Scroll Smarter: Addressing radical distrust

October 13, 2026

Oct. 13, 2026

in this issue

Family Q&A | Top story | Bonus reads | Video of the month | Reader poll

A character scratches their head and looks confused at news media items, including a microphone, TV, camera and globe icon.

Addressing doubt in credible sources

Question:

How can I address a radical distrust in traditional authority structures without citing authorities from so-called “mainstream” science and media?

— Concerned relative

Answer:

When we encounter someone who believes something we know to be false, or distrusts sources of information we strongly feel are credible, it can be tempting to try to bridge this divide with more information. But this often isn’t the most effective path.

There are deep-seated reasons why people distrust mainstream, institutional sources of information and why they turn to “alternative” low-quality sources — and only some of these reasons have to do with the actual example or source of information in question.

People generally make these kinds of trust decisions based on multiple factors, including their identities, selective anecdotes or firsthand experiences with particular institutions (such as the news media or government agencies) and common but often misguided notions about how particular institutions operate. These elements can add up to strong convictions that just “feel right.” They can also add up to a rationale for rejecting information or institutions that they feel are incompatible with their beliefs and values.

In short, the biases, ideas, experiences and misguided notions that people bring to information have at least as much to do with their trust decisions as the information itself. (If you’re interested in understanding more about why people distrust news in particular, we suggest exploring research and a recent book about why people avoid news co-authored by Benjamin Toff, director of the Minnesota Journalism Center.)

So, when someone expresses doubt in a piece of information you find credible, it’s often better to set the example aside and discuss the larger issue of credibility and trust.

Can you agree on some characteristics that make a particular piece or source of information credible?
Since no source of information can ever be perfect, what are some shared criteria for trusting something?
Can we agree that imperfect institutions can still be valuable and credible?

Once you establish what credibility looks like (scientific findings that have been independently validated, or journalism that demonstrates a commitment to transparency, independence, fairness, accuracy and accountability), then you can work to compare how more conventional, authoritative sources and more unconventional “alternative” sources compare on these points.

You can also further explore the feelings this person has about the sources you consider to be authoritative.

What are the risks they feel they are taking when they trust sources like these?
Ask them which sources of information about the same subject they would consider to be less biased or more trustworthy — then take a look at those sources together.
Return the conversation to the characteristics of credibility you established previously: How do various sources of information compare with one another on those points?

These are usually more productive ways forward than focusing on a single example or debating the credibility of a specific source.

For more tips on productive conversations, check out this infographic by the News Literacy Project.

➡️ Do you have a question for us? Share it in this form and we may answer it in a future issue. We can address questions about artificial intelligence, social media, journalism, misinformation and more in a family-oriented way.

ASK A QUESTION

⭐ You’ll win swag from the News Literacy Project if your question is picked! Questions may be edited or rephrased for clarity and length.

Screen time harms: What families can do

Worried about kids’ social media use or excessive screen time? Here’s what research shows and what experts say makes a difference.

What to know:

➡️ In a review of 2,790 studies, University of Toronto researchers found that screen time is a public health concern.

🛏️ For kids ages 10 and younger, too much screen time is linked to less sleep and poorer cognitive, emotional and social development. For ages 10 to 24, screen time is linked to mental health problems and harmful behaviors such as substance abuse.

📱Not all screen time is bad, and parents and caretakers shouldn’t be the only line of defense, researchers said. Still, experts say monitoring kids’ social media habits can be an effective way for parents to minimize harms.

What you can do:

➡️ This NPR piece has several tips for parents, including setting clear boundaries around device use, putting phones away at mealtimes and bedtime, and having a digital plan or screen time rules for the whole family.

🗨️ “Be curious, don’t be furious,” says Sunny Xun Liu, the research director of the Social Media Lab at Stanford University. She recommends asking kids open-ended questions about online activity, such as “What’s this? Why’s this app so interesting?” Studies show “supportive engagement” is effective in protecting kids, according to Jason Nagata, a doctor and adolescent medicine specialist at the University of California, San Francisco.

🤖 For more teen safety tips on AI and social media, check out this infographic from the News Literacy Project and the American Psychological Association.

🍎 School without teachers: A pre-K through eighth-grade school called Alpha opened in Chicago this year — the city’s first AI-driven school without human teachers. (There are adult “guides” who lead students in life skills classes.)

🤖 Dangerous advice: Teens turning to AI chatbots for mental health support may be receiving bad advice. A test of 600 conversations with nine chatbots mimicking teen mental health scenarios found that the chatbots made safety errors nearly 30% of the time.

🧠 Brain rot escapism: Singing toilets. Dancing cappuccinos. Muscular fruit. Nonsensical AI-generated content is fueling online “brain rot” — a foggy feeling that comes from scrolling through an endless feed of absurd or low-quality social media videos.

👋 Kids chatting on Spotify: The comments section of an NPR show on Spotify recently had random messages that seemed like gibberish: “Ur cats are so cute I miss my cats.” “Last Friday I broke up with my gf.” Bots, right? Turned out they were kids too young for social media who were using the comments section to communicate.

Which tree-cutting machinery video is AI-generated?

There really is an AI video for everything: These clips show machinery cutting down, transplanting and removing the bark from trees. Two are real and one is AI-generated. Watch the video below with your family to determine which is which. Hint: Ask yourselves, how does this machinery work, and does this even make sense?

A screenshot of a News Literacy Project video shows the words “2 Truths and AI” next to a photo of the video’s narrator, Dan Evon. Three screenshots from videos of machines cutting down, transplanting and removing the bark from trees are under an icon representing a play button.

Reader poll note

Last month, we asked who in your family is most likely to be the first to verify or fact-check a viral claim from social media. Most of you (57%) said parents/guardians. Some said kids (29%) or other relatives (14%).

We’re wrapping up reader polls in Scroll Smarter, but be on the lookout for a new section featuring family conversation starters. (Have thoughts on this? Reply to this email and let us know!)