The echo chamber refers to a form of bubble where people are only exposed to their own opinions and those who subscribe to the same ideas, while fake news refer to false stories that appear to be news, spread on the Internet or through social media. An insidious problem is created as fake news start to proliferate by bouncing around echo chambers with no one to dispute its veracity.
You might have seen conspiracy theories being shared on your social media feed. Perhaps someone believes that there is extraterrestrial experimentation at the infamous Area 51 or that the landing on the moon was televised. Or perhaps, we find people whom we consider to be generally well-informed sharing articles containing blatant propaganda or blinding errors.
Watch Challenge the Echo Chamber on Tedx: “The echo chamber is an environment much like a social media network where an individual’s thoughts and beliefs and opinions are echoed back toward them and opposing thoughts and beliefs and opinions are never seen”.
It is not difficult to stop the spread of fake news once we learn how to verify whether something is real or a hoax. In today’s digital age, checking whether someone is valid takes a simple Google search. However, we humans suffer from a cognitive phenomenon known as ‘confirmation bias’.
‘Confirmation bias’ refers to the tendency to search for, interpret, favour and recall information in a way that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs. When we come across a new piece of information, our brain must decide whether or not to believe it. If the new information agrees with our existing beliefs, then we buy into it automatically. In the case of social media, we would then like, subscribe and share such articles that fit into our belief systems. However, if it is contrary to what we subscribe to, then we are most likely to disregard such new information. It would take a plethora of contrary information for us to even consider changing our opinions.
The Problem of Social Media
While the Internet promises a forum where people can exchange their ideas, it has also led to the emergence of alternative news sites, where factual accuracy and journalistic ethics can no longer be taken for granted. Some of such sites may then seek to gain popularity by pandering to the interests and views of their readers. Rather than offer a journalistic critique of modern affairs, such sites seek to tell their audience precisely what they want to hear. Misinformed views are further entrenched while these sites bring in more ad revenue.
Furthermore, social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter also feature a content algorithm which filters the content on your news feed based on the pages you like and follow or through the content that your friends share with you. Compound this with the fact that you are also likely to join interest groups which are affiliated to your belief systems and then you are more predisposed to consuming and sharing media which affirms your own belief systems.
This creates an ever-widening distance between different echo chambers in social media as every group shares information supporting their perspective without being exposed to different points of view. Over time, this is especially dangerous because it creates a rapid polarisation of views online. We become so committed to our particular viewpoints that we are unable to consider that there may be contrary but equally valid perspectives.
If our diet of news is only consumed through social media without checking with a more independent news source or without verifying facts for ourselves, then we are prone to suffer from a lack of accuracy and balance. The walled communities that reinforce their own beliefs in a feedback loop cement dubious viewpoints and drive a wedge between their perceptions and reality.
For instance, there are news outlets who are attempting to deny climate change issues in an attempt to bolster a particular political affiliation or belief. Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence showing the problems of climate change, such news outlets give those who are unwilling to face reality an endless supply of media that agree with their own worldviews.
Do echo chambers really exist?
Some argue that contrary to popular belief, we now hear more diverse voices online than before. Studies have shown that while social media users tend to land on more polarised news sources, they are also more likely to visit sites expressing opposing viewpoints. People seek more diverse news sources in an attempt to counter the echo chamber and to develop an idea of what the other side is thinking on current debates.
Additionally, another critic has argued that it is overly simplistic to claim that our digital media habits are an exercise in the lazy endorsement of our own prejudices. In the complex media environment which consists of different forms of print and online media, there is more nuance and diversity in the media that we are consuming. Social media is then seen as a poor source for news and information.
Ultimately, there is an element of prejudice reinforcement on some social media platforms. At the same time, it gives rise to alternative views which would once have found no audience. However, the actual impact of social media polarisation seems to be attenuated with the nuanced media consumption that the citizenry subscribes to.
Questions for further personal evaluation:
- Do you think you are in an echo chamber with regards to the news you consume? Why or why not?
- How can Singaporean schools teach students about better consumption of media? What is the most important message that schools must inculcate in students regarding media?
Useful vocabulary:
- ‘plethora’: abundance; large, excessive amount of
- ‘entrenched’: firmly established and difficult or unlikely to change; ingrained
Here are more related articles for further reading:
- Forbes: Taking an objective look on whether we are in a social media echo chamber
“That is the crux of the problem: we are now a feeling-based society. If we don’t like facts, we don’t believe them. If we DO like something presented to us as fact, even if it is false, we tend to believe it. This is why disinformation campaigns targeting people on both sides of the political spectrum are so effective. They can fire up opposing online posses and watch sparks fly between them!
Conspiracy theories like the ones frequently espoused by the website Infowars are fed to a hungry political base looking for another reason to be angry at the opposing side. Once an echo chamber is formed, just about anything can be believed as “news” if it disparages a political enemy.
To expose oneself to opposing viewpoints is tricky. If we digest information from a news source geared toward an angry base whose views differ from ours, we’ll get even angrier at the “lies” they are spreading. If we go to a neutral news source, we will read/watch/listen with our own ideas in mind and our confirmation bias will cause us to hear what we want to hear within the information.”