Media Literacy and Fake News (3 Viewers)

[Ayo]

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.

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

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.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Right-wing news would not even exist, at least not as it does now.

And that gets to the catch at the center of all of this.

If what the right really cared about was integrity in news reporting and a greater emphasis on objectivity, none of the most consumed right-wing outlets would exist in their current form. Yet they do, and they are incredibly popular, and they are never met with this sort of passionate grievances about investigative process lapses.

As I have been on the internet since the early oughts, but the unicorn I am yet to see is the "fake news" labeling conservative that even fractionally holds in contempt scandals like Malia Zimmerman and her stories on Fox News, the most popular news network in the country, the way they get worked up over bias at CNN or stories like this on ABC.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Kinda like saying water is wet. Though true in many circumstances, the statement is not factual.

This is nothing like saying water is wet. Water is wet is a truism. It's also a factual statement and not an opinion. No matter how dry someone thinks water may be, it's still wet. Either people mourned or they did not mourn. That's a matter of fact, not opinion.

 

[Dragon]

This part is not opinion "progressives are mourning Bolton’s firing."

This part is not an oppinion either and were false

"promoted Obama loyalists within the National Security Council." "

 

[Lazybones]

This is nothing like saying water is wet. Water is wet is a truism. It's also a factual statement and not an opinion. No matter how dry someone thinks water may be, it's still wet. Either people mourned or they did not mourn. That's a matter of fact, not opinion.

Come on man h2o is not wet. The problem with the mourning argument is quantifying it. If you can’t quantify it, I don’t think it can be a fact.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The problem with the mourning argument is quantifying it. If you can’t quantify it, I don’t think it can be a fact.

Based on this statement, I think "fact" means different things to us.

What does "fact" mean to you?

To me a fact is something that is objectively true regardless of what we know, think or believe. A fact exists whether we are aware of it or not, so it doesn't matter if we quantify (which means count to me) it or not.

It's a fact that everything around you right now exists. Even though I don't know what is around you, it's still a fact that they exist. Even if I think they don't exist, it's still a fact that they exist. Even if I believe nothing is around you, it's still a fact that they exist. None of them need me to prove or validate that they exist for it to be a fact that they exist. If you took a drink of something while reading this (I've been known to drive people to drink) then it's a fact that you took that drink, even if I don't know that you did, don't think that you did or don't believe that you did.

That brings us back to Carlson. He made a factual claim when he said that progressives mourned the firing of Bolton. If he made that statement without knowing if it was true, then that would show that spreading his opinions and beliefs are more important to him than telling the truth. If he knows that it isn't true, then it would show that he's willing to lie to spread his opinions and beliefs.

And now we're back to topic of this thread. An important part of being media literate is actively recognizing in real time the difference between factual claims and statements of opinion or belief. Sometimes those differences are insidiously subtle and difficult to spot. It's important to actively spot the differences, because propaganda is not nearly as effective on people who actively recognize in real time the difference between the two. It turns on our BS detector. Those who don't actively distinguish between factual claims and statements of opinion or belief are more susceptible to being influenced by propaganda.

By the way, I think "fake news" is a BS "lipstick on a pig" substitute for propaganda. "Fake news" makes it seem like people just being a mere nuisance. "Propaganda" let's you know that someone's pushing a hidden agenda. FFN.

 

[Beach Friends]

Based on this statement, I think "fact" means different things to us.

What does "fact" mean to you?

To me a fact is something that is objectively true regardless of what we know, think or believe. A fact exists whether we are aware of it or not, so it doesn't matter if we quantify (which means count to me) it or not.

It's a fact that everything around you right now exists. Even though I don't know what is around you, it's still a fact that they exist Even if I think they don't exist, it's still a fact that they exist. Even if I believe nothing is around you, it's still a fact that they exist None of them need me to prove they exist or validate that they exist for it to be a fact that they exist. If you took a drink of something while reading this (I've been known to drive people to drink) then it's a fact that you took that drink, even if I don't know that you did, don't think that you did or don't believe that you did.

That brings us back to Carlson. He made a factual claim when he said that progressives mourned the firing of Bolton. If he made that statement without knowing if it was true, then that would show that spreading his opinions and beliefs are more important to him than telling the truth. If he knows that it isn't true, then it would show that he's willing to lie to spread his opinions and beliefs.

