Media Literacy and Fake News (1 Viewer)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    Ayo

    Ayo

    Spirit Grocer
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    896
    Reaction score
    2,309
    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.

    www.thestar.com

    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 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.
    Click to expand...

    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.
    Click to expand...

    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.
    Click to expand...

    It's obviously not enough, but a decent start.
     
    samiam5211 said:
    Do you have examples of Snopes results that are factually incorrect? How many?
    Click to expand...
    No. Do you have statistics from a source other than Snopes that says they are 100% accurate and unbiased? How many?

    Oh, about the Bee, mentioned above:

    www.nytimes.com

    Satire or Deceit? Christian Humor Site Feuds With Snopes (Published 2019)

    The Babylon Bee says Snopes went too far in fact-checking a satirical story. Snopes had suggested the Bee twisted its joke to deceive readers.
    www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

    It’s a fake-news feud made for 2019.

    On one side is Snopes, the influential fact-checking website founded 25 years ago.

    On the other is the Babylon Bee, an upstart Christian satirical website that lampoons progressive ideas, Democrats, Christians and President Trump.

    They are fighting over how Snopes characterizes stories published by the Bee, which says Snopes has veered from its fact-checking mission by suggesting that the satirical site may be twisting its jokes to deceive readers.
     
    samiam5211 said:
    It doesn't really have anything to do with the veracity of the contents of the Snopes website.

    Snopes and other fact checking websites have links to other sources and back up their findings.

    Do you have examples of Snopes results that are factually incorrect? How many?
    Click to expand...
    So much of what I read from fact checking sites like Snopes uses supposed implications of statements or propositions and then stands as an authority on THAT.
    As an example -https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/10/02/donald-trump-impeach-this-map/

    So, after pointing out that a few of the counties counted as Trump counties turned out to be Clinton counties once results were certified the premise shifts to the supposed message Trump and others are trying to convey. And the "Fact"-checker even brings in a Presidential approval poll as a means of countering the "fact" of the map. That is not fact-checking - its arguing.

    I think there is value in that exercise for sure, but it is not and should not be called "fact checking" or anything of the like.
     
    Dadsdream said:
    No. Do you have statistics from a source other than Snopes that says they are 100% accurate and unbiased?
    Click to expand...
    You're admitting that you have no basis for your assertion that snopes is factually inaccurate. You are asserting something as true that you admit you don't have any evidence of it actually being true.
     
    LA - L.A. said:
    You're admitting that you have no basis for your assertion that snopes is factually inaccurate. You are asserting something as true that you admit you don't have any evidence of it actually being true.
    Click to expand...
    No, I admitted nothing. If you want to prove Snopes is infallible and unbiased, then prove it.
     
    yuyi64 said:
    Bingo! We have a winner! Unfortunately a lot of people here cannot resist the urge to slam Trump every chance they get so I don't think your wish will be granted. I wish people would realize there's life besides Trump and the Democrats and it's not worth obsessing over any politician or party.
    Click to expand...
    No disrespect, but you've just done what I pointed out is an unnecessary problem. You just used my post to fight some more about Trump from a pro-Trump side. Your post is part of the problem I was pointing out. You are just as obsessed about defending Trump as others are about criticizing Trump.
     
    LA - L.A. said:
    No disrespect, but you've just done what I pointed out is an unnecessary problem. You just used my post to fight some more about Trump from a pro-Trump side. Your post is part of the problem I was pointing out. You are just as obsessed about defending Trump as others are about criticizing Trump.
    Click to expand...
    :rolleyes: My post is not part of the problem, the daily postings from you and your fellow Trump-obssessed buddies are the problem. Let it go man, there's life outside of Trump.
     
    JimEverett said:
    And look at the title of that Snopes piece that was posted earlier:

    Did ABC News "mistakenly" use a false video of Syria . . .

    I guess one "fact" is incontravertible. LMAO
    Click to expand...

    Yep, that stood out like a sore thumb. You wouldn't even need to take time to read the entire article to see that there was a problem. But, the remainder of the article has plenty of other issues. In total, I think the bias in that article is painfully obvious.
     
    Ayo said:
    Simply put, because I didn't read it. And, as a general rule, if I don't feel informed enough about a particular topic, I don't weigh in.
    Click to expand...
    It was a pretty quick read. I’m curious as well.
     
