I am cross-posting this from my Patheos Nonreligious mate Gleb Tsipursky (at Intentional Insights). I will look at signing up to this later this week when I get a spare moment. See what you think. Personally, things like this can only be a positive move in the right direction. Over to Gleb:
Deception proved a very successful strategy for political causes and individual candidates in the UK and US elections in 2016, leading Oxford Dictionary to choose post-truth politics as its 2016 word of the year. At this low point, it might seem ludicrous to many that we can solve the problem of lies in politics. However, research in behavioral science suggests that we can address political deception through a number of effective strategies, which are brought together in the Pro-Truth Pledge.
First, we need to identify why current mechanisms of preventing political deception don’t work well. The traditional mechanisms for identifying the truth about politics come from mainstream media and its fact-checking. However, polling shows that trust in the mainstream media has dropped from around 50 percent to 32 percent from 2000 to 2016, and only 29 percent trust fact-checking. No wonder fewer and fewer Americans are getting their news from mainstream media and engaging with fact-checkers.
At the same time, increasing numbers are using social media to get news, 62 percent according to studies. Unfortunately, a study by Stanford University shows that most social media news consumers cannot differentiate real from fake news stories. The situation is so bad that, according to research, in the three months before the presidential election the top 20 false news stories had more Facebook shares, reactions, and comments than did the top 20 true news articles.
Given the crumbling trust in traditional media and our vulnerability to lies on social media, we should not be surprised that politicians on both sides try to manipulate voters into believing lies. After all, the incentive for politicians is to get elected, not tell the truth. To be elected, politicians need to convey the appearance of trustworthiness – what Stephen Colbert infamously called “truthiness” – as opposed to being actually trustworthy. If politicians can safely ignore fact-checking by traditional news media, and instead use social media to get their followers to believe their claims, the scale is tilted toward post-truth politics.
In the long run, this tendency leads to high political polarization and the deterioration of trust in the political system. In other democratic states – Russia, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Turkey, Italy – post-truth politics led to the rise of authoritarian and corrupt regimes. We must do all we can to prevent this outcome in the US.
Tilting the scale toward truth requires a two-pronged approach, one targeting both private citizens and public figures. Research shows that, without any intervention, people tend to reject facts that go against their beliefs, and are more likely to deceive when they see others do so and also when it benefits their in-group. However, increased risk of suffering negative consequences, being reminded about our ethics, publicity about one’s honesty, and committing in advance to honesty decreases lies for ordinary citizens. For public figures, research suggests that transparent, clear information about who is truthful, and reputational rewards for socially beneficial behavior such as honesty, and penalties for dishonesty are the most vital interventions.
To solve the problem of systemic lying, a group of behavioral scientists, along with many concerned citizens, have launched the Pro-Truth Pledge project, at ProTruthPledge.org.
This pledge asks all signees to commit to a set of truth-oriented behaviors. Whenever they share a news article, signees are encouraged to add a sentence stating that they took the pledge and verify that they fact-checked the article, which serves to remind people of their ethical commitment. Pledge-takers are encouraged to share publicly with their networks about taking the pledge, asking others to hold them accountable – thus deliberately increasing the risk of negative consequences of sharing fake news. Likewise, the pledge asks signees to hold others accountable, requesting those who share fake news to retract it. Further reinforcing all the above, pledge-takers can get pledge monthly newsletters, follow the Twitter and Facebook accounts of the pledge, join a community of fellow pledge-takers online or in-person, get truth-oriented resources, and volunteer to help with the pledge.
Public figures – politicians, journalists, media figures, CEOs, academics, ministers, speakers, and others – get additional benefits, in line with the research. They have the opportunity to share a paragraph about why they took the pledge and provide links to their online presence. The paragraph is then sent around in the pledge newsletter and posted on social media, as a way of providing a reputational reward for committing to truth-oriented behavior. Public figures also get their public information listed in a database on the pledge website and can post a badge on their own website about their commitment to the pledge, providing clarity to all about which public figures are committed to truthful behavior.
These rewards for public figures will grow more substantial as the pledge gets more popular and known, creating a virtuous cycle. The more private citizens and public figures sign the pledge and the more credibility it gets, the more incentives other public figures will have to sign it. While these early adopters will be most committed to honesty, behavioral science suggests that later adopters will be more likely to do so out of a desire to gain a reputation as honest, and thus will be more likely to cheat.
To address this problem, the pledge crowd-sources the fight against lies. One of the volunteer roles for the pledge is monitoring public figure signees. If a volunteer suspects that a public figure made a false statement, the volunteer would approach the person privately and ask for clarification. The matter can be resolved by the public figure issuing a retraction – everyone makes mistakes – or the volunteer realizing that the public figure’s statement is not false. If the matter is not resolved, the volunteer would then submit the case to a mediating committee of vetted and trained Pro-Truth Pledge volunteers. They would investigate the matter and give the public figure an opportunity to issue a retraction or explain why the statement is not false.