And now we're back to topic of this thread. An important part of being media literate is actively recognizing in real time the difference between factual claims and statements of opinion or belief. Sometimes those differences are be insidiously subtle and difficult to spot. It's important to actively spot the differences, because propaganda is not nearly as effective on people who actively recognize in real time the difference between the two. It turns on our BS detector. Those who don't actively distinguish between factual claims and statements of opinion or belief are more susceptible to being influenced by propaganda.

By the way, I think "fake news" is a BS "lipstick on a pig" substitute for propaganda. "Fake news" makes it seem like people just being a mere nuisance. "Propaganda" let's you know that someone's pushing a hidden agenda. FFN.

See, CNN, NY Times, HRC re: Tulsi is a Russian agent.

 

[LA - L.A.]

See, CNN, NY Times, HRC re: Tulsi is a Russian agent.

What is it that you think there is to see and how do you see it as relevant to what I said?

If you're going to make a factual claim that you know that CNN, the NY times and/or Hillary Clinton are wrong about something, prove that you know they are wrong. If you can't prove they are wrong, then you don't know that they are wrong, you only believe that they are wrong. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but no one's belief ever makes anything a true fact.

It's just as important that we actively recognize the difference between what we actually know and what we merely believe. One of the foundational causes of the increasing incivility and divisiveness in our society is that too many people are cocksure that everything they believe is an absolute fact. They are so cocksure that their beliefs are an absolute fact that they categorically dismiss any refuting evidence as fake, false and lies, but that is a whole nother discussion.

"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." -- William Shakespeare, As You Like It, Touchstone

 

[Lazybones]

Based on this statement, I think "fact" means different things to us.

What does "fact" mean to you?

To me a fact is something that is objectively true regardless of what we know, think or believe. A fact exists whether we are aware of it or not, so it doesn't matter if we quantify (which means count to me) it or not.

It's a fact that everything around you right now exists. Even though I don't know what is around you, it's still a fact that they exist. Even if I think they don't exist, it's still a fact that they exist. Even if I believe nothing is around you, it's still a fact that they exist. None of them need me to prove or validate that they exist for it to be a fact that they exist. If you took a drink of something while reading this (I've been known to drive people to drink) then it's a fact that you took that drink, even if I don't know that you did, don't think that you did or don't believe that you did.

That brings us back to Carlson. He made a factual claim when he said that progressives mourned the firing of Bolton. If he made that statement without knowing if it was true, then that would show that spreading his opinions and beliefs are more important to him than telling the truth. If he knows that it isn't true, then it would show that he's willing to lie to spread his opinions and beliefs.

And now we're back to topic of this thread. An important part of being media literate is actively recognizing in real time the difference between factual claims and statements of opinion or belief. Sometimes those differences are insidiously subtle and difficult to spot. It's important to actively spot the differences, because propaganda is not nearly as effective on people who actively recognize in real time the difference between the two. It turns on our BS detector. Those who don't actively distinguish between factual claims and statements of opinion or belief are more susceptible to being influenced by propaganda.

By the way, I think "fake news" is a BS "lipstick on a pig" substitute for propaganda. "Fake news" makes it seem like people just being a mere nuisance. "Propaganda" let's you know that someone's pushing a hidden agenda. FFN.

you may be correct. I should say that ABC purposely propagandized the video they released.

 

[Lazybones]

What is it that you think there is to see and how do you see it as relevant to what I said?

If you're going to make a factual claim that you know that CNN, the NY times and/or Hillary Clinton are wrong about something, prove that you know they are wrong. If you can't prove they are wrong, then you don't know that they are wrong, you only believe that they are wrong. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but no one's belief ever makes anything a true fact.

It's just as important that we actively recognize the difference between what we actually know and what we merely believe. One of the foundational causes of the increasing incivility and divisiveness in our society is that too many people are cocksure that everything they believe is an absolute fact. They are so cocksure that their beliefs are an absolute fact that they categorically dismiss any refuting evidence as fake, false and lies, but that is a whole nother discussion.

"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." -- William Shakespeare, As You Like It, Touchstone

I’m just staying with your logic, please prove to me that progressives did not mourn the release of Bolton.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I’m just staying with your logic, please prove to me that progressives did not mourn the release of Bolton.

You are evoking the classic logical fallacy of demanding someone prove a negative, encompassed in the classic example:

Lazybones, please prove to me you don’t beat your wife?
(a slight deviation from the loaded question fallacy of “Did you ever stop beating your wife, Lazybones?” Which could also work here)

Now how would you do that? If I’m an extreme skeptic, you couldn’t possibly prove that case Because you can’t account for every piece of skepticism I could introduce. She vouches for you, but maybe you brainwashed her. Friends say you are a good guy, maybe they don’t know your secret. You don’t have evidence? Well it’s my opinion, disprove it!

