1-1E · 阅读 Reading

Fake News: Unfounded Bias假新闻:无根据的偏见

2016 年美国大选期间，假新闻的网络互动量竟超过《纽约时报》等正规媒体——本课带你看清假新闻的传播逻辑与背后的偏见。During the 2016 U.S. election, fake news drew more online engagement than outlets like The New York Times. This lesson reveals how fake news spreads and the bias hidden inside it.

阅读约 8 分钟~8 min read 5 个练习5 exercises 3 条达标标准3 success criteria

学习目标 · Learning Goals

  • 1
    Evaluate effectiveness of intended purpose
    评估文本是否有效达成其预期目的
  • 2
    Analyze media texts and identify strategies used to influence people
    分析媒体文本，识别其用来影响受众的策略
现象The phenomenon

When Fake Beats Real 当假新闻盖过真新闻

线索 · 互动量(engagement)不等于真实性——越耸动越容易被转发。Cue · Engagement is not truth—the more sensational a story, the more it gets shared.
EN

Throughout 2016, false stories about the election were widely circulated by a variety of websites purportingpurporting to be 伪装成：声称是、假装是(实则并非)。 to be legitimate. An analysis by Buzzfeed News revealed that many of these stories actually received more engagementengagement 互动量：一篇文章在网上获得的评论、点赞反应和转发的总数。 — measured by the total number of comments, reactions, and shares an article receives online — than those from real news sites like The New York Times and The Washington Post.

中文

2016 年全年，关于大选的虚假报道被大量伪装成正规媒体的网站广泛传播。Buzzfeed News 的一项分析显示，许多此类报道获得的互动量——即一篇文章在网上收到的评论、点赞反应和转发的总和——竟然超过了《纽约时报》《华盛顿邮报》等真正新闻网站的报道。

这说明:在社交媒体上，一篇内容传播得有多广，与它是否真实毫无关系。情绪化、耸人听闻的假消息往往比严谨的真新闻更容易刷屏。

讲解：“engagement(互动量)” 是社交媒体的核心指标，但它只衡量“有多少人参与”，不衡量“内容是否属实”。看到“疯传”的内容时要格外警惕。Note: “Engagement” is a core social-media metric, but it only measures how many people interact—not whether the content is true. Be extra skeptical of anything that has gone viral.
平台责任Platform duty

Should Platforms Screen Content? 平台该不该审核内容?

线索 · 社交平台既是“管道”又是“把关人”——它们有没有责任分辨真假?Cue · Social platforms are both pipelines and gatekeepers—do they have a duty to separate fact from fiction?
EN

The proliferationproliferation 激增/泛滥：数量迅速大量增加。 of fake news sources on social media has raised questions about the duty of sites like Facebook and Twitter to screenscreen (v.) 审核/筛查：对内容进行检查、过滤、把关。 content and distinguishdistinguish 区分/分辨：辨别出两者之间的不同。 fact from fiction.

中文

假新闻源头在社交媒体上的激增，引发了人们对 Facebook、Twitter 等网站责任的质疑:它们是否有义务审核内容、分辨事实与虚构?

这是一个至今仍有争议的问题:如果平台审核过多，会被批评为“审查言论”;如果放任不管，又会助长假消息泛滥。

讲解：“screen content(审核内容)” 中的 screen 是动词，意为“筛查、把关”，不是“屏幕”。Note: In “screen content,” screen is a verb meaning to filter or vet—not “screen” as in a display.
调查发现The investigation

The Macedonia Connection 马其顿小镇的真相

线索 · 假新闻常出于利益而非政治信念——抓住读者眼球就能赚钱。Cue · Fake news is often driven by profit, not belief—grabbing eyeballs makes money.
EN

Buzzfeed reporter Craig Silverman and his colleagues compared the top 20 fake news articles from the three months leading up toleading up to 临近/(时间上)直到：在某事件发生之前的一段时间里。 the election to the top 20 from actual news sites and found that engagement was much higher for the fake sources than the real ones. In addition, the Buzzfeed team found more than 100 fake news sites focused on the U.S. election were being run out of a small town in the Balkan nation of Macedonia and that virtually all were publishing articles favorablefavorable 有利的：对某人或某方有好处、起正面作用的。 for President-elect Donald Trump's campaign. The extent to which false news impacted the presidential election is unclear.

