News watchdogs report more 'pink slime' media sites, which can confuse readers and erode trust in local news

Pink slime can confuse and misinform readers.
(Graphic by Bill Miller, GBH Creative)

With its cluttered headlines and oodles of lower gas price offers, the North Boston News online website does its best to mimic a legitimate news organization. A deeper read of the site reveals articles written by nameless "staff" and stories credited to journalists who can't be found on the internet.

"North Boston News is one of a growing number of what journalist watchdogs are calling 'pink slime' journalism," report Phillip Martin and Nicole Dauphinee of GBH News, a PBS member television station in Boston, Massachusetts. These websites masquerade as local news websites, but their creators and funding stem from "partisan groups or hostile governments, largely with the help of automated services."

Most "pink slime" sites have titles that connect with the region they allegedly represent. "In Massachusetts, such sites include websites with names like the Bean Town Times, the Cape Cod Ledger and the Springfield Record," GBH reports.

In 2024, NewsGuard, a New York-based company that verifies information online, identified 1,265 'pink slime' outlets in the country. By comparison, there are only about 1,200 daily newspapers operating in the U.S.

A company called Metric Media owns North Boston News, along with "58 other websites that claim to provide community news across New England," Martin and Dauphinee explain. "The company says on its homepage that it has more than 1,300 sites across the nation, with an aim of giving 'every citizen a voice in their community.'"

But Metric Media doesn't seem to have any people for citizens to contact. GBH reports, "Nobody replied to GBH News’ emails requesting comment sent to the addresses listed on several of the 14 sites covering news in Massachusetts, including the North Boston News."

A quick look at the North Boston News doesn't tell a reader much about the area, but it does have repeated stories and jumbled jargon paired with political-looking photos. North Boston News and other sites like it can confuse people about what trustworthy, local news looks and reads like, which can erode overall trust in any media source.

Some organizations, like Newsguard, "are making efforts to better educate people about which webpages can be trusted. The information watchdog offers an online tool that helps readers determine the credibility of certain sites," GBH reports. "The app displays website trust ratings and scores next to links on search results and social media feed pages."

What's so appealing about fake health information and how can people combat it?

Stopping to check the facts helps stem the spread of misinformation.
(World Health Organization adaptation via The Converation)

People from all walks of life can get sucked into believing and sharing fake health information from the internet. In his article for The Conversation, global health communication scholar Angshuman K. Kashyap explains why false health data can be so believable and how people can combat it.

Fake health information is written to appeal to human nature. Whether it's a sensationalized problem, more juicy details on a controversial issue, or a simple answer to a complicated problem, many people will keep reading. Kashyap writes, "Fake health information often appears to be true because it mixes a grain of truth with misleading claims."

False health information often looks professional. "In 2019, an article with the false headline 'Ginger is 10,000x more effective at killing cancer than chemo' was shared more than 800,000 times on Facebook," Kashyap explains. "The article contained several factors that make people feel an urgency to react and share without checking the facts: compelling visuals, emotional stories, misleading graphs. . ."

Not only will individuals read and not question data from a fake health story, they will share it, which "has real-world consequences," Kashyap adds. "For example, studies have found that Covid-19-related fake information reduces people’s trust in the government and in health care systems, making people less likely to use or seek out health services."

To detect false health information, researchers and public health organizations have developed three strategies to help health consumers verify health information:

• Double-check health claims with an additional search. Kashyap adds, "Never rely on a single source. Instead, enter the health claim into a reputable search engine like Google and see what trusted sources have to say. . . . Reliable fact-checking websites such as FactCheck.org and Snopes can also help root out fake information."
• Research your information source. Look at a site's "About Us" page, search for information about the author and check dates on cited research and the date of the information's publication. Kashyap writes, "Information on the internet keeps circulating for years and may not be the most accurate or relevant."
• Still don't know what's what? "Don’t share," Kashyap advises. "Forwarding unverified information can unintentionally contribute to the spread of misinformation and potentially cause harm, especially when it comes to health."

Suffering from news overload? This six-step plan outlines how to avoid exhaustion while staying engaged.