    Beach Friends said:
    But, the remainder of the article has plenty of other issues. In total, I think the bias in that article is painfully obvious.
    Click to expand...
    Then why don't you point out what you see as obvious bias? You keep saying that it's biased, but you haven't pointed out a single thing in the article that you see as biased or inaccurate.

    How would you have written the article?

    What do you think would be an unbiased explanation of what happened at ABC?

    What do you think would be a more accurate explanation of what happened at ABC?
     
    LA - L.A. said:
    How would you have written the article?

    What do you think would be an unbiased explanation of what happened at ABC?

    What do you think would be a more accurate explanation of what happened at ABC?
    Click to expand...

    you could start with the headline
     
    Lazybones said:
    you could start with the headline
    Click to expand...
    I’ll agree the headline is a bit overreaching — better would be to state that ABC aired incorrect footage — but the article does say it found no evidence that ABC knowingly or deliberately aired footage they knew was wrong.

    There is as yet no evidence that I know if that is was deliberate. Do you guys have anything that would corroborate that accusation?
     
    Dadsdream said:
    No, I admitted nothing. If you want to prove Snopes is infallible and unbiased, then prove it.
    Click to expand...
    You were asked:
    samiam5211 said:
    Do you have examples of Snopes results that are factually incorrect? How many?
    Click to expand...
    You said:
    Dadsdream said:
    No.
    Click to expand...

    Seems pretty clear that you admitted that you don't have any actual examples of snopes being factually incorrect to support your assertion that snopes is factually inaccurate.

    The person making the claim is the person who has the burden of proof in a discussion. You've made the claim that snopes is biased and factually inaccurate. You've basically told people to prove snopes has never been factually incorrect.

    It's a logically impossible task to prove something doesn't exist. How do you propose that people prove that snopes is always factually accurate? The only way to do that is to list every snopes entry and show how they are all accurate. That's not feasible, because they have thousands of entries.

    Conversely, to prove they have an issue with being accurate all you have to do is point to 3 or 4 examples. This is why the burden of proof always lies with the person asserting that something exists, because that's the only thing that can actually be proven.
     
    Last edited:
    Lazybones said:
    you could start with the headline
    Click to expand...
    I'm in agreement with you not only in this specific instance, but in general.

    The first lesson in any media literacy class should be "never ever put stock in any headline ever." Headlines since the dawn of language serve only one master, grab everyone's attention with sensationalism. The only headlines I've ever seen that gave a simple, matter of fact, preview of the article were those that came over the newswires. The only reason for that is that the newswires feeds are not meant for public consumption.
     
    MediaBiasFactCheck has this to say about Snopes:

    7109D598-9C5A-4A8B-916E-9D6465822C52.png
     
    In all fairness, do we know ABC didn’t use it by mistake? If I sell you a video of a firefight, you air it, then you later discover I sold you video of a different firefight, that’s pretty well within mistake territory. At worst, it’s bad vetting.
     
    V Chip said:
    I’ll agree the headline is a bit overreaching — better would be to state that ABC aired incorrect footage — but the article does say it found no evidence that ABC knowingly or deliberately aired footage they knew was wrong.

    There is as yet no evidence that I know if that is was deliberate. Do you guys have anything that would corroborate that accusation?
    Click to expand...

    Someone made the decision to air the footage. Whoever made that decision is either

    1. Really really bad at their job
    2. They did it on purpose

    I lean to nbr 2
     
    LA - L.A. said:
    You were asked:

    You said:


    Seems pretty clear that you admitted that you don't have any actual examples of snopes being factually incorrect to support your assertion that snopes is factually inaccurate.

    The person making the claim is the person who has the burden of proof in a discussion. You've made the claim that snopes is biased and factually inaccurate. You've basically told people to prove snopes has never been factually incorrect.

    It's a logically impossible task to prove something doesn't exist. How do you propose that people prove that snopes is always factually accurate? The only way to do that is to list every snopes entry and show how they are all accurate. That's not feasible, because they have thousands of entries.

    Conversely, to prove they have an issue with being accurate all you have to do is point to 3 or 4 examples. This is why the burden of proof always lies with the person asserting that something exists, because that's the only thing that can actually be proven.
    Click to expand...

    not to thread jack, I’m still waiting for the 10-20 lies per day that trump spews and all the bad project Veritas has done.
     

    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!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom