1 Critical Thinking
The ability to separate facts from opinions and truth from lies and to recognize manipulated or false content is particularly important in times of post-truth. This competency can be acquired, developed, and improved through critical thinking, but it should not be equated with criticism in its common understanding. Its purpose is not to maliciously spot errors (as with criticism) but to skillfully analyze information and assess the accuracy and logic of argumentation. The term âcriticalâ is derived from two Greek words comprising correct thinking based on intellectual standards: kritikos (luminous judgement) and kriterion (standards, criteria). Critical thinking is the reflection and analysis that accompanies decision-making and problem-solving. It is based on logical, careful inference and is a process guided by good evidence. It defines problems, identifies contradictory arguments, uses relevant and reliable data, asks fundamental questions, and effectively uses information to make assessments and appropriate decisions (DiYanni, 2016, pp. 17â18). Critical thinking practices are documented as far back as ancient times. Richard Paul and Linda Elder believe that âcritical thinking is directly aimed at achieving a well-founded opinion, using adequate standards of evaluation that determine the true meaning or value of somethingâ (Paul & Elder, 2014). Edward Glaser distinguishes its three components as:
An attitude of willingness to consider, in a deliberate manner, problems and objects that fall within the scope of experience.
Knowledge of logical methods of reasoning and inquiry.
Some practice in applying these methods (What is, 2021).
Critical thinking is therefore constructive, useful, and necessary. It is a conscious, well-thought-out, and orderly process. It includes analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and judgement. It is a practical set of skills such as: gathering necessary information; analyzing; determining significance, materiality, and reliability; using in practice; processing; and drawing conclusions.
The cyclical model of critical thinking has five components: (1) asking questions about particular knowledge; (2) clarifying what the knowledge means;
According to Robert DiYanny (2016), a key element of critical thinking is to ask the right questions and to give reasoned answers. This method is based on asking the questions: âHow do I know what I think I know?â and âWhat evidence do I have for what I think I know?â Simply put, humans learn in three ways: first, empirically, through an individual experience of the world; second, by reading and listening to others; and third, by self-discovery. Critical minds constantly challenge both their own reasoning and the thought processes of others. Their attitude is marked by deliberate skepticism, rejecting the acceptance of unsupported assumptions (DiYanni, 2016, pp. 19â30).
According to Richard Paul and Linda Elder (2014), the main questions of critical thinking involve the following:
- âWhat is the design and purpose of a specific thinking process?
- âWhat question or problem requires reflection?
- âWhat is the point of view or perspective?
- âWhat thesis or views are developed and why?
- âWhat facts, information, or data support the idea or thesis?
- âWhat assumptions have been made, and which of them can be challenged or questioned?
- âWhat conclusions can be drawn, and what is the conclusion from them?
- âAre there implications and consequences that can be assumed?
- âWhat concept or theory underlies such thinking?
Critical thinkers are characterized by intellectual honesty; they see facts as they are, not as they would like to see them. They are also characterized by their humility, or ability to perceive the complexity of the world and consider the processes taking place in it as complicated. They avoid arrogance and egocentrism, are aware of the limitations of their own knowledge and demonstrate perseverance with a consistent and methodical approach to problems and questions. Despite difficulties, they do not choose easy and quick solutions; instead, they have courage and a conviction that their own ideas and arguments are right even when they do not agree with the majority opinion. They also demonstrate empathy, appreciating different perspectives and opinions, as well as autonomy, with their ability to think independently and take responsibility for their evidence and arguments (Paul & Elder, 2009; DiYanni, 2016, p. 92).
By developing critical thinking skills, it is possible to better understand the reality that surrounds us. It improves our ability to deal with problems, see cause-and-effect relationships occurring in various phenomena and processes,
Critical thinking translates into competence of separating âfactsâ from âpseudo-factsâ, or truths from falsehoods. Facts, data, and information require analysis and interpretation to be useful and to serve rational conduct. Placed in a false context or surrounded by false inferences, they become useless and harmful. They must therefore be confirmed and verified first to be considered reliable. Only then do they translate into real knowledge. It is worth asking the following four questions each time:
Where does the information come from, and what is its source?
