J .D. Bands and Tim Walz are squaring off in their first and only debate on Tuesday.
The NPR Politics Podcast has you covered with all the news and analysis ahead of the vice presidential debate.
Listen to the NPR Politics Podcast wherever you get your podcast.
You're listening to Life Kit from NPR.
Hey everybody, it's Mary Elle.
When was the last time you tried to talk to a friend or a family member about something they said about the world that you knew to be factually inaccurate?
In other words, misinformation.
How did it go? If not so well, don't feel bad.
These conversations are tough.
I think if someone really cares about the piece of misinformation and if they're like deeply embedded into either some kind of conspiratorial narrative or if it really aligns with their identity it can be quite challenging.
That's Professor Brian E.
Swire -Thompson. She's the director of the Psychology of Misinformation Lab at Northeastern University.
And she says, we are all vulnerable to misinformation.
Yeah, you too. We just don't have the time, the cognitive resources, or even the motivation to literally fact -check every piece of information that comes our way.
But some good news.
On the whole, misinformation can be really easy to correct.
Today on LifeKit, how to talk about misinformation with the people you love.
This episode isn't about how to reach people who are deeply enmeshed in a web of conspiracy theories.
That requires a different set of tools.
Instead, we'll equip you with strategies to help you effectively fact -check false statements.
The big picture idea here is to start from a place of connection, not correction.
And PR's Audrey Winn is a producer covering democracy and disinformation.
She's going to take it from here.
And make music to order now.
As Election Day approaches, NPR's Consider This podcast is zooming in on six states that could determine who wins the White House.
Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, and Pennsylvania.
We'll ask voters in these swing states what matters to them and which way they want the country to go.
Follow along with new episodes this week on the Consider This podcast from NPR.
Hey there, this is Felix Contreras.
One of the co -hosts of Alt Latino, the podcast from NPR Music, where we discuss Latinx culture, music, and heritage with the artists that create it.
Listen now to the Alt Latino podcast from NPR.
This Hispanic Heritage Month, CodeSwitch sits down with Mexican -Cuban -American journalist and author Paula Ramos to discuss the rise of US Latinos to the far right.
It's a small but growing shift in American politics.
Paula Ramos thinks she knows what's behind it.
Listen on the CodeSwitch podcast from NPR.
How do we decide if it's even worth trying to have a conversation about misinformation in the first place?
Here's Professor Brian Eastwired -Thompson again with some questions you can ask yourself.
How well do you know the other individual?
How much does it matter to you that you don't see eye to eye on a topic?
She says if it's just a matter of not seeing an eye about an issue, it's okay to opt out in an effort to preserve the relationship.
But you might choose, say, a different strategy.
Maybe tackle it a bit more head on if you think it will cause harm.
Before we dive into how to have these conversations, I want to acknowledge a couple things.
First, these conversations are hard, especially if you're starting from a place of judgment.
Instead, try leading with compassion, love, and empathy.
Second, the terms mis and disinformation can provoke some big feelings.
For definitions, we'll go with Merriam -Webster's.
Misinformation refers to incorrect or misleading information, and disinformation refers to false information deliberately and often covertly spread in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth.
Mis and disinformation does trigger a sort of reaction, and usually distaste when that comes up because it becomes a politicized term.
That's Sarah Wann. They're a doctoral candidate at the University of Washington who studies how people share information with each other.
She leads workshops for the Vietnamese community in the Seattle area about how to address problematic information in deepfakes.
When she's tackling misinformation in her community, she actually tries to avoid using the term altogether.
Instead, they opt for rumors or misleading content.
The idea here is to figure out how your friend or family member feels about the piece of information you've identified as false.
Do they think this is actually trustworthy because of different factors?
Professor Rachel Kuo is the research facilitator of the Asian American disinformation table.
She brings us our first takeaway.
Take time to understand why your loved one believes the misleading content.
Building these bridges of understanding, I think, also helps people learn and grow on either side of the conversation.
Don't just talk at your loved one.
Be in conversation with them.
Recognize that they've got a whole life's worth of experiences that affects how they engage with whatever they read online, hear on the news, get via text, et cetera.
What people consider mis and disinformation can be really different.
So for example, some of the things that I might push as harmful or problematic narratives, other people might not see it that way.
So let's say your mom or your cousin keeps repeating a statement you know to be incorrect.
