Media Literacy and Fake News (2 Viewers)

[Ayo]

The Canadian Journalism Federation is taking fake news very seriously. I've worked with media literacy for years, and this is - to date - the most expansively public approach that I've seen, in advance of the Federal Election.

Journalism group launches anti-fake news campaign ahead of Canadian election

Recent polling suggests nearly all Canadians have come across misinformation online, yet only 40 per cent feel they know how to differentiate between fake news and the real thing.

www.thestar.com

If you are engaged online, you have likely been subjected to something that was not true, and yet there isn't much pursuit in trying to determine factual accuracy of the articles and information. And most of us - probably every single one of us here - have fallen for it.

Recent polling by Ipsos, Earnscliffe Strategy Group and MIT researchers suggests nearly all Canadians have come across misinformation online, yet only 40 per cent feel they know how to differentiate between fake news and the real thing.

The polls also found 90 per cent of Canadians admitted to falling for fake news in the past, and only a third of them regularly check to see if the stories they’re consuming are legitimate.

I don't think that their approach is going to be enough. I think the most effective utility it will have is bringing awareness. But fuller approaches to media literacy are going to be necessary to combat the deluge of increasingly deceptive media. These are hard skills that can be learned, but with the advent of new 'deep fake' technology, media literacy is going to have adapt, too.

I would like to see greater emphasis on media literacy in the US. Because even though this statement is for the Canadian audience, it definitely - maybe even more so - applies to the US where news is more infotainment and sensationalized than it is up here:

“To be an engaged citizen, you have to have access to quality journalism… you have to understand what is quality journalism and what is not,” said Richard Gingras, vice-president of Google News.

Another source includes one approach - the SPOT approach: https://www.manitoulin.ca/news-media-canada-launches-new-tool-to-help-people-spot-fake-news/

SPOT is an acronym that acts as a simple way to remember the four principles of identifying misinformation. It works like this:
S: Is this a credible source? Check the source of the article—and be skeptical.
P: Is the perspective biased? Think critically and look for varying viewpoints on an issue.
O: Are other sources reporting the same story? Be your own fact-checker and verify the validity of the story.
T: Is the story timely? Check the date the story was published—sometimes, stories use old information to take advantage of a timely occurrence.

It's obviously not enough, but a decent start.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I don't blame them for being skeptical. I would need to see a syllabus, and even then I don't think I would be persuaded if I knew that the instructor was particularly biased.

So what part of teaching students to be aware of deceptive media practices do you have issue with?

 

[Ayo]

I don't blame them for being skeptical. I would need to see a syllabus, and even then I don't think I would be persuaded if I knew that the instructor was particularly biased.

I don't know what you mean by "particularly" but everyone has biases, but is still able to do his/her job as a professional. Maybe "particularly" is an indicator of an extreme, atypical case.

Additionally, I have nothing against being skeptical.

In fact, being skeptical is *encouraged* when it comes to media literacy. It should be a default position. And, in my experience, I've found that teens and twenty-somethings are more skeptical, in constructive ways, than are many adults who believe what they see/hear with little interrogation and follow up and are more heavily invested in certain narratives without much questioning.

 

[Beach Friends]

I don't know what you mean by "particularly" but everyone has biases, but is still able to do his/her job as a professional. Maybe "particularly" is an indicator of an extreme, atypical case.

Additionally, I have nothing against being skeptical.

In fact, being skeptical is *encouraged* when it comes to media literacy. It should be a default position. And, in my experience, I've found that teens and twenty-somethings are more skeptical, in constructive ways, than are many adults who believe what they see/hear with little interrogation and follow up and are more heavily invested in certain narratives without much questioning.

Well sure, I think the real question is whether that instructor can recognize and set aside his biases. I think someone who is "particularly" biased may have a more diifficult time with that.

I would hope that a syllabus would indicate that the goal is to teach the students to think critically and make their own decisions as opposed to just giving them a list of "approved" sources.

But, I also recognize that the syllabus likely does not tell the whole story. For example, of the teacher leans to the right, does he use a disproportionate amount of examples from left leaning sources to illustrate problems with the media while using right leaning sources to illustrate credible sources? If so, the end result may be that the teacher is subtly providing that "approved list."

 

[MT15]

What you’re describing is decidedly unprofessional though, and would surely be called out by students and parents. Teachers, as a whole, I believe are dedicated professionals who take their jobs very seriously. Of course there are bad ones, just like in any profession. It’s so important for parents to talk with their kids about what they are learning in school. And not just as a “watchdog” over teachers, but to check out that they are properly “getting” the education, rather than missing the salient points.

 

[JimEverett]

I don't know what you mean by "particularly" but everyone has biases, but is still able to do his/her job as a professional. Maybe "particularly" is an indicator of an extreme, atypical case.

Additionally, I have nothing against being skeptical.