What is the evidence, not the claims, for it?
Why is this information important, and what is its value?
Is it complete, and what is missing?
According to DiYanni (2016), each thesis can then be analyzed in detail by following the steps below:
- âDismantling: eliminating irrelevant details of formulations to better understand the main thesis and its essence.
- âFollowing: finding out who says what, who supports a given thesis, and who opposes it, as well as what others think about it.
- âAnalysis: compiling and presenting reasons for considering a given statement to be true, as well as confronting it with the knowledge resulting from empirical experience and the evidence supporting it.
- âReflection: deciding to accept what is proposed, supported, or stated (pp. 52â53).
In this process, the knowledge and experience of the recipient of the information are greatly important. Some believe that learning and gathering knowledge in the digital age no longer makes sense, as âeverything can be checked onlineâ. There is a hint of a provocative reason in such a statement, but it should serve to reflect on the need for changes in education in a manner that ensures both the acquisition of competences resulting from new social phenomena and the transfer of traditional knowledge. A failure of technology, caused by the weakness of infrastructure, software or hardware, for instance, could result in a lack of access to online resources. Apart from that, much of the content presented on the internet is simply erroneous and based on false or manipulated information, interpretations, and conclusions. Not having a method of error screening translates into vulnerability to manipulation and disinformation and living in a world of apparent knowledge. When browsing information online and in traditional media, one should be skeptical and pay attention to several elements characterizing manipulated content, including:
- âSensational titles or outrageous leads. A key impulse for spreading false information is that it is based on extreme emotions. The sensational promises of
the titles are often not reflected in the text, however. They take advantage of the laziness of recipients, satisfied with the loud headline and not reading further. The purpose here is only to attract clicks (âclickbaitâ) that translate into ad revenue from the website on which they are published. - âEmotional language and photos. Disinformers aim to arouse extreme emotions (usually negative) in the form of indignation or dissatisfaction, which finds its outlet in emotionally marked and often offensive comments fueling the discussion in the form of trolling.
- âA lack of sources cited for the information provided. This can also include references to an unknown source of which the credibility cannot be quickly assessed or one that is known to publish fake news.
- âLinguistic errors. Incorrect spelling or loanwords from foreign languages may indicate that the content was prepared by a person without appropriate qualifications. It may also mean that the editorial office does not have basic quality control mechanisms for the published texts or that the authors are using automatic translators. Actions of this kind are characterized, for example, by the activity of Russian and Belarusian disinformation in Poland.
Caution should also be used regarding published content with sources characterized by:
- âthe dominance of clickbait, sensational headlines, titles, and leads;
- âa large number of advertisements;
- âa URL that looks suspicious and mimics known network addresses;
- âmissing or incomplete information on authors, editorial staff, management;
- âhidden information about the website in the WHOIS register, making it impossible to check who the owner of a given domain is and to further assess its credibility;
- âa domain registered in a country other than the one in the language of which it publishes, which may indicate that it is used to conduct disinformation activities commissioned by another country (GÅowacka et al., 2019, pp. 6â9).
2 Verification of Information
When material or content posted on a website is questionable to a critical audience, security mechanisms are activated. Sensational reports, emotional language, an unknown author or source, controversial theses, or a lack of supporting evidence should bring skepticism against mis- or disinformation. Even if the data and expert opinions presented in the article seem solid, the possibility remains that it is fabricated and untrue. Its legitimacy can be determined by means of information verification and fact checking. This method
The methods used by professional fact-checkers are often reachable to every internet user. Unfortunately, the vast majority of readers do not check the authenticity of information in any way, as the data quoted in the first part of the book illustrates. This may result from a lack of basic knowledge about the available tools, insufficient practical skills, a lack of time, or laziness. To verify the information, the recipient can use checklists, models and schemes, and digital forensics tools. The measure of effectiveness in this case is persistence combined with creativity, systematic work, and developed safety reflexes. The information verification methodology is based on five pillars:
Provenance â What are the origins of the information? Is the article a primary or secondary source? Who is the real producer of the information, and who only intercepted or used it? This applies to official and unofficial accounts, profiles, and websites. Determining the origin of the information helps to understand the context and the publisherâs motivation. By not verifying the original source of information, news agencies can erroneously duplicate fake news simply because other media have done so. An example of this is the âblue whaleâs storyâ, a computer game developed in Russia which supposedly caused suicide among children. The disinformation spread around the world not only because it had not been checked but also because it was duplicated by thousands of press agencies, newspapers, TV programs, and internet portals.