中文

Buzzfeed 记者 Craig Silverman 和同事们，将大选前三个月互动量最高的 20 篇假新闻与真实新闻网站互动量最高的 20 篇作对比，发现假新闻的互动量远高于真新闻。

此外，Buzzfeed 团队还发现，有一百多个聚焦美国大选的假新闻网站，竟然是从巴尔干国家马其顿的一座小镇运营出来的;而且这些网站发布的文章几乎全都有利于候任总统特朗普的竞选。至于假新闻在多大程度上影响了这场总统大选，目前尚不清楚。

讲解：请注意作者的克制:文末特意说影响“尚不清楚(unclear)”。这是严谨新闻写作的标志——不夸大、不下定论。马其顿小镇的例子提示我们:很多假新闻的动机是广告点击赚钱，而非真心支持某位候选人。Note: Note the writer's restraint: the passage ends by saying the impact is “unclear.” That hedge is a mark of careful journalism—no exaggeration, no overclaiming. The Macedonia example hints that much fake news is driven by ad-click profit, not genuine political support.
观看片段《Fake News》(PBS NewsHour):《How Online Hoaxes and Fake News Played a Role in the Election》。原文亦提供 YouTube 链接 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW-dg_IU3uM
边看边想Watch & think

Questions to Consider 观看时请思考

线索 · 带着问题看视频——把现象与“偏见/操纵/平台责任”三条线索挂钩。Cue · Watch with questions in mind—link what you see to bias, manipulation, and platform responsibility.
EN

Consider the following questions as you listen to the clip below, "Fake News":

  • Do you agree with President Obama's statement that it is problematic if people can't distinguish between real news and propagandapropaganda 宣传(贬义)：带有强烈倾向、意在操纵公众观点的信息。? Explain.
  • How do you think fake news could influence individuals' beliefs or even presidential elections?
  • Do you think tech giants like Google and Facebook deserve to be criticized over whether they used insufficient discretiondiscretion 判断力/自行裁量：在做决定时审慎、明智地判断的能力。 in weeding out fake news? Why?
视频《Fake News》预览图。
视频《Fake News》预览图。
中文

观看下面的片段《Fake News》时，请思考以下问题:

  • 奥巴马总统说“如果人们无法区分真实新闻与宣传，那将是个问题”——你同意吗?请说明理由。
  • 你认为假新闻会如何影响个人的信念，甚至影响总统大选?
  • 你认为像 Google、Facebook 这样的科技巨头，是否应当因为在清除假新闻时“判断力不足(insufficient discretion)”而受到批评?为什么?
讲解：“propaganda(宣传)” 这里是贬义，指带有强烈倾向、意在操纵观点的信息;与中性的 “publicity(宣传/公示)” 不同。Note: Here “propaganda” is negative—heavily biased information meant to manipulate opinion—unlike the neutral word “publicity.”

总结 / Summary

假新闻靠耸动博取互动，常因利益而生;识别它，要看证据、看来源、看它想让你产生什么反应。Fake news wins engagement through sensationalism and is often profit-driven; to spot it, check the evidence, the source, and the reaction it wants from you.

1

互动量 ≠ 真实性:假新闻在 2016 年大选期间的网络互动量甚至超过《纽约时报》等正规媒体。Engagement ≠ truth: during the 2016 election, fake news drew more online engagement than legitimate outlets like The New York Times.

2

动机常是利益:马其顿小镇运营着上百个假新闻网站，目的多是广告赚钱而非政治信念。Profit is often the motive: over a hundred fake-news sites were run from one Macedonian town, mostly chasing ad revenue rather than political conviction.

3

平台责任有争议:Facebook、Twitter 等是否该审核内容、分辨真假，至今没有定论。Platform duty is contested: whether Facebook, Twitter, and others should screen content and separate fact from fiction remains unsettled.

4

严谨的态度:连原文也承认假新闻对大选的实际影响“尚不清楚”——不夸大才可信。A careful stance: even the source admits the real impact of fake news on the election is “unclear”—not overclaiming is what makes it credible.

知识点清单 · Knowledge Points

engagementpropagandascreen contentdiscretionweed outproliferation
?

