Buzz
At this very moment, you have access to more knowledge than 99% of scholars in history. With just a swipe, you can dive into countless breaking news stories, explore ancient literature, or stay updated on cutting-edge scientific discoveries. This isn’t just true for you—it’s true for billions of others as well. It’s education on a scale never seen before.
Or at least it would be if the Internet weren’t so good at spreading misinformation. Right now, countless websites are profiting by sharing ridiculous, harmful, and misleading falsehoods, contributing to the growing confusion and ignorance worldwide. Here’s how they do it.
10. Outrageous Stories with No Reliable Sources (or Terrible Ones) 10 Unbelievable Tactics Online Media Uses to Deceive You If it’s not sourced, it’s not credible. That’s the golden rule when consuming online content. If a site claims to share “10 Shocking Historical Facts” and one of them is something like “Hitler injected bull semen into himself,” they better provide a link to a trustworthy source backing that claim. And by trustworthy, we mean reputable. While many sites now include sources, they often link to unreliable or outright useless references. The Daily Mail is a prime example. Despite appearing to be a legitimate news outlet, it’s a frequent source of fabricated stories for countless blogs and aggregators. In reality, much of what they publish is pure nonsense. The Mail has a history of inventing stories, which has repeatedly landed them in trouble with the UK’s Press Complaints Commission. Yet, major American platforms like The Huffington Post, CBS, and Time have republished their false reports, such as the absurd claim about Beijing faking sunrises during pollution. Worse, some outlets use the Mail’s sensationalist, racially charged headlines to lend credibility to their own biased narratives, even when those headlines are proven false. This issue isn’t limited to the Mail. Many websites still rely on dubious sources like Breitbart, RT, Press TV, the National Record, the Examiner, Wikipedia, or low-quality content farms like eHow.
9. Reputable Sources That Have Made Serious Mistakes
On November 22, 2014, the New York Times had to issue an embarrassing correction. They had cited an interview Kanye West supposedly gave to WGYN in Chicago, where he compared his backside to his wife’s. However, WGYN doesn’t exist. The story originated from The Daily Currant, a satirical website known for articles with outrageous headlines like “bestiality surges after gay marriage legalization.”
This incident highlights how even the respected New York Times can fall for fake news. If they can make such a mistake, what chance do others have? While the Times should have verified the facts, the situation becomes more complicated when trusted sources err. For example, in 2011, the BBC reported that a dog in Israel was sentenced to death by stoning, based on information from AFP, another reputable outlet. The story was entirely false, but since both the BBC and AFP endorsed it, other media outlets repeated it.
For years, one of the Internet’s favorite quirky facts was how a miscalculation of spinach’s iron content supposedly inspired the creation of Popeye. This claim, sourced from the British Medical Journal, was widely circulated by major websites as a genuine oddity. It was later revealed that the article came from the BMJ’s annual Christmas issue, which features humorous and fabricated studies.
8. Unbelievable Headlines
If you believe the headlines, 2015 was a terrifying year for news. For instance, did you hear that Obama seized over one million acres of federal land? Or that hand sanitizer has been found to expose you to chemicals that emasculate and feminize men?
As an informed reader (since you’re here), you likely realize these headlines are misleading. However, millions of others don’t. Both stories originate from NaturalNews.com, a site that attracts over seven million uniquely gullible readers monthly by crafting sensational headlines that cater to their biases. While the stories aren’t entirely fabricated, they’re often rooted in facts that are twisted to create the most shocking and misleading narratives possible.
For example, the headline about Obama refers to the president designating three new national monuments, covering approximately one million acres. The hand sanitizer story is based on a study showing that using certain skincare products before handling thermal paper receipts can lead to the body absorbing BPA—a chemical originally developed as an estrogen supplement. Neither story matches the sensationalism of the headlines, which is precisely the goal. Sensational headlines generate clicks and shares, driving traffic to the sites that publish them.