Source of information â Who is the author or editor, and what is known about them? Is the source of information generally recognized as reliable, professional, and credible? Is the source of information complete? Is the author of the material an expert in the given field, or do they refer to the knowledge of experts? Are the experts referred to in the text true experts in the given field? An example of this is the multitude of pseudo-experts formulating controversial theses about COVID-19 and the validity and effectiveness of vaccinations against it. They often only seemingly have such qualifications (e.g., they are doctors whose specialties do not pertain to immunology or infectious diseases). One of many examples is Carrie Madej, an American osteopath who is famous for spreading anti-vaccine conspiracy theories about the pandemic and vaccinations. Madej was one of the first to suggest that COVID-19 vaccines âwould induce changes in human DNAâ (Goodman & Carmichael, 2020).
Date of publication â The date of publication informs the reader when the material was created and if it could be outdated or have changed. By
determining this information, the recipient should be able to determine whether the text concerns current affairs or whether its subject matter is artificially related to other past events. Such action may be aimed at distorting the viewerâs assessment of current issues. An example of this is the false content circulated about alleged protests against pandemic restrictions in France in 2021. In this case, photos were used from the âyellow vest protestsâ in 2018 to fabricate the alleged proof of the events (Reuters Fact Check, 2021). Location â Do the content, graphics, and video materials correspond to the location and context they relate to? An example of this type of manipulation are the photos of two men with Arab physiognomy smiling on the backdrop of the burning Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris 2019. These photos were used to spread the false information suggesting that Muslim fundamentalists were responsible for the fire (Kobla, 2019).
Motivation â What are the authorâs intentions and goals? Do they act for social good by publishing proven and thoroughly compiled content, or do they manipulate information to radicalize public debate with controversial and disingenuous articles? This can also be driven by commercial motivation, focused on advertising profits, which are the highest in the case of clickbait articles containing sensational and emotional information (Urbani, 2019).
Among the numerous models, methods, and tools used to verify the truthfulness of information, one of the most popular and effective is the CRAAP model. The analysis model developed by Meriam Library at California State University consists of five elements:
Currency of the information
- âhen was the information published?
- âHas the information, if not new, been updated?
- âDoes the issue related to the information require up-to-date data, or is it possible to rely on older materials?
- âDo the links, if any, in the information work?
Relevance
- âDoes the information relate to the subject or answer questions important to the recipient?
- âFor whom was the information prepared, and what is the target group?
- âIs the information adequate to the recipientâs needs? Is it too vague, too advanced, or too detailed?
- âHave other sources of information been checked before deciding to use this information?
- âDoes the public admission to use a given source of information look serious?
Authority - âWho is the author, publisher, source, or sponsor of the information?
- âWhat are the credentials of the author of the information? What organization, institution, or other entity is it affiliated with?
- âIs the author qualified to speak on the subject?
- âAre there details such as publisher name, e-mail address, etc., next to the information?
- âDoes the website address say something about the author or sender (e.g., does the URL end with: â.comâ, â.eduâ, or â.govâ)?
Accuracy
- âWhere does the information come from?
- âIs the information supported by evidence?
- âWas the information peer-reviewed or cited?
- âIs it possible to confirm at least some of the information provided in another source or through use of self-knowledge?
- âDoes the language or pronunciation of all information indicate impartiality, and is it devoid of any emotional tinge?
- âAre there any spelling, grammatical, or stylistic errors in the information?
Purpose
- âWhat was the information created for? Is it supposed to educate, inform, entertain, or persuade?
- âDid the author or the person financing the creation of the information clearly define its purpose?
- âIs the information describing facts, presenting an opinion, or perpetrating propaganda?
- âDoes the point of view presented in the information appear objective?