随堂练习Exercises

先自己作答，再展开参考答案核对。Answer first, then reveal to check.

练习 1Q1选择题 · Multiple Choice

根据课文，Buzzfeed 的分析发现假新闻相比正规媒体有什么特点?According to the text, what did Buzzfeed's analysis find about fake news compared with legitimate outlets?

课文明确指出，大选前三个月互动量最高的 20 篇假新闻，其互动量“远高于(much higher)”真实新闻网站的前 20 篇。The text states the top 20 fake-news articles in the three months before the election drew engagement “much higher” than the top 20 from real news sites.
练习 2Q2选择题 · Multiple Choice

课文提到，超过一百个聚焦美国大选的假新闻网站是从哪里运营的?Where does the text say more than a hundred U.S.-election fake-news sites were being run from?

Buzzfeed 团队发现这些网站是从巴尔干国家马其顿的一座小镇运营出来的，且几乎全部发布有利于特朗普竞选的文章。The Buzzfeed team found the sites were run from a small town in the Balkan nation of Macedonia, nearly all publishing articles favorable to Trump's campaign.
练习 3Q3选择题 · Multiple Choice

在 “screen content” 中，screen 一词的含义最接近以下哪项?In “screen content,” the word screen most nearly means which of the following?

此处 screen 是动词，意为“审核、筛查、把关”，即检查内容并分辨事实与虚构。Here screen is a verb meaning to vet or filter—checking content to separate fact from fiction.
练习 4Q4简答题 · Short Answer

课文最后说假新闻对大选的影响“尚不清楚(unclear)”。这个用词体现了作者怎样的写作态度?The text ends by calling fake news's impact on the election “unclear.” What does this word choice reveal about the writer's stance?

参考答案

它体现了严谨、克制、不夸大的态度。作者用证据说明假新闻互动量更高、来源可疑，但并不据此断言假新闻“决定了”大选结果，而是诚实承认证据不足以下定论。这种保留正是可信新闻写作的标志。

It shows a careful, restrained, non-exaggerating stance. The writer presents evidence that fake news drew more engagement and came from dubious sources, but stops short of claiming fake news “decided” the election—honestly admitting the evidence is insufficient to conclude. That hedge is a hallmark of credible journalism.

练习 5Q5写作题 · Writing

选择一条你最近在社交媒体上看到的、可能是假新闻的内容。运用本课线索(互动量 ≠ 真实、看来源、看它想引起什么反应)，写 4–6 句话分析它为什么可疑，以及你会如何核实。Pick a piece of possibly fake news you recently saw on social media. Using this lesson's cues (engagement ≠ truth, check the source, ask what reaction it wants), write 4–6 sentences analyzing why it is suspect and how you would verify it.

参考示例

我看到一条帖子声称某名人因丑闻被捕，配着一张模糊照片，已被转发上万次。首先，超高的转发量(engagement)本身并不能证明它属实——耸动内容更容易被疯传。其次，发布账号不是任何已知的正规媒体，链接指向一个我从没听过的网站，这很像课文里马其顿那种“伪装成正规媒体”的假新闻源。再次，标题用了夸张、激起愤怒的措辞，明显想引发强烈情绪反应而非提供信息。核实方法:我会去《纽约时报》或路透社等可信来源搜索同一事件，看是否有多家独立媒体报道;若只有那一个网站在说，基本可判定为假新闻。

I saw a post claiming a celebrity had been arrested in a scandal, with a blurry photo and tens of thousands of shares. First, the huge share count (engagement) proves nothing on its own—sensational content spreads fastest. Second, the account is not any known legitimate outlet, and the link points to a site I've never heard of, much like the “purporting to be legitimate” Macedonian sources in the reading. Third, the headline uses exaggerated, anger-stoking wording, clearly aiming to trigger strong emotion rather than inform. To verify, I would search the same event on credible sources like The New York Times or Reuters to see whether multiple independent outlets report it; if only that one site is saying it, I can treat it as fake news.

✓

达标标准Success Criteria

进入下一节之前，确认你已掌握以下各点。Before moving on, confirm you can do each of the following.

Self-check

勾选你已经做到的项目，进度会自动保存。Tick what you can do; progress saves automatically.