “stack the deck” against them.

The rule has been on the books, without controversy, for 30 years and six referendum questions, and when asked about ticks and crosses on Thursday, an Australian Electoral Commission spokesperson simply said: “Please don’t use them.”….

Fair Australia tweeted: “Looks like just another attempt to stack the deck against ‘no’ voting Australians.”

Abbott claimed on 2GB that “there’s a suspicion that officialdom is trying to make it easier for one side … This is the worry all along that there is a lot of official bias in this whole referendum process.”

Dutton, also speaking on 2GB, called it “completely outrageous” and claimed the situation “gives a very, very strong advantage to the ‘yes’ case”. The opposition leader said he would ask the government to draft legislation to change the rule.

The Coalition opposition did not propose amending this rule during debate on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act earlier this year, and supported the government’s legislation....

The Sydney Morning Herald, 25 August 2023, excerpt:

Despite Dutton’s insistence that an X should denote a No vote, in his 2022 election candidate nomination form he repeatedly placed an X in a box to indicate a Yes to questions about his citizenship and the country of his parents’ birth, for example.

Click on image to enlarge

In fact across the entire Dutton_Q47P document “x” was used interchangeably by Peter Dutton to denote Yes, No, and Not Applicable.

NOTE:

History of Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 can be found at

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A02908

Media diversity and media monopolies' impact on Australian democracy are again under the microscope at today's Senate public hearing - where Sky News CEO will be asked to answer questions concerning News Corps influence

In June 2019 News Corp Australasia had ruled out any move by Rupert Murdoch's multinational media conglomerate to acquire a free-to-air television channel in Australia.

However by May 2021 a multi-year agreement had been signed between Sky News Australia (operated by Australian News Channel Pty Ltd a News Corp subsidiary) and media company Southern Cross Austereo (SCA) for a 24-hour Sky News channel to broadcast in regional markets.

The free-to-air Sky News Regional channel was launched on 1 August 2021 and broadcasts to SCA’s 17 regional markets across Victoria, Southern NSW and Queensland including Cairns, Townsville, Sunshine Coast, Canberra, Wollongong, Wagga Wagga, Orange, Bendigo and Ballarat, as well as in WIN Network’s NNSW regional markets Northern NSW, Griffith, NSW and South Australia.

Sky News Regional carries all the Sky News regular rightwing commentators, including Andrew Bolt, Peta Credlin, Alan Jones, Rita Panahi, Rowan Dean, Paul Murray, Chris Kenny, Laura Jayes, Kieran Gilbert and Sharri Markson as well as broadcasting a three-hour breakfast show.

It would appear that the 'Sky After Dark'  format pushing conspiracy theories, misinformation, barely disguised Coalition propaganda and hard right political figures - which replicates the U.S. Fox News format - has carried over to the new channel. 

On 11 November 2020, the Australian Senate referred an Inquiry into the state of media diversity, independence and reliability in Australia to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee.

It came on the heels of a a petition to Parliament signed by more than 500,000 people which called for a royal commission into media diversity.

This Senate Inquiry has received 3,659 submissions and, today will hear evidence from Google Australia, Sky News Australia, former prime minister Kevin Rudd, Depart. of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), and the Victorian Branch of the United Firefighters Union.

To date News Corp co-chairman Lachlan Murdoch has refused the Inquiry’s invitation to appear before it. Instead CEO of Sky News Australia Paul Whittaker will be appearing before the Inquiry today.

Apparently presenters Alan Jones, Rita Panahi and Rowan Dean have agreed to appear before the Inquiry and answer questions.

It is the opinion of more than one political commentator that Sky News Australia was an active player in the sustained push within the Liberal Party to oust Malcolm Turnbull as Australian Prime Minister.

Sky News Australia is already on the radar of major Internet platforms and social media - on the same day that Sky News Regional was launched YouTube announced it was suspending the Sky News account for seven days due to the COVID-19 misinformation it was pedalling.

Sustained concerns about the dominance of News Corp in the media industry hit a nerve last month when Fox News threatened to take the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) to court concerning the content of a "Four Corners" program titled FOX & THE BIG LIE.

Both former prime minister Kevin Rudd and GetUp! continue to voice concerns that the new Sky News Regional channel will be shaped by Rupert Murdoch into a southern hemisphere version of that toxic misinformation and rightwing propaganda U.S. television channel, Fox News.

Malcolm Turnbull, another former prime minister, has also voiced concerns about the closeness of News Corp, including Fox News, to authoritarian and conservative governments.

“..the Murdoch media are much more influential within the coalition than they are in the electorate at large, just like Fox News in the States is much more influential among Republican voters than it is in the electorate at large……

The point is they are, I think, the single most influential political player in Australia but they are unelected and they are utterly unaccountable. That is what we're talking about. They do not hold themselves to traditional journalistic standards of accuracy and balance and so forth.

They would say, 'Oh look, it's a business model. We've got a percentage of the population who love being told this stuff and they like the extreme political views and so that's what we're going to do.'

Fox News in the States is commercially very successful. But that is not a justification that we can tolerate if the consequences are so much damage to our democracy”.

Cartoons of the Week

Cathy Wilcox

Bill Bramhall

David Rowe

COVID-19 State of Play July 2021: SkyNews Australia came a cropper at the first fence of the pandemic media steeple chase

 

Sky News Australia is a 24 hour cable and satellite channel available on Foxtel and Optus Television subscription platforms, as well as on free-to-air television in regional and non-metropolitan areas throughout Australia.

