What the Fact?: Finding the Truth in All the Noise

by Seema Yasmin

From acclaimed writer, journalist, and physician Dr. Seema Yasmin comes a “savvy, accessible, and critical” ( Kirkus Reviews , starred review) book about the importance of media literacy, fact-based reporting, and the ability to discern truth from lies.

What is a fact? What are reliable sources? What is news? What is fake news? How can anyone make sense of it anymore? Well, we have to. As conspiracy theories and online hoaxes increasingly become a part of our national discourse and “truth” itself is being questioned, it has never been more vital to build the discernment necessary to tell fact from fiction, and media literacy has never been more important.

In this accessible guide, Dr. Seema Yasmin, an award-winning journalist, scientist, medical professional, and professor, traces the spread of misinformation and disinformation through our fast-moving media landscape and teaches young readers the skills that will help them identify and counter poorly-sourced clickbait and misleading headlines.

Genres: Nonfiction, Audiobook, Science, Journalism, Social Issues, Professional Development, Adult

368 pages, Hardcover

Published September 20, 2022

About the author

Muslim Women Are Everything is out as a book, ebook and an audio book now!

I'm a medical doctor, journalist and author. My first book, The Impatient Dr. Lange: One Man's Fight to end the HIV Epidemic, tells the story of my mentor who was killed when Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot out of the sky. Dr. Lange dedicated his life to fighting HIV and was searching for a cure when he was killed.

My next books, Viral BS, (Johns Hopkins University Press, November 2020) is about medical myths and how health hoaxes can travel farther than accurate information.

Reviews

[Dr. Appu Sasidharan (Dasfill) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fake news - This is the term that most of you might have heard the most during the last few years. In this world overburdened with deep fakes and other misinformation, how can you identify whether a piece of information is genuine or not? That is indeed a tricky question to ask. Dr. Seema Yasmin wonderfully answers this question in a simple way through this book.

What I learned from this book
1) What are contagious just like the virus?
Standing on the other side of the global pandemic, we don't need any introduction to the contagious nature of viruses. But Dr. Seema tells us that some things in this world are equally contagious and can't be easily abated, just like viruses.

"Guess what else is contagious?

Ideas.

Rumors.

Myths.

Lies.

Information spreads from one person to another, just like a virus, until myths and hoaxes and lies and facts and conspiracies have crept far and wide, taking on new shapes and mutations. Your snowball of information, layered with myth and misremembered history, was spread to you by others, and you spread it to someone else, who shared it with someone else, who keeps the chain of information contagion going and going and going."

2) Is there any relation between 5G cellphone signals and the coronavirus pandemic?
This is one of the most absurd conspiracy theories perpetrated during the coronavirus pandemic. The author tells us the reality of the situation and why we can never connect 5G signals and coronavirus

"In the summer of 2020, eight engineers were kidnapped and held hostage in the mountains of Peru while they were fixing a radio tower, the kind of tower used to relay signals that keep the internet and cellphones working. The reason for their capture? A belief that 5G cellphone signals were spreading the coronavirus and causing a global pandemic.

In fear for their lives, the engineers pleaded with their kidnappers: 5G stands for fifth-generation wireless technology! It's going to make your phone calls clearer and your downloads faster and more reliable! It's going to make your life better, and it is definitely not capable of spreading any infection!"

3) What is misinformation?
Misinformation is the unintentional spread of false information without knowing that it is incorrect information.

"Misinformation is false information that's spread by people who don't realize it's false and who share it without any intention of causing harm. It's like your best friend saying that if you eat a ton of garlic, you won't get COVID-19. Is that true? Nope. But did your friend think they were correct? Yes. And was your friend trying to harm you? Hopefully not. (Unless they wanted you to have really bad breath. But that's the worst they thought would happen.) We can classify this type of unintentionally wrong information as misinformation because the person sharing it didn't realize it was false and they weren't trying to hurt you."

4) What is disinformation?
Distinguishing misinformation and disinformation is very important in modern life. Disinformation is deliberately spreading false information after knowing that the information is false.

