THE LAST AND FINAL COPY OF FAKE & SPURIOUS NEWS: THE COLLEGE TEXTBOOK
Abstract
Fake news is a serious issue and prevails in both the print and electronic media. With this issue
in mind of the student population and others, authors may inadvertently include false materials
in textbooks. These books can be wrong and there must be an ongoing review of each edition
of source textbooks. This applies to all media including academic journals. Below is a
discussion of some examples and suggestions to move toward validity. Fake is used here as
totally false. Spurious for this article is information that has some substance that may be
correct. Non-metric means qualitative analysis and metric is usually applied to numbers that
generate significance or correlation.
Introduction
Snopes is a fact checking organization. They entitle “The Fake News Invasion” an
incredible increase in false stories. They say:
The sharp increase in popularity of social media networks (primarily Facebook) has created a predatory
secondary market among online publishers seeking to profitably exploit the large reach of those networks
and their huge customer bases by spreading fake news and outlandish rumors. Competition for social
media’s large supply of willing eyeballs is fierce, and a number of frequent offenders regularly fabricate
salacious and attention-grabbing tales simply to drive traffic (and revenue) to their sites.
Facebook has worked at limiting the reach of hoax-purveying sites in their customers’ news feeds,
inhibiting (but not eradicating) the spread of fake news stories. Hoaxes and fake news are often little more
than annoyances to unsuspecting readers; but sometimes circulating stories negatively affect businesses or
localities by spreading false, disruptive claims that are widely believed.
So long as social media allows for the rapid spread of information, manipulative entities will seek to cash
in on the rapid spread of misinformation. Perhaps the most egregious of the many nonsense peddlers on
social media are fake news sites, so here we offer a guide to several of the most frequent (and
unapologetic) hoax purveyors cluttering up newsfeeds. (Snopes.com, 2017)
The issue is not specific names of news frauds, rather the amount of the fake news
and how it can get into the classroom through the textbook. The most premiere
example is the concept of “bystander effect.” Although, the definition of the effect
has stood the ravages of time, it’s origin came from a phony account of a young
lady of which many bystanders looked the other way when she was killed.
Description
In 1964, a young lady was raped and stabbed to death in Queens (New York City)
38 people saw it from their windows and did nothing. Two weeks later the New
York Times published an article criticizing the bystanders for not caring or doing
anything. The whole issue created a new term (bystander effect) where others
believe that someone else will take care of the matter. By 2016, the brother of
the victim had returned to the scene many times and finally was able to
substantiate that many called the police and that one lady cradled Kitty Genovese
while she was dying. The New York Times published an apology. The “bystander
effect” may have spent many years in sociological, psychological, and social
psychology textbooks (psychologytoday.com 2018) the concept appears to be not
spurious, but the original example was not valid.
John Powers of National Public Radio (2016) reviewed the story and essentially
the crux of the legend was wrong that neighbors did care and called the police
and that the police were slow to act and the New York Times was fooled. The
story went around the world. Unfortunately, the news was spurious, but the
concept has held up in other instances. There are other sources that support John
Powers and National Public Radio on the internet.
Not only has this had an impact on qualitative or descriptive information that
does not use numbers, but it also accounts for statistical articles. In this instance,
the information is gathered and tested by certain statistical strategies.
We now enter an area where numbers are applied to reality or perceived reality.
This is extremely problematic because falsehoods can be lost in numbers. Certain
statistical strategies are favored over others because it increases the likelihood of
getting published and perhaps tenure. (Snell, 2014)
“Big Data Days” occurred in the early 70’s. At this time, the works of perhaps
hundreds of statistical problems were conducted by many clerks. With the use of
computers and new software, very complex relationships could be calculated by
one person in a very short time. Social sciences rushed to the new setting because
of the efficiency and the prestige of computer made the various fields more
“scientific.” Unfortunately, this author recalls my professor fighting a smirk. He
said that we were to assume or believe that numbers on all kinds of variables
were “hard numbers.” (Ibid. 2014)
Hard number theory assumes that each variable has a “0” baseline, can be added,
subtracted, divided, and multiplied. There is equidistance between numbers and
various other attributes. Unfortunately, when one statistically analyzes
phenomena that don’t have hard numbers, the probability of error increases, but
so do the possibility of the prestige of the findings increases. (Barrett, 2004)
One talent in this field Ioannidis (see below) suggests that findings in the area of
social neuroscience are roughly 40 to 50 percent false positives. In other words, it
is other than valid. Additionally there is fraud and poor research. To save time and
space, Ioannidis (2005) and Mundy (2005) suggest that much of the literature is
flawed based on the assumption of how it is interpreted and funded. Further
those articles based their findings on hard number theory or meta-analysis and
are generally false Snell, J., and Marsh, M. (2009) there are number of others. This
includes total frauds, the quality of the research is poor and it is apparent. The
research is manipulated. It is testimonial data. Some may be spurious (as used in
the article) and can become part of another study. Money is used to promote the
article. Suggestions to reduce the false research will be indicated at the end of
this article.
