One of the more striking images of Nobel Prize winning scientist Madame Curie found online is not, in fact, of Madame Curie. The photo, which also appears on commemorative stamps in multiple countries, was taken by Paul Schroder in his Denver studio in 2001. The photograph was never intended to deceive; rather, it is one of several promotional photos of Susan Marie Frontczak, a professional storyteller who portrays famous women on stage. The Frontczak photo is posted on several webpages and at least one YouTube video about Curie’s life. Why did these bloggers and government officials select the fake over one of the actual photos of the famed scientist? Undoubtedly it is because Schroder’s photo has better composition and clarity than most original shots of Curie and, unlike the old photos, is available in color. And, although Frontczak resembles Curie, she is, frankly, prettier. The artistic replica isn’t just believable; it also surpasses the original and gives wishful thinking proof of life.
Today, access to information is available at the click of a mouse. The Internet has democratized access to and dissemination of information. In this bustling marketplace of ideas, think tanks, academia and advocacy groups compete for consumers of knowledge. Conspiratorialists peddle theories to eager buyers while businesses and politicians hawk products, policies and revolutions. With live footage shot from television cameras or surreptitiously by cellphone, both professional media and street journalists ensure coverage of every event and non-event.
The flow of information is unfettered by the scrutiny or bias of the old gatekeepers of print, radio and television, the editors, publishers and producers. Instead we are protected by our own scrutiny, if we make use of it, and are vulnerable to our own biases.
Truth is but a click away from fabrication. How do we know what is true and what is questionable? Because we cannot always verify the facts ourselves, we rely on proxies — a recognizable brand, the visual quality of the website, good reviews, or Google results. Proxies, however, have their limits. Search engine optimization and website design can be bought. Reviewers and fact-checkers have their own prejudices.
And then there’s the human propensity for confirmation bias — that is, the tendency to seek out information that confirms what we already believe to be true. Studies show this tendency increases when we are bombarded with choices.
The number of websites broke 1 billion last year. Add to that hundreds of cable and satellite television channels, radio stations, social media outlets, magazines, newspapers and books.
Additionally, television news viewership is becoming increasingly polarized. In 2002, network television news, CNN, MSNBC and Fox News enjoyed similar rates of viewership among Democrats and Republicans. Today, there is a wide gap along partisan lines. It is likely that there are similar partisan gaps in online and print readership. These information providers tailor how they present news to their customers. Compare the pictures, headlines, word choice, and rank order of stories on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News websites. The differences are not that subtle.
Back when Americans read the same daily papers and popular magazines, and watched the same handful of television networks, we were exposed to a variety of viewpoints and information that we might not have chosen in a more open marketplace of ideas. While individual Americans came to different conclusions, we started roughly at the same place. Although there were inaccuracies, omissions, and even lies in the good ol’ days before the Internet, today it is easier for fabrications to go viral and evolve into false narratives that no mere retraction can fully delete. Once said online, it cannot be unsaid.
Case in point: There are thousands of websites alleging President Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim; President George W. Bush and/or the Jews caused 911; genetically modified organisms make people sick; vaccines cause autism; Michael Brown had his hands raised; President Bill Clinton had opponents bumped off; hydraulic fracturing poisons the environment; and quack remedies work better than modern medicine. While some of the websites are amateurish, others are well designed and appear legitimate.
Even fact-based websites developed by think tanks, academia, government agencies and advocacy organizations often provide only one side of an argument. For this reason, individuals who rely on sources they trust may not be getting the whole picture. Because of confirmation bias, they may not seek out contrary information.
Unfortunately, we cannot choose a position when we know only one side. In a sense, the position has chosen us and we risk becoming a useful idiot for someone else’s agenda. When we know only a caricature of our perceived opponents, we create straw men of their arguments to torch with the fire of our indignation. There are battles worth fighting, principles worth defending, and wrongs worth righting, but they should be fought on the terra firma of truth.
No one can doubt that the democratization of information access and dissemination is a positive development for mankind. However, the ease with which an attractive imitation can take the place of the real thing should give us pause. What happens to a democratic republic when citizens are not on the same (Web) page, having not just different opinions also but different facts, if they have facts at all?
Free citizens have an obligation to be fully informed. We must ask questions even of those sources we trust: How do they know? What is the original source? Who benefits? What aren’t they saying? What are the credentials of the expert? What is happening outside of the narrow camera shot? Is the event orchestrated? Why is this happening now? Is the story internally consistent? Does it comport with what we know of history and science? Is it really Madame Curie?
A little skepticism goes a long way.
Krista Kafer (tokrista@msn.com) is co-host of Kelley and Company airing 1-4 pm on 710 KNUS.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
