Media literacy
Learn to distinguish illustration, devotional art, impersonation and a false claim about something that happened.
DiResta and Goldstein’s 2024 Facebook study includes religious AI imagery within an investigation of pages using generated images to build audiences. Its examples include composite depictions of Jesus. This is a study of selected activity, not a census of religious art or proof that all people engaging with it believed it was real. Source: misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu
Illustration: is it clearly identified as an imagined scene? Devotional art: what is being represented and for whom? Impersonation: could a viewer mistake the speaker for a real leader? Event claim: does the caption assert that a miracle, visit or public statement actually occurred? A fabricated event requires different scrutiny from an openly imaginative picture.
Write down exactly what is claimed. Identify the earliest accessible upload and whether the account created or reposted it. Look for the purported speaker’s own statement, contemporaneous reporting or a complete recording. Save the date and URL. An image that looks realistic still needs provenance; visual oddities alone cannot settle authenticity.
Use this invented caption, clearly labeled as a teaching example: A pastor endorsed this AI prayer app yesterday. Ask learners what evidence would establish the endorsement. Answer: a verifiable statement from the pastor or authorized institution, with date and context—not an attractive portrait beside a quotation. Then change the label to fictional illustration and discuss how the claim changes.
A realistic image can serve several purposes. It may illustrate a biblical scene, imagine a future church, satirize a public figure or claim to show something that happened yesterday. The verification task depends on the claim. An openly imagined scene does not need to prove that a camera recorded it. A picture offered as evidence of a real event does.
Write the claim in a sentence before investigating. “This depicts a possible scene” differs from “This leader said these words at this event.” The second sentence introduces identity, speech, place and time, each of which may need verification. An image's visual quality cannot establish those facts on its own.
This approach is particularly important for religious material because emotional recognition can arrive before factual scrutiny. A familiar sacred figure, a distressed child or a setting associated with worship can make a picture feel meaningful. Meaning and authenticity are different questions. A viewer may find an illustration moving without believing it is documentary evidence, and a deceptive caption may exploit that ambiguity.
Look at the account, accompanying text and destination links. Does the post identify an artist or institution? Does it ask for money, personal information or an urgent share? Does the caption name a real person or place? These details help identify the claim and the possible consequences of accepting it. They do not by themselves prove deception.
A repost can detach an honest illustration from its original explanation. Finding an earlier version may therefore change the assessment. The earliest version you can locate is not necessarily the original, so describe the limit accurately. Save the accessible URL and date rather than claiming a complete provenance chain when there are gaps.
Visual irregularities can be useful clues, but they are not a complete authentication method. Real photographs can contain unusual perspective, compression or editing, while generated images can look convincing. A confident verdict based on a strange hand or background detail may be wrong. Corroborating the event and its source is more important than treating visual detection as infallible.
Christians differ over the use of sacred images, including representations of Jesus. Those theological disagreements should be discussed on their own terms. They do not determine whether a particular picture is a genuine record of an event. A person may approve of religious art while objecting to a fabricated endorsement, or reject certain depictions without claiming that every such image is deceptive.
Impersonation adds another question: is a living person being made to appear to say, approve or do something they did not? A portrait beside an invented quotation can create that impression even if the portrait is labeled as illustrative. The caption and layout work together. Responsible publication checks the overall meaning a reasonable reader is likely to receive.
For a church producing promotional material, obtain the actual statement and permission where appropriate rather than constructing an endorsement from a person's public reputation. Do not use a realistic image to imply attendance at an event that has not occurred. An attractive design does not reduce the responsibility to describe people truthfully.
Before an image is posted, identify its purpose in the editorial record: documentation, illustration, reconstruction or satire. Record where it came from and who approved its use. If it represents a real person or event, check the factual claims made by the caption. If it is synthetic or substantially altered, make that status understandable where readers encounter it.
A caption can be concise without being evasive. An imagined scene should be described as an illustration, and a reconstruction should identify what is reconstructed. Where realism could lead readers to mistake synthetic content for a photograph, a clearer explanation of its production is warranted. The aim is not to burden every image with technical detail; it is to prevent a false impression about evidence.
Review the image after it is placed on the page. Cropping, headline placement and adjacent quotations can change its meaning. A responsible source note hidden far below the image may not correct an immediate misleading impression. The final layout should support the same truthful account as the text.
Preserve enough information to understand what was published, then correct the claim clearly in the places the institution controls. State what was wrong and what is now known. Quietly replacing the image may remove the visible problem while leaving people who shared the earlier version unaware of the correction.
Do not repeat an unverified allegation in the correction more widely than necessary. The purpose is to repair understanding, not create a second round of sensational distribution. If a real person's reputation is involved, prioritize an accurate account of what they did or did not say. The response should be proportionate to the error and its reach.
A congregation can also learn from the process without blaming a single volunteer for every weakness. Was there a source check? Did the approval process examine captions? Was someone available to ask when authenticity was uncertain? Improving those arrangements is more useful than merely promising to be more careful next time.
People can share misleading images because they are moved, hurried or unfamiliar with the context. A useful educational response explains the evidence rather than mocking the person. Ask what the post claimed and which source would establish that claim. Show how an illustration can be valuable without being a photograph.
For Christian communities, this connects media literacy with truthful witness and care for neighbors. The goal is not to extinguish imagination or devotion. It is to make sure that religious feeling is not used to smuggle an unsupported factual claim into circulation. A truthful image practice respects both the subject and the audience.
Truthful witness includes accurate captions, consent and respect for the people depicted. Disagreement about sacred art should not be confused with a finding that an image records a real event. Churches should label generated illustrations and never manufacture a leader’s endorsement.
Engagement totals can include repeat activity, irony, automation or people responding to the caption rather than believing the picture. They do not directly measure belief. This guide reports published research; it does not claim a fresh audit of current platform enforcement.
Historical meaning, stated motive, public reaction and Christian interpretation are separate claims. No representative opinion survey or completed independent review is claimed.
Our evidence standards · Learning library