Media Literacy and Fake News (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Ayo

    Spirit Grocer
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    896
    Reaction score
    2,307
    Location
    Toronto
    Offline
    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.


    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.
     
    If you mean evolve and maybe re position my stance on an issue or two. Yes. Though a debate can be had if it was "left" news or just evolving in life.
    I feel like I just threw up words and did not answer your question at all, sorry. I know what I am trying to say. lol

    Do you as a left/Dem/liberal whatever, feel like your opinions are reaffirmed because more talking heads are behind your stance? That was not meant to be snarky at all, but it probably came off that way. I am going to stop typing now.

    No, that’s totally the type of feedback I was wondering about, thanks.

    Yea, it’s hard to ask since it’s really hard to not look like you’re poking at the person you’re questioning, so no worries. Sorry it took a bit to get back to you, I was a bit busy and wanted to make sure I gave you an appropriate reply.

    I want to say no, but on some level I think I’m being dishonest if I say that. It’s much, much easier to say “yea you’re wrong” to someone when they can only point to Fox. Especially given its rep. Conversely, if I want to prove myself wrong (if something seems off with something I read, I approach it that way), the opposite sources are few and far between without getting to the...crazy. And those fringes definitely exist on both sides - I’ll ignore a Daily Kos article just the same as an Infowars.

    That said....
    Personally, I stick to BBC and NPR for my news. The NPR podcasts do lean left, but I’m obviously ok with that (they aren’t extreme enough for me to eye roll). My news alerts come from BBC, and those are the first two sites I want to check when I’m vetting information. Despite my leanings, I want to read factual information with little bias as much as possible. If I’m listening to something (like the podcasts I mentioned), it’s certainly more enjoyable on a level when you feel like the host shares your point of view.
     
    @JRad To kind of piggy back off what you're saying, I think 1 problem is people's misunderstanding of News and opinion. Tucker, Hannity, etc are opinion shows when some people take it as "news" or they will take Coumo and Lemon as "news" when they are opinion shows. My golden rule is if it's on after 8 pm it is an opinion unless it is local news. Now can those shows drop some actual news on the show? Sure but that's far and few between. Sorry mini rant.
     
    Agreed. I posted this some where else. But this has damn near started since he was sworn in. People have completely tuned it all out and DGAF any more.
    Day after day after day after day of "BOMBSHELL!" and "EXPLOSIVE!" testimony will do that to you.
     
    The below picture paints a stark image of why I think we have such a hard time finding a common starting point to argue from.

    Sondland specifically stated that a quid pro quo had taken place. Several times, including his opening statement, and then throughout the majority of his testimony.

    He then answered "no" to the question asking if the president had told him directly to commit a quid pro quo. So both graphics are technically correct, but the message of what was actually testified to is obfuscated in the latter scroll.

    I mean, we should all be able to agree on what he actually said. We can disagree on what the interpretation of his testimony might be, but we have to be able to work from an actually factual basis first. And with this type of misinformation happening, we're really not.

    u3gosp8dkf041.jpg
     
    The below picture paints a stark image of why I think we have such a hard time finding a common starting point to argue from.

    Sondland specifically stated that a quid pro quo had taken place. Several times, including his opening statement, and then throughout the majority of his testimony.

    He then answered "no" to the question asking if the president had told him directly to commit a quid pro quo. So both graphics are technically correct, but the message of what was actually testified to is obfuscated in the latter scroll.

    I mean, we should all be able to agree on what he actually said. We can disagree on what the interpretation of his testimony might be, but we have to be able to work from an actually factual basis first. And with this type of misinformation happening, we're really not.

    u3gosp8dkf041.jpg
    Worth putting on your list...


    Don't fully agree with all of the prescriptions(though interesting), but the diagnosis is hard to argue against.
     
    Last edited:
    The below picture paints a stark image of why I think we have such a hard time finding a common starting point to argue from.

    Sondland specifically stated that a quid pro quo had taken place. Several times, including his opening statement, and then throughout the majority of his testimony.

    He then answered "no" to the question asking if the president had told him directly to commit a quid pro quo. So both graphics are technically correct, but the message of what was actually testified to is obfuscated in the latter scroll.

    I mean, we should all be able to agree on what he actually said. We can disagree on what the interpretation of his testimony might be, but we have to be able to work from an actually factual basis first. And with this type of misinformation happening, we're really not.

    u3gosp8dkf041.jpg
    The Fox runner is clearly more misleading. But it is also worth pointing out that Sondland did not say there was a quid pro quo regarding on the issue of an announcement of an investigation in exchange for aid. Right? I may be wrong, but that I was I thought. The quid pro quo was an investigation into the server and an investigation into Burisma in exchange for a WH meeting.
     
    The Fox runner is clearly more misleading. But it is also worth pointing out that Sondland did not say there was a quid pro quo regarding on the issue of an announcement of an investigation in exchange for aid. Right? I may be wrong, but that I was I thought. The quid pro quo was an investigation into the server and an investigation into Burisma in exchange for a WH meeting.
    He said it was a clear quid pro quo that he essentially had the receipts on in terms of the meeting for investigations, he said it was the only logical deduction based on enormous circumstantial evidence with regards to the military aid being withheld.

    Substantively though, conditioning official acts for personal political favors is an abuse of power(and likely meets the constitutional foundation of bribery) whether it is official White House meetings or Military aid.
     
    The Fox runner is clearly more misleading. But it is also worth pointing out that Sondland did not say there was a quid pro quo regarding on the issue of an announcement of an investigation in exchange for aid. Right? I may be wrong, but that I was I thought. The quid pro quo was an investigation into the server and an investigation into Burisma in exchange for a WH meeting.
    I may be incorrect here, but my understanding was that the only thing he actually said no to in terms of the pay to play aspects of the situation was that he never heard directly from the president that he wanted the investigation for the aid/White House visit. But that everyone including him were operating from that point of knowledge anyway.
     
    1575215347956.png


    Newsweek has fired a reporter for reporting that the President spent Thanksgiving playing golf and tweeting.
    The President had, in fact, flown to Afghanistan and spent Thanksgiving with the troops.

    Reporter Jessica Kwong blamed an editor who failed to use the updates she provided after she found out the President's true plans.


    You may recall, Newsweek was the magazine that once published a bogus story about Korans getting flushed down the toilet at Gitmo, which led to riots in the Middle East and 17 people getting killed.


    As a print magazine, Newsweek never recovered. It got folded into The Daily Beast family!
     
    Fair enough
    It looks like an inconsistent copy editor
    If you read the article, the writer has zero concern with Melania’s outfit - she heaps praise on it
    She does use the word “foreignness” - which is such an unfortunate phrase - but she, the fashion writer, was discussing the paradox of melanin being an immigrant and Donald being gung-ho anti-immigrant
    It’s the fashion page
     
    Fair enough
    It looks like an inconsistent copy editor
    If you read the article, the writer has zero concern with Melania’s outfit - she heaps praise on it
    She does use the word “foreignness” - which is such an unfortunate phrase - but she, the fashion writer, was discussing the paradox of melanin being an immigrant and Donald being gung-ho anti-immigrant
    It’s the fashion page
     
    Yeah, I’m just not outraged that one fashion reviewer wasn’t consistent.
     
    Yeah, I’m just not outraged that one fashion reviewer wasn’t consistent.

    I'm not outraged or even losing sleep over it. But if you can't see the hypocrisy in it then meh. Yet the media wonders why no one trusts them fashion writer or not.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom