
‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation - EndXA
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/fake-news-vaccine-works-pre-bunk-game-reduces-susceptibility-to-disinformation
======
gfodor
The "best" fake news these days is the stuff that doesn't register even to
people are read-in on the usual anti-patterns.

Subtle framing, selective quotation, anonymous sources, "repeat the lie"
techniques, and so on, are the ones that I see happening today that are hard
to immunize yourself from. Ironically, the people who fall for these are more
likely to self-identify as being aware and clued in on how to avoid fake news.

~~~
deogeo
Second best. The best is selective reporting. Even if every story is reported
100% accurately and objectively, by choosing _which_ stories are promoted, and
which buried, you can set any agenda you want.

Edit: See [https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/05/Causes-of-
death-i...](https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/05/Causes-of-death-in-USA-
vs.-media-coverage.png) for an example.

~~~
HSO
Speaking of, I saw a particularly blatant example yesterday:

[https://twitter.com/scottsantens/status/1142442971922653184](https://twitter.com/scottsantens/status/1142442971922653184)

I've been following the Andrew Yang campaign since his appearance on the Joe
Rogan show and so far as I can tell MSNBC has been at it for months now.

The gall still astonishes me: 20 candidates qualified for the debates, he now
polls in the top 8 and betting markets even place him in the top five, and
they substitute someone who did not even qualify for the debate for him.

~~~
ch4s3
They didn't replace him in the debate, the mistakenly omitted him from a
graphic on screen and later corrected it.

He only barely cracked the top 8 as of two weeks ago, and with a paltry 2%
with a net favorable of +8 in Monmouth's latest poll, which is not very good.
I don't really know much about the guy, but he's not making much of a showing
in the polls so I'm not surprised that networks aren't focusing on him.

~~~
fibers
>mistake

This was a targeted attack at one of the most interesting candidates this
primary so far and it only serves to suppress a viable alternative to
establishment candidates that are featured regularly on the network.

~~~
ch4s3
>This was a targeted attack

That's a pretty incredible claim, and requires some pretty serious proof if
you expect anyone here to believe that. As a counterpoint, they give plenty of
air time to a candidate who is literally running as an independent, who the
party machine specifically, systematically disadvantaged last time. Why would
they cut Yang if he got ratings?

~~~
Kye
It also sounds a lot like what people said about Bernie Sanders. Nobody took
him seriously, and a lot of the press was along the lines of "lol bernie bros"
because left-of-center infighting sells ads. I would be curious to see if the
people who say this about Yang said the same about Sanders.

I think the truth is more that news goes for what sells, and a candidate who
hasn't yet proven they can sell ads is not worth covering by their metrics.
See: the $2b+ plus free press Trump got.[1] He was a known quantity no one
expected to win, so covering that spectacle was easy and safe ad money.

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-
donald-t...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-
trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html)

~~~
ch4s3
My take is basically the same. The cable news media covers what their audience
watches.

It's also worth noting that while MSNBC is the 2nd or 3rd most watched network
(depending on the month) there are only about 1.6 million people regularly
watching and that number is down 14% year over year. So even if they snub your
candidate, it may not matter much at all.

------
EndXA
Key quote from the article:

 _To gauge the effects of the game, players were asked to rate the reliability
of a series of different headlines and tweets before and after gameplay. They
were randomly allocated a mixture of real (“control”) and fake news
(“treatment”)._

 _The study, published today in the journal Palgrave Communications, showed
the perceived reliability of fake news before playing the game had reduced by
an average of 21% after completing it. Yet the game made no difference to how
users ranked real news._

 _The researchers also found that those who registered as most susceptible to
fake news headlines at the outset benefited most from the “inoculation”._

 _“We find that just fifteen minutes of gameplay has a moderate effect, but a
practically meaningful one when scaled across thousands of people worldwide,
if we think in terms of building societal resistance to fake news,” said van
der Linden._

The original study can be found here:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0279-9](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0279-9)

~~~
steventhedev
Unless I missed it, it looks like they didn't control for the effects of their
own survey. For all we know, taking 15 minutes to drink tea between ranking
news reliability.

~~~
bongobongo
You missed it

------
gambler
Every time I read about some new clever way to fight "fake news" I ask the
same question. Can this method be used to reinforce _any_ arbitrarily chosen
agenda or does it work _because_ there is something fundamentally wrong with
the information it targets?