Not all news sources are created equal. (Photo by Noah Berger, AP Images via The Conversation)

To avoid information overload, distress, fatigue or even exhaustion, a majority of Americans believe they need to limit their political media consumption. But how, exactly, can U.S. citizens remain engaged without falling into the overwhelming news swamp? "To stay informed while also arming yourself against misinformation, it’s crucial to practice what I call good 'news hygiene' by developing strong news literacy skills," writes Seth Ashley for The Conversation. A lightly edited version of Ashley's six-step plan is shared below.

Take note of algorithms. "Despite the illusion of neutrality, algorithms shape people’s perceptions of reality and are designed to maximize engagement," Ashley shares. Instead of reading "whatever appears in your feed. . . actively seek out a variety of sources to inform you about current events. The news shouldn’t just tell you what you want to hear. . . . People who simply understand that algorithms filter information are more likely to take steps to combat misinformation."

Consider how corporate news makes money. "For-profit newsrooms, which produce the bulk of news consumed in the U.S., rely heavily on advertising revenue, which can reduce the quality of news and create a commercial bias," Ashley explains. "Nonprofit newsrooms and public media provide alternatives that generally prioritize public interest over profit. . . . Countries with better funding for public media tend to have stronger democracies."

Create a habit of checking and verifying news sources. "Particularly with AI-generated content on the rise, source evaluation and verification are essential skills. Be cautious with content that lacks the author’s name, relies heavily on anonymous sources – or uses no sources at all – or is published by outlets with a clear ideological agenda," Ashley advises. "Watch out for news operations that routinely engage in these practices and obscure their motive for doing so."

Remember it's normal to have reactions to news, and it's equally OK to stop consuming or refrain from reposting it. Ashley writes, "When encountering content that sparks an emotional reaction, ask yourself: Who benefits from this narrative? What evidence supports it? Is this information informative or manipulative? If the answers make you suspicious, investigate further before acting or sharing."

Beware of propaganda, aka spin. Ashley explains, "Understanding the mechanics of propaganda – its use of repetition, emotional appeal, scapegoating, scare tactics and unrealistic promises – can help inoculate people against its influence."

Stay in the game, which should include time-outs. "Democracy relies on an informed and active citizenry to hold accountable their government and the officials who work in it as well as other powerful players in society," Ashley adds. "Rather than tuning out – what scholars call 'news avoidance' – you can practice critical consumption of news. . . . Look beyond headlines and short video clips, question the framing of stories. . . . Set goals for your consumption. Some experts say 30 minutes a day is enough."

Opinion: Gleaning facts can be a 'slippery' business. Even when the truth is messy, 'good journalism offers a way.'

Adobe Stock photo

Getting the facts right may sound like Journalism 110 class, but gathering and verifying a story can be like walking on shifting sands, writes Fergus McIntosh of The New Yorker. "Journalists put more stress on accuracy than ever before. The problem is, accuracy is a slippery idea."

Like many professions, journalism has a before and after social media story. Before Americans became absorbed in Facebook, Twitch, TikTok and podcasts, they listened to and read mainstream media. But once social media siphoned huge audiences, "people stopped paying attention to the news, or decided that they didn’t believe it anymore," McIntosh adds. "This story is not unsupported. Trust in many institutions has fallen over the years, but in journalism, it has plummeted."

Examining how little journalists are trusted, makes "fake news"and the harm it does to the news-consumer trust equation that much more worrisome. "'Many Americans now register displeasure with inaccurate or unverified information on social media, and a majority now think that somebody . . .should do something about it," McIntosh explains. "Despite endemic skepticism and distraction, there is an enduring thirst for reliable information. The question is, where can it be found, and how can its purveyors make themselves heard amid the noise?"

CBS and BBC have branded themselves as singular "purveyors" of the facts using an "'only we can provide accuracy' model," McIntosh writes. "For the first Presidential debate of 2024, The New York Times tasked 29 staffers with combing through the candidates’ statements in real time." Even with aggressive fact-checking, "the provision of facts does not, in itself, engender trust. . . . What is more certain is that, from time to time, every journalist, no matter how well-meaning, gets something wrong, or misses the point."

