Chapter 24 Exercises: Digital Disinformation — The 2016–2020 Campaigns

Exercise 1: Trace a Viral Claim (Individual)

Objective: Apply documented fact-checking methodology to a specific viral claim, reconstructing the claim's origin, spread, and factual status.

Background: Professional fact-checkers use a set of established methodologies for evaluating viral claims. The most widely taught is "lateral reading" — rather than reading deeply within a single source (which the source can control), lateral reading means opening additional browser tabs and immediately searching for what other sources say about the original source. Complementary tools include reverse image searches (to identify manipulated or out-of-context images), archive services (to retrieve deleted content), and WHOIS lookups (to identify who registered a website and when).

Instructions:

Select one of the following viral claims that circulated during the 2016–2020 period and has since been thoroughly fact-checked:

• Option A: "Hillary Clinton's email server contained evidence of a child trafficking ring operated out of a Washington, D.C. pizza restaurant." (The "Pizzagate" claim, 2016)
• Option B: "The COVID-19 vaccines contain microchips that allow the government to track recipients." (Circulated widely in 2020–2021)
• Option C: "Voting machines manufactured by Dominion Voting Systems were programmed to switch votes from Trump to Biden." (Circulated from November 2020)
• Option D: "Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19 that the medical establishment is suppressing." (Circulated from March 2020)

For your selected claim, complete the following analysis:

Part A — The claim itself (200 words): State the claim in its most commonly circulated form. When did it first appear? What was its initial distribution channel? Note: for claims that have many variants, focus on the most widely circulated version.

Part B — Tracing the origin (300 words): Using published fact-checks from established organizations (PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, Snopes, the Associated Press Fact Check, Reuters Fact Check), trace the claim to its earliest documentable origin. Who first made the claim? In what context? Was it a deliberate fabrication, a misinterpretation of genuine information, or a garbled version of something real?

Part C — The spread (300 words): How did the claim spread? Identify at least three distribution nodes — specific websites, social media accounts, or media figures who amplified the claim to large audiences. For each, note: what was their audience size, what was their apparent motivation for amplifying the claim, and did they present the claim with any caveats or verification?

Part D — The factual status (200 words): What is the documented factual status of the claim? Cite at least two independent fact-checking organizations and one primary source (a court decision, an official government report, a peer-reviewed study) that establishes the factual record. Note: for claims where the factual record is genuinely uncertain (as opposed to false), acknowledge the uncertainty and describe what is and is not known.

Part E — Correction reach (100 words): Was a correction or refutation published? By whom, and when? Estimate the relative reach of the original claim versus the correction, using whatever audience data is available (social media shares, website traffic data, polling on public belief).

Reflection question (150 words): What does your analysis reveal about the specific mechanisms that made this claim spreadable? If you were designing an inoculation campaign to reduce this claim's spread, what would be your intervention point — and why?

Exercise 2: Primary Source Research — The IRA's Heart of Texas Operation (Individual)

Objective: Work directly with a primary source document to build analytical skills with official government investigations.

Required source: Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Elections, Volume 2: Russia's Use of Social Media with Additional Views (October 2019). Available at https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/report-volume-2. (Note: the report is a public document, freely available through the Senate Intelligence Committee's website and through multiple archive sources.)

Instructions:

Read the sections of the Senate Intelligence Committee Vol. 2 report that address the IRA's Facebook operations and, specifically, the "Heart of Texas" page and related events. The relevant sections are primarily found in the "Facebook Analysis" chapter of the report. You may also consult the Mueller Report's Section IV.A for supplementary detail on the IRA's organizational structure.

Part A — Document overview (150 words): Describe the document's origin and authority. Who commissioned it? Who wrote it? What was the methodology (how did investigators obtain the information they cite)? What are the stated limitations of the investigation's findings?

Part B — The organizational structure (250 words): Based on the primary source, describe the IRA's organizational structure. What departments are documented? What were the performance metrics employees were evaluated against? What evidence does the report provide about the level of direction from the Russian state?