~~~
gambler
Reading the paper. Too bad the game itself is down. Something that caught my
attention:

 _> For the question about discrediting we used a different non-existent news
site (“International Post Online”), employing an ad hominem (Walton, 1998)
argument against the mainstream media: The Mainstream Media has been caught in
so many lies that it can’t be trusted as a reliable news source. #FakeNews._

This is not news. This is an opinion. Since when does expressing low opinion
of the mainstream media counts as spreading fake news?

~~~
wayoutthere
I think the point is that by presenting opinions as fact and mixing them in
with enough breadcrumbs of truth, you can confuse people into taking them as
fact.

------
mlanting
I like how this links to the same site that the currently trending HN post "I
was 7 words away from being spear-phished" involved :P

(note: no reason to believe THIS post is phishing, just funny to see the same
url)

~~~
sb057
Doubly ironic since "Simple online game reduces susceptibility to
disinformation" is exactly seven words long.

------
khawkins
"Fake news" isn't the problem, it's the symptom of a mainstream media
landscape which has sacrificed its credibility for partisanship, activism, and
sensationalism. People are willing to believe new sources because they don't
know who to trust.

~~~
Dumblydorr
Where does mainstream end? Is HN mainstream? Reddit? Twitter? Breitbart? Fox?
The problem with dichotomous categorization is it loses a lot of information.
These are all offenders in vastly different ways, best not to lump and over
generalize about them.

~~~
krapp
When people talk about the "mainstream media" in this context, they tend to
mean established pre-web mass media - television, radio and newspaper, and any
official web presence by these companies. So Reddit no, Twitter no, Breitbart
no, Fox yes.

------
jstanley
The game is at [https://getbadnews.com/#intro](https://getbadnews.com/#intro)
but unfortunately it is down.

~~~
creaghpatr
HN hug of death?

~~~
EE84M3i
Reddit, it's on the top of /r/all from /r/science -
[https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/c5ptfz/fake_news_v...](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/c5ptfz/fake_news_vaccine_works_suggests_a_large_new/)

------
adrianmonk
This is intriguing. Assuming more research confirms this effect, I'd go so far
as to say it should be taught in schools and should be a standard part of
everyone's education.

Imagine a society where everyone has a stronger resistance to disinformation.
It seems like it could only be a good thing.

~~~
Swizec
But then how will you build societal cohesion through propaganda? Could be a
double-edged sword

~~~
bongobongo
Relying on propaganda for social stability is a recipe for authoritarianism.

~~~
Swizec
You sure? American society is full of propaganda and yet it doesn’t feel very
authoritarian to me ...

~~~
pault
One could make the argument that the US of today is far more authoritarian
than it was 100 years ago before the concept of propaganda was industrialized.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays)

------
ben_jones
As someone who played a lot of MMOs growing up I think there is a Part 2 to
this study that will be interesting to see: does this critical thinking
atrophy over time?

I think there is a continuous pressure for negligent behavior that heavily
outweighs any good attempts to educate people of privacy, finance, health,
news, and many other categories. :(

~~~
mistermann
> does this critical thinking atrophy over time?

And also, will fake news mutate in order to overcome the learned defenses,
similar to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Actually, I would
say we're already well past that point, there's plenty of propaganda that
intelligent people are completely oblivious to, some of it is harmful, but
much of it is beneficial.

------
alexmlamb
Why don't mainstream newspapers (like NYTimes, Economist, etc) include a list
of citations at the end of articles the way that scientific papers do? It
seems like this would be easy to do, and would help to restore a lot of trust,
because people could easily see if they like the sources being referenced and
if the sources are actually fairly represented in the article.

------
Ill_ban_myself
played the game. It felt like I was taking a "push poll" where I'm being asked
if I understand a conclusion being drawn for me. I found it to be less than
compelling to say the least.

