Fact check: is the truth always what it's cracked up to be?
The role of a newspaper and incorrect information in fanning the revolutionary flames of America illustrates a paradox of the modern "fact checking" frenzy.
Many news publishers now dwell in a world of disputed truth, and strive for some version of impartiality, but a lesson from history shows that the truth is an elusive quality, and sometimes something not quite true can be beneficial.
So can disinformation be good? Or can it at least serve a noble purpose? A controversial idea no doubt in our current binary political landscape, but it's a fact that some of the most fertile seeds of the American Revolution were planted by something that simply wasn't accurate.
At the heart of this was a printed newspaper, the primary mass media platform of that age. Even as most modern publishers try to swim a relatively straight line in a treacherous whirlpool of opinion and dispute, and platforms and their owners stir the pot of unbalanced content, it's important to remember this is how it has been pretty much since the printing press was invented.
In this age, an unexpected and vicious fact war can break out in the comments section of an anodyne local newspaper article about a new skate park. Is this a sign of civilisational decline, or the lively debate required to service democracy? Is it how it's always been, even if disputes were conducted by word of mouth rather than keyboard taps? And for publishers, does the much sought after "user engagement" actually always mean argument?
Reading Professor Fred Anderson's excellent book Crucible of War, which entertainingly charts the period of the British Empire in North America between 1754 and 1766, I learned of how serious unrest across the American colonies against the imposition of The Stamp Act by London was helpfully fanned into flame by a false report asserting Virginian colonists' unwillingness to pay an unfair tax.
Patrick Henry, a young, ambitious lawyer and political firebrand who sat in Virginia's General Assembly, wrote what we now call the Virginia Resolves of 1765. Containing five resolutions, four were relatively uncontroversial. Not so the fifth, which effectively denied the British parliament's authority to collect such taxes. It was a bombshell. Such a bombshell in fact, that it was removed from the official Resolves by more senior, cautious or craven politicians once Henry had left the Assembly to tend to his farming interests.
It didn't matter.
Picked up by a newspaper, the Newport Mercury, an account of the Resolves were published, crucially with two additional and similarly intemperate Resolves added, the sixth and seventh, the origins of which remain disputed to this day. They certainly were not the official response of the Virginia General Assembly. Equally of importance is the fact that the Mercury didn't publish the official account of the Resolves, nor is it clear that its journalists ever had sight of the official account.
Again, it didn't matter. Reports of Virginia's apparent willingness to defy London raced across the North American colonies via other newspapers, causing such previously unknown unity among the early Americans that even the infamous North and South Mobs of Boston, typically accustomed to fighting each other, pulled together to enthusiastically riot against The Stamp Act under the direction of disaffected merchants known as the Sons of Liberty.
As they say, the rest is history. A chastened London repealed the act, but a line had been placed down by the colonists, and we all know how events would subsequently unfold.
The role of the Newport Mercury in spreading such falsity is, in retrospect, a cause for celebration, is it not?
The tax was blatantly unfair. The newspaper might not have captured the facts, but it captured the mood. Disinformation be damned, as Patrick Henry might have said. There's a part of me that always delights in a publication causing trouble for the wealthy and powerful. "Journalism is to politician as dog is to lamp-post" as H L Mencken observed.
To stress, I'm not making an argument for lies, untruths or deception; the argument being made is one that urges the consideration of human complexity and of context when discussing human affairs.
While our information transmission systems are faster than the assemblymen of 18th century Virginia could even imagine at a time when America's news took weeks or months to reach London, the value and use of information, of any kind, hasn't really altered. There's just more of it, if not necessarily variety.
I do wonder if the editor of the Newport Mercury could have defended himself with a claim that it was merely misinformation they had published. That is to say, information that was mistaken, rather than published with motive. It's a fine line to be sure.
So in our disputed factual landscape, where we debate the value of crowd-sourced moderation versus professional "fact checkers", or while others seize on bland-o-bot AI moderation as the answer, which it isn't, it's important to remember the role of human agency, and that people will most often believe the thing that suits them at that time, to their gain or peril.
It has worked pretty well so far.
Unlock the potential of your audience data with the audience management platform you've been waiting for
Bring authentication, entitlements, and preference management together into one actionable CDP.
Unify audience profiles across platforms and channels
Model users and groups
Build up and enrich profiles to power your monetisation strategies
See what Glide Nexa can do for you. Request your demo today.