Zetterberg (1965) reviews two strategies toward validity. The first is the discovery
level. One finds good information that is helpful, but not conclusive. This includes:
reviews, purposive samples, theoretical articles, short term hypotheses, case
studies, participant observation, and sample limitations. The best level is the
verification level. This includes random samples (4% statistical variation 600
respondents) (3% = 1500) (1%=5500) this assumes a 5% level of confidence.
Further, political pressure is avoided and findings may be vetted by peers. Lastly
replication is very helpful, and triangulation is used.”File drawer” studies that do
not show a significant difference should be included.
The greatest phony finding was done by Dr. Alan Wakefield who falsified a study
that indicated that vaccines cause autism. Although retracted it still prevails in
common knowledge relative to parents with babies at this writing. That means
that they come to believe that the vaccines will hurt their children. Wakefield’s
study was replicated over and over and his findings were found to be false. (CNN
staff, 2011)
Thus, one is left with replication and fact checking. It has to happen. It is part of
academic’s constant conflict Validity is at times a struggle, thus the following are
helpful: OpenSecrets.org/ TruthandFiction.com/ Hoax-
Slayer.com/FactCheck.com/ Snopes.com/PoliticalFact.com. Please also see
Wikipedia.com.
CONCLUSION
This article reviews problems and research of the social sciences or the social
neurosciences. Both descriptive and number oriented examples were described
and how shoddy research can be contained. The golden strategy is a review of the
literature using small and purposive samples in various studies. Then a random
sample is drawn that generally has 1500 respondents. Smaller samples may be
used due to certain limitations. Most studies should use nominal or ordinal
statistical treatments. False positives should be reduced and the prestige of the
field should be enhanced. Comparing the golden strategy with meta-analysis
there is a 35% difference (Ioannidis, 1998) Meta-analysis should die a very slow
death, but may be replaced with another more promising strategy. Textbooks and
the information contained within them should be improved.
REFERENCE CITED
Barrett, A. (2004) Why Medicine and Money Don’t Mix: Do drug makers have too
much control over lab-data? Business Week, June 28, 68-70.
CNN Wire Staff (2011) Retracted Autism is an Elaborate Fraud, British Journal
Findings, CNN.COM/2011/ Health/01/05 autism, vaccines, index /html
Ioannidis, J. (1998) Meta-Analysis and large randomized controlled trials, New
England Journal of Medicine, 8/337, 536
Ioannidis, J. (2005) Why most published Findings are false PLos Med. Vol.168
La Capria, K. (2017)Snope’s Field Guide to Fake News Sites and Hoax Purveyors
Snopes.com’s guide to the internet’s click baiting, news faking, social media
exploiting, dark side.
Mundy, A. (2001) Dispensing with the Truth, New York: St. Martin’s Press
Powers, John (2016) “The Witnesses Exposes Misconceptions of Kitty Genoese’s
Murder) National Public Radio (6/16/1:34)
Snell, J. & M. Marsh (2003) Meta-Cognitive Analysis. An Alternative to literature
reviews and meta-analysis science and the arts, Education, winter, 364-367.
Snell, J & M. Marsh (2009) Deconstructing Meta-Analysis, Psychology and
Education: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 46, #1, 36-39.
Snell, Joel C. (2014) Deconstructing Statistical Analysis, Education, spring, Vol.
134, /3/282-284.
Staff, psychologytoday.com/basics/bystander effect/
Zetterberg, H. (1965) On Theory and Verification in Sociology, Totowa, N. J.
Bedminster Press.