In a time when a single post can circle the globe before breakfast, and a carefully edited video clip can shape an election, the ability to tell fact from fiction has become one of the most essential skills a citizen can possess. That was the core message of Democracy 101: A Series of Critical Conversations, an event hosted by Grand Valley State University on Wednesday, Oct. 21. The program brought together students, faculty, and community members for an open, honest discussion about the fragile state of public information and the many ways misinformation and disinformation travel through our digital lives. The room was filled with people who were not there to be lectured, but to think critically about the news they consume, the posts they share, and the claims they accept without question. The conversation focused on three big ideas: how false information spreads, how journalists work to get it right, and what ordinary people can do to protect themselves from being fooled. More than just a panel, the event was a reminder that democracy depends on an informed public, and that being informed takes effort. In a world of breaking news alerts, viral rumors, and deepfakes, the ability to pause and ask, “Wait, is this true?” is not just a nicety. It is a civic duty.
The panelists brought a wealth of real-world experience to the discussion, which made the event feel grounded and urgent. Alden Loury, senior editor of WBEZ Chicago, and Jeff Kelly Lowenstein, associate professor of journalism at Grand Valley State University, shared insights drawn from years of reporting, editing, and teaching. They did not speak in abstract terms. They talked about the actual mechanics of misinformation: how a falsehood can be packaged in a convincing headline, how a misleading statistic can be shared by thousands of people in minutes, and how the emotional pull of a story often overrides our urge to verify it. Lowenstein pointed directly at social media as one of the biggest vehicles for both misinformation and disinformation. “It often travels through social media. A big vehicle of transmitting mis and disinformation is the social media, and it often spreads very rapidly because of the emotional appeal,” he said. That observation struck a chord with many in the audience, because it explains why falsehoods are so hard to stop. A true story may be measured and nuanced, but a false one can be simple, shocking, and designed to make you feel something instantly. The panelists made it clear that this emotional hook is exactly what makes misinformation so dangerous. Understanding that mechanism is the first step toward resisting it.
The conversation also addressed the very real challenge that everyday news consumers face when trying to sort through the flood of information online. Lowenstein acknowledged that citizens are often left to navigate a messy system that was not designed for clarity. “For news consumers and citizens, there’s challenges around sifting through false information, understanding how to evaluate the information you encounter and how to develop an array of resources to do that,” he said. This was not a criticism of people who fall for misinformation. It was a recognition that the information environment has become so crowded and so confusing that even careful readers can struggle. The panelists urged students not to rely on gut feelings alone, but to build a toolkit of habits and resources. That might mean checking multiple sources, looking for original reporting, reading beyond the headline, and seeking out outlets that are transparent about their methods. It also means being skeptical, but not cynical. Skepticism asks questions. Cynicism assumes everything is false. The goal, as Lowenstein described it, is not to become distrustful of all media, but to become more thoughtful about how information is produced, who pays for it, and what incentives might shape it.
A key theme of the evening was the importance of questioning the information we encounter, especially when it appears to be news or when it touches on politics. Alden Loury spoke directly to this idea, encouraging people to pause before accepting or sharing anything. “Particularly with political speech, but in messaging, but also just anything that looks like news,” he said. “Just ask yourself, how do they know what they’re telling me? Who are these people? Where are they coming from?” These are simple questions, but they cut deep. They force us to move from being passive receivers of information to active investigators. Loury also stressed that we need to be careful and thoughtful about where we get our information, making sure it is solid, that it comes from a source we can trust, and that it is shared with us as accurately as we can determine. In an age where anyone can publish anything, authority is no longer guaranteed by a byline or a logo. The panelists made the case that credibility must be earned through transparency, accountability, and a track record of accuracy. They also reminded the audience that sharing misinformation is not a victimless act. Every time we forward something without checking it, we become part of the problem and we add to the noise that makes it harder for everyone to see the truth.
For many students in the audience, the discussion was more than just an academic exercise. It was a mirror. Jordyn Visser, a freshman film major, said the panel helped her recognize how deeply misinformation has shaped her own life. “It made me realize how misinformation is often politicized,” Visser said. That realization is important because it reveals how false claims are not always accidental. Sometimes they are spread deliberately to inflame divisions, suppress votes, or attack opponents. Visser also said the conversation broadened her perspective beyond her own community. “This helped me realize it’s a big issue in other places too. I feel we focus on what our culture and what our community does, and we think maybe it’s just an us problem, but it’s everywhere.” Her comments reflect a growing understanding that misinformation is a global challenge, not a local one, and that no culture or country is immune. Visser also shared how the panel changed her approach to fact-checking. She admitted that before learning about dedicated fact-checking resources, she relied on her own instincts. “Before I knew about them, my fact-checking misinformation was, if it felt off I would try to compare sources and see what they said, so that’s important.” Her honesty captured the experience of many young people who have grown up online and who are now realizing that the tools they need to navigate the digital world must be learned, just like any other skill.
In the end, Democracy 101 offered something that feels increasingly rare: a calm, thoughtful space to talk about a problem that is usually discussed in panic mode. The panelists did not pretend that the problem of misinformation is easy to solve. They did not offer magic bullets or simple fixes. Instead, they gave the audience something more valuable: a set of questions, a mindset, and a reminder that we all have a role to play in keeping our information ecosystem healthy. As misinformation continues to circulate online, the need for media literacy only grows stronger. The discussion at Grand Valley State University underscored that democracy thrives when people are willing to look past the surface, dig into the evidence, and hold the sources of their information to a higher standard. It also showed that students are hungry for these conversations. They want to understand how to verify what they see, how to avoid being manipulated, and how to be responsible sharers of information. That is a hopeful sign. The fight against misinformation will not be won by fact-checkers alone, or by journalists alone, or by teachers alone. It will be won by citizens who refuse to accept falsehoods, who ask hard questions, and who take the time to get the story right. Events like Democracy 101 are not just lectures. They are training grounds for that kind of citizenship, and they remind us that the cure for bad information is not less information, but better thinking.