~~~
baq
it's a tutorial on how to run a fake news profile that kinda turns into a game
in the last 3 minutes where you actually have to skip a few memes to increase
your score

------
tareqak
There are similar games on Steam. I have both of these:

1\. Headliner:
[https://store.steampowered.com/app/680980/HEADLINER/](https://store.steampowered.com/app/680980/HEADLINER/)

2\. Headliner: NoviNews
[https://store.steampowered.com/app/918820/Headliner_NoviNews...](https://store.steampowered.com/app/918820/Headliner_NoviNews/)

There is also one by Nicky Case that I've played too:

We Become What We Behold -
[https://ncase.itch.io/wbwwb](https://ncase.itch.io/wbwwb)

I recommend them all.

------
your-nanny
There may be some signature that identifies real-world fakes, in the same way
that the Onion, well smells like an onion.

But, I have a general criticism about this area of research, which seems to
conflate the semantic truth. value of content with the content itself, for
example in statements like "fake news spreads faster" (veracity is an
extrinsic property of data, and not one that is cognitively accessible to its
consumers, and so can have no causal role in it's dissemination). Instead, the
relevant variables can only be things like: sensationalism, accords with
priors, emotional response, etc.

Still, when it

~~~
StrictDabbler
This isn't about using semantic markers to identify _inaccurate_ news. It is
about identifying _synthetic_ news.

"A lie will go around the world before the truth has got it's boots on."

-Mark Twain, 1919

He said that way before "fake news". How did he recognize this?

He saw that it's trivial to make a lie people want to tell, and that truth is
by comparison less often compelling.

This seems so obvious, but it's so little known. At this point when I read a
story online that makes me want to tell somebody else, where I feel "why
doesn't everybody know about this", I start fact-checking.

That's all accuracy takes. Just that little bit of skepticism. For example,
that Mark Twain quote I gave is total bull. Twain died in 1910 and the quote
is actually a distorted version of this:

"Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it;" -Johnathan Swift,
1787

Why do I know this? Am I that conversant in satirical literature?

Nope. The shape of my desire to include that well-known misquotation in my
reply signaled me that it might not be real. I'm not kidding. It was too much
fun.

So I looked it up, saw the irony, and left the misquotation in to make a
point.

That's the force we have to fight. Anything that feels Snopesish is
suspicious.

Is it true that Obama was doing the same thing to asylum-seekers that Trump
is? No. Is it true that Trump started the whole asylum detention program
because he hates immigrants? No.

Is it true that the asylum program has a decades-long and complicated history,
that the current administration has focused attention on the border to deflect
from a dozen other issues its facing, thereby highlighting the detention
program, and that a series of inhumane missteps have been made in managing
that program, demonstrably causing a new level of suffering, because the
people currently in charge tend to view that suffering as a form of justice
for what they believe is a threatening criminal act?

Yeah. That's mostly true. It's also not very much fun to say.

------
olivermarks
'It’s Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled'
Making people take push poll style 'tests' and asking them to then believe
they are more discerning is really stretching it.

The larger issue today is arguably suppressed information, which leads people
when they find it to jump to conclusions based on lack of contextual data. Ass
in 'official' versions of events that don't make sense and you are feeding a
wildfire of paranoia

------
throwaway5752
In case anyone has just skipped the article to post here without reading, you
can play the game here:
[https://getbadnews.com/#play](https://getbadnews.com/#play)

It helps to play it to understand what they are trying to accomplish.

------
lostmymind66
The problem is that real reporting costs money and the bottom fell out of the
industry awhile back, so what we now have is lots of people repeating what
they saw on Twitter or Facebook and making up the rest..which is passed off as
'news'.

~~~
dvtrn
There's something to this, I think; at least in the form of articles that have
a headline suggesting strong public outcry to {event} "___(Nebulous group of
people)___ are furious about__(thing)___", but upon reading the article we
find that the nebulous group of people that the writer is sourcing from are in
reality two people on twitter who were, at best, mildly chuffed.