"Disinformation is false information that is known to be false and is spread with the intention of causing harm. Peter didn't share disinformation, but we did see disinformation campaigns spread during the West African Ebola crisis of 2014–2016 and during the COVID-19 pandemic."

5) What is malinformation?
Malinformation is the spread of accurate information taken out of context.

"Unlike misinformation and disinformation—which are false, malinformation is based on reality. It's accurate information that was never intended to be shared publicly, or it's accurate information that's shared out of context with the intention of hurting people."

6) How did irresponsible journalism lead to the rapid rise in COVID-19 cases and deaths in Italy?
Journalists and the press have a vital role to play in our society. The COVID-19 pandemic vividly showed us how irresponsible journalists can lead a country to extraordinary crisis,

There were many factors that led to the terrible situation in Italy during the pandemic. We can't entirely blame the Italian journalists for what happened. But still, they knowingly or unknowingly played a pivotal role in worsening the situation in Italy.

"The central government shared information about the possible quarantine with local officials to get their opinions, but the same information about a possible massive quarantine was leaked to the press.

News editors had to make a quick decision: inform sixteen million people that their lives could drastically change, or wait and not reveal the news until after the government had reached a final decision and announced the news to the public.

WHAT HAPPENED: Editors decided to publish the leaked news about a potential quarantine ahead of the government's announcement (which came the next day). Thousands of Italians tried to flee the area that would be put under quarantine. As they flocked to train stations and onto buses, Italy experienced its highest day-on-day rise in deaths from COVID-19 up until that point. Some attributed this to the leaking of the news via the press."

My favourite three lines from this book

"It can be confusing to separate fact from fiction, certainty from conspiracy, especially at times of crisis, when fear, anxiety, and panic are spreading alongside false information; when scammers are peddling falsehoods to sell their goods, to dupe us, to make us believe what they want us to believe without us even realizing it."

"The decision about what will be included in the news and what will be cut is known as agenda setting. It's similar to gatekeeping, the idea that there's a lot going on and not all of it can end up in one outlet on one day. Agenda setting and gatekeeping rely on a process known as news judgement, which factors in things like where the news outlet is based, how frequently it publishes news (hourly versus daily, weekly, or monthly), who the audience is, and how much money and person power the organization has to cover the news."

"In a technology called news aggregation, the editors pull snippets of news from other news websites and wire services."

What could have been better?
The beauty of this book is the unique yet simple way in which the author has written this book. Still, there are some areas in it, like the one given below, which many readers won't like.

"After all, you are a truth-seeker, an information gatherer, a reader! And not just any reader; you're a smart reader. I mean, you did pick up this book. And you're even thinking about taking it home and reading some more"

The above lines are those cliche lines seen in most non-fiction books. This is a common trick that the authors unnecessarily play with the reader's mind. I wish those lines had been edited out to make this book more original.

Rating
4/5 Even though the author is a Medical Doctor, the author has carefully written this book avoiding the plethora of medical jargon that is usually seen in Medical Non-fiction. In fact, there is not even a single line in it that can be too abstruse for a layperson to decipher due to the author's affable writing style. That shows the relevance and beauty of this work.


—————————————————————————
You can also follow me on
Instagram ID - Dasfill | YouTube Channel ID - Dasfill | YouTube Health Channel ID - Dasfill - Health | YouTube Malayalam Channel ID - Dasfill - Malayalam | Threads ID - Dasfill | X ID - Dasfill1 | Snapchat ID - Dasfill | Facebook ID - Dasfill | TikTok ID - Dasfill1

[Mirabel (kinda back) · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

[James Goeke · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a very mediocre book. Like so many books, it starts out quite well. I was excited to learn some new stuff. Unfortunately I learned nothing. About half way through the book she veers into wokeism and then drones on. For someone who is writing about critical thinking and warns against personal agendas tainting "news", she displays her prejudices quite well.
(If you want a book about critical thinking I would recommend "Calling Bullshit" by Bergstrom and West.)

[Sigrid A · Rating 3 out of 5]

First off, this book is full of interesting and useful information. My favorite part was the final chapter where Yasmin outlines ways both to fact check your own ideas about what's true and how to have conversations with people who seem to be victims of mis/disinformation. Her suggestions are really helpful, and I plan to use them. She also does an excellent job of summarizing study findings and science in an excellent way.

