Marianna Spring is the BBC’s first disinformation and social media correspondent, a role carved out for her in 2020. Today’s event saw her sit down with Jenny Niven, director of the Edinburgh International Book Festival. A thought-provoking discussion, Marianna shed light on the human aspect of misinformation—focusing on the perpetrators, those affected, and the impact on her own life.

“Marianna shed light on the human aspect of misinformation—focusing on the perpetrators, those affected, and the impact on her own life.”

It wasn’t quite your regular sit down, because Marianna joined us remotely due to changes in her schedule – she has a commitment for Panorama tonight. It was a bit odd, having her beamed in on the big screen, and Jenny turned away from that screen. This setup felt unnatural. There should be a more integrated solution for such situations as they inevitably arise.

People of Conspiracyland

Marianna believes that those who truly believe the misinformation are more cynical than gullible. She shared a story about a woman deeply entrenched in Conspiracyland who suddenly began crying, and Marianna comforted her. This display of empathy was refreshing and highlighted a level of compassion often absent from discussions on misinformation.

Marianna went on to discuss how these groups represent a community that gives people meaning and purpose. While social media does accelerate the spread of messages, it also serves those who feel they lack something in their lives. Marianna suggests that one solution to reducing the spread of disinformation is investing in real-world communities.

Financial motives?

The discussion on the financial motivations behind misinformation felt vague, with a lack of supporting evidence. For instance, the case of Richard D. Hall, who promotes the false narrative that the Manchester Arena attack was a hoax, was presented as an example of “disaster trolling” for financial gain. However, selling a book and DVD at market stalls seems unlikely to generate significant profits. To effectively illustrate the financial incentives driving the spread of disinformation, stronger examples with clear evidence of substantial earnings are needed.

Spreading fast

The remainder of the event focused on more recent events, such as the assassination attempt on President Trump and the Southport stabbings. Marianna explained the role of social media and algorithms in spreading misinformation during such events. As soon as anything happens, false claims spread rapidly. While such claims might be harmless in a private conversation, on social media, your words are shown to other people and amplified.

When discussing the Trump assassination attempt, Marianna highlighted how quickly people believe events are staged, falling down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories. However, I found the framing problematic. Critical thinking and skepticism are beneficial. This principle should be applied universally, not selectively. Discouraging questioning or labeling questioners negatively is counterproductive. The focus should be on the responsible sharing of ideas, rather than suppressing doubt.

“Channel3Now’s role in sensationalising the story for clicks and money demonstrates the importance of combating the spread of misinformation.”

Marianna explained how Southport is a stark example of misinformation spiraling out of control. A false narrative linking the attack to asylum seekers and an arabic name spread rapidly in a vacuum of information. Due to the perpetrator being a minor, details were limited, allowing misinformation to flourish. Channel3Now’s role in sensationalising the story for clicks and money, and the events which have followed, demonstrates the importance of combatting the spread of misinformation.

Personal cost

Niven’s closing question for Marianna was about the personal cost of doing this job. Marianna is a lightning rod for abuse and trolling, with 80% of the online hate directed at the BBC aimed at her.

“Marianna is a lightning rod for abuse and trolling, with 80% of the online hate directed at the BBC aimed at her.”

The harassment is not okay, but she is willing to accept that this is the price for doing what she does. Marianna says that it does help that this is the topic that she investigates, so she knows the tactics they use. However, it’s the threats and hate towards her family and friends that trouble her more. The dedication in the front of her book was revealing; she couldn’t even name anyone there. That really drove the point home for me.

Niven points out that perhaps that Marianna is “running up a tab”, that one day it will catch up with her, highlighting the need for decompression. Marianna was not very receptive to this, possibly because the example given was related to war correspondents. The dedication in the front of her book was revealing; she couldn’t even name anyone there. That really drove the point home for me. There has to be something more than just a stiff upper lip.

Profit vs responsibility

The Q&A session that followed was brief. The recurring theme of profit versus safety and the need for online safety legislation was revisited. Marianna emphasized the importance of demonstrating the financial consequences of inaction, a more stick than carrot approach. I think there’s an opportunity here to explore how social media companies can be incentivised to prioritize safety beyond mere corporate social responsibility. My work in advertising and data science has shown how businesses can profit from creating positive experiences for marginalized groups. Could a similar approach be applied in the social media landscape? [add my link]

The final question was from an elderly gentleman who had some really lovely things to say about Marianna that I don’t think anyone in that room would disagree with. His question concerned young people turning away from mainstream media and toward platforms where misinformation is rife. He asked Marianna, “How do we work towards getting them back?” Marianna talks about how she has diversified her content—it’s podcasts, etc.—and she highlights the importance of trust. She emphasized the importance of style, tone, and being genuine and authentic, not using the typical telly voice. That’s not the kind of thing you see on TikTok.

Niven expanded on Marianna’s answer, sharing an anecdote from a misinformation conference. She mentioned a woman from Ladbible who revealed that the platform is surprisingly trusted among young men. The woman was interested in exploring how Ladbible could ensure its journalistic integrity and accuracy.

In my opinion, if we focus solely on pulling people back and changing the formula for platforms that are successful, there’s a strong risk of alienating people further. This raised several questions for me: Do we need to think bigger? Should we focus on improving the quality of sources and enabling people to think more critically? And should we develop better methods to track the origin and authenticity of information?

Blurred lines

A final point I think is worth addressing at an event discussing social media is the differentiation between the online and real world. It’s clear from the discussions that the lines are blurred—that what people are doing online does spill out into the real world. For example, look at Southport. When people view these as two different worlds, I think things get dangerous; they start to see one as not real. This mindset can give people permission to be more extreme. I would argue that this sort of rhetoric requires careful consideration.

Today’s event highlighted the human dimensions of misinformation. Marianna’s insights left me reflecting on the ongoing challenges of fostering trust and responsibility in an increasingly fragmented online world. There’s much more to consider as we navigate these blurred lines, and it’s clear that the solutions aren’t straightforward.