As you're trying to figure out why your loved one believes something untrue, Rachel recommends starting by getting to know them better as a person.
You can do that, for instance, by asking them about their life.
So often, people's memories really shape the ways that they engaged in current ways with political systems and their media environments.
And I think it is important to actually engage those different histories and to begin to talk through why it is that people believe or come to believe the things that they do.
Try asking them about their childhood.
What are some things they remember?
Who were they close with growing up?
What do they remember about migrating to the United States?
If they did. And really kind of teasing out those moments and to not focus, right, on the kind of intervention right away.
I want to underscore that last part.
We're starting from a place of connection, not correction.
Understanding their past will help you understand how they engage with the present.
And then that template begins to build up into kind of thinking about like, okay, what are some of the things that you've engaged in?
Like recently, have you voted, for example, or like, have you been vaccinated?
Like, why or why not?
Let's say your cousin has had terrible experiences with doctors.
The doctors didn't believe her when she talked about her symptoms and it took a third, fourth, or fifth option to finally get a correct diagnosis.
That might make your cousin hesitant to trust doctors or health professionals in general.
Keep stuff like that in mind when you talk.
Remember, this work takes compassion.
You can break up these conversations over time or if you're feeling it out and you think your loved one would be receptive to pivoting towards current events, you can try having the combo in one go.
To make the pivot towards discussing misinformation, you can start talking about where the both of you get your information and why you find those sources to be trustworthy.
That's our second takeaway.
Bryony has found these types of discussions to be quite effective in her research.
So instead of saying, here's the misinformation, it is false.
You can say, what is the evidence for both the individual who believes in the misinformation and for your side?
And you can have a discussion about really who you're both trusting and why.
By also discussing where you get your information and explaining why you find those sources trustworthy, you're laying the groundwork for reciprocal understanding.
That helps build trust.
A quick thing to note here, psychology research examining how to effectively correct misinformation occurs in a very controlled experimental setting.
Bryony notes there haven't really been studies that take into account more complex social dynamics, like a family setting.
That being said, we can still take learnings from peer -reviewed studies and try applying them to our conversations with the people we care about.
In one study, Bryony and her colleagues found highlighting a source's low expertise worked well to discredit dubious health claims.
It was far more effective than just correcting the misinformation.
To point out how unqualified a source is, you can highlight the source's lack of skills, professional training, relevant educational background, etc.
You can also point out any conflicts of interest they might have.
This is also a good time for you to check your source's qualifications.
Remember, we're all vulnerable to misinformation.
There's always a chance you've misremembered or misinterpreted something.
And if you have, just own it.
Returning to the idea of building trust with the person you're talking to, it's a slow, ongoing process that'll take time.
I mean, it could take years.
One thing you can try now, though, identify things you'll have in common.
Finding points where you do agree is always going to be helpful.
Bryony says that can also help maintain goodwill.
Being mindful of maintaining goodwill is helpful, because, as Rachel points out, So much of what also happens with disinformation is that it introduces different frictions and tensions in our relationships.
And those frictions and tensions can make it difficult to talk across differences.
That brings us to take away three.
Realize you're not here to change anyone's core beliefs.
You're simply trying to address a piece of information that is not correct.
Again, we're not talking about helping someone untangle themselves from a web of conspiracy theories.
That requires a different approach that's outside the scope of this episode.
Here's Sarah again.
I'm not trying to change someone inherently.
It is more about how can we build this coexisting trust with each other and continue these types of conversations in a sustainable and healthy way.
The goal here is to keep the conversation going.
Making someone feel like there's something wrong with their world view is just going to cause them to shut down.
Now, conversations can get tricky when you're discussing politics.
Bryony has researched misleading political statements.
So for political misinformation, we found that correcting misinformation didn't make much difference in terms of how much they trusted that source in the future or how much they were going to vote for that political candidate.
When it comes to information about health, however.
We found that highlighting that a source had spread a lot of misinformation in the past often did change people's perspectives of how trustworthy the source is.
One possible reason for that is people tend to think healthcare providers should be truthful while politicians are expected to stretch the truth, at least sometimes.
So instead of trying to convince your uncle or auntie to not vote for a particular candidate, instead try discussing a piece of misleading or false information the candidate or their party has circulated.
You might think keeping that correction short and sweet is the move, but actually.
Providing a good amount of detail for why something is wrong is more effective.
