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.
     
    I don’t disagree at all - citation is extremely valuable. But I don’t think it rises to level of “uncivil” to post something reasonably objective without a source. It’s good practice, I try to always do it, but it’s hardly reprehensible when it doesn’t happen. If someone wants a source they can ask for it.
    We disagree and I'll leave it at that.
     
    I don’t disagree at all - citation is extremely valuable. But I don’t think it rises to level of “uncivil” to post something reasonably objective without a source. It’s good practice, I try to always do it, but it’s hardly reprehensible when it doesn’t happen. If someone wants a source they can ask for it.
    I agree. It's a message board for discussion, not a Ph.D. thesis paper. I'm not that invested to go hunting down sources for any and every article I post on here and if that was a requirement, I wouldn't post anything but my opinion at all.
     
    I am sending you a private message in a good faith attempt to resolve this.
    Though I used your post as an example of source material added to a post without providing a source link, what I expressed in my post is my general opinion of why we need to provide source links anytime we post materials from any source.
     
    Last edited:
    I agree. It's a message board for discussion, not a Ph.D. thesis paper. I'm not that invested to go hunting down sources for any and every article I post on here and if that was a requirement, I wouldn't post anything but my opinion at all.

    Yep, talk about homework.
     
    If we don't ask for a source link or where it came from, it is possible to share forged/faked images. Any body with decent photo shop software can falsify an image. Unless it is a personal image that you are sharing, it should include where it came from.

    This isn't about intention either. I don't think people are trying to post fake material but it is easy to do unknowingly. I've done it before.
     
    I agree. It's a message board for discussion, not a Ph.D. thesis paper. I'm not that invested to go hunting down sources for any and every article I post on here and if that was a requirement, I wouldn't post anything but my opinion at all.
    For clarity, a link to the article you post is what I mean by a source citation. In this case, posting a link to the original tweet, instead of just uploading an unlinked image from the tweet, would be what I mean by providing the source.

    ETA Also wanted to point out that it takes little time and effort to copy the link to the article or tweet that you read and then paste it into your post.
     
    Last edited:
    Is there a website that keeps track of when and where something first appeared online?

    I’m mainly interested in finding the birthplace of the crowd strike Ukrainian conspiracy, but it would be useful to be able to find the source of other conspiracies.
     
    Is there a website that keeps track of when and where something first appeared online?

    I’m mainly interested in finding the birthplace of the crowd strike Ukrainian conspiracy, but it would be useful to be able to find the source of other conspiracies.
    I have heard/read it was first sourced in RT and then caught on in places like 4 chan or whatever.

    But I also think it is worth pointing out that things sort of get messy when people see that Ukraine did engage, or at least there are credible reports that they did, in some efforts to boost Clinton. Not sure if they are conflating the two, but wouldn't be surprised.
     
    I have heard/read it was first sourced in RT and then caught on in places like 4 chan or whatever.

    But I also think it is worth pointing out that things sort of get messy when people see that Ukraine did engage, or at least there are credible reports that they did, in some efforts to boost Clinton. Not sure if they are conflating the two, but wouldn't be surprised.

    Right, Crowdstrike/DNC server theory is the one that the President has pushed and some Republicans have tried to support him by pointing out op Ed’s written by Ukrainian government officials.

    One thing happened, and the other is a conspiracy theory that likely originated as a Russian misinformation operation.
     
    For clarity, a link to the article you post is what I mean by a source citation. In this case, posting a link to the original tweet, instead of just uploading an unlinked image from the tweet, would be what I mean by providing the source.

    ETA Also wanted to point out that it takes little time and effort to copy the link to the article or tweet that you read and then paste it into your post.
    I see now that y'all are talking about images and "facts" in tweets. I thought people were asking that members of this forum do extra sourcing when posting an article (like finding additional articles that say the same thing, etc.).

    I always post the links to things I post snippets of and post the original tweet if it's of an image. I thought that was just customary and part of the TOS for posting quotes from an article.
     
    It's becoming way too common for many on the left and in the media to accuse someome they disagree with of being a Russian agent, working with Russia, or pushing Russian propaganda. It's a new age Mccarthyism.
     
    It's becoming way too common for many on the left and in the media to accuse someome they disagree with of being a Russian agent, working with Russia, or pushing Russian propaganda. It's a new age Mccarthyism.


    blatant hyperbole, IMO, in response to some hyperbole from the other side. It’s not helpful to respond to hyperbole with more hyperbole, is it?

    What we do know from sworn testimony by Dr. Hill is that Russian intelligence came up with the theory that Ukraine was actually responsible for the DNC hack rather than Russia. We know that Trump and Giuliani are pushing this discredited theory. It’s taken a couple of years now, but some republicans are also kind of tiptoeing around the edges of this theory in their eagerness to show Trump that they are “loyal” to him. They know better, but seemingly don’t mind equating an op-ed and a somewhat shaky article about a former DNC operative with the wholesale hacking and disinformation pushed by Russia. And Putin couldn’t be more pleased.
     
    It's becoming way too common for many on the left and in the media to accuse someome they disagree with of being a Russian agent, working with Russia, or pushing Russian propaganda. It's a new age Mccarthyism.

    Yes, the right doesn't engage in unsavory and unfair tactics at all. Calling unfavorable coverage "fake news," labeling all democrats socialists, and the non-right media as "enemies of the country" is not at all comparable to the "new age McCarthyism" of the left.

    And if you're sharing FB posts put there by Russians, you are by definition pushing Russian propaganda. But no one is accusing anyone here of being Russian agents or working with Russia. Come on.
     

    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