7. Outdated Information
Even when websites accurately source their information, they can still unintentionally mislead readers. At Mytour, we’ve been publishing one to three lists daily since June 30, 2007. Some of our most popular articles were written over five years ago, and many of these older lists still attract significant traffic. The issue is that these older lists are no longer entirely accurate. Like radioactive decay, some of the facts in them have become outdated.
This phenomenon is known as the half-life of facts, and it impacts every long-standing website. Human knowledge is continually evolving, and older beliefs (such as the Earth being flat, germs spreading through good hygiene, or women’s wombs wandering inside their bodies) are now known to be false. Researchers have studied the rate at which knowledge becomes outdated and found that it’s possible to predict the half-life of facts in various fields. Mathematics has a very long half-life, while medicine and social sciences have much shorter ones.
Consequently, much of the information on older pages of fact-based websites is now outdated. The British quiz show QI estimated that approximately 60 percent of the “facts” from its first season (aired in 2003) have since been proven false. While this isn’t a problem if you’re keeping up with current information, those who enjoy exploring archives should be aware that much of what they’re reading has long been replaced by newer knowledge.
6. ‘Expert’ Opinion
July 6, 2015, was a day that seemed destined for the history books. It was the day humanity believed it had discovered extraterrestrial life. Headlines screamed, “Alien Life on Philae Comet” and “Alien Life On Philae Comet Is ‘Almost’ Certain According To Scientists!” The accompanying articles emphasized that this wasn’t a hoax or poorly sourced. Two credible scientific experts, one of whom had worked on the Philae lander, were behind the claims. The truth, it seemed, was finally within reach.
Or perhaps not, in this instance. While the scientists mentioned in the story, Chandra Wickramasinghe and Max Wallis, were indeed experts, the media had stumbled into one of the most common pitfalls in such situations. They had consulted the wrong experts.
Those actively involved in the mission were quick to dismiss their claims. Wickramasinghe hadn’t been part of the project for over a decade, and neither scientist had access to any new data that could substantiate their assertions. Both are also well-known for frequently predicting the imminent discovery of extraterrestrial life. In 2003, Wickramasinghe even claimed the SARS virus originated from space. While they were undoubtedly experts, they were the last people reporters should have consulted for insights into the Philae mission.
This scenario is far from rare. Experts in unrelated fields are often quoted in sensational headlines, lending an air of credibility to dubious claims. In some cases, these experts have ulterior motives. Companies sometimes pay researchers to produce seemingly scientific results that generate attention-grabbing headlines and boost business. For example, as recently reported in Slate, two mathematicians were funded by Sky Movies to devise the perfect formula for a horror film. They later admitted they had simply gotten drunk on vodka and spent no more than two hours on the project. Despite this, the media eagerly reported their “findings” as a serious scientific breakthrough.
5. Simplified Reporting
In 2012, seasoned British journalist John Simpson reflected on his experience covering the chaotic Bosnian War. A brutal conflict involving multiple ethnic groups, the war was notoriously hard to explain to audiences. An American correspondent Simpson knew even received a direct order from his editor to exclude any mention of Croatian forces. From that point, Simpson noted, viewers of that channel missed a full third of the unfolding conflict.
His account highlights an uncomfortable truth about news coverage: we only ever see a fraction of what’s happening. When browsing news online, that fraction shrinks even further. Due to modern reading habits, very few people read beyond the headline. NPR humorously demonstrated this on April Fools’ Day by posting a deliberately provocative headline, followed by a short explanation that it was a joke and a request not to comment. Despite this, the comments section was flooded with outraged individuals reacting as if they’d read the nonexistent article. This lazy reading habit ultimately makes us all less informed.
Because readers often avoid in-depth articles, the most popular sites are those that simplify everything. In September 2014, a sensational Ebola headline could generate massive traffic. Similarly, at the end of 2013, the internet was flooded with shallow articles praising how wonderful Pope Francis was. These pieces, designed to attract clicks by sticking to simplistic narratives (Pope = good, Ebola = bad), offer no real value. Readers are left with a superficial reflection of their culture’s oversimplified mindset, far removed from the full reality.