That brings us to takeaway four.
When you do attempt to correct misleading information, provide a detailed fact check.
So that's one of the best methods that we know to correct misinformation is by not just saying this piece of misinformation is false, but providing what we call a factual alternative.
So saying what is actually true.
So say, for example, your friend expresses concern about the integrity of mail -in voting.
Let's say they believe in particular that fraud is rampant with mail -in ballots.
After you've taken time to understand why they believe that to be true, you can tell them instances of voter fraud are extremely rare.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy institute, multiple analyses have shown it's more likely someone will be struck by lightning than commit mail ballot fraud.
The use of mail -in voting also dates back to the Civil War.
And since then, states have developed multiple layers of security to safeguard elections.
Their protections against tampering, protections against impersonation, and protections against ballot stuffing.
The big caveat here is that not everything has a factual alternative.
Some things are just false, and that can be really challenging.
If you claim Taylor Swift said, pigs are green, but she didn't actually say that, while I can refute your statement as false, I can't point to concrete evidence that it never happened.
Bryony says it's important to note that corrections without a factual alternative tend to be less effective.
Sometimes people really just don't want to hear that they're wrong or misinformed.
I mean, imagine if your friend came up to you and started questioning something you hold to be inherently true.
You probably wouldn't like that very much.
If things are getting unproductive or you're getting stonewalled, it's okay to take a step back, says Rachel.
Conversational pauses are okay.
And I think reorienting to say like, okay, like what I care about first and foremost is this relationship.
And where do we then move forward together from there, I think, helps.
But if things are going well and it's a conversation you both feel comfortable returning to.
Repeating the correction is really important, just because of our limitations on memory.
Researchers have found a phenomenon called belief regression.
It's when a correction to misinformation works really well in the short term.
But over time, people's belief kind of creeps towards these pre -correction levels.
And what we found is it's mostly down to memory.
So it's worth repeating that corrections to misinformation are worth repeating.
That brings us to our last takeaway.
Takeaway five, don't expect things to change after one conversation.
Because it's not easy, despite whatever media literacy or information literacy tools are out there, it is like many types of changes and evolutions, a slow process.
A slow process, but a worthwhile one, I think.
There is always this sense of urgency when we hear something true or false and saying false, I want to correct you.
But in the spirit of building long term relationships, to be able to do this on a slower scale will have a larger impact.
To recap, take away one, take time to understand why your loved one believes a piece of misinformation.
Takeaway two, have a discussion about where y 'all get your information.
Talk about why you find those sources to be trustworthy.
Takeaway three, realize you're not here to change anyone's core beliefs.
You're simply trying to address a piece of information that is not correct.
Takeaway four, when you do attempt to correct misleading information, provide a detailed factual alternative.
And takeaway five, don't expect things to change after one conversation.
That's Audrey Nguyen, a producer for NPR's Democracy and Disinformation team.
For more Life Kit, check out our other episodes.
We've got one on how to tell if an image is AI generated, and another on how to protect yourself from getting scammed.
You can find those at npr .org slash Life Kit.
And if you love Life Kit and want even more, subscribe to our newsletter at npr .org slash Life Kit newsletter.
Also, we love hearing from you, so if you have episode ideas or feedback you want to share, email us at lifekit at npr .org.
This episode of Life Kit was produced and reported by Audrey Nguyen, with help from Claire Marie Schneider.
It was edited by Brett Neely and Megan Kane, who is also Life Kit's supervising editor.
Our visuals editor is Beck Harlan and our digital editor is Malika Garib.
Beth Donovan is our executive producer.
Our production team also includes Andy Tegel, Margaret Serino, and Sylvie Douglas.
Engineering support comes from Sino Lufredo.
Special thanks to Shannon Bond, Lisa Hagan, and Dolores Albaracin.
I'm Mary Elsigara. Thanks for listening.
So, wilderness is changing.
More wildfires, more people, more cell service.
the How Wild podcast hits the trail to explore the history of wilderness, how it's changing, and what that says about us as humans.
Listen now to the How Wild podcast from KALW, part of the NPR network.
This is Hispanic Heritage Month.
The Coach Witch podcast invites you to listen to a side of the immigration story you don't hear often, one of joys.
Listen as we spend a day at Flushing Meadows Park in Queens, talking to some of the people that make the park their weekend escape.
Listen on the Coach Witch podcast from NPR.