------
germanlee
Rather than being an honest game to reduce "disinformation", this game is
simply defending mainstream media. It's message is essentially "trust
mainstream media". Not that shocking coming from cambridge considering they
are at the forefront of cultural war being waged in the west today.

How about get opinion/news from a wide variety of sources ( mainstream and
fringe, big and small, national and international, right and left, globalist
and nationalist, etc )? That's the only reliable way to wade through all the
disinformation.

Especially regarding controversial, cultural, military, trade and geopolitical
issues.

If you are getting your "news" from one source then you are getting propaganda
and lies. How many wars have we been sold on lies by the media? And yet, we
are expected to trust them regardless of their lies. And that's just the most
glaring and obvious example.

For example, with the recent hong kong protests. It would have been nice to
see what the chinese media or asian media were also saying about the issue. I
suspect it's a lot different than the "news" we've been seeing about it in the
US. If we are interested in the "truth", then it would be nice to see what
iranians/iranian media and the media of nearby countries are saying. Rather
than just a one sided pro-war "news".

But I suspect that neither cambridge nor the media they are protecting truly
care about "news, disinformation, fake news, etc".

~~~
SantalBlush
This is 100% false. It is an "appeal to the middle" fallacy based on two
assumptions:

1\. that all news sources are equally biased;

2\. that aggregating those biases produces an unbiased result.

Neither of these assumptions are credible.

~~~
germanlee
1\. I didn't say all news sources are "equally biased". Saying all news
sources are biased is not the same as saying equally biased. Some are obvious
more biased and more propagandistic than others. But without a doubt, every
news source has biases. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to look into the
history of every news company. Who created them, funded them and who is
running them. But I suspect you already know this.

2\. I didn't say the "aggregates" produce an unbiased result. I didn't mention
anything about "aggregates". Seeing different opinions exposes to you the
biases of every news source. If you just watch foxnews or cnn all day, you
won't be able to pick up on the bias. But if you watch both, the biases of
both become blatantly obvious. I'm not saying watching both somehow magically
makes CNN or Foxnews "objective" and "honest". Quite the opposite.

3\. Neither of those assumptions are credible because I didn't make them. You
made those assumptions in an attempt to defend mainstream media. Which I see
all over social media recently.

Every comment about being skeptical about media ( especially mainstream media
) gets met with your type of comment. Makes me wonder.

~~~
TomMckenny
Infowars: Clinton runs a child abuse ring from a pizza shop.

Pulitzer Prize winning news source: Clinton does not run a child abuse ring.

How does ignoring Infowars because it is intentionally lying make me less
informed?

>Every comment about being skeptical about media ( especially mainstream media
) gets met with your type of comment. Makes me wonder.

Our conspiracy has been exposed! Back to Moscow comrades!

~~~
germanlee
You forgot other Pulitzer Prize gems.

Pulitzer Prize winning news source : Nayirah, Yellow cake, assad syria
chemical attack, Trump working for Putin conspiracy.

But then again, Pulitzer was the founder of yellow journalism, the original
fake news.

I don't think winning an award named after the founder of yellow journalism is
anything to be proud of.

"Back to Moscow comrades"?

That sounds like the fake news we've been hearing from many pulitzer winners.

The difference between infowars fake news and pulitzer winners fake news is
that the pulitzer winners' fake news has resulted in the death of millions of
people and the pulitzer winners should be facing war crime charges.

~~~
TomMckenny
You mean Assad has never conducted chemical attacks on his people? Even though
Syria, Russia, Iran and youtube conspiracy theorists claim he is Innocent, the
actual fact of chemical attacks it is well established. It is actually found
in victims blood.

And Nayirah was invited by congress to lie in those chambers in order to give
Bush justification for his war. None of those parties are news papers. In fact
it was the press that ultimately exposed those lies, not a guy in his basement
on youtube.

By yellow cake, I assume you are referring to the article[1] that _exposed_
Bush's lie about WMD in Iraq coming from Africa. The article that resulted in
white house retaliation threatening the life of Valerie Plame.

In addition, there were a series of op-eds _opposing_ the war by Joseph C.
Wilson and others. The only degree to which real journalism is guilty is the
degree to which it gullibly repeated what the whitehouse said. I believe we
are all aware now that the whitehouse lies profusely.

And indeed, the respectable papers report the Trump organization's meetings
and deals with Russia. If this data looks like an accusation to you, I have to
agree that evidence is quite damning.

So here is a counter proposal: The far right is trying to discredit and
ultimately crush the free press and academia as always. One of the tools is a
re-write of history so that somehow those institutions that opposed war are
now blamed for it. And the hawkish right who actually did start the war is
falsely portrayed as opposing it.

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/what-i-didn-t-
fin...](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/what-i-didn-t-find-in-
africa.html)