So here's why it was a three for me: I know it is directed at young readers, but the tone felt off. I am not a huge YA reader, but I feel like I've read enough to sense that this book feels a bit like it's talking down to the reader. I listened to the audiobook, and - between the corny sound effects and the author's tone - it was a little cringe-y. At least, to me.

That being said, the information in this book is important and timely.

[Gail · Rating 4 out of 5]

As an employee of our local library, I was fortunate to have access to an advanced reader copy of this very timely book. Targeting young adult readers, Yasmin offers a wealth of information on navigating news and social media in a culture of division and mistrust. I was particularly drawn to her section on bias. She claims that no news journalists are objective and offers a compelling argument against reporting on both sides of an issue. I also found her discussion of misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation extremely interesting. This would make a great read for book clubs or classes on media and culture.

[Natalie Boyd · Rating 5 out of 5]

What the Fact? by Seema Yasmin contains A LOT of information, leading me to take my time reading and digesting the lessons she offers. The book is written with an older teen reader in mind, but there is value in it for more mature readers, as well. I appreciate that the author begins by acknowledging that she (just like every human) has biases that may appear in her writing, despite her effort to push them aside. I saw glimpses of bias in a couple of examples that were used, but the information provided and the recommended exercises feel impartial. The book reminds readers that our world is all about living in the "gray area," and that we need to find our comfort there. While extreme beliefs get the majority of attention, and sometimes our instinct is to respond with an opposing extreme opinion, most of us do not think in such binary ways. In fact, Dr. Yasmin reminds us that it is a strength to be able to see good and bad in an issue, without staking a claim to one side of an argument, thereby allowing disagreements to be resolved through discussions. She encourages us to embrace uncertainty so that we will be open to listening to others and to learning new things every day. For me, the book is an encouragement to stop feeling the need to have a strong opinion on every issue the moment I hear about them, but to instead learn more about those things happening so I can better understand them. We will not solve problems by jumping to conclusions and holding steadfastly to extreme opinions; instead, we might be able to make positive changes through productive conversations.

[Nancy · Rating 3 out of 5]

People of all ages need to know how to find the truth in the information and news we are bombarded with daily but this book, written by a Stanford professor, is tailored for a YA audience. It is divided into five main chapters and then subdivided into talking points that should be applicable to teens. We just wrapped up a turbulent election with misinformation on both sides, so I hope this book could be helpful for young readers to think critically as they head into future elections. However, the book is dry, despite the author's efforts to liven it up, so it won't be a book that teens will most likely pick up on their own. But I do believe that it could be used in high school and college classrooms, to add to the curriculum, so teachers should take heed.

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was incredibly informative and made me reflect deeply on how I identify trusted sources and recognize biases. It challenged me to think more critically about the information I consume.

[Gili]

A must-read for middle and high school students. I learned so much.

[Beth Menendez · Rating 5 out of 5]

I appreciated the easy to appreciate and understand tone of the whole book that explains bias, why the media is the way it is, why social media can present challenges and how to resolve conflict when you confront others who believe differently. Great read for the curious 13-17 year old.

[Lilly · Rating 5 out of 5]

This should be required reading for children and adults alike. A fascinating review of the history of information dissemination, how misinformation/disinformation gets around and, most importantly, what to do about it.

[Hope · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is fabulous. Great information and tons of practical advice on how to "do" engagement with media and with people. A favorite book of the year for me, already have a handful of people I'll gift it to over the holidays. Loved loved loved

[Kathleen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I highly recommend this, not only for young readers who are its intended audience, but for all consumers of information--everyone, really. Even if you know how to sort fact from fiction, Dr. Yasmin can teach you something about how disinformation spreads, how to counter it effectively, and how to have constructive dialogues with people you care about who believe in harmful fictions, all backed by studies, with examples in current affairs and history.