If the public figure refuses to do so, the mediating committee then assumes that the public figure lied, meaning made a deliberately false statement, and rules the person in contempt of the pledge. This ruling triggers a substantial reputational punishment. The mediating committee issues a media advisory to all relevant media venues that the public figure is in contempt of the pledge and puts that information on the pledge website. The committee also sends an action alert to all pledge-takers who are constituents to that public figure, asking them to tweet, post, text, call, write, meet with, and otherwise lobby the public figure to retract their words. A public figure who intends to lie is much better off not taking the pledge at all.
Will the pledge work to tilt the scale toward truth? In order to tell, we’ll need to evaluate whether people are taking the pledge, and also whether the pledge changes their behavior.
Rolled out in late March, the pledge has over 1000 signees so far. The pledge-takers include a number of politicians, talk show hosts, academics, and public commentators who expressed strong enthusiasm for the pledge. Many prominent reason-oriented notables took the pledge, such as Aron Ra, August Brunsman, Noah Lugeons, Thomas Smith, Dan Arel, Johnathan Arriola, Trav Mamone, Chris Watson, Tucker Drake, Nathan Dickey, Chris Shelton, Andy Norman, Dan Ellis, Andy Cowen, Daniel Atherton, Fred Sims, Matt Rebelution, Cliff Hansen, Derek Colanduno, Rob and Amy Ray, Nicholas Arkis, Matt Van Dyke, Andrew Garber, Stephanie Savage, Joe Kindic, Marty Shoemaker, Kate Ashcraft, Christopher Tanner, Kaveh Mousavi, Patrick Horst, Skeptic Bret, Charles Zorn, Madilyn Love, Matthew O’Neil, Tim Clifford, Brian Sipsy, Cass Midgley, Bob Pondillo, John Kirbow, Norman Schultz, and more.
Yet pledge-takers also include prominent religious people. For example, here is the statement shared by one prominent religious notable, Pierre Whalon: “As the Episcopal Bishop in a highly-visible post in Europe, it is essential that people know and believe that I always seek the truth, the facts, and the context of the materials I post online or give in my sermons.” Religious people can take the pledge as the pledge applies to verifiable statements about the public sphere, rather than religious or value-based language. Thus, the pledge has the potential to bring together all sorts of people who are oriented toward the truth above all in the public sphere, in the same way that Reverend Barry Lynn serves as the Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
What about behavioral change? A retired US intelligence officer described how he saw an article “that played right to [his] particular political biases” and his “first inclination was to share it as quickly and widely as possible. But then [he] remembered the pledge [he’d] signed and put the brakes on.” The story turned out to be false, and “that experience has led [him] to be much more vigilant in assessing, and sharing, stories that appeal to [his] political sensibilities.”
A Christian pastor and community leader, Lorenzo Neal, took the Pro-Truth Pledge. He related how he “took the Pro-Truth Pledge because I expect our political leaders at every level of government to speak truth and not deliberately spread misinformation to the people they have been elected to serve. Having taken the pledge myself, I put forth the effort to continually gather information validating stories and headlines before sharing them on my social media outlets.”
John Kirbow, a US Army veteran and member Special Operations community, as well as an advocate for reason and science, took the pledge. He then wrote a blog post about how it impacted him. He notes that, “I’ve verbally or digitally passed on bad information numerous times, I am fairly sure, as a result of honest mistakes or lack of vigorous fact checking.” He describes how after taking the pledge, he felt “an open commitment to a certain attitude” to “think hard when I want to play an article or statistic which I’m not completely sold on.” Having taken the Pro-Truth Pledge, he found it “really does seem to change one’s habits,” helping push him both to correct his own mistakes with an “attitude of humility and skepticism, and of honesty and moral sincerity,” and also to encourage “friends and peers to do so as well.”
Michael Smith, a candidate for Congress took the pledge, and later posted on his Facebook wall a screenshot of a tweet by Donald Trump criticizing minority and disabled children. After being called out on it, he went and searched Trump’s feed. He could not find the original tweet, and while Trump may have deleted that tweet, the candidate edited his own Facebook post to say that “Due to a Truth Pledge I have taken I have to say I have not been able to verify this post.” He indicated that he would be more careful with future postings.
The evidence so far shows that the pledge has the potential to protect our democracy from the tide of lies. Whether it will succeed depends on how many people go to the website and sign it, spread the word, lobby public figures to sign it, and monitor those who do. The early results are promising.