EU takes aim at Alphabet for DMA breaches
The EU Commission has sent preliminary findings to Alphabet, alleging non-compliance with the Digital Markets Act, accusing Google Search of favouring their own services and Google Play of restricting app developers from directing customers to cheaper alternatives and charging excessive fees. This move of challenging Alphabet of potential breaches of the DMA marks a significant step in (finally) tightening regulations on tech giants as well as ensuring fair competition, and if the findings are confirmed, it could change the future of online competition and the power of tech behemoths. Until the EU Commission makes a final decision, Alphabet can defend itself.
Read
EU tech industry: Buy local
A coalition of over 80 European tech companies has urged EU lawmakers to lessen reliance on foreign digital infrastructure and instead prioritise homegrown tech. A "EuroStack" strategy (published prior to the recent trade and tariffs spat) would boost European digital autonomy they say, via public procurement policies favouring bloc-built technologies in cloud computing, AI, and hardware. Such a move could reshape both the European tech landscape and global competition - the question would be whether it creates a broad range of new opportunities or ends up simply replacing one monopoly with a 'G-EU-gle' closer to home.
Read
China goes hard on AI labels
China has moved to bring compulsory labelling of AI generated content to law - although enforceability will be tricky. From September 1st 2025 all AI-generated content will require a visible label for consumers, and metadata labelling, to reduce the effect of misleading content. The potentially pie-in-the-sky bit? It requires platforms and distributors to verify that the metadata is there, that it is correct, and "that users have declared the content as AI-generated or synthesized." It echoes some EU rules which are heading in that direction over a longer period, at least in terms of metadata watermarking if not yet the requirement to mark it to the consumer. Those EU rules however apply to the originator of the content, not the distributor.
Read
Transatlantic subscriptions pact
European publishers such as El País and Politiken have partnered with The New York Times to offer bundled subscriptions, boosting engagement and expanding NYT's international reach. The initiative seems to be a win-win for both parties, allowing NYT to attract more global subscribers while the European publishers can use it to add value for their subscribers.
Read
Ad targeting is broken, AI could be the fix
Sick of ads which bear no resemblance to what you might be interested in? If they miss the mark for you, it's likely your audiences aren't being much better catered to. A recent study highlights significant flaws in socio-demographic and age targeting in digital advertising. The solution, according to Later's Scott Sutton, could be AI-driven targeting based on user behaviour and content which would offer a more effective approach than the old-school methods.
Read
Community notes: the conundrum
So, if billions of Meta users are being told Community Notes pass for fact checking, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the social giant's imminent switch away from in-house fact-checking? Will it ensure accountability and transparency? Do Meta's claims of less bias and more scale pass the fact check? Poynter asks some experts.
Read
Alden Newspapers vs OpenAI & Google
Dozens of US newspapers owned by Alden Global Capital published editorials slamming OpenAI and Google for trying to weaken AI copyright regulations under the ridiculous precedent that allowing AIs to pillage content without consequences is the only way for the US to beat the Chinese Communist Party. Their newest bold editorial piece is not a surprise since Alden have been residents of the "no deal" camp with other publishers who want to protect their content from the AI overlords.
Read
AI, fake URLs and SEO
We've spoken before about AI's struggles with facts and citations. Now AI has upped its game and started hallucinating URLs and articles, resulting in 404 errors and creating issues for website owners and SEO professionals. As with anything AI, publishers may need to adapt strategies to put out these fires when they occur, and Google Search expert John Mueller offers some guidance and advice.
Read
Syndication: Boosting revenue or ending your traffic?
Syndication of content can be a double-edged sword for publishers. On one hand, it boosts exposure and brings in much-needed revenue, but on the other, it risks cannibalising the publisher's own content traffic and SEO power. Harry Clarkson-Bennett shares his tips on how to achieve this delicate balance.
Read
Instagram turns to AI for arguments
Instagram is now testing AI-generated comments, letting users select pre-written responses to posts in order to boost engagement. And yes, these comments might do just that, but in turn they also might kill authenticity and create a sea of robotic responses. Empty engagement is no substitute for genuine interaction!
Read
AI can't tell the time
A study by researchers at Edinburgh University shows that AI models like GPT-4 and Google's Gemini struggle with tasks such as reading clocks and understanding calendars, often making mistakes over 20% of the time. That's nearly three-quarters!
Read