Media Literacy and Fake News (2 Viewers)

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.
     
    This ABC situation actually illustrates something I was going to bring up in this thread. Members of the public noticed something off, and alerted ABC, then ABC retracted, apologized, and is investigating. I sure would be, they probably paid good money for that video thinking it was real.

    Did they apologize for it on the same nightly news program? Because airing it on the news and then apologizing on their website is not the same.
     
    One Version of a media bias chart.

    1571103082028.png



    Another.. the one most have seen. Just a bit busy now.
    1571103259545.png
     
    I would imagine they will (or did) make a statement on their nightly news program. I’ve seen network news do that before.

    So, am I understanding it was purchased footage?
     
    the work isn’t easy or always clear, even with charts. But part of the learning includes, I think, such muddling



     
    I would imagine they will (or did) make a statement on their nightly news program. I’ve seen network news do that before.

    So, am I understanding it was purchased footage?

    I imagine they will make a statement if they feel enough pressure. They had time to get it on the air tonight, Fox certainly did.
     
    the work isn’t easy or always clear, even with charts. But part of the learning includes, I think, such muddling





    that's why I like the other chart better, even though it is now very noisy. It would state that the New Yorker is nothing like Breitbart. i.e. not the left equivalent.

    1571107902252.png


    1571108024447.png


    I'd say the Daily Kos is a more apt example. I don't read that site either.

    1571108183923.png


    See, an example of why I think the Daily Kos isn't good...


    "Trump Flunky Propagandist's Attempt to Take Down CNN is a Flaming Pile of Failure "

    Now, they're correct to take down O'Keefe, since he's just full of crap all of the time. But, it's not real good journalism.
     
    I imagine they will make a statement if they feel enough pressure. They had time to get it on the air tonight, Fox certainly did.

    I didn’t watch abc news tonight, so I don’t know if it was mentioned or not. Maybe you watched?

    It may be they want to figure out exactly what happened before they comment. That’s understandable.
     
    the work isn’t easy or always clear, even with charts. But part of the learning includes, I think, such muddling




    Yeah I have some issues with the chart as well
    Not even about left/right - bu finding an equivalency between HuffPo and say DemocracyNow/MotherJones - sure all are very leftist but HuffPo is really just a clickbait site - the others are legit news sources
     
    I didn’t watch abc news tonight, so I don’t know if it was mentioned or not. Maybe you watched?

    It may be they want to figure out exactly what happened before they comment. That’s understandable.

    If you go to CNN Business there is an article from this morning that points out that ABC did not mention it on their nightly broadcast last night.

    I don't think it was wise to fail to acknowledge it on air. If they wanted assure their viewers that they would say more when they learned more, fine. But, at the very least, they really needed to get out ahead of the other networks.
     
    When I read something like Mother Jones or NAtional Review, and I read both with some regularity, I approach them as editorials on news. Rarely do either one really produce "news" as it is generally understood.

    In fact, national and international "news" reporting is done by a very small group of people and is owned by an even smaller number of entities - NYT, the Post, CNN, the big networks, and to a lesser degree Tribune Corp and Hearst (via the AP). What Mother Jones/National Review/and others are doing is almost always commenting on what this small group of people have reported. There are exceptions, but those exceptions are usually pet projects with an ideological bent - say campus free speech "news."

    I think if I were doing a media literacy course I would start with that and then move to trying to decipher, in any publication, facts vs. commentary.
    Then I would approach the idea of "Facts" themselves and their troublesome nature: what are sources of the facts, the record of sources, the ability to even decipher the objectivity of the source and/or the "facts" they provide; along with the questions of why a particular news item was deemed important enough to cover over others and whether there is any bias in emphasis.

    It's an interesting area for sure.
     
    When I read something like Mother Jones or NAtional Review, and I read both with some regularity, I approach them as editorials on news. Rarely do either one really produce "news" as it is generally understood.

    In fact, national and international "news" reporting is done by a very small group of people and is owned by an even smaller number of entities - NYT, the Post, CNN, the big networks, and to a lesser degree Tribune Corp and Hearst (via the AP). What Mother Jones/National Review/and others are doing is almost always commenting on what this small group of people have reported. There are exceptions, but those exceptions are usually pet projects with an ideological bent - say campus free speech "news."

    I think if I were doing a media literacy course I would start with that and then move to trying to decipher, in any publication, facts vs. commentary.
    Then I would approach the idea of "Facts" themselves and their troublesome nature: what are sources of the facts, the record of sources, the ability to even decipher the objectivity of the source and/or the "facts" they provide; along with the questions of why a particular news item was deemed important enough to cover over others and whether there is any bias in emphasis.

