01778nam a22001697a 4500999001900000008004100019100004300060245004500103260003500148300003200183520114600215650008301361773003501444906001501479942000701494952010701501  c518562d518562210929b           ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d  aChiu, Ming Ming and Oh, Yu Won 929630  aHow fake news differs from personal lies  aAmerican Behavioral Scientist   a65(2), Feb, 2021: p.243-258  aPersonal lies (girl on date lying to dad) and fake news (Obama Bans Pledge of Allegiance) both deceive but in different ways, so they require different detection methods. People in long-term relationships try to tell undetectable lies to encourage, often, audience inaction. In contrast, unattached fake news welcome attention and try to ignite audience action. Thus, they differ in six ways: (a) speaker–audience relationship, (b) goal, (c) emotion, (d) information, (e) number of participants, and (f) citation of sources. To detect personal lies, a person can use their intimate relationship to heighten emotions, raise the stakes, and ask for more information, participants, or sources. In contrast, a person evaluates the legitimacy of potential fake news by examining the websites of its author, the people in the news article, and/or reputable media sources. Large social media companies have suitable expertise, data, and resources to reduce fake news. Search tools, rival news media links to one another’s articles, encrypted signature links, and improved school curricula might also help users detect fake news. – Reproduced   aFake news, Personal lies, Speaker–audience relationship, Social media927810  aAmerican Behavioral Scientist   aMASS MEDIA  cAR  00102ddc40709392631aIIPAbIIPAd2021-09-29h65(2), Feb, 2021: p.243-258pAR125692r2021-09-29yAR