The audio edition can be annoying, with its intrusive sound effects--for example, if the text says that something sets off a (figurative) alarm, a literal alarm ringing is inserted in the audio. The effect is jarring and distracting. This made the book take longer for me to read, as I don't tolerate noise well and am easily distracted anyway, so I thought I'd share that warning for other sensitive readers. Maybe you can get a friend to read this book to you, if you can't read the print edition. And then you and the friend could share and discuss the thought-provoking, lively, fascinating info.

[Towntaker · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was really well done and had tons of connections to current events. I would wholeheartedly recommend this for use in the classroom from maybe grade 8 - high school (firmly high school, possibly younger).
I liked the combo of evaluating sources/information literacy AND how to have productive, healing conversations with people you are close to that have opposing views. Lots of discussions about when you opt out of the hard conversations, when you engage, how to engage, and what to realistically expect.
Covers topics like information bubbles, media diets, how social media algorithms work, how to take care of your own mental health, how to fact-check (including reverse image searches), logical fallacies, and government disinformation campaigns in history.
I wish it had footnotes so that I could fact-check the text itself. My ARC only had one long general source list in the back. No index but evidence that an index will be coming in the finished version. This is a lot more conversational and readable than I had initially expected; the reader is propelled forward. But that makes it all the more important IMO to have footnotes and an extensive index.
https://twitter.com/towntaker/status/...

[Great Books · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fake news seems to be everywhere, but surprisingly it isn’t a new problem. The world has been plagued by misinformation and disinformation throughout history, but with a few key tips and some brain science, readers will be able to make informed decisions about the world around them. Even in a polarized society, there can be informed discussions.

This novel is a great resource for teens to tackle the wealth of information around them, create their own stances, and engage in productive conversations with those around them.

Reviewer #24

[Tara · Rating 4 out of 5]

While I don't think that many students would pick this book up and read it cover to cover, there are certainly many excerpts that would be useful for both journalism teachers and our E2 lessons about social media. I listened to audio, but want to go back through the print version to look at the pictures used.

[Michael Perez · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really liked how this middle grade/YA book organizes misinformation ideas and topics, and it does a good job of illustrating different examples across history without getting bogged down too much in the weeds. Sometimes the tone can be a little too familiar, but I think that plays into this book's strengths.

[Kirsten · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book, that I’d started in the summer, under a pile of other books. I really liked it! And now, I’ve finished. Great advice for teen readers on how to discern for themselves what is true and what is hype. Very timely.

[Teddy Goetz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well-written, compelling. An easy, high yield read.

[Cécile · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book itself was interesting and what I expected from it, but those added sounds in the audiobook, the notifications, groans, and other clownery were beyond annoying.

[fprincess]

1. Politics has become a 'mega-identity' that absorbs all other identities: In mid-20th century,
party affiliation didn't predict much else about you-there were liberal Republicans and conservative
Democrats. TODAY, party identity is STACKED with other identities: Democrats = urban + secular +
racially diverse + college-educated + socially liberal. Republicans = rural/suburban + white +
Christian (especially evangelical) + less educated + socially conservative. This 'sorting' means
when someone attacks your party, they're attacking MULTIPLE aspects of who you are simultaneously (race, religion, community, values). Result: Politics feels existential, not just about policy. Example: In 1960, only 5% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats would be displeased if their child married someone from the other party. By 2010: 49% of Republicans, 33% of Democrats. We now discriminate politically MORE than racially in many contexts.

2. Human psychology is tribal-we're wired for group loyalty, not rational deliberation: KEY
MECHANISMS: (1) Identity-protective cognition: We process information to protect our group identity. When facts threaten identity, we reject them-not from stupidity, but self-protection. The SMARTER you are, the BETTER you are at motivated reasoning (justifying pre-existing beliefs). (2) Group polarization: Like-minded people discussing issues become MORE extreme, not moderate. Echo chambers amplify this. (3) Negative partisanship: We're more motivated by FEAR/HATRED of the other party than love of our own. (4) Minimal group paradigm: Humans form in-groups and discriminate against outgroups based on ANYTHING-even random assignment. Political parties are powerful identity triggers.

