Fueled by an highly contentious US Presidential campaign, the debate on so called “fake news” prominently surfaced on newspaper’s front pages, television news and in the conversations of scholars and practitioners. Despite its magnitude, this public discussion largely failed to advance our understanding of the issue or to establish effective strategy to address it. Originated around catchy but fuzzy tags, the debate reflected the general lack of conceptual coherence already pointed out by literature on misleading information. Leveraging on four strands of research in the existing scholarship, the paper aims to address the limits of the current debate by introducing a radically new model aimed at describing the process through which misleading information spreads within the hybrid media system. The paper discusses the contribution and implication of the model in tackling the issue of misleading information on a theoretical, empirical, and practical level. Aknowledgement: An initial draft of the paper is available here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2878774. However, the version presented at ICA is more polished and substantially improved thanks the feedback received by multiple sources. We would specifically want to acknowledge the contribution provided by Robyn Caplan and other attendees during the “Data & Society’s Propaganda & Media Manipulation Workshop”.

1. Misleading Information In The Hybrid Media
System: A New Taxonomy
Fabio Giglietto*, Università di Urbino Carlo Bo
Laura Iannelli, Università di Sassari
Luca Rossi, IT University of Copenhagen
Augusto Valeriani, Università di Bologna
*presentingspeaker

2. Summary
1. Take-aways from our journey in existing literature;
2. A working definition;
3. Modelling the spread of misleading information:
a. Micro Level: Judgement and Decision;
b. Meso Level: Four typologies of propagations;
c. Macro Level: Characterizing cascades of
propagations.
4. Innovations and implications.

3. Take-aways from the existing literature
1. Beyond confirmation bias (Nyhan &
Reifler, 2010; Weeks, 2015) and filter bubbles
(Southwell, 2013; Bode & Vraga, 2015; Del Vicario et al.,
2016; Silverman, 2015);
2. Misinformation (false or inaccurate information
circulating due to honest mistakes) vs
disinformation (false information deliberately
aimed at deceiving others) (Fallis, 2015);
3. The informativeness of “fake news” (Karlova &
Fisher, 2013; Stahl, 2006).

4. A working definition (1/2)
Misleading information is
a peculiar form of information involving the
spread of “fake news”.
a meta-category that includes both
disinformation and misinformation.
It spreads within an environment characterized
by a multitude of actors with different potential
reach but shared operative routines (Chadwick,
2013).

5. A working definition (2/2): dealing with the
true/false distinction with a 2nd
order approach
Information is a
“difference that makes a difference” (Bateson,
1972).
The observer perspective matters.
true/false distinction matters.
Any actor (including the researcher) is an
observed actor (von Foerster, 1984).

6. Micro level
Decisions
propagate/not
The audience
Influence
The propagator
Visibility/Centrality/Power
Judgments
true/false
The source
Authority - Proximity
The story
Congruence - Relevance
The context
Time - Attention

7. PROPAGATOR judges as “false” PROPAGATOR judges as “true”
CREATOR
judges as
“false”
CREATOR
judges as
“true”
Type 1:
Pure disinformation
Type 3:
Disinformation propagated
through misinformation
Type 2:
Misinformation propagated
through disinformation
Type 4:
Pure misinformation
Meso level

8. Macro level
Time
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
PotentialReach

9. Innovations and implications
From an actor-oriented to a process-oriented approach;
A second-order approach to the true/false distinction.
Theoretical level: a more precise and inclusive observer centered
definition of misleading information;
Empirical level: the model of propagation can be used as a tool to
guide case studies or build simulations;
Ethical level: acknowledging the inherently subjective nature of the
true/false distinction may frame healthier and less divisive online
discussions.

10. Thank you!
Fabio Giglietto, U Urbino Carlo Bo
@fabiogiglietto
Laura Iannelli, U Sassari
@lauraiannelli
Luca Rossi, ITU Copenhagen
@LR
Augusto Valeriani, U Bologna
@barbapreta