~~~
SantalBlush
>One of the tools is a re-write of history so that somehow those institutions
that opposed war are now blamed for it. And the hawkish right who actually did
start the war is falsely portrayed as opposing it.

I've been noticing more frequent references to WMDs lately, which is meant to
imply that people who follow the mainstream media are being duped again. The
issue with this narrative is that they weren't really duped the first time.
Iraq was the most widely protested war internationally in modern history. The
whole comparison between modern news events and WMDs is just grasping at
straws.

------
maxaht
The Indiana University Social Media Observatory created something similar:
[https://fakey.iuni.iu.edu/](https://fakey.iuni.iu.edu/)

It's interesting to play through, and they've created other tools such as
Twitter bot detectors to help curb disinformation:
[https://osome.iuni.iu.edu/tools/](https://osome.iuni.iu.edu/tools/)

------
rossdavidh
Yeah, they claim this supposed study showed the game increased resistance to
fake news, but how do we know that's really true!?

------
toss1
Seems an excellent start, very worthy of extended efforts. I'm curious about
the durability of the 'inoculation' effect. Do players revert to their old
assessments soon, after a long period, or are their perceptions permanently
shifted (e.g., they can't 'unsee' the effects that they've now seen in
action)?

------
papln
How do you get past "Loading..." on
[https://getbadnews.com/#intro](https://getbadnews.com/#intro) , starting from
bsaic ad-blocking config?

Or is the site hugged to death?

"502 Request Error The page you requested generated a server error and could
not be processed."

------
nixpulvis
The post about how we live in a low trust society (or at least more so due to
the internet) is really ringing true.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20265155](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20265155)

------
ilaksh
The problem with everything related to "fake news" is that it is not in the
context of establishment propaganda.

Effectively it is an attempt to co-opt the concept of propaganda but with the
supposed idea that there is a certain authoritative group that will tell you
what's real and always presents just the facts in an impartial way.

It's quite amazing. What they have done is to create an enthusiasm for
censorship. The net effect is actually the opposite of what it is advertised
to be. It enforces top-down information control.

In a similar vein, Libra is advertised as a real cryptocurrency that can act
as a digital cash. And yet it is actually an attempt to replace real
cryptocurrencies with something that can be controlled, easily tracked, and
profited from by the companies it was designed to disintermediate.

------
empath75
Was there data on whether it made people distrust reliable and accurate
sources?

~~~
jadell
It appears it didn't change their pre-existing ratings of those sources. From
the article:

    
    
      The study, published today in the journal Palgrave Communications, showed the perceived reliability of real-life fanfic before playing the game had reduced by an average of 21% after completing it. Yet the game made no difference to how users ranked real news.

------
uses
ITT: "but the _real_ fake news is the _lying_ MSM!", etc.

~~~
TomMckenny
The revelation that misinformation campaigns catering to preconceptions are
not actually reality based is an existential threat to extremism. Any post
showing that will draw them like flies.

The other popular response seems to be "the article and game are bogus". Not
sure how the two are reconciled of course.

------
nautilus12
Too bad that reality isn't cut and dry enough that you can even define "fake
news" unambiguosly, which opens all sides up to enforcing censorship of their
particular spin.

------
tictoc
Conspiracy Theories make a lot of assertions and hardly ever provide the
proof. They just say it, and move along. If you don't get it, you are an
ingrate fool.

