New Zealanders are regularly exposed to misinformation and disinformation on social media, although the magnitude of such content has waned since the election, a study commissioned by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet suggests.
Out of 3.9 million social media posts from New Zealanders across a range of platforms in 2023, including mainstream networks like Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, around 1.4 percent were classified by an independent research team as “harmful incorrect information”. The researchers, from the University of Auckland’s Hate and Extremism Insights Aotearoa group, preferred this term to mis/disinformation as it speaks to impact rather than intent.
The data suggests that, in amongst cat pictures, funny memes and family updates, Kiwis see something that is harmfully inaccurate around once for every 71 posts.
The researchers said they were surprised by the relatively low percentage of incorrect information, but that it could be just the tip of the iceberg with a larger proportion of the population holding more moderate versions of the same inaccurate ideas.
Hate and Extremism Insights Aotearoa is one of two research groups commissioned by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to monitor and provide regular updates on disinformation in New Zealand as part of a work programme to strengthen resilience to false content. The 2023 snapshot report was released in late January as part of this work.
Four main themes arose in the types of incorrect information identified by the researchers: Health and Covid-19, globalist conspiracies, politics (distrust and withdrawal) and social anxiety.
Health and Covid-19-related information targeted government health initiatives and international health organisations like the World Health Organization. Globalist conspiracies related to disinformation that world and local events are orchestrated by a cabal of powerful individuals hoping to create a ‘New World Order’. Political disinformation claims that elections are rigged in New Zealand and that the government is undemocratic or tyrannical. Finally, social anxiety-related content was associated with the belief that social progress is moving in the wrong direction and included suspicion of attempts to support marginalised communities.
In the latter months of the year, the war in Gaza also surfaced as a repeated theme, though the researchers carefully classified much of this content as contentious and highly volatile rather than outright harmfully incorrect.
“We found evidence that all of these claims have entered the New Zealand online environment, although in low numbers. In all cases, both believers and deniers of each claim take highly polarised and emotional positions. We believe most posters approach these claims with a preconceived perspective,” the report said.
Rather than motivating new sentiments and actions, the Israel-Hamas content likely reinforced existing positions, the researchers found.
“Supporting this assumption, we found that as new information emerged which cast doubt on particular claims, this did not lead to consensus but instead led those who had supported the account to become more emotional and vociferous in their support of their particular side. In some cases, posters refused to believe that the claim had been debunked, continuing to assert it… Thus, we do not believe that [harmful incorrect information] is motivating action in New Zealand, which is motivated primarily by anger and other emotions related to the conflict.”
In addition to targeting mainstream spaces, the researchers also gathered from fringe websites and platforms like 4chan and Telegram for their dataset. Given that, they said the relatively low percentage of harmful incorrect content in the full database was somewhat surprising.
“We continue to emphasise however, that a small proportion of New Zealand’s population believing and spreading strong ideas about a globalist conspiracy or government overreach for example, is only part of the picture. It seems likely that similar, but more moderate, ideas are held by a much broader constituency,” they reported.
Since the election, the amount of harmful content in all four themes had declined significantly. It was unclear at that stage whether this would last or was simply due to the lull in political activity during post-election coalition negotiations.
It was Pontius Pilate, governor of the Roman province of Judaea (as it was then) who, around 35CE asked “what is truth” at a trial he was judging. It is a question that still has no answer, despite Government (and media) attempts to control the narrative. For example, the Covid narrative has changed substantially from the early “truth” we were exhorted to believe, and the “official” narrative over Te Tiriti has certainly changed over the last couple of decades. If you really want to see how the global media manipulate the “truth” just subscribe to Ground News, which compares breaking headlines across the political spectrum using data-driven media bias ratings. Amazing what the predominantly left-leaning NZ media “neglect” to report.
Isn’t this why there is a strong need for a fully vetted news outlet?
I’m surprised John Jones considers “the media” (as if it were a thing!) to be predominantly left-leaning. It strikes me this is saying more about where he sits on the political spectrum than the state of the media. I would call them pretty balanced, providing you look at a variety of outlets. In fact I see a lot of right-wing thinking entrenched in much media commentary, for instance the unquestioning assumption that economic growth is a good thing, and that individual greed trumps social benefit. He would do well to learn to separate truth from opinion.