4. Repurposed Images
This phenomenon is particularly evident during extreme weather events. Hurricane Sandy, for example, spawned apocalyptic images like the Statue of Liberty being struck by a massive wave and sharks swimming through flooded streets. Similarly, pseudo-inspirational photos of guards protecting the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in the rain went viral. Without exception, these images were either fabricated or taken months or even years earlier under completely different circumstances.
While such images—like those of archaeologists unearthing fossilized giants—are misleading, they aren’t particularly harmful. The same cannot be said for politically charged images. In May 2015, left-wing social media users shared a photo of crates of champagne being delivered to Downing Street, the residence of the newly reelected, austerity-supporting Conservative government. The image sparked outrage and accusations of hypocrisy. In reality, it was taken over a decade earlier.
This kind of blatant propaganda is alarmingly common. For instance, a doctored photo from the Ferguson protests showed a sign altered to read, “No mother should have to fear for her son’s life every time he robs a store.” Then there were the images of Hamas allegedly hosting a mass wedding of underage girls, or the Salvation Army supposedly refusing service to gay individuals. Each of these manipulated photos was shared widely, spreading misinformation and fostering a toxic atmosphere of distrust and animosity.
3. We Let Them Get Away With It
Across all the previous nine entries, one common thread stands out: motivation. When online media lies intentionally, it’s not for fun or as part of some global conspiracy to provoke outrage. They do it because the world rewards them for it.
Websites—from massive platforms like Mail Online to the smallest blogs—publish content to attract visitors. This translates into clicks, shares, and ultimately, revenue from advertisers. In theory, this system should incentivize well-researched, thoughtful articles that readers genuinely value. In practice, while this does happen (as seen with Mytour), it also pushes editors to churn out sensational nonsense. Whether it’s stories about Kim Kardashian’s latest antics, claims of imminent alien discoveries, or anything packaged under a clickbait headline, the goal is the same. It’s easier to write a quirky piece about, say, a Czech director who allegedly created a 908-hour film using blank film stock than to verify if the story has any basis in reality.
The unfortunate truth is that as long as we keep clicking on junk, we can’t complain when junk is all we’re served. If people stopped sharing provocative fake images of murdered black teenagers, those images would cease to exist. We have the power to improve the internet, but it requires a complete overhaul of our online habits.
2. Pursuing Engagement
Have you ever questioned why the same stories dominate every news outlet? While the devastating conflict in Syria remains in the headlines, the equally catastrophic war in South Sudan is largely ignored. In the past, editors held the power to decide what made the news. Courageous newsrooms could shine a light on forgotten conflicts and transform hidden tragedies into national conversations. Nowadays, many major platforms base these crucial choices solely on potential web traffic.
A recent investigation found that journalists at three of the largest U.S. online newsrooms believed their content was being driven by click potential. While this approach has its merits, it results in online media becoming increasingly selective in its coverage. This explains the absurd scenario in 2014 when fears of a global Ebola pandemic swept the nation. The media amplified this panic by depicting the CDC, medical professionals, and the WHO as deceiving the public. Why? Because sensational articles that played on our fears generated more clicks and shares than any other content. Where’s the incentive to create balanced, thoughtful journalism when exaggerated, fear-driven stories fund your next getaway?
In the worst cases, this click-driven approach pushes editors to pressure their teams into fabricating stories. The most notorious example is (unsurprisingly) The Daily Mail, but many others have adopted the “publish first, monetize through ads second, verify facts later” strategy.
1. Appealing to Biases
Over the years, numerous studies have demonstrated that most people struggle when their beliefs are questioned. We often either bury our heads in the sand, dismissing contradictory evidence, or twist facts to align with our ingrained biases. This tendency results in concerning behaviors. Studies reveal that individuals with firmly held views tend to silence as many opposing perspectives as possible.