(5) Asymmetric insight: We think we understand the other side better than they understand us; we see our side as nuanced, theirs as simple/evil. Our brains evolved for small-tribe survival, not
continental democracy-modern politics exploits ancient tribal instincts. 3. American institutions are structurally designed to amplify polarization: (1) TWO-PARTY SYSTEM:
Winner-take-all forces everyone into binary teams-no nuance, no coalition across lines. (2)
PRIMARIES: Safe districts (due to gerrymandering/geographic sorting) mean only primaries matter.
Primaries are dominated by most ideological voters, incentivizing extremism and punishing
moderation. (3) GERRYMANDERING + GEOGRAPHIC SORTING: Creates safe seats with no incentive to appto moderates. Americans self-sort-liberals in cities, conservatives rural. (4) SENATE
MALAPPORTIONMENT: Wyoming (580K people) = California (39M people) in Senate power. Rural white conservative states have disproportionate power. (5) FILIBUSTER: Minority can block legislation. (6) ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Can elect presidents who lost popular vote. (7) PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM: Divided government produces gridlock, fueling frustration. The system INCENTIVIZES conflict, not cooperation. Politicians respond rationally to these structural incentives.

4. Media fragmentation and Fox News supercharge polarization: MID-20TH CENTURY: Three networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) dominated; news appealed to broad audiences; objectivity norms strong. LATE 20TH ONWARD: Cable/internet/social media fragmented audiences. Media profits from serving niche partisan audiences. FOX NEWS pioneered the model: explicitly conservative news creating parallel information ecosystem for conservatives. Functions as news source AND identity marker. Amplifies outrage, frames issues tribally, tells viewers they're under constant threat. Republican politicians fear Fox more than voters-Fox can turn base against them. SOCIAL MEDIA: Algorithms optimize for engagement (clicks, shares). Outrage, fear, tribalism drive engagement, so platforms amplify polarizing content. Echo chambers form; misinformation spreads faster than truth (more emotionally engaging). Media doesn't CAUSE polarization in vacuum-it interacts with psychology and institutions. Fox/Facebook are profitable BECAUSE our brains crave tribal validation.

5. Asymmetric polarization-Republicans have moved further right (controversial but data-backed):
EVIDENCE: (1) IDEOLOGICAL MOVEMENT-Political scientists measure congressional voting. Since 1970s: Democrats moved modestly left; Republicans moved DRAMATICALLY right (economics, social issues, immigration, institutions). GOP 2020 bears little resemblance to GOP 1970 (which created EPA, accepted taxes, didn't question elections). (2) MEDIA ECOSYSTEMS-Democrats consume mix of mainstream/liberal/some conservative sources. Republicans overwhelmingly rely on Fox/talk radio/extreme online sources (Breitbart, OAN). Asymmetric information environment. (3) NORMBREAKING-Republicans more willing to break norms: refusing Merrick Garland hearings, debt ceiling hostage-taking, questioning election legitimacy. (4) DEMOGRAPHIC STAKES-Democrats = diverse coalition. Republicans = increasingly homogeneous (white, Christian, rural). For GOP, demographic change = existential threat to political viability and cultural dominance, creating urgency for extreme tactics. This isn't 'Republicans bad, Democrats good'-it's asymmetric structural incentives.

6. Demographic change and the crisis of white Christian identity drives polarization: THE DATA:
1980-America was 80% white, 80% Christian. 2020-60% white, 65% Christian (declining). Projections: majority-minority by 2045. WHY THIS DRIVES POLARIZATION: For most of American history, white Christians were default dominant group-their culture/values defined 'normal.' Demographic change threatens this dominance culturally, politically, psychologically. STATUS THREAT EFFECT: Research shows when dominant groups perceive declining status, they react with anxiety, resentment, support for authoritarian leaders promising to restore position. White voters (especially non-college) who feel group status threatened vote more Republican, support extreme policies (immigration restrictions, nationalism, anti-diversity). Not primarily economic anxiety-it's IDENTITY and STATUS anxiety. TRUMP AS SYMPTOM: Trump's rise = response to status threat. 'Make America Great Again' coded as returning to white Christian dominance. His racism/sexism/nationalism weren't bugs-they were features signaling 'I will fight for your group.' Doesn't mean all Republicans are racist-means party whose coalition is overwhelmingly white/Christian in diversifying country faces structural pressure to appeal to identity-based grievance.

