Media Literacy and Fake News (11 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 12 (members: 0, guests: 12)
    Ayo

    Ayo

    Spirit Grocer
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    896
    Reaction score
    2,328
    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.
     
    coldseat said:
    That's your argument for why Democrats want to burn books? Lol, okay. Yeah, I'm totally on board with overturning Citizen United.

    That's not about censorship, it's about limiting corporate influence in our elections, which is badly needed. These PAC's with their out of control spending on elections impose a corrupt influence in our government and elections. That needs to be controlled so that actual citizens in this country can have their individual voices heard on a more even playing field.
    Click to expand...
    Not about censorship? So the government banning a movie is not censorship. LOL - okay
     
    JimEverett said:
    The Democratic Party Platform which you can download here: https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/ Makes the point in at least 3 places that they wish to overturn the Citizens United decision. On pages 2 and 23.
    Click to expand...
    The R platform against Roe v. Wade is because they want to limit abortion access, not because of staunch R support for the abortion-criminalizing laws in the Texas Penal Code of 1857. Similarly, Dems want to overturn Citizens United because of the profound influence of corporate money on elections, not because they support burning books or the extreme interpretation of a nearly two decades old law.

    JimEverett said:
    You can then look at the argument the government made in supporting the law that Citizens United overturned where the government itself says that the Constitution allows, permits the government to ban books (among other things).
    Click to expand...

    JimEverett said:
    No, I mean it is a plank of the Democratic Party, just like I said. The Democratic Party itself, and every Democratic candidate I have heard, supports a law that gives the government the power to ban books, movies, pamphlets, etc. on the basis of its political content.
    Click to expand...

    The law at issue in Citizens United was bipartisan (it's known as McCain-Feingold, as in, John McCain) and was passed in the wake of the 2000 election followed by corporate scandals like Enron and Tyco. McCain et al. were focused on getting soft money out of politics, particularly via corporations -- not banning books.

    Dems generally support overturning Citizens for the same reason, which is not outrageous and which at one point was bipartisan. In fact, lots of us progressives are way more reasonable than right wing media portrays us. Claiming the Dem platform supports banning books is nonserious.
     
    TaylorB said:
    The R platform against Roe v. Wade is because they want to limit abortion access, not because of staunch R support for the abortion-criminalizing laws in the Texas Penal Code of 1857. Similarly, Dems want to overturn Citizens United because of the profound influence of corporate money on elections, not because they support burning books or the extreme interpretation of a nearly two decades old law.





    The law at issue in Citizens United was bipartisan (it's known as McCain-Feingold, as in, John McCain) and was passed in the wake of the 2000 election followed by corporate scandals like Enron and Tyco. McCain et al. were focused on getting soft money out of politics, particularly via corporations -- not banning books.

    Dems generally support overturning Citizens for the same reason, which is not outrageous and which at one point was bipartisan. In fact, lots of us progressives are way more reasonable than right wing media portrays us. Claiming the Dem platform supports banning books is nonserious.
    Click to expand...
    Did you read the oral argument transcript I posted? Have you read the Citizens United decision? I am sure people are embarrassed of being for banning books, but that is exactly what you are for if you are for overturning Citizens United.
    The government lawyer defending McCain-Feingold admitted as much. The case itself was about criminalizing the production and distribution of a movie..
     
    JimEverett said:
    Did you read the oral argument transcript I posted? Have you read the Citizens United decision? I am sure people are embarrassed of being for banning books, but that is exactly what you are for if you are for overturning Citizens United.
    The government lawyer defending McCain-Feingold admitted as much. The case itself was about criminalizing the production and distribution of a movie..
    Click to expand...

    I did read it. The FEC lawyer's argument was absurd and foolish, and most pertinent to my point, not representative of the entire Dem platform re: Citizens.

    I get that you're highlighting a logical absurdity from a part of the law that Citizens overturned. That's an argument I'd make if I were a lawyer attacking the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold and it obviously was persuasive with the conservative justices.

    But being "for overturning Citizens United" does not also make a person "for banning books" in the context that any serious person in the United States in 2020 understands it, because almost all people who are familiar with the case understand it in the context of corporate election influence, not book banning. The only purpose it serves to claim that support for book banning is a Dem platform is to falsely ascribe an extreme view to the entire party in order to make them seem more ridiculous than they are.