Part C — The "Heart of Texas" operation (300 words): Using only the primary source (and the Mueller Report if you are consulting it supplementarily), describe the "Heart of Texas" page's operation. What content did it produce? What events did it organize? What was its documented follower count? What was the documented reach of the Houston rally it co-organized? Cite specific pages from the primary source.

Part D — Evaluating the evidence (200 words): The Senate report represents the findings of a U.S. government investigation. What are the evidentiary standards it applies — that is, what level of proof does it require before making a factual claim? Compare this to the evidentiary standards of a court proceeding, an academic peer-reviewed study, and a journalistic investigation. What does this comparison tell you about how to weight the report's findings?

Part E — What the primary source adds (200 words): What specific facts or nuances does the primary source contain that were not in this chapter's treatment of the IRA? Were you surprised by anything in the document? Does reading the primary source change your assessment of any aspect of the IRA operation?

Exercise 3: Apply the COVID Disinformation Framework (Individual)

Objective: Apply the analytical framework developed for historical disinformation campaigns to a current or recent health-related claim.

Background: The COVID-19 infodemic created a template for analyzing health disinformation that extends to current and future health claims. The key analytical dimensions are: the claim's origin (deliberate fabrication, misinterpretation, legitimate uncertainty exploited), its amplification network (domestic, foreign, ideological, commercial), its target audience and the specific vulnerabilities it exploits, and its effects on health behavior.

Instructions:

Identify a health-related claim currently circulating in your information environment — in your social media feeds, in conversations, in media you consume — that you believe may be false or significantly misleading. (If you cannot identify a current example, choose a well-documented recent example not covered in this chapter, such as the 5G-COVID link claim, the ivermectin-as-COVID-cure campaign, or the claim that flu deaths were reclassified as COVID deaths.)

Part A — The claim (150 words): State the claim precisely. Note where and when you encountered it. Who was presenting the claim — an individual, an organization, a media outlet? What was the implicit or explicit evidence offered for the claim?

Part B — Category analysis (200 words): Which of the following categories best describes this claim, and why? - False treatment claim - Vaccine disinformation - Institutional authority attack - Origin/cause theory - Statistical manipulation (misrepresenting data about risk, efficacy, or mortality) What specific technique from the COVID disinformation case studies in this chapter does it most resemble?

Part C — Amplification network (250 words): Describe the amplification network for this claim as best you can determine. Who are the primary sources (the people or organizations making the original claim)? Who are the amplifiers (people or organizations sharing or discussing it)? Is there evidence of coordinated amplification (multiple accounts posting similar content at similar times) or organic sharing (individuals independently sharing content they found compelling)? Is there any evidence of foreign state media involvement?

Part D — Targeting and vulnerability exploitation (200 words): What specific audience vulnerabilities does this claim exploit? Consider: distrust of institutions, prior health experiences, political identity, cultural or religious identity, scientific uncertainty about a related question, historical experiences of medical harm.

Part E — Factual status and response (200 words): What is the current factual status of the claim? Cite at least one public health authority and one peer-reviewed source. Has there been an official response to the claim? If so, evaluate the response's likely effectiveness given what you know about how the claim is being amplified and shared.

Exercise 4: The Domestic Ecosystem vs. the IRA — Analysis Essay (Individual)

Objective: Develop a nuanced analytical position on the relationship between the IRA's operations and the domestic disinformation ecosystem, using evidence from this chapter and the primary sources it cites.

Instructions:

Write an analytical essay of 800–1,000 words addressing the following question:

In the 2016 U.S. election disinformation environment, what was the relationship between the IRA's operations and the domestic disinformation ecosystem? Were they independent, parallel, or mutually reinforcing? What are the implications of your analysis for understanding where responsibility for the period's disinformation environment lies?

