Twitter fooled by Fake Candidate

A few election cycles ago, there was the story of Susie Flynn running for President. It was a hoax published by a media company to attract attention. It made for a pretty good fact checking evaluation challenge. Here's an archived reminder of the story.

In today's news is a story about a 17-year old who fabricated a Senate candidate named Andrew Walz and managed to get Twitter to verify the fake as legitimate.  Here's some of the story from CNN:

"Earlier this month, Walz's account received a coveted blue check mark from Twitter as part of the company's broader push to verify the authenticity of many Senate, House and gubernatorial candidates currently running for office. Twitter has framed this effort as key to helping Americans find reliable information about politicians in the lead up to the 2020 election."

Not until the 17-year old's parents came forward with the story did anyone notice the problem.

One takeaway is that if a bored teen can exploit Twitter's election integrity efforts, what else is that publisher missing?

We are foolish if we allow others to think for us, assuring us what to believe, what to trust. There is really no substitute for honing our skills and taking time to do our own vetting.

The story of Andrew Walz is another wake up call to practice fact checking.  What details in Andrew Walz's campaign can't be verified? Post your answers below.

More on fact checking here.

Satanize Me?

A report of a secret McDonald's menu is going around the Internet. I learned of it today thanks to this DIGG post:

McDonald's Has A Secret Menu And Other Facts link

Digg's source is Lucky Peach, where Lucas Peterson gives the details, along with photos, of secret menu items:

• Sausage Egg Big MacMuffin
• Mash Brown
• Blankets in a Blankets
• The McLuminati
• “Derrida-Style”
• General Ro’s Chicken
• Mommie Dearest
• The Burmese Python
• The Captain Nemo
• “Diorama-Style”
• Satanize Me!         

Short of walking in to your local McDonald's and asking for one of these menu variations (under your breath), how could you really know for sure if a secret menu does or does not exist? Maybe you don't mind if the counter person gives you a blank stare. Or laughs--I'm sure someone has already tried this.

After all, other fast food places have secret menus, why not McDonalds? 

One place to start is with the author. Lucas Peterson (If you want to make sure you get the right Lucas Peterson, include "Lucky Peach" in the query.) Top results are his Twitter page: https://twitter.com/lucaspeterson, another piece he wrote in Lucky Peace entitled, An Official Complaint Against Oriental Ramen, his LinkedIn page, where he lists his occupation as eater, Lucky Peach, LA Weekly, Serious Eats, Flaunt Magazine, Film/TV.  So we gather he is a public figure with an interest in food topics that can sometimes be humorous.

Another place to go is Lucky Peach. What kind of publication is this? From skimming results, it's a
"cult indie magazine founded by chef David Chang and writer Peter Meehan" [link] about all things food. It is a "quarterly journal of food and writing. each issue focuses on a single theme, and explores that theme through essays, art, photography, and recipes." [link]. The style of the magazine is ad-driven with loud cartoons and other attention-grabbing stuff. So an article about a secret menu fits in, although no claims are made whether it's true or not.

So, a writer that can be serious (at least at times) and a magazine that can be serious (at times) have paired up and released this story. Is this one of their not-serious moments?

The investigation returns to those customers who have tried this. They should be able to verify whether any of the creations bulleted above actually exist (I personally believe any McDonalds can deliver on Mash Brown). Where can you find these people, these witnesses?

Try Twitter.

A search for #secretmenu (guessing that's been used) turns up hits for secret menus submitted by members. Down the list is an entry by Lucky Peach with a picture of Sausage Egg Big MacMuffin, captioned: "We like to have a little fun sometimes, too!" Not quite definitive, but a sign the article is more fun than serious.

What other evidence can you find--without actually going in and muttering, "Satanize me?" (Note: I suggest not actually trying this. Keep in mind: McDonalds crew members read the Internet--they might actually comply-- in which case it doesn't have to be an official secret menu, but an underground one.)

Fake Tweet Sends Stocks Plummeting

As many articles have already made clear, Americans will react to news that sounds like terrorism.

