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
    2,314
    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.
     
    "There is no question, there is no question, that of all the twelve Tulsi Gabbard is a puppet of the Russian government."

    The guy really has problems distinguishing fact from opinion. He made the above statement, but he also used "I think" but then followed that up with something to the effect of, it's not just an allegation.

    Maybe he is just too stupid to be speaking in public, but he really did not come across as lacking intelligence.

    It looks like more of the same - throw it against the wall and see what sticks. I believe think they know exactly what they are doing. In fact, they are screwing themselves because it is just too much.

    One of the hosts should have stopped giggling long enough to let him know that if he is going to be on the show he needs to either not make such wild accusations or be prepared to back them up with facts, not more wild accusations.
     
    Beach Friends said:
    "There is no question, there is no question, that of all the twelve Tulsi Gabbard is a puppet of the Russian government."

    The guy really has problems distinguishing fact from opinion. He made the above statement, but he also used "I think" but then followed that up with something to the effect of, it's not just an allegation.

    Maybe he is just too stupid to be speaking in public, but he really did not come across as lacking intelligence.

    It looks like more of the same - throw it against the wall and see what sticks. I believe think they know exactly what they are doing. In fact, they are screwing themselves because it is just too much.

    One of the hosts should have stopped giggling long enough to let him know that if he is going to be on the show he needs to either not make such wild accusations or be prepared to back them up with facts, not more wild accusations.
    Click to expand...

    Do you think his comments are reckless? What should the network do to him for saying that on air?
     
    cuddlemonkey said:
    Do you think his comments are reckless? What should the network do to him for saying that on air?
    Click to expand...

    At the very least they are reckless. I have already said, they should have stopped giggling long enough to reflect the seriousness of the accusation and pressed him to either support the allegation with facts or concede that it was purely speculation that he can't support.

    If they can't do that, they should learn to code.
     
    Beach Friends said:
    At the very least they are reckless. I have already said, they should have stopped giggling long enough to reflect the seriousness of the accusation and pressed him to either support the allegation with facts or concede that it was purely speculation that he can't support.

    If they can't do that, they should learn to code.
    Click to expand...

    Sorry, I meant what sort of action do you think CNN management should take against the guy?
     
    LA - L.A. said:
    I saw push back and skepticism. What I didn't see was an outright rebuke or endorsement of the Russian puppet claim.

    To me, pushing back is not the same thing as an outright rebuke and a lack of an outright rebuke is not the same thing as an endorsement or participating in a smear campaign.
    Click to expand...
    You're right pushback doesn't mean outright rebuke, but it doesn't mean what we saw in that video either. Pushback means you challenge the validity of the assertion and follow up with probing questions and rebuttals. That didn't happen in that video.
     
    Beach Friends said:
    Click to expand...

    Thanks.

    Whoever that guy is (I dont know anyone on that panel) made the comment. Everyone didnt even know how to respond to that. They pushed back, weakly. Then when he doubled down, the host just pivoted out of the conversation. The lady next to him gave a side eye the whole time.

    I guess that's one way to handle it, but I'd prefer a stronger rebuke. However, that is not CNN levying an accusation. At best, you can say the host lost control and should have called for proof or give. A stronger rebuke. Also, we are missing the lead up to that wild statement and if the next person about to talk made a comment about that wild claim.

    So, CNN didnt make an outlandish accusation. You are wrong there. A guest or panel speaker did, and the CNN hosts didnt do enough to rebuke them.

    EDIT: I now realize he is a political analyst for CNN and former politician. So, I'll walk back the "you're wrong" comment a bit. He is still an individual giving his opinion. It is not official news. However, being a representative of CNN, it can be viewed as the network being ok with that comment. So long as that same logic is applied to other show hosts that levy false accusations, then fair enough.
     
    Last edited:
    Beach Friends said:
    "There is no question, there is no question, that of all the twelve Tulsi Gabbard is a puppet of the Russian government."
    Click to expand...
    Which he follows up with "I firmly believe...I think..." When asked if it was an allegation, he said "it's not an allegation."

    He was stating an opinion. When his opinion was challenged, instead of saying anything resembling "its' the truth or it's a fact," he explained the things about Gabbard that lead him to his conclusion.
     
    yuyi64 said:
    You're right pushback doesn't mean outright rebuke, but it doesn't mean what we saw in that video either. Pushback means you challenge the validity of the assertion and follow up with probing questions and rebuttals. That didn't happen in that video.
    Click to expand...
    What's objectively true is that the CNN anchors and other panelists showed obvious skepticism toward the assertion. The giggling was derisive in nature laughing at the absurdity of the assertion.

    That's enough pushback for me in this instance.
     
    Beach Friends said:
    At the very least they are reckless. I have already said, they should have stopped giggling long enough to reflect the seriousness of the accusation
    Click to expand...
    maybe the thing stopping them from a full scale pearl clutching is that Hillary was right about Russian interference in 2016 and that Jill Stein was a significant piece in that puzzle - so an outright dismissal without consideration of the possibility would be hella naive
     
    As you can clearly see, this ad is totally about solar panels, right?
    You're not being manipulated in any way.
    1572100743325.png
     
    For the Washington Post, one man's "austere religious scholar" is another man's "extremist leader."

    For me, it's called "waffling."

    1572201555407.png

    www.foxnews.com

    Washington Post publishes al-Baghdadi headline referring to ISIS leader as ‘austere religious scholar’

    The Washington Post incited backlash after changing the headline to an obituary for ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was once the world’s most wanted man for overseeing the terrorist group’s wave of atrocities, from “terrorist-in-chief" to “austere religious scholar."
    www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
     
    Dadsdream said:
    For the Washington Post, one man's "austere religious scholar" is another man's "extremist leader."

    For me, it's called "waffling."

    1572201555407.png

    www.foxnews.com

    Washington Post publishes al-Baghdadi headline referring to ISIS leader as ‘austere religious scholar’

    The Washington Post incited backlash after changing the headline to an obituary for ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was once the world’s most wanted man for overseeing the terrorist group’s wave of atrocities, from “terrorist-in-chief" to “austere religious scholar."
    www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
    Click to expand...
    They must have changed the headline after being exposed.
     

    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