    As another example, defending Trump on this website doesn't mean a person is "for kids being alone in cages at the border" or "for unprotected extra-marital sex with pornstars while the spouse raises the child" despite any logical connections one might draw between those things. Overturning Roe v. Wade may result in lots of women obtaining unsafe illegal abortions, but I doubt many people are "for women obtaining unsafe abortions." It doesn't make sense to act like there's no nuance to these views when we well know there is.

    The dialogue suffers when we take these kinds of points to their logical extremes because it amplifies division that's not really there. No, Dems are not in favor of book burning, obviously.
     
    TaylorB said:
    I did read it. The FEC lawyer's argument was absurd and foolish, and most pertinent to my point, not representative of the entire Dem platform re: Citizens.

    I get that you're highlighting a logical absurdity from a part of the law that Citizens overturned. That's an argument I'd make if I were a lawyer attacking the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold and it obviously was persuasive with the conservative justices.

    But being "for overturning Citizens United" does not also make a person "for banning books" in the context that any serious person in the United States in 2020 understands it, because almost all people who are familiar with the case understand it in the context of corporate election influence, not book banning. The only purpose it serves to claim that support for book banning is a Dem platform is to falsely ascribe an extreme view to the entire party in order to make them seem more ridiculous than they are.

    As another example, defending Trump on this website doesn't mean a person is "for kids being alone in cages at the border" or "for unprotected extra-marital sex with pornstars while the spouse raises the child" despite any logical connections one might draw between those things. Overturning Roe v. Wade may result in lots of women obtaining unsafe illegal abortions, but I doubt many people are "for women obtaining unsafe abortions." It doesn't make sense to act like there's no nuance to these views when we well know there is.

    The dialogue suffers when we take these kinds of points to their logical extremes because it amplifies division that's not really there. No, Dems are not in favor of book burning, obviously.
    Click to expand...
    It is not a logical absurdity. How do you get that? It is the heart of the case and the law that it overturned. I don't understand your point. Are you saying the FEC was not within its power to ban the movie at the heart of Citizens United?
    Is your point that I should have just stuck with saying Democrats are for banning documentary films based on their political content? It hardly is a logical absurdity to go from that to saying Democrats are for banning books. It is clear the law would allow for, at a minimum, the banning of the electronic transmission of books. And it would not be logically absurd to claim, based on that governmental power, to claim the State had the power to ban any book based on the political content of it.
     
    JimEverett said:
    It is not a logical absurdity. How do you get that? It is the heart of the case and the law that it overturned. I don't understand your point. Are you saying the FEC was not within its power to ban the movie at the heart of Citizens United?
    Is your point that I should have just stuck with saying Democrats are for banning documentary films based on their political content? It hardly is a logical absurdity to go from that to saying Democrats are for banning books. It is clear the law would allow for, at a minimum, the banning of the electronic transmission of books. And it would not be logically absurd to claim, based on that governmental power, to claim the State had the power to ban any book based on the political content of it.
    Click to expand...
    I am saying that the conservative justices got FEC’s lawyer to take the law to its logical extreme in defending it. You are taking that extreme viewpoint and saying that it represents the reason Dems support overturning Citizens, without acknowledging that the primary Dem objections to Citizens include (1) the sweeping implication that the first amendment prohibits any limitation whatsoever on election spending from corporations, and (2) the unnecessary breadth of the ruling in light of the issues presented. Justice Stevens summed it up better than I could:
    178625DB-7307-4549-BC70-1E7CD4C3D5EF.jpeg

    I’m not interested in debating Citizens. That wasn’t ever my point. I’m just saying that to use the logical extremity of the law in citizens as proof that Dems want to ban books is a grossly mischaracterized framing of the issue designed to make us look ridiculous and extreme, and that this tactic is a big reason all these threads go off the rails.

    It’s difficult to balance the interests of free speech versus keeping the thumb of corporations off the scales. It’s reasonable to hold the view that citizens went too far while also wanting to write laws that have a minimal impact on speech.
     
