ReviewProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2021
Measuring the news and its impact on democracy.
Review in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Media Bias Detector: A framework for annotating and analyzing the news.Science advances · 2026Article
- PROTOCOL: Interventions Targeting Misinformation, Disinformation and Malinformation for Reducing and Countering Violent Extremism: A Systematic Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Review
- Rethinking news framing with large language models.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Using co-sharing to identify use of mainstream news for promoting potentially misleading narratives.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Highly engaging events reveal semantic and temporal compression in online community discourse.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Large-scale analysis of fact-checked stories on Twitter reveals graded effects of ambiguity and falsehood on information reappearance.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Article
- Human detection of political speech deepfakes across transcripts, audio, and video.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Prominent misinformation interventions reduce misperceptions but increase scepticism.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- Reflecting on Indonesia's young academy movement.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- The unequal landscape of civic opportunity in America.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- Who supports Bernie? Analyzing identity and ideological variation on Twitter during the 2020 democratic primaries.PloS one · 2024Article
- The Electoral Misinformation Nexus: How News Consumption, Platform Use, and Trust in News Influence Belief in Electoral Misinformation.Public opinion quarterly · 2024Article
- (Why) Is Misinformation a Problem?Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023Article
- Deepfakes and scientific knowledge dissemination.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Users choose to engage with more partisan news than they are exposed to on Google Search.Nature · 2023Article
- Quantifying the 'end of history' through a Bayesian Markov-chain approach.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Protecting infrastructure performance from disinformation attacks.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Deepfake detection by human crowds, machines, and machine-informed crowds.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Aggressive behaviour of anti-vaxxers and their toxic replies in English and Japanese.Humanities & social sciences communications · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the 2016 US presidential election, the deliberate spread of misinformation online, and on social media in particular, has generated extraordinary concern, in large part because of its potential effects on public opinion, political polarization, and ultimately democratic decision making. Recently, however, a handful of papers have argued that both the prevalence and consumption of "fake news" per se is extremely low compared with other types of news and news-relevant content. Although neither prevalence nor consumption is a direct measure of influence, this work suggests that proper understanding of misinformation and its effects requires a much broader view of the problem, encompassing biased and misleading-but not necessarily factually incorrect-information that is routinely produced or amplified by mainstream news organizations. In this paper, we propose an ambitious collective research agenda to measure the origins, nature, and prevalence of misinformation, broadly construed, as well as its impact on democracy. We also sketch out some illustrative examples of completed, ongoing, or planned research projects that contribute to this agenda.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.