- âIs the information biased? Does it take a specific position on issues related to politics, religion, or social issues? Does it present the perspective of only one institution or person?
The CRAAP model allows for detailed content analysis, but it may seem too elaborate and complex for the average internet user. By applying it, the recipient spends more time analyzing the article than simply reading its content. In a ânetwork societyâ, a few clicks can give access to hundreds or thousands of articles on a specific topic. The primary challenge, therefore, is to make the audience spend more time carefully selecting information sources or reflecting more thoroughly on the content.
Despite its complexity, the questions formulated in the CRAAP model have a great analytical value in the field of information verification methodology. By
The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) has also proposed a more simplified procedure for dealing with information. It consists of eight activities that any recipient of information should perform:
Check the sources. Conduct a thorough analysis of the website as well as information about the editorial office and its mission. Check the domain owner, financing sources, and contact details.
Check the authors. Find information about their experience and qualifications that translate into their credibility. Verify if the author(s) exist or are fictional characters.
Check the date. Sharing old information as âup-to-dateâ is often intended to distort the image of reality and lead the recipient to misinterpret the situation.
Read more. In the digital era, recipients face an overload of information every day. Consequently, this often leads to opinions being formed solely based on provocative headlines. After reading an article in entirety, it may turn out that the sensational title or lead is not reflected in its content.
Pay attention to bias. A careful reading of the article should include an analysis of whether the text is biased. Did the author consider the arguments of each party? Is the issue presented in an objective and balanced manner? The recipient must also pay attention to whether the authorâs personal beliefs affect their perception of the information.
Check additional sources. Manipulated content is often based on specific data, expert statements, and sources that are generally accepted as reliable. However, the quoted âdataâ or âexpert opinionsâ are not always correct. The recipient should therefore check whether the sources provided in the links refer to the given information and whether they present it in a manner that reflects the original authorâs intent.
Check for satire. Controversial and sensational messages may take the form of satire (e.g., memes), which should be treated as a form of entertainment and humorous commentary on reality. Information and theses contained in various forms of satire should be verified with information on the same subject available in proven and credible sources.
Ask the experts. In the era of social media, the distance between the recipients of information and its journalists and experts has been significantly shortened. This enables internet users to confront questionable theories and information with the knowledge of specialists who
can answer concerns and questions in private messages. In this way, it is also possible to verify whether the assessment of a given situation or phenomenon referred to by the author of a text was actually formulated by them (How To Spot, 2017).
The practical application of this pattern should be a sufficient and effective mechanism for protecting against counterfeiting and manipulation in the information space. Recipients who do not have the time or are unwilling to independently analyze content can also look to professional organizations that verify information. According to Duke Reporterâs Lab, along with the growing scale of disinformation and fake news, the number of fact-checking organizations in the world increased from 44 in 2014 to 149 in 2018. The dissemination of false information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the expansion of the international network of information verifiers to 341 entities operating in over 100 countries in 2021 (Stencel, Ryan & Luther, 2022). Most often, these entities are non-governmental organizations (NGOs) associated with international networks such as: FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, The Washington Post Fact-Checker, Full Fact, Snopes, Fact Check from Duke Reportersâ Lab, SciCheck, FlackCheck, Media Bias/Fact Check, NPR FactCheck, Hoax Slayer, and AllSides. More than 100 of them were affiliated with the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) in 2022 (Empowering, 2022).
Fact-checking organizations employ people experienced in working in the media, including former journalists; analysts; experts in public relations, public affairs, and marketing; as well as students and volunteers. Their activities are financed from funds provided by NGOs, internet platforms, private donors, and state institutions. Fact-checking organizations verify information and use unified standards and similar methods of work. The overriding principle within their work is transparency, consisting in the full availability of recipients to the methodology and information on the activities of a given entity. The basic standards and principles are contained in the IFCN Code of Principles for fact-checking organizations (Orsek & Ozsoy, 2020). These are:
- âImpartiality, honesty, and justice. The fact-checker should check the statements of politicians from various groups to an equal extent, refrain from taking a position on the issues they are examining, and verify the facts. Judgement and evaluation belong to recipients.