This News Corp entity also has a Youtube channel displaying at last count 52,838 videos and has 1.86 million subscribers.

YouTube is owned by the global Internet search engine, Google LLC, which in turn is owned by Alphabet Inc.

According to The Sydney Morning Herald on 1 August 2021:

Sky News Australia has been suspended from uploading content to YouTube for a week after the video and livestreaming platform claimed the media organisation breached its COVID-19 misinformation standards.

In a statement issued to Nine newspapers on Sunday afternoon, a YouTube spokesperson said the website had taken steps against Sky, including removing videos from the media outlet’s online channel and issuing a “strike” against it, causing it to be temporarily suspended from uploading content.

“We have clear and established COVID-19 medical misinformation policies based on local and global health authority guidance, to prevent the spread of COVID-19 misinformation that could cause real-world harm,” a YouTube spokesperson said in a statement.

“We apply our policies equally for everyone regardless of uploader, and in accordance with these policies and our long-standing strikes system, removed videos from and issued a strike to Sky News Australia’s channel.”

YouTube has not said what videos published by Sky it removed, but the platform doesn’t allow content medical misinformation about COVID-19 “that poses a serious risk of egregious harm in contradiction with local and global health authorities’ guidance about COVID-19 treatment, prevention, transmission, and social distancing.”

The one-week suspension by YouTube follows a review of content for compliance with YouTube’s policies on COVID-19 which are subject to change in response to global or local health authority guidance on the virus…..

As SkyNews Australia’s YouTube home page features video clusters by hard right commentators Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, Peta Credlin, Chris Kenny and the “Outsiders” program hosted by Rita Panahi, I suspect it wasn’t hard to find material which might be in danger of breaching YouTube’s standards.

SkyNews Australia’s digital editor fired back at the claims made by YouTube in an online article titled “YouTube’s Sky News Australia suspension ‘disturbing’ assault on freedom of thought” containing a power point presentation of Donald J. Trump’s thoughts on freedom of speech.

This article states in part that:

Among the videos deemed unpalatable for societal consumption were debates around whether masks were effective and whether lockdowns were justified when considering their adverse health outcomes.

The stance taken by some commentators at this network was that masks are not effective in containing outbreaks, particularly when mandated outside in the fresh air. Some also took issue with the frequency and mechanisms of locking down Australians.

It has been noted elsewhere that SkyNews Australia's temporary suspension came close on the heels of a Nine Entertainment newspaper dropping Alan Jones' regular column amid a pandemic misinformation controversy.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison's QAnon friend may have less reading material theses days

 

In 2018 Reddit.com shut down the original QAnon subreddit, r/CBTS_stream and r/TheGreatAwakening along with the 17 other major QAnon subreddits for inciting violence and doxing, with the last significant QAnon subreddiit r/Pedogate banned in September 2020.

Also in September as part of a broader QAnon sweep begun in July Twitter Inc permanently removed Scott Morrison's personal friend, Tim Stewart aka BurnedSpy34 from the QAnon cluster of conspiracy spreaders, for "engaging in harmful activity".

Now Facebook has extended its measures to counter conspiracy, hate, violent and militarized groups by completely banning QAnon from its social media platform.

Facebook Inc, 6 October 2020:

An Update To How We Address Movements And Organisations Ties To Violence

On August 19, we announced a set of measures designed to disrupt the ability of QAnon and Militarized Social Movements to operate and organize on our platform. In the first month, we removed over 1,500 Pages and Groups for QAnon containing discussions of potential violence and over 6,500 Pages and Groups tied to more than 300 Militarized Social Movements. But we believe these efforts need to be strengthened when addressing QAnon.

Starting today, we will remove any Facebook Pages, Groups and Instagram accounts representing QAnon, even if they contain no violent content. This is an update from the initial policy in August that removed Pages, Groups and Instagram accounts associated with QAnon when they discussed potential violence while imposing a series of restrictions to limit the reach of other Pages, Groups and Instagram accounts associated with the movement. Pages, Groups and Instagram accounts that represent an identified Militarized Social Movement are already prohibited. And we will continue to disable the profiles of admins who manage Pages and Groups removed for violating this policy, as we began doing in August.

We are starting to enforce this updated policy today and are removing content accordingly, but this work will take time and need to continue in the coming days and weeks. Our Dangerous Organizations Operations team will continue to enforce this policy and proactively detect content for removal instead of relying on user reports. These are specialists who study and respond to new evolutions in violating content from this movement and their internal detection has provided better leads in identifying new evolutions in violating content than sifting through user reports.

We’ve been vigilant in enforcing our policy and studying its impact on the platform but we’ve seen several issues that led to today’s update. For example, while we’ve removed QAnon content that celebrates and supports violence, we’ve seen other QAnon content tied to different forms of real world harm, including recent claims that the west coast wildfires were started by certain groups, which diverted attention of local officials from fighting the fires and protecting the public. Additionally, QAnon messaging changes very quickly and we see networks of supporters build an audience with one message and then quickly pivot to another. We aim to combat this more effectively with this update that strengthens and expands our enforcement against the conspiracy theory movement.

This is not the first update to this policy – we began directing people to credible child safety resources when they search for certain child safety hashtags last week – and we continue to work with external experts to address QAnon supporters using the issue of child safety to recruit and organize. We expect renewed attempts to evade our detection, both in behavior and content shared on our platform, so we will continue to study the impact of our efforts and be ready to update our policy and enforcement as necessary.