7. Negative partisanship-we're driven by hatred of the other side more than love of our own:
DEFINITION: Negative partisanship = supporting your party primarily because you hate/fear the other party (not because you like what yours stands for). Humans are more motivated by THREATS than positive goals. We increasingly vote to STOP the other side, not advance our agenda. Studies show this is now dominant driver of political behavior. THE DOOM LOOP: More you hate the other side → more you tolerate from your own side (hypocrisy, extremism, rule-breaking) → other side sees this and becomes more extreme → you hate them more → repeat. Results in: (1) Willingness to excuse anything from 'your team,' (2) Refusal to acknowledge any good from other side, (3) Politics as existential warfare not legitimate competition, (4) Erosion of democratic norms ('if they're
evil/illegitimate, anything is justified to stop them'). This creates self-reinforcing spiral where
each cycle makes next worse.

8. Polarization is a self-reinforcing doom loop-it begets more polarization: THE CYCLE: (1)
Identities sort and stack → politics becomes personal/tribal. (2) Negative partisanship grows → hate
other side more than like own. (3) Media/politicians exploit tribalism → outrage/fear are profitable
and politically effective. (4) Institutions reward polarization → primaries, gerrymandering,
fundraising favor extremism. (5) Gridlock/dysfunction worsen → government can't solve problems,
fueling frustration. (6) Trust collapses → stop believing other side acts in good faith. (7) Norms
erode → if other side is evil/existential threat, anything justified to stop them. (8) Polarization
deepens → back to step 1, but WORSE. THE SPIRAL: Each turn makes next worse. Politicians can't
compromise without base punishment. Voters can't trust other side. Media can't moderate (moderation doesn't drive engagement). NO NATURAL EQUILIBRIUM-without structural intervention, it keeps worsening. Democracy requires competing groups accept losses and trust process. When polarization makes every election existential and other side seems illegitimate, democracy itself at risk.

9. Common 'solutions' WON'T work-individual fixes can't overcome structural incentives: WHAT DOESN'T WORK: (1) 'Just be more civil'-Civility can't overcome structural incentives rewarding conflict. (2) 'Educate people better'-Smarter people are BETTER at motivated reasoning, not less susceptible. Intelligence weaponizes bias. (3) 'Get people to talk to each other'-Contact can reduce some prejudice but doesn't fix systemic polarization or institutional incentives. (4) 'Blame social media and fix algorithms'-Social media amplifies but doesn't create underlying dynamics (psychology + institutions). (5) 'Both sides need to moderate'-If polarization is asymmetric, symmetric solutions won't work. WHY THEY FAIL: They treat polarization as individual moral failure, not systemic problem. The system REWARDS polarization through primaries, safe seats, media incentives, fundraising, and base activation. Asking individuals to act against their incentives without changing those incentives is futile. Structural problems require structural solutions.
10. Solutions must be structural-reform institutions to change incentives: WHAT MIGHT WORK: (1)
ELECTORAL REFORM-Abolish/reform filibuster (allow majority rule, accountability). Statehood for
DC/Puerto Rico (reduce Senate malapportionment). Ranked-choice voting (reduce extremism incentives). Multi-member districts/proportional representation (break two-party stranglehold). Independent redistricting (reduce gerrymandering). Automatic voter registration/vote by mail (reduce power of extreme voters). (2) WEAKEN PRIMARY POWER-Reduce dominance of ideological primary voters. (3) MAKE GOVERNANCE WORK-When government solves problems, trust increases. Gridlock fuels cynicism/extremism(4) MEDIA/PLATFORM ACCOUNTABILITY-Reform social media algorithms to reduce outrage amplification. Support quality journalism, reduce ad-driven engagement models. (5) ACKNOWLEDGE ASYMMETRY-If Republican radicalization is greater threat, pretending 'both sides equal' prevents effective solutions. Democrats may need to use power aggressively to reform institutions before further abuse.
OBSTACLES: Those in power benefit from current system. Change requires political will, public
pressure, probably crisis-driven reform windows. Klein is realistic but not hopeless-understanding
the system is first step.
American political polarization is NOT primarily about bad individuals, misinformation, or policy
disagreements-it's a SYSTEMIC problem, the predictable result of how human tribal psychology
interacts with American political institutions, media environment, and demographic changes. Politics has become a 'mega-identity' stacking party + race + religion + geography + culture, making political conflict feel existential. Our brains evolved for small-tribe survival and are easily
exploited by modern partisan triggers. American institutions (two-party system, primaries,
gerrymandering, Senate malapportionment, filibuster) structurally INCENTIVIZE polarization and
gridlock. Media fragmentation and social media algorithms amplify outrage and tribalism for profit.
Polarization is ASYMMETRIC-Republicans have moved further right, driven partly by white Christian demographic anxiety as America diversifies. Negative partisanship (hating the other side) now dominates over positive vision. This creates a self-reinforcing DOOM LOOP-polarization begets more polarization. Individual 'solutions' (civility, education, dialogue) can't overcome structural
incentives. Real solutions require INSTITUTIONAL REFORM: electoral changes, weakening primaries, making governance work, media accountability, and acknowledging asymmetry. Without structural change, polarization will worsen, threatening democracy itself when every election feels existential and the other side seems illegitimate.