    It's an interesting area for sure.
    That is essentially how I approach any news I consume.

    I even do that with research papers.

    One thing I wish for is that search engines didn't over focus on the current. Meaning, if something comes up, you get today's articles. But what if something has come up 10 times in the last 20 years? Much harder to find those older examples. Helps establish "what is normal ?", "how did we react last time?" And "has something changed since then?"
     
    That is essentially how I approach any news I consume.

    I even do that with research papers.

    One thing I wish for is that search engines didn't over focus on the current. Meaning, if something comes up, you get today's articles. But what if something has come up 10 times in the last 20 years? Much harder to find those older examples. Helps establish "what is normal ?", "how did we react last time?" And "has something changed since then?"
    Yep, agree completely. Its almost impossible to do a search for anything pre-Trump, for instance, (at least anything political) on the search sites. You need something like LexisNexis for that.
     
    When I read something like Mother Jones or NAtional Review, and I read both with some regularity, I approach them as editorials on news. Rarely do either one really produce "news" as it is generally understood.

    In fact, national and international "news" reporting is done by a very small group of people and is owned by an even smaller number of entities - NYT, the Post, CNN, the big networks, and to a lesser degree Tribune Corp and Hearst (via the AP). What Mother Jones/National Review/and others are doing is almost always commenting on what this small group of people have reported. There are exceptions, but those exceptions are usually pet projects with an ideological bent - say campus free speech "news."

    I think if I were doing a media literacy course I would start with that and then move to trying to decipher, in any publication, facts vs. commentary.
    Then I would approach the idea of "Facts" themselves and their troublesome nature: what are sources of the facts, the record of sources, the ability to even decipher the objectivity of the source and/or the "facts" they provide; along with the questions of why a particular news item was deemed important enough to cover over others and whether there is any bias in emphasis.

    It's an interesting area for sure.
    Preach brother!!

    You should post more often. I know we shouldn’t talk about members past, but you always have really good analysis. I look forward to reading more of what’s on your mind.
     
    That is essentially how I approach any news I consume.

    I even do that with research papers.

    One thing I wish for is that search engines didn't over focus on the current. Meaning, if something comes up, you get today's articles. But what if something has come up 10 times in the last 20 years? Much harder to find those older examples. Helps establish "what is normal ?", "how did we react last time?" And "has something changed since then?"
    When we were debating AI 20+ years ago, we thought it was a joke. The matrix is happening in front of our eyes. Just as Jim said, who decides what is being covered and what isn’t. The same could be said about who is writing the algorithm? If it’s a right wing wacknut, but a clever one, I’m sure the algorithm would have a slant. Same goes for google.
     
    One thing I wish for is that search engines didn't over focus on the current. Meaning, if something comes up, you get today's articles. But what if something has come up 10 times in the last 20 years? Much harder to find those older examples. Helps establish "what is normal ?", "how did we react last time?" And "has something changed since then?"
    Google allows searching in a custom date range (in the search results, Tools menu, at the bottom of the 'any time' selection, although I think it's only available on the desktop interface, it's missing on mobile). I use that quite a lot. It's not quite perfect, but it's good enough most of the time. E.g. here's a link to results for 'Trump' from before 1/1/2004: https://www.google.com/search?q=trump&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:,cd_max:1/1/2004&tbm=

    Most other search engines only have restricted date ranges relative to now (last week, last month, etc.) which is useless if you're trying to exclude the most recent results. Bing has a custom date range, but it only goes back a year, and it's also terrible.
     
    I think if I were doing a media literacy course I would start with that and then move to trying to decipher, in any publication, facts vs. commentary.
    Then I would approach the idea of "Facts" themselves and their troublesome nature: what are sources of the facts, the record of sources, the ability to even decipher the objectivity of the source and/or the "facts" they provide; along with the questions of why a particular news item was deemed important enough to cover over others and whether there is any bias in emphasis.

    any media literacy worth its proverbial salt will engage with this, and the more substantive, sophisticated ones (at higher learning levels) will explore the nuance and subtlety.

    The problem is that this usually isn't going to be a part of a high school-level curriculum for lack of time and relative priority. And then it's not really a broad enough thing at the postsecondary level, because you'll have students never take a humanities course that will address this.

    Even in math and science, where there's room to explore it, you won't typically find it addressed.

    Many universities have a Library Sciences course which teaches kids how to use the resources - and most every student takes it. If not most, then many. I think this should be rolled into that course, too, because it deals with evaluating sources for the use and incorporation into one's own work
     

    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