------
jrochkind1
It makes total sense that the way to learn to spot it, is to practice _making_
it.

Analogous to how you can't do defensive IT security unless you understand how
people do offensive.

------
emilfihlman
>buy twitter bots

I was pretty disappointed the game was "you'll lose if you do the stupid
thing!!11!". Bots are not that good and are rather visible as bullshit.

------
goodrobotiswear
Has anyone found a link to the wording of the headlines?

------
r00fus
So you mean Fox News?

~~~
cameronbrown
Every major network pushes their own narrative. I wouldn't single Fox News out
at all.

~~~
dymk
"Both sides do it!" is a really unconvincing argument.

Watch an hour of prime-time CNN and prime-time Fox News, and it's obvious that
Fox is more willing to stretch the truth, mislead watchers, and spread FUD.

~~~
s9w
I would aggressively challenge that

~~~
dymk
It appears you wouldn’t

~~~
s9w
[https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/avaaz7/cnn_disg...](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/avaaz7/cnn_disguises_lobbyist_interns_and_democratic/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/ambn6m/saw_this...](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/ambn6m/saw_this_somewhere_else_cnn_labels_ralph_northam/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/5xy20x/cnn_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/5xy20x/cnn_cuts_interview_feed_after_congressman/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c8152/cnn_outs...](https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c8152/cnn_outs_themselves_as_using_their_own_cameramen/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6udivb/cnns_wol...](https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6udivb/cnns_wolf_blitzer_portrays_barcelona_attack_as)

------
dwighttk
let me know when this is replicated a few times

------
hirundo
It's a shame that now when I see Cambridge as a news source I think of their
shabby treatment of Jordan Peterson and Noah Carl and discount it somewhat
before reading it ... because there are still many fine scholars there.

------
lubesGordi
If only we could "inoculate" people against mainstream media, then we'd really
be talking.

~~~
pcunite
That is literally what the game looks for.

It offers the player the option to tweet "The Mainstream media is one massive
conspiracy". It punishes the player if they choose options not in line with
ethical journalistic behavior (as defined by the game). So, things like
questioning the events of 9/11, vaccines, and other taboo subjects affect your
score.

 _questions were framed as tweets from legitimate news organizations that did
not include any attempts at misleading the audience._

It will be interesting to see what the data coming from this research and what
Google's response will be to this week's Google employee insider reporting
that Google controls online narratives.

Something is tampering with news data. Is it the lonely people in their
basements (by the tens of thousands), a conspiracy, or machine Learning?

------
StanislavPetrov
Skepticism should be the default position on every issue. We should be
teaching the Socratic Method to our children rather than a "core curriculum"
that is designed to program them to become workers in an economic system that
is rapidly crumbling and will no longer exist in a short period of time.
Teaching people how to think is far more important than any specific piece of
information. The problem those in government and the upper echelon of society
has in this regard is that they want it both ways. They want a population that
uncritically accepts government propaganda, but rejects "fake news"
(propaganda and disinformation from other, non-governmental sources). Since
the creation of the public school system, people have been conditioned to
uncritically accept information (which wasn't a problem for the government
when there were only 3 television channels that all broadcast permutations of
the same government-approved message). With the explosion of the internet and
social media, the government has lost control of the narrative, with a
population conditioned to uncritically accept information being blasted by a
variety of actors from a multitude of sources. The election of carnival barker
Donald Trump (and the rejection of Hillary Clinton, universally backed by the
entire establishment) was the ultimate warning bell. Those at the top are
desperate to regain control of the narrative (rather than teaching people how
to think, which would also preclude government propaganda from being
effective). This is why we see such an avalanche of censorship, information
control and an attack on free speech (on Wikileaks and beyond) coming from
government officials and their allies in big tech.

------
ARandomerDude
> A minute ago you were just an angry citizen, now you're a big shot editor-
> in-chief running a real news site.

That statement is incredibly condescending.

~~~
scarejunba
It’s in the context of the story in the game. You first play “one angry
citizen”, then you “make a news website and call yourself editor-in-chief” at
their request. It’s not condescending. It’s just fun.