Today's fake tweet shows how sensitive consumers of information really are.

A hack attack on the Associated Press' Twitter account resulted in "an erroneous tweet" claiming that two explosions occurred in the White House and that President Barack Obama was injured. It didn't take long (2 minutes) for Twitter to suspend the @AP Twitter account.

More than 4,000 retweets later, the credibility of the message was dealt a fatal blow when an AP spokesperson told NBC News the news was false.

Like the EKG of a country, the Dow Jones industrial average just after 1 p.m. shows the collective heartbeat (above). More than 140 points was lost in a flash. Five minutes later much of the loss was regained.

According to Bob Sullivan, NBC News: "It's incredible what a single 12-word lie can do."

How could being an investigative searcher make a breaking lie less effective?

Fact checking the accuracy of the claim is a little trickier in the case of Twitter. Breaking news often comes through this channel before being picked up by major news.

That is probably the clue. AP wouldn't be the first to break the news. Someone on the scene would have said it first; AP would carry it a minute or more later. All one would have to do is look for the source of the AP tweet.

Not being able to find an earlier tweet about this news is the tell-tale sign about its credibility.  A good search engine for tweets is topsy.comhttp://topsy.com. Check it out before you react with your gut.

Ann Margret Death Hoax

While this hoax is still making its way around the blogosphere, there are a couple good investigative tips to point out.

I first heard the story on the radio this morning. When the people on the air tried to look it up on the Web, they noted that the site's URL was mediafetcher, which made them wonder if the story was really true.

Tip 1: For breaking news, go to Twitter. When I searched for ann margret death, I saw mediafetcher.com too and below that a comment about twitter. Since lots of breaking news comes first through twitter, I searched twitter for ann margret and saw a mixture of condolences and claims the story is a hoax.

Tip 2: Read the page. The definitive fact in this case was noted in a number of tweets: the web site claims the story is FAKE. True enough, look at the bottom of the mediafetcher page:

FAKE... THIS STORY IS 100% FAKE! this is an entertainment website, and this is a totally fake article based on zero truth and is a complete work of fiction for entertainment purposes! this story was dynamically generated using a generic 'template' and is not factual. Any reference to specific individuals has been 100% fabricated by web site visitors who have created fake stories by entering a name into a blank 'non-specific' template for the purpose of entertainment. For sub-domain info, name removal requests and additional use restrictions: FakeAWish.com
Copyright © 2012 FakeAWish.com All rights reserved.

Best to do a little checking before ordering flowers.

This site may be one to watch for other fake breaking news for teaching purposes.

As for the purpose of the mediafetcher site, wouldn't you say that's a dark spin on defining 'entertainment?' If you want a challenge, find the top 10 domains operated by the individual(s) behind this hoax entertainment site. It gives you some context.

Misinformation on Twitter

With over 200 million Twitter contributors*, misinformation is bound to happen.

It would be pretty interesting if there was a study to determine the frequency of misinformation created by authors in the world of Web 2.0. Maybe there is such a study. I should look.

Regardless, misinformation is regularly created in the form of rumors, honest mistakes and malinformation (intentionally misleading facts and opinions).  Tweets are a good example.

UK's The Guardian has collected seven rumors that attracted a following on Twitter, spread and then died out. These include: 'Rioters attack London zoo and release animals,' 'Rioters cook their own food in McDonalds' and 'Army deployed in Bank.' Here's the complete list and an interactive app to explore the rumors and their trajectories.

All of the rumors are what you could classify as 'breaking news.' Twitter became famous as a source of breaking news during events such as the US Airways flight that ended in the Hudson River. Twitter often scoops other news sources because of eyewitnesses who tweet what they happen to see. Sometimes the stories turn out to be true. Other times they don't.

How do you tell the difference between a 'truth' and a 'rumor?' This would be a great conversation to have with middle school, high school and college students. What can you do not to fall prey to rumors?



* FYI -- Finding the current number of Twitter users makes a pretty good search challenge.