    TaylorB said:
    I am saying that the conservative justices got FEC’s lawyer to take the law to its logical extreme in defending it. You are taking that extreme viewpoint and saying that it represents the reason Dems support overturning Citizens, without acknowledging that the primary Dem objections to Citizens include (1) the sweeping implication that the first amendment prohibits any limitation whatsoever on election spending from corporations, and (2) the unnecessary breadth of the ruling in light of the issues presented. Justice Stevens summed it up better than I could:
    178625DB-7307-4549-BC70-1E7CD4C3D5EF.jpeg

    I’m not interested in debating Citizens. That wasn’t ever my point. I’m just saying that to use the logical extremity of the law in citizens as proof that Dems want to ban books is a grossly mischaracterized framing of the issue designed to make us look ridiculous and extreme, and that this tactic is a big reason all these threads go off the rails.

    It’s difficult to balance the interests of free speech versus keeping the thumb of corporations off the scales. It’s reasonable to hold the view that citizens went too far while also wanting to write laws that have a minimal impact on speech.
    Click to expand...
    I am asking how you can come to the conclusion that it is a "logical extremity" to say that the Democratic Party wants to ban books when the position of the Party is to overturn Citizens United.

    If Citizens United was overturned - wouldn't the government be able to ban the documentary film in question? If the film were transcribed into book format - wouldn't an overturning of Citizens United allow the government to ban that book? There is no doubt the answer is yes, given that the operative power to ban comes from the source of funding (in any possible way to the production and distribution of the speech) and the content of the speech.
    I could understand your point if the case itself were about something else - and there was some analogy to books that was essentially a step, or more, removed from the facts of the case. But that is not what we have in Citizens United. Even the quote you point to from Stevens' dissent is saying the government has the power to ban the movie 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. is THAT a "logical extremity"?
     
    Jim, I would want you as my lawyer. But man are being obtuse here.

    You know good and well that the reason they objected to the release of the “film” was because it was, well, against the law at the time to do so. This would have been a violation of the “2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibited any corporation or labor union from making an "electioneering communication" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time.”

    That is the law that was challenged and the implications of its overturning were more far reaching than some hit piece on Hillary.

    But none of that has anything to do with burning books. And I am sorry I can’t make the intellectual leap from wanting to stop a lying hit piece from being Illegally released to Democrats wanna burn books - it’s their platform!
     
    Sigh. JimE you’ve been insulting people on here for days over this issue. Calling people “little book burners”, for wanting to keep corporate money out of our elections. Overturning that ruling wouldn’t result in book burning, and I think you must know that.

    You’re being intentionally confrontational about this, imo.

    What gives? Are you okay?
     
    CoolBrees said:
    Jim, I would want you as my lawyer. But man are being obtuse here.

    You know good and well that the reason they objected to the release of the “film” was because it was, well, against the law at the time to do so. This would have been a violation of the “2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibited any corporation or labor union from making an "electioneering communication" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time.”

    That is the law that was challenged and the implications of its overturning were more far reaching than some hit piece on Hillary.

    But none of that has anything to do with burning books. And I am sorry I can’t make the intellectual leap from wanting to stop a lying hit piece from being Illegally released to Democrats wanna burn books - it’s their platform!
    Click to expand...
    "Burning books" might be hyperbole - its a stand in for banning books. So, you are saying that Democrats want to ban documentary films because of their content, as you call it "a lying hit piece on Hillary" but that it takes some intellectual leap to go to banning books?
    If the government can ban a documentary film due to its content then what stops the government from banning a book based on its content? There is no intellectual leap required - and the lawyer tasked with defending the law admitted as much.
     
    JimEverett said:
    "Burning books" might be hyperbole - its a stand in for banning books. So, you are saying that Democrats want to ban documentary films because of their content, as you call it "a lying hit piece on Hillary" but that it takes some intellectual leap to go to banning books?
    If the government can ban a documentary film due to its content then what stops the government from banning a book based on its content? There is no intellectual leap required - and the lawyer tasked with defending the law admitted as much.
    Click to expand...
    Use the ladder
    The shovel is not helping
     

    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

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom