– It was really surprising that it was so difficult to determine what the news was and what the ad was, "says Thomas Nygren, associate professor of didactics at Uppsala University and responsible for the study, TT.
Now you are reading one of yours free articles at GP.se
In a survey SVT News first learned, 1,500 people responded to different questions about media habits and how they are considered sources of criticism. They then received authentic screenshots from Aftonbladet's home page and tagged articles they thought were news related to advertising. Only 7 percent of adults and 12 percent of adolescents in the study managed to differentiate ad news.
Unclear ad tag
– Although unmarked, it seems very difficult, Nygren says.
For example, 40 percent believe that Kundkraft's ad was the news – even though the word "ad" was blue above.
– This shows, above all, that it is very difficult with the source of criticism for all. It is hard to even determine what the news is and the ad on Aftonbladet, which is the most popular news among the young.
The old trick still works
In the second aspect of research, people have received two different texts dealing with climate issues. Here, you should rank the data beyond credibility. The only, correct text, illustrated by the image of an ice bear, was considered less credible than the climber's persistence, as illustrated by what Nygren calls "very suspicious use of statistics."
– This is a classic trick to illustrate the use of the chart to get information to make it more credible than it is, Nygren says.
According to him, the main research progress in the research has shown that those who think they are good at searching online information are not particularly good in criticisms of digital sources – and vice versa.
– If you think you know the best, then the risk is that you are only badly informed, "he says.