- âTransparency of activities. This includes sources, financing, organizational structure, and methodology. Fact-checkers should reveal what data and documents analyses are based on.
- âA clearly defined content modification and correction policy. Fact-checkers have an obligation to be open and honest about text modifications, making the recipient fully aware of any corrections that were made.
âIntent to improve the quality of public debate. This should be the main goal of fact-checking organizations. They cannot be guided by political or commercial motivation or any other factor which could affect their objectivity, reliability, and credibility.
Since 2018, the European Union has supported the activities of fact-checking organizations and organized workshops and conferences as part of an independent European network of fact-checkers. The EU also provides them with its own tools and data. To facilitate the detection of various types of disinformation threats, the European Commission has provided funding for the Social Observatory on Disinformation and Social Media Analysis (SOMA), which created a pilot IT infrastructure to support fact-checking. In addition, many research projects are funded from EU grants to analyze disinformation and develop new content verification tools (Ogrodowczyk et al., 2020, p. 22).
3 Open-Source Intelligence
Competences and skills in the field of critical thinking and fact-checking help to identify disinformation. However, to analyze the content of a message; the source of its preparation, methods, and scope of distribution; and the determination of the objectives of a given operation all require the effective use of open-source intelligence (OSINT) tools. OSINT is one of the working methods of specialized law enforcement agencies, armed forces, intelligence services, investigative journalists, analysts, and scientists. Public access to data from open sources and tools for their acquisition, combined with extensive training, make OSINT skills the basic work tool of the network society.
Knowledge that used to be reserved for specialized state structures and obtained by means of operational activities can often be gathered using a private computer and free internet tools. The example of the location of the U.S. Army secret bases in the Middle East and Africa exposed to the public based on data from sports applications used by soldiers for training illustrates how challenging it is to ensure operational security in the 21st century. Every user of a smartphone, computer, and other electronic device leaves behind digital traces that can be analyzed through OSINT. This is evidenced by the activities of the international investigative journalist group Bellingcat and its efforts to unmask Russian hybrid activities.
The usefulness of OSINT is not only related to the development of information and communication technologies (ICT). It is estimated that during the Cold War rivalry, only 20% of intelligence came from secret sources, while as
Intelligence agencies often overestimate the importance of information obtained with the use of operational methods. At the same time, they ignore the conclusions that can be drawn from a careful analysis of open sources such as media, publicly available documents, social media reports, and other sources (Stróżyk, 2020, pp. 18â19). In intelligence activities, OSINT primarily provides the service with a broad background of the problem and builds an appropriate context for its further analysis. Often, the information contained in open sources turns out to be so detailed and certain that the further use of more expensive methods of information gathering is not justified. OSINT also allows for verification of information previously collected by other methods, which undoubtedly has a positive effect on the quality of the final analytical product. Such verification can help identify errors made by an information gathering team or detect manipulation and disinformation used by foreign intelligence. The NATO Open-Source Intelligence Handbook distinguishes the following categories of information from open sources:
- âOpen-Source Data (OSD). Data in raw form from printed, radio, TV, or digital (internet) sources. This also includes photos, recordings, satellite imagery, written notes, etc.
- âOpen-Source Information (OSIF). Information consisting of aggregated data, typically as a result of an editing, filtering, validation, and presentation process. This includes press, literature, scientific studies, publicly available reports, analyses, documents, etc.
- âOpen-Source Intelligence (OSINT). Information obtained from publicly available sources that has been processed, analyzed, and disseminated to recipients to answer a specific question.
- âValidated OSINT. Information that can be assigned a high degree of certainty. It may, for instance, have been created by an intelligence analysis specialist who also has access to information obtained through operational means (NATO Open, 2001, pp. 2â3).