In fact, being skeptical is *encouraged* when it comes to media literacy. It should be a default position. And, in my experience, I've found that teens and twenty-somethings are more skeptical, in constructive ways, than are many adults who believe what they see/hear with little interrogation and follow up and are more heavily invested in certain narratives without much questioning.

I am glad you see that trait in young people because in my experience I do not. And I hope your's is more accurate.
I find younger people much more "authoritarian" in that there is a quick appeal to authority and once an authority is invoked - case closed.
I see it working in tandem with the way younger have been taught - everything is geared towards test taking where there isa somewhat dictatorial education environment.

 

[Ayo]

I see it working in tandem with the way younger have been taught - everything is geared towards test taking where there isa somewhat dictatorial education environment.

and, as I mentioned in response to GMR in another post, not being tethered to a high stakes standardized test is liberating in more than one way. This is one.

What we are afforded, instructionally, in terms of time and resources as a result allows us to spend more time on things like this. I think your correlative observation is a reasonable one.

I should also point out that when I was teaching in Texas and Louisiana, there was no real 'media literacy' at the time, so when I make the comment about student skepticism, it's pretty much in reference to my time working and teaching up here vs. back home.

 

[JimEverett]

IMO the greatest teachers are the ones that train students to be comfortable with ambiguity while also maintaining creativity - which often go hand in hand.

Certainty is the enemy of knowledge and creativity - and it is in abundance these days.

 

[Ayo]

IMO the greatest teachers are the ones that train students to be comfortable with ambiguity while also maintaining creativity - which often go hand in hand.

Certainty is the enemy of knowledge and creativity - and it is in abundance these days.

Yes. I am working through de Beauvoir's "Ethics of Ambiguity" right now. I'm ashamed to say that I never read any of her primary existentialist pieces - but I'd read others. Anyhow, the central wrestling in the text so far, and as I understand it besides, deals with a relativity that is relevant to what we face now.

And I think skepticism, as a counter to 'certainty' (I find the emphasis on the empirical to be troubling), is found in reading more humanities works, more fiction, more philosophical works, more foreign languages. I have said to my students that I think they should all be taking philosophy - in this STEM-oriented push, it's even more critical. For a number of reasons.

And then I found this thread on twitter interesting. First came this tweet:



I am, of course, biased toward the humanities, but I think that this idea that STEM-oriented or other degrees teach problem solving (akin to critical/media literacy) are somehow useful where other disciplines, including humanities are not is misleading and incomplete.

That prompted another academic to reply in a long thread. I don't really agree with everything in this reply thread, but there are some valid and accurate responses made. There is also some colorful language which I won't post here.

I think we need to read more and be equipped to read more and think about problem solving and multi-literacy in ways that aren't seen as the most direct right now.



from that thread, one illustrative example of constructive tweeting - and it speaks to what you point out as the importance of 'creativity':

 

[Beach Friends]

Yes. I am working through de Beauvoir's "Ethics of Ambiguity" right now. I'm ashamed to say that I never read any of her primary existentialist pieces - but I'd read others. Anyhow, the central wrestling in the text so far, and as I understand it besides, deals with a relativity that is relevant to what we face now.

And I think skepticism, as a counter to 'certainty' (I find the emphasis on the empirical to be troubling), is found in reading more humanities works, more fiction, more philosophical works, more foreign languages. I have said to my students that I think they should all be taking philosophy - in this STEM-oriented push, it's even more critical. For a number of reasons.

And then I found this thread on twitter interesting. First came this tweet:



I am, of course, biased toward the humanities, but I think that this idea that STEM-oriented or other degrees teach problem solving (akin to critical/media literacy) are somehow useful where other disciplines, including humanities are not is misleading and incomplete.

That prompted another academic to reply in a long thread. I don't really agree with everything in this reply thread, but there are some valid and accurate responses made. There is also some colorful language which I won't post here.

I think we need to read more and be equipped to read more and think about problem solving and multi-literacy in ways that aren't seen as the most direct right now.



from that thread, one illustrative example of constructive tweeting - and it speaks to what you point out as the importance of 'creativity':

I think I agree with you about the value of a traditional liberal arts degree. But, even back in my day such a degree was not the most marketable.

Looking through the twitter feed you posted I noted that someone suggested that certain liberal arts degrees are actually a liability because no employer wants to hire a "trouble maker."

I think it's true that certain degrees are seen as degrees in "outrage" or "grievance" and that employers may be very hesitant to hire someone who they feel has been primarily trained to protest.

For example, I can't imagine having to send off a resume with Evergreen College on it.

 

[Ayo]

I think I agree with you about the value of a traditional liberal arts degree. But, even back in my day such a degree was not the most marketable.

we're from the same "back in my day" and while I agree, to some extent, there's also a prevailing notion - and always has been - that it's been less marketable. But it was the case then, and even is now, that there is growing appreciation of the humanities degree and the interpersonal skills and general literacy and soft skills and broad knowledge that are fostered in those sorts of degrees.