Your essay should:

• Engage with the Guess, Nagler, and Tucker (2020) finding that most fake news was shared by a small number of older, partisan Americans — most of whom had no connection to the IRA.
• Engage with the documented interaction between IRA content and domestic partisan media content.
• Engage with the Macedonian content farm ecosystem and what it reveals about the role of commercial incentives (distinct from both ideological motivation and state direction) in the disinformation environment.
• Take a clear analytical position: not "both sides are equally responsible" (which is an evasion) but a specific claim about the relative weight and interaction of foreign and domestic factors.
• Acknowledge the strongest evidence against your position and explain why, in your assessment, your position is nonetheless well-supported.

Your essay will be evaluated on: clarity of argument, quality of evidence use, engagement with complexity, and willingness to take and defend a position.

Exercise 5: Group Exercise — Simulated Fact-Checking Operation

Objective: Experience the real-time constraints and methodological challenges of professional fact-checking by evaluating viral claims under time pressure.

Group size: 4–6 students per group. Each student evaluates one assigned claim individually; the group then compares findings and assessments.

Time allowed: 20 minutes for individual evaluation; 15 minutes for group discussion.

Materials: Each student receives one claim card (below). The claim should be printed or displayed separately for each student without the "notes for facilitator" section.

CLAIM CARD A: "A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines cause myocarditis in 1 in 800 recipients, making them more dangerous than the disease itself for people under 40."

Notes for facilitator: This claim combines a real finding (a higher-than-expected rate of mild myocarditis, primarily in young males, following the second dose of mRNA vaccines, documented in multiple studies) with significant distortion (the 1 in 800 figure is misrepresented from a specific study that found a lower rate, primarily in young males after the second Moderna dose; the severity is understated — most cases were mild and resolved quickly; the comparison to disease risk does not reflect the full risk calculation). Students should find the underlying real data, the distortion, and the misleading context.

CLAIM CARD B: "The Internet Research Agency spent $100,000 on Facebook ads — a negligible sum compared to the $2.4 billion spent in the 2016 election — proving that Russian interference had no meaningful impact on the result."

Notes for facilitator: This claim contains accurate figures (the IRA did spend approximately $100,000 on Facebook ads; the total 2016 election spend was approximately $2.4 billion) but uses them misleadingly. The IRA's impact was primarily through free content, not paid ads — the 126 million users reached were reached largely through organic algorithmic distribution, not advertising. The advertising figure is accurate but is used to obscure the much larger organic operation. Students should find the organic reach figures and explain why the ad spend comparison is misleading.

CLAIM CARD C: "According to the January 6 Committee, Nancy Pelosi was responsible for the inadequate Capitol security on January 6 because she rejected National Guard deployment."

Notes for facilitator: This claim, widely circulated in right-wing media, is a significant distortion of the Capitol security failures documented by the January 6 Committee and other investigations. The Sergeant-at-Arms reports to the Capitol's leadership including the Speaker, but the Capitol Police's request for National Guard assistance was denied by the Pentagon, not by Pelosi. The January 6 Committee's report does not identify Pelosi as responsible for security failures. Students should find the January 6 Committee report sections on Capitol security and identify what it actually says.

CLAIM CARD D: "A Stanford University study found that media literacy programs are ineffective against disinformation and may even make people more susceptible to false information by teaching them to be skeptical of all sources."

Notes for facilitator: This claim is a misrepresentation of a finding from research on some media literacy approaches. Some studies have found that generic skepticism training (teaching people to question all sources equally) can backfire by increasing distrust without improving accuracy. However, specific approaches — particularly "prebunking" (inoculation against specific manipulation techniques) and lateral reading instruction — have been found effective in multiple studies including from Stanford's Internet Observatory. Students should distinguish between findings about specific approaches and claims about media literacy in general.

Group discussion questions (15 minutes):

1. Compare your processes: what was the first thing you did when you received your claim? What would you have done differently with more time?
2. Where did you look for verification? Which sources did you trust most and why?
3. Which claims were hardest to evaluate and why? What made them resistant to quick debunking?
4. What would a reader who only spent two minutes with your claim — rather than twenty — likely conclude? What does this suggest about the time asymmetry between disinformation and correction?
5. If you were designing a platform policy to address the type of misleading content in your claim card, what would you prioritize?

Chapter 24 — Exercises