Any analyst involved in monitoring disinformation should develop an individual database of sources that they intend to systematically observe and analyze. It will be the basis for collecting âraw dataâ, or OSD, and âpublicly available informationâ, or OSIF, which will be subject to a process of analysis and verification. When creating such a database, it is first necessary to identify the priorities of the analyst/analytical team and what kind of disinformation will be analyzed. Is it national or international? Is it generated by state actors (Russia, China, Belarus, Iran, Turkey), non-state actors (terrorist organizations, radical extremist groups), or business entities (competing companies)? Will
After prioritizing an analytical activity within the wider field of identifying disinformation, the analyst can then proceed to selecting information sources (press agencies, press titles, TV channels, websites, social media groups, opinion leaders, etc.) that will be the object of analytical interest. In this process, the knowledge and competences of the analyst or analytical team should be considered. The process of identifying and analyzing disinformation may consist of the following stages:
Obtaining information.
Evaluating the information source.
Evaluating the information.
Circumstances surrounding the acquisition of information.
Identifying the possible purpose of the disinformation.
Evaluating the consequences of the disinformation.
Assessing the vulnerability to disinformation.
The main advantages of using open-source intelligence is the speed and ease of obtaining information, as well as its typically low cost for analysis. However, this does not change the fact that an analyst using OSINT must obtain information from reliable and proven sources, make selections to identify the essential information, and verify details. Any piece of information must have certain desirable characteristics such as timeliness, reliability, completeness, sufficiency, relevance, accuracy, unambiguousness, and comprehensibility. These characteristics must demonstrate its quality and value, which translate into its credibility and usefulness in achieving goals and decision-making processes. Valuable and useful information allows for analysis and evaluation of the current state of affairs as well as forecasts for the future. It is helpful in making optimal decisions and taking action.
If false or manipulated information is detected, many tools can be used to further verify and analyze it, including:
- âInternet search engines. These platforms, which include Google, DuckDuckGo, Bing, Entireweb, and Yandex, help to identify information for analysis. It is important for analysts to note that different search engines may display results in different orders. Therefore, using only one search engine limits users to the âfilter bubblesâ.
- âTools for collecting statistical data, tracking trends, and distributing information online. These tools, such as Google Trends, allow analysts to check the popularity of a particular piece of information.
âContent aggregators. Aggregators such as RSS Reader, News Reader, News Aggregator, RSSOwl.org, and Google News enable the systematic acquisition of content from individual internet sources. - âScientific text databases. Databases like Academia.edu, ResearchGate.net, SSRN.com, and Google Scholar enable comparison of internet content with data, facts, theories, and scientific knowledge.
- âSocial media analysis tools. These include Netlytic, Social Bearing, Follow The Hashtag, TweetDeck, and Who posted what?. They allow users to track trends on social media, identify the distribution of specific content and articles, and analyze word combinations (including hashtagsâ popularity) to increase the reach of publications.
- âTools for advanced image search and analysis. These tools, including Google Images, TinEye, FotoForensics, RevEye Reverse Image Search, and Jeffreyâs Image Metadata Viewer, help to verify the authenticity of photos and graphics and help analysts identify possible modifications.
- âTools for analyzing video materials. These tools, such as YouTube Data Viewer, InVID Verification Plugin, and VLC, offer similar analytical value to graphic analysis tools. They are still insufficient to detect âdeep fakesâ, however.
- âDomain analysis. This helps analysts search for information about changed or deleted websites and includes tools like ViewDNS, WhoIs, DNSdumpster, The Internet Archive Wayback Machine, Reddit, 4Chan Search, and Domain-Eye. Domain analysis allows analysts to determine who is the owner of a given website and gain access to their deleted but archived versions.
- âTools for acquiring and verifying information about people and entities. Such tools include Spokeo, Email Checker, PIPL, and Facebook Graph Search and they help determine if a given profile/account on social media is real or fictitious.
- âTools for identifying bots and fake accounts. These make it possible to determine the probability of whether a given account is managed by a human or a computer based on an analysis of its activity or number of followers. Examples include Hoaxy, Bot Sentinel, and Twitonomy.
- âTools for organizing collected materials. These tools, such as Hunchly, Maltego, and Start.me, allow analysts to organize the methodology of their work and create a personalized database of sources and tools for analysis. They also help to collect data and show the relationship between the information obtained (Hassan & Hijazi; 2018; Bielska et al., 2020).