We get regular updates on the job market and this has been a discernible trend for quite a while now, actually. And we speak with HR people regularly to gauge 'marketability' and the innovation and 'creativity' that JE points out are highlighted as desirable.

The most recent discussion I had was with an HR director who works in the tech sector and they are now hiring people with these sorts of degrees and experiences, because the practice of hiring/promoting people in tech wasn't working out because the skillset didn't match management or communication that were needed.

So, I think that there's some truth to it, certainly, but it's not etched in stone as we're often led to believe.

Looking through the twitter feed you posted I noted that someone suggested that certain liberal arts degrees are actually a liability because no employer wants to hire a "trouble maker."

I think it's true that certain degrees are seen as degrees in "outrage" or "grievance" and that employers may be very hesitant to hire someone who they feel has been primarily trained to protest.

I mean, maybe... though generally, I think this metonymical association between "liberal arts" and "trouble maker" isn't really accurate. Certainly not to the point of generalizing to a candidate's default, assumed detriment.

There are a lot of people within those fields who aren't "outrage" or "grievance" marketers and a resume simply with those degrees complemented by beneficial experience is going to speak more in the specific than some assumption that exists - or doesn't - in the ether

 

[Beach Friends]

we're from the same "back in my day" and while I agree, to some extent, there's also a prevailing notion - and always has been - that it's been less marketable. But it was the case then, and even is now, that there is growing appreciation of the humanities degree and the interpersonal skills and general literacy and soft skills and broad knowledge that are fostered in those sorts of degrees.

We get regular updates on the job market and this has been a discernible trend for quite a while now, actually. And we speak with HR people regularly to gauge 'marketability' and the innovation and 'creativity' that JE points out are highlighted as desirable.

The most recent discussion I had was with an HR director who works in the tech sector and they are now hiring people with these sorts of degrees and experiences, because the practice of hiring/promoting people in tech wasn't working out because the skillset didn't match management or communication that were needed.

So, I think that there's some truth to it, certainly, but it's not etched in stone as we're often led to believe.



I mean, maybe... though generally, I think this metonymical association between "liberal arts" and "trouble maker" isn't really accurate. Certainly not to the point of generalizing to a candidate's default, assumed detriment.

There are a lot of people within those fields who aren't "outrage" or "grievance" marketers and a resume simply with those degrees complemented by beneficial experience is going to speak more in the specific than some assumption that exists - or doesn't - in the ether

It's good to hear that employers recognize the value of a liberal arts education.

 

[Beach Friends]

What you’re describing is decidedly unprofessional though, and would surely be called out by students and parents. Teachers, as a whole, I believe are dedicated professionals who take their jobs very seriously. Of course there are bad ones, just like in any profession. It’s so important for parents to talk with their kids about what they are learning in school. And not just as a “watchdog” over teachers, but to check out that they are properly “getting” the education, rather than missing the salient points.

I don't think that we are well served to just assume that because educators are good folks that they are not susceptible to having their own biases creep in.

Plus, I think we all have to recognize that there are some approaches to education today that seem nonsensical at best.

For example, I would definitely wonder what was going on in the classroom if I had a child in the Seattle school system and I saw that the curriculum included presumptions that math is oppressive to people of color.

Maybe Oye can come along and explain that to me, because I sincerely don't get it.

 

[LA - L.A.]

For example, I would definitely wonder what was going on in the classroom if I had a child in the Seattle school system and I saw that the curriculum included presumptions that math is oppressive to people of color.

Maybe Oye can come along and explain that to me, because I sincerely don't get it.

This is off topic. Why not just stick to discussing Media Literacy instead of bringing up a separate discussion? If this is something that you think warrants discussion, then please start a separate thread.

 

[Beach Friends]

This is off topic. Why not just stick to discussing Media Literacy instead of bringing up a separate discussion? If this is something that you think warrants discussion, then please start a separate thread.

It seemed relevant to the issue of people being suspicious that new curriculum is part of a liberal cabal, which was brought up by the OP.

I am trying to add to the conversation that there are reasons why people tend to think that way, and offering the OP an opportunity to address that.

Perhaps I can learn something from him as to why the curriculum that I provided a link to is not problematic.

Or, maybe he will see why we lay people are suspicious.

Either way, I think it's relevant to the discussion, especially since it took an earlier turn discussing STEM vs humanities and the curriculum I linked to seems to integrate the two.

 

[LA - L.A.]

It seemed relevant to the issue of people being suspicious that new curriculum is part of a liberal cabal, which was brought up by the OP.

I am trying to add to the conversation that there are reasons why people tend to think that way, and offering the OP an opportunity to address that.