[Sarah Krajewski · Rating 4 out of 5]

In a world full of disinformation at every turn, What the Fact? shares what’s out there in news today, how to handle it, who decides what is “news,” and how it’s all assembled into what we eventually read. Doctor and award-winning journalist Seema Yasmin teaches readers everything from the differences between misinformation and disinformation, to how much of the real information shared distorts its true meaning. Through a combination of story and science, Yasmin explains how what we read affects our brain, why we fall for BS, and even offers steps to handle disagreements on hot topics with your family and friends. Most importantly, Yasmin offers ways to protect readers from being misled.

I heard Yasmin speak at NCTE 2022, and her words encouraged me to buy this book. I was not disappointed.

*There are almost 40 pages of sources to search through for more information, if needed.

[Brooke - TheBrookeList · Rating 4 out of 5]

Misinformation, disinformation, biases, and the speed with which such information can spread virally and toxically. Dr. Seema writes a fun, high-energy book with a lot of reality to keep us all thinking. Targeted quite aptly at a young adult audience, but relevant and crucial to a much larger one, she doesn't tell us what to think, but helps us think about our own biases and heuristics that make it harder to see the perspectives of others. She discusses journalism, social media, the brain, cooperating and listening to others and many other highly-relevant topics for young adults today. Her spunky style amps up the energy level even for teens, who could learn a lot to safeguard their media consumption at a time when they need that ability more than ever.

Examples taken from the COVID-19 pandemic and recent news can make moments a little touchy, politically and emotionally.

While she is careful not to choose a political side, many of her examples are quite obviously left-leaning, informed by her values of ethnicity, upbringing, culture, experience, etc. I don't fault her for this; even she discusses journalists bring honesty to their work be being incapable of leaving behind wholly who they are. Amid her truths, she helps give us tools for seeing through the chaos and finding our own. We all need more help to cut through the viral BS in the world and find the essential for each of us.

Read as a nomination in the non-fiction book award category as a panelist for Children's and Young Adult Bloggers' Literary Awards (Cybils Awards).

[Stacy · Rating 4 out of 5]

So, when I requested this book, I actually missed that it was written for teenagers, whoops, but despite the slightly different approach for the audience this was a fascinating book. Author Seema Yasmin's credentials alone are impressively intimidating but she really makes theories and biases and fake news accessible. I personally loved that she went into the historic roots of America's newspapers and worked her way back as it was enlightening and engaging reading. Yasmin also discusses how other countries use misinformation to further fan the flames of political rifts in the US as well as how believable fake news can squeak through. She also made a very compelling case that no news is unbiased as there is no way for a journalist to effectively check all biases at the door and advocated for listening to news from both sides for a balance and to challenge one's own biases -brilliant.