When verifying the authenticity of information sources, particular attention should be paid to the following elements:
âURL address and account name. Discrepancies in the URL and name, including suspicious numbers or symbols, may indicate that the account or website is fraudulent. - âProfile photos. Disinformers use stock photos or photos created by photo generators when creating fake accounts. The same photos are sometimes used by several accounts, which can be verified with the use of Google Images, TinEye, or FotoForensics.
- âAccount activity and number of followers. Accounts publishing posts or comments intensively and regularly (e.g., at certain times of day) should arouse suspicion. Bot accounts usually last no more than a few months and donât have many followers. At the same time, they follow many other users which should raise suspicion. Bot activity may also be indicated by a sudden increase in followers.
- âPublished content. Fake accounts often do not publish much of their own content, instead re-posting othersâ content to increase their reach. By copying text fragments into the search engine and using the command âphrase in quotation marksâ, it is possible to verify if the same text was already published. SocialBearing and Hoaxy are also useful tools for analyzing the distribution of disinformation.
- âMetadata. By checking metadata, such as date or geolocation, analysts can verify if a photo or video corresponds to the articleâs content (GÅowacka et al., 2019, p. 11).
After collecting materials containing false or manipulated information, analysts can proceed with a detailed analysis. The materials collected during the investigation should also be documented and archived due to the fact that content posted on websites can be quickly removed or modified. A well-documented procedure also proves the transparency of the analystâs activities and constitutes a security guarantee in case of defamation accusations. The results of the investigation should be processed and published in the form of an analysis or comment on a specially created website, blog, or social media profile.
This methodology of work is crucial for any analyst. It takes time to develop an appropriate analytical workshop that allows the recipient to effectively navigate through the maze of information, as its excess is always a challenge. Artificial intelligence algorithms can facilitate the task in terms of precise data and content search. They should be used cautiously, however, as they can pose a threat of operating within a filter bubble (Pariser, 2011; Sumpter, 2018).
One concern that arises with this personalization of online search results based on user preferences is that it can lead to a distortion of the image of the analyzed phenomenon due to the omission of other available sources of
Another problem related to the automation of the information search and analysis process is the difficulty to verify it. It is not easy to verify the date on which information is placed on the network, which complicates the verification of its credibility and affects the timeliness and usefulness of the fact-checkerâs work. Information that appears online is copied many times, usually without proper citation of its original source. A fully documented verification of where and in what form information appeared for the first time is therefore often near impossible. This phenomenon is aptly referred to as the âecho effectâ (Best & Cumming et al., 2007).
Analysts must be aware of cognitive limitations and the typical traps of simplified thinking, which may lead to analytical mistakes. Such mistakes can be avoided by learning how to recognize them â first and foremost by employing critical thinking and adhering to certain intellectual standards and proven principles of good conduct.
In an effort to outline such principles, Former CIA Directorate Intelligence (DI) Officer Frank Watanabe formulated 15 analytical rules. They are popular with intelligence analysts and strategic analysis practitioners, although they do not formally meet the criteria of a scientific method or procedure. They can, however, be treated as specific principles of âanalytical hygieneâ, originating from institutions with a high organizational and corporate culture. These 15 golden rules of a CIA analyst are as follows:
Trust your judgement. This does not mean ignoring the different interpretations, conclusions, or points of view of other people (reviewers). However, the essence of this principle is to not allow yourself to be influenced by others too easily, particularly if they are your professional superior.
Be bold in your theses and donât be afraid to make mistakes. Restricting yourself to a general interpretation of data and formulating conclusions only corresponding to your own state of knowledge on a given topic will certainly protect you from the scrutiny of superiors. However, it is difficult to accurately predict the future in this way. An in-depth analysis supported by rigorous logical thinking (despite stumbles) can contribute to obtaining key advance information at the right time.
It is better to be mistaken than to be wrong. It is not easy for analysts to admit they are wrong. The ability to correct oneâs assessment of the situation after obtaining new data or catching a mistake avoids the mechanism of âcommitment and consequenceâ, which can have dire consequences.