Perhaps I can learn something from him as to why the curriculum that I provided a link to is not problematic.

Or, maybe he will see why we lay people are suspicious.

Either way, I think it's relevant to the discussion, especially since it took an earlier turn discussing STEM vs humanities and the curriculum I linked to seems to integrate the two.

This is just what I think. I understand bringing up what was brought up to support the idea that some are suspicious of people creating curriculum as possibly having biased agendas. That's using the reference as a supporting example of a point raised in this discussion.

I think the fact that people are suspicious has been raised and accepted as true, even you acknowledged that the OP acknowledged that some people are suspicious.

If one wants to show why people are suspicious of Media Literacy curricula, it would be more meaningful and relevant to discuss specific examples of people being suspicious of specific Media Literacy curricula and why they are suspicious of those Media Literacy curricula.

I'm a lay person and I'm not suspicious, so not all lay people are suspicious. I understand that some curricula can be problematic or have a biased agenda(Kansas teaching intelligent design for instance), but that doesn't make me suspicious of all curricula in Kansas or elsewhere. I would of course make myself informed of any of my child's curricula, but I wouldn't approach it with suspicion. I know there are murderers in the world, but I don't approach strangers in public with the suspicion that they might be murderers.

Asking for a discussion and further elaboration on whether or not it's nonsensical or problematic that a specific curriculum "included presumptions that math is oppressive to people of color" is asking for a new and separate discussion. It may be a worthy discussion, but it's a different discussion from media literacy as a curriculum. It's also a highly charged topic. This thread and that topic would be better served with a separate thread dedicated exclusively to that topic.

I think the STEM vs humanities discussion was off topic as well, but it's not as charged as the new discussion being asked for. That's why the thread quickly got back on track after just a brief deviation into the STEM vs humanities side conversation.

I think a discussion on a curriculum which "included presumptions that math is oppressive to people of color" will ultimately derail the original topic of this thread.

 

[Ayo]

I think the STEM vs humanities discussion was off topic as well, but it's not as charged as the new discussion being asked for. That's why the thread quickly got back on track after just a brief deviation into the STEM vs humanities side conversation.

Sorry - didn't mean to derail my own thread. I was bouncing something off what JE brought up, when it comes to creativity and how it can be fostered and how creativity can be something to push back against what he called "certainty"

Because I think that notion of 'certainty' operates against a healthy skepticism, which is critical to media literacy. It wasn't meant to be anti-STEM (not at all, and this would be very apparent with regard to where I work) but rather pro-critical thought which is something found in humanities, too. And that the humanities are generally the disciplines where media literacy is taught and fostered, and another reason why I think they shouldn't be dismissed.

We need to be less 'certain' and more interrogative as we wade through media messages and equip kids with the tools to be engage critically and that some fixed 'certainty' isn't really the goal.

And I think JE is onto something when he says that high stakes standardized testing can have an abstract effect on how students view certainty/authority as well as practical impact on how and what is actually able to be taught.

Maybe I could have made those links clearer and how I was connecting those points with regard to the thread.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I don't think that we are well served to just assume that because educators are good folks that they are not susceptible to having their own biases creep in.

Plus, I think we all have to recognize that there are some approaches to education today that seem nonsensical at best.

For example, I would definitely wonder what was going on in the classroom if I had a child in the Seattle school system and I saw that the curriculum included presumptions that math is oppressive to people of color.

Maybe Oye can come along and explain that to me, because I sincerely don't get it.

Here is a good example of media literacy
This document doesn’t say what you’re claiming it says
I assume it’s talking about algebra starting in the Middle East
Then arguing that after it’s adoption by ‘western’ education and taught solely you in a way that’s is not inclusive to all learning styles (Einstein’s quip about judging a fish by its ability I climb a tree), it has excluded non-western approaches

And to be clear the curriculum is for something called ‘math ethnic studies’ and seems clearly taught out of ethnic studies
It also says math is a means to liberation so it’s clearly not anti math

 

[Lazybones]

What you’re describing is decidedly unprofessional though, and would surely be called out by students and parents. Teachers, as a whole, I believe are dedicated professionals who take their jobs very seriously. Of course there are bad ones, just like in any profession. It’s so important for parents to talk with their kids about what they are learning in school. And not just as a “watchdog” over teachers, but to check out that they are properly “getting” the education, rather than missing the salient points.

My daughter goes to an all girl catholic school. Surprisingly there are quite a few openly liberal teachers. At first my wife aka I were on the page of the letting the administrators know and have them speak to the teachers.

After we discussed it further, we decided to let our daughter critically think about what happened at school and then come home to discuss it. This has been a very good activity. I am very proud of my daughter being able to express herself in way that is not combative but challenging thoughts that she doesn’t understand or agree with.

In life she will have to navigate these same obstacles. Mind as well learn these skills in the controlled environment of schools.