---
title: "Fake news and real news: The distinction remains imperfect"
author: Martin Ebner
date: 2026-11-09
url: https://postgenerative.at/indications/2026-11-09/fake-news-and-real-news-the-distinction-remains-imperfect
lang: en
type: Indication
summary: A study across 27 European countries finds only moderate differences in ratings of real and fabricated news. Whether people or AI produced the content made little difference to credibility or willingness to share.
tags:
  - Media & Public Sphere
  - Research
sources:
  - title: "Stefkovics und Gere (2026): Beliefs and sharing intentions of human- and AI-generated fake news: Evidence from 27 European countries – Originalstudie"
    url: https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/5/3/pgag032/8495093
license: CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
alternate:
  de: https://postgenerativ.at/indizien/2026-11-09/fake-news-und-echte-nachrichten-die-trennschaerfe-bleibt
---

# Fake news and real news: The distinction remains imperfect

How convincing is fabricated news compared with real news—and does AI production matter? Ádám Stefkovics and Dömötör Gere investigate this in a preregistered PNAS Nexus study. The original publication is linked in the references. [1]

The online survey covered 27 European countries and 27,227 participants; weighted analyses included 26,437. Each participant rated eight short news items about the Russo-Ukrainian war, combining real and fabricated content produced by humans or GPT-4o. Participants were not told the production source beforehand. [1]

**Real news performed better, but the gap remained moderate:** Mean credibility ratings were 2.60 for real news and 2.15 for fabricated news—a difference of 0.45 on a four-point scale. For willingness to share, the authors report an even smaller gap of around 0.18 points. Meanwhile, 57% of real items and 34% of fabricated items were rated mostly or completely real. Participants therefore made a discernible but far from reliable distinction. [1]

Differences between human- and AI-generated content were much smaller. This does not directly measure the ability to detect AI writing: participants rated veracity and sharing intentions, rather than identifying authorship. [1]

Important limitations apply: the study used selected items about one war-related topic and nonprobability online panels. Sharing intentions also differ from observed sharing on social networks. The findings cannot simply be generalized to every topic or everyday setting. [1]

Read as an indication, the study sharpens the challenge of evaluating information: plausible presentation alone is not a reliable sign of truth. As AI makes convincing content easier to produce, verifiable sources, context and critical comparison become increasingly important.