Avoid âmirror imagingâ at all costs. Not every entity thinks and acts in the same way. Culture, nationality, religion, and political preferences all matter. Assessing the situation solely through the prism of oneâs own system of values is one of the biggest analytical pitfalls. Just because something is logical and consistent for someone does not mean that another person or group views the same process in the same way. Analysis is worthless if it is not disseminated. An analystâs knowledge is useless if it is not developed and communicated to decision-makers in a clear and effective manner.
Coordination is necessary, but do not settle for the least common denominator. The convergence of arguments presented by various analysts may seem desirable because it confirms the belief in the accuracy of the formulated assumptions and conclusions. However, it does not mean that the analysis should only focus on aspects which experts agree on. The emerging differences of opinion between analysts and coordinators should not be removed from the analysis. If the analyst believes that they are right, the discrepancies in assessment between them and their coordinator should be presented in the text (e.g., in the form of a footnote).
If everyone agrees, something is wrong. Full agreement in a group of experts is rare. If such a situation is not preceded by a stormy discussion, the alert should be raised. The fact that everyone agrees may de facto mean that everyone is wrong (group thinking syndrome).
Do not write everything you know, just what is most important. Analysts often try to flaunt specialist knowledge, inundating the recipient with detailed albeit redundant information. The analytical text is not meant to be an extensive study of the topic, however. It must contain the most important information from the readerâs perspective, which must be properly received by the recipient.
The form is never more important than the content. Although analyses are characterized by a high level of stylistic and linguistic value, attention to the form of the text should not adversely affect its substantive content.
Actively collect the information you need. If information is lacking, actively search for new data and information.
Do not take editorial proofreading too seriously. If editorial changes do not interfere with the content, accept them gratefully. However, the edits must not change the substantive value of the text or distort the essence of the analysis.
Chat with other analysts. This allows analysts to create networks of personal contacts with whom they can formally and informally consult substantive issues and through whom they can subject theses to a critical
analysis before writing. Influenced by other specialists, analysts can also come up with innovative ideas or create working teams on a given topic. Do not let your career take priority over your assignment. Proper execution of analytical tasks is more important than promotion. The analystâs job is to deliver the best analysis based on the information available. Sometimes they may contain theses or conclusions undesirable for the recipient or supervisor. The desire to keep a job or get a promotion should not take precedence over performing analytical work properly.
Being an analyst is not a popularity contest. Analyses do not have to reflect the views of the recipient but the actual state of affairs. The role of the analyst often comes down to telling decision-makers what they do not want to hear.
Do not take your work too seriously. There will always be more work than time to get it done. Failure to maintain proper proportions between work and family or your passions will lower the quality of the analyses prepared (Watanabe, 1997, pp. 45â47).
The above rules mainly apply to analysts working in the state administration, operating in a certain formalized, bureaucratic, and hierarchical structure. However, they can also be helpful for independent disinformation analysts who must pay special attention to the operational security of their activities. Any actor working to unmask disinformation should therefore assume that they may become the target of attacks by the entity whose information activities they disclose. Finnish journalist Jessikka Aro, who exposed Russian influence and disinformation operations, was most convinced of this. Her activities were met with a wave of internet hatred directed against her by pro-Russian trolls (Aro, 2020).
Basic OPSEC best practices include using a password manager and two-factor authentication; using anti-virus software; systematically updating operating systems, applications, and programs; regularly backing up files to an external drive or to the cloud; selectively sharing personal information on the web or limiting its visibility to others (e.g., on social media); protecting sensitive information relating to identity and activities; limiting digital footprints; avoiding the use of open Wi-Fi networks; using encryption keys and secure applications like communicators that automatically encrypt messages; and anonymizing activities by using a VPN or TOR browser.
For the network society, critical thinking and fact-checking is an elementary set of practical skills necessary for the secure use of information resources available in cyberspace. Advanced information search and analysis methods are basic tools for the work of journalists, analysts, scientists, and state officials. All internet users are exposed to daily manipulation and false information
In the meantime, the current first line of defense on the front of information warfare are individual skills in the field of critical thinking, data verification, selection of information sources, and assessment of their credibility and reliability. Well-understood skepticism and developed control mechanisms reduce individualsâ vulnerability to disinformation and increase social resilience.