"Because The New Yorker, like many publications, trades on its reputation for accuracy, readers can easily feel cheated, even betrayed, when an error slips in," McIntosh explains. "In such circumstances, it becomes difficult to know what is true, and, consequently, to make decisions. Good journalism offers a way through, but only if readers are willing to follow. . . . Gaining and holding that trust is hard. But failure is not inevitable. . . . Any solution must acknowledge the messiness of truth, the requirements of attention, the way we squint to see more clearly. It must tell you to say what you mean, and know that you mean it."

AI news: Humans write the news only to have bots steal and repost it 'under stolen or assumed identities'

AI "reporters" plagiarize stories from real publications
written by humans. (Graphic by AI robot, Adobe Stock)

Artificial intelligence bots revived a closed small-town newspaper site using culled stories and stolen reporters' names. "The defunct Daily Tidings was alive and kicking, sending out fresh stories again," reports Danny Westneat of The Seattle Times. "The site’s masthead showed eight reporters — a ton for tiny Ashland, Oregon. . . . As Oregon Public Broadcasting revealed this past week in an investigation, the entire site now is reported and written by artificial intelligence bots, under stolen or assumed identities."

"One 'reporter' they tracked down actually lives in the United Kingdom and had no clue he was practicing journalism in southern Oregon," Westneat explains. "The site pumps out about five stories a day — most of them cribbed from real publications, such as Ashland News or The Oregonian, and rewritten by AI programs." The site boasts ads and videos from "big ad-streaming companies such as Google."

The Daily Tidings past owner "told OPB he looked into suing the AI operation — whoever or whatever it is," Westneat reports. "His lawyers though said it’s coming from outside the United States, likely China. It would be 'pursuing a phantom.'"

Ashland's robot news spot isn't unique. "Sites are popping up everywhere using AI bots to create the vague appearance of journalism, usually by rewriting or repurposing articles culled from the real local media," Westneat reports. "AI tools have been developed, such as one depressingly called Spin Rewriter, that can digest an article and convert it into 1,000 'human-quality' facsimile articles."

In Seattle, the "Hoodline" news site produces stories by bots. A former human Hoodline employee, who lost her job to AI, told Westneat, "Old-fashioned shoe-leather reporting has been replaced by fake people who’ve never set foot in any of the neighborhoods they write about — because they don’t have feet."

The editor of the Ashland News, Bert Etling, "says that in Ashland, the scam journalism has been mostly just annoying," Westneat reports. "It’s a plagiarism operation, so the real town news source, his Ashland News, isn’t at much risk of getting scooped. . . . But it isn’t helping that gnawing sense that nobody believes anything anymore."

Election officials face a sea of stresses and threats; many have retired and left new officials to face the fray

AI and deepfake election intrusions add another layer
to election officials' work. (Adobe Stock image)

In the not-so-distant past, county election officials could expect to register voters and repair voting machines. But in more recent election years, including 2024, their jobs have become overwhelming and at times, dangerous, reports Tiffany Hsu of The New York Times. "Elections officials must multitask as defenders against disinformation. They have been flooded with inane demands for details about their employees, faced harassment campaigns targeted at their female family members, received intimidating letters laced with fentanyl and been subjected to fake threats of bombings and break-ins."

For many long-time officials, the pressure cooker environment pushed them into retirement. The gap retirees left has been filled by officials new to the process at a time when the position is exponentially more complex. Hsu explains, "In Wisconsin alone, the state association of county clerks found that 31 of its 72 members had never administered a presidential election. . . .The remaining officials, many of them overwhelmed and very tired, are once again marshaling their limited resources . . ."

Jazmin Wingert

Despite ongoing struggles that range from budget cuts to poll worker shortages, "elections officials are doing what they can this year to shore up voter trust, setting up fact-checking websites (like in Pennsylvania) and posting refutations on social media (like a Mythbuster Mondays series in North Carolina)," the Times reports. "Jazmin Wingert, the Republican county clerk for Stephenson County in Illinois, took an elections certification course with lessons on combating false narratives and meets nearly monthly with other county clerks to share security resources."

Managing AI and deepfakes is also on election officials' to-do lists. "The technology could also supercharge harassment campaigns," Hsu adds. "Last week, a bipartisan group of secretaries of state wrote to the tech billionaire Elon Musk to urge him to fix his A.I.-powered search assistant, Grok chatbot, saying it provided inaccurate information about ballot deadlines and then failed to correct the mistake for 10 days."