As I said this is written for teens, so the only chapter that really dragged for me was the last one on how to effectively communicate without being confrontational with those of differing opinions. This seemed a bit overly detailed but I'm not the target audience. I learned a lot and enjoyed being challenged in the way I inherently look at things and my own biases. An enlightening and enjoyable read.

My thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for the ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review. I didn't get a chance to finish it before it expired on my shelf but it was so good I went and checked it out at the library to finish it.

[Claire · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think this book does what it intended to do: introduces readers to a complex topic in a readable way. The chatty tone keeps interest going even when technical terms are being introduced. And the bibliography is there for readers who want to follow up on an idea.

There were new illustrations and recent analyses given where a topic was familiar to me, and there were some solutions I'd heard before but need constant reminders because they are not my natural reaction. There were also new solutions to ponder.

Strong points: the history of journalism was fascinating. I found the distinction between "High conflict" and "Good conflict" illuminating and may follow up by reading the source quoted. I found the section near the end where Yasmin addressed ways to react when my views are challenged an excellent addition to ways to address differences with others. Now to remember and do it! And useful is the reminder that we are human and will make mistakes, but forge on.

The book is a good antidote for the attitude that had been brewing to distrust everything; one piece of which is the awareness of degrees of certainty and how they can (and should) change with the search for additional information

[Alicia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Super charged amount of information that is EXACTLY what everyone needs to read either in bits and pieces or together as the whole book- it can be read either way but the information is what's needed. Yasmin breaks down the massive amount of information that has been fed since the dawn of time and the vocabulary we need to be understanding on detangling the truth. There are questions, tips and tricks, there are examples. She doesn't hop on the pop culture bandwagon nor does she stew in the past. She succinctly and efficiently but also thoroughly examines how we arrive at information, process it, consume it, share it, decide on it, know it.

I'm grateful for a book like this and want to see the print edition (I read it digitally) because while it's sometimes jumbled and weird on the digital "page", I think it probably looks phenomenal in print. Yasmin should be commended for this work that anyone can access but that should be most useful for the teen crowd. I will definitely buy a copy for our HS library and USE it.

[Todd Stansbury · Rating 5 out of 5]

Exceptionally good read that dives into not only how to tell fact from fiction, but also how to question your own beliefs and work with people to question theirs. The language can be a little “adult trying to talk to a teen” at times, but never veers into corny. I learned quite a bit and annoyed my significant other by randomly reading interesting passages from it.

It is filled with scientific, psychological, and sociological information about why we believe the things we do and we sometimes fall for things that aren’t true. I initially picked it up because I teach teenagers (and have a teenager) and wanted to see if it would be good for kids to read. It helped me learn a lot.

[Karen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yasmin, a medical doctor and journalist, tackles media literacy in an accessible and at times humorous way. She covers the history of the news industry and the origin of the term “fake news” (which dates to 1925), biases and how our brains work, social media and the algorithms that influence our beliefs, and practical ways we can have conversations with people who disagree with us and work to debunk false information. This book is packed with practical information and I know I’ll be rethinking how I interact with social media after reading it.

[Tweller83]

I received a free audiobook through Libro.fm's educator subscription.

DNF for now. Can't stand all the sound effects and I'm not really in the mood for this sort of book right now. I did order for the school library so I may pick up the physical book at a later date.

[April · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nicely done.

Aimed at young adults, this text considers how to face information and news in a critical way that acknowledges the history of journalism, the reality of social media, and the complexity of our brains. Yasmin simply and directly addresses logical fallacies, biases, and ways to overcome conflict. These topics are accessible, but they may need some re-reading and revisiting for them to have the desired impact.

The author states that she will not tell you what to think, but rather how to think. This is mostly true. Her argument is couched in anti-racism and her examples typically consider extreme opinions (on things like climate change and GMOs) that might rankle some people on the extreme ends of ideologies. There are, actually, times when it is clear that there is a right and wrong thing/way to think. I note this only because she specifically says that she does not set out to tell anyone what to think.

I find this to be a helpful guidebook for critical thinking. It is targeted to young people, who certainly need it, but I think it could be helpful and accessible to people beyond the target audience if they have not learned much in the way of how news/information works with our brains.