This is why the onus is on the person making the statement to provide evidence. If I say you beat your wife, it is on me to prove the allegation, it is not on you to disprove it. Same goes for Tucker’s ridiculous assertion to distance a long entrenched figure on the right(a member of his network) and place him on the left because of his separation from Trump on his brazen abuses of power. If there is not significant evidence to support his position, his opinion, his assertion, is factually unsupported, i.e. it is false.

And here’s the kicker, we all know you know this stuff, because you are applying this very strain of logic to a post before to attack ABC, removing the same benefits of doubt you give Tucker when it comes to passing judgement on a non right wing news outlet in ABC.

 

[yuyi64]

Lazybones, please prove to me you don’t beat your wife?

What! Everyone knows it's Lazybones' wife that beats Lazybones, so there's your proof! Just kidding Lazybones, I was beginning to get bored with all the prove this and that.

 

[Lazybones]

What! Everyone knows it's Lazybones' wife that beats Lazybones, so there's your proof! Just kidding Lazybones, I was beginning to get bored with all the prove this and that.

Well, I’m missing the joke, but I’m sure it’s funny. I’ve got that dude on IGNORE!

 

[Beach Friends]

What is it that you think there is to see and how do you see it as relevant to what I said?

If you're going to make a factual claim that you know that CNN, the NY times and/or Hillary Clinton are wrong about something, prove that you know they are wrong. If you can't prove they are wrong, then you don't know that they are wrong, you only believe that they are wrong. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but no one's belief ever makes anything a true fact.

It's just as important that we actively recognize the difference between what we actually know and what we merely believe. One of the foundational causes of the increasing incivility and divisiveness in our society is that too many people are cocksure that everything they believe is an absolute fact. They are so cocksure that their beliefs are an absolute fact that they categorically dismiss any refuting evidence as fake, false and lies, but that is a whole nother discussion.

"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." -- William Shakespeare, As You Like It, Touchstone

So, CNN, the New York Times and HRC make an outlandish accusation, without any evidence whatsoever, that a member of Congress/commissioned officer is a Russian asset and your answer is that it is up to me to prove that allegation wrong?

I thought you were big on the person making the allegation having the burden of proof.

You're getting tied up like a pretzel here.

 

[MT15]

So, CNN, the New York Times and HRC make an outlandish accusation, without any evidence whatsoever, that a member of Congress/commissioned officer is a Russian asset and your answer is that it is up to me to prove that allegation wrong?

I thought you were big on the person making the allegation having the burden of proof.

You're getting tied up like a pretzel here.

I just looked up and read the NY Times piece. It doesn’t say that Gabbard is a Russian asset. It points out her similarities with Trump, it points out her endorsements from some of the same white nationalists who have supported Trump and that she doesn’t accept their endorsements. It points out that she is being promoted on RT and in Russian media. It points out that there has been some Twitter bot activity which seems to be tied to Russia promoting her. These are all objective truths.

What Clinton said took it a bit farther and I think that was wrong. There’s no evidence that Gabbard is actively courting the attention and support she is getting from Russia. To be fair Clinton said it was her opinion and didn’t represent it as fact.

It seems likely to me, at this point, that Russia sees an opportunity to use Gabbard for the same reasons they promoted Trump’s candidacy. If Russia is promoting a certain candidate, you can bet it’s not because that candidate will be the best thing for America. It’s because that candidate represents the best case for further dividing and weakening America.

 

[yuyi64]

Well, I’m missing the joke, but I’m sure it’s funny. I’ve got that dude on IGNORE!

So do a lot of other posters. Believe me you're not missing anything important.

 

[Beach Friends]

I just looked up and read the NY Times piece. It doesn’t say that Gabbard is a Russian asset. It points out her similarities with Trump, it points out her endorsements from some of the same white nationalists who have supported Trump and that she doesn’t accept their endorsements. It points out that she is being promoted on RT and in Russian media. It points out that there has been some Twitter bot activity which seems to be tied to Russia promoting her. These are all objective truths.

What Clinton said took it a bit farther and I think that was wrong. There’s no evidence that Gabbard is actively courting the attention and support she is getting from Russia.

It seems likely to me, at this point, that Russia sees an opportunity to use Gabbard for the same reasons they promoted Trump’s candidacy. If Russia is promoting a certain candidate, you can bet it’s not because that candidate will be the best thing for America. It’s because that candidate represents the best case for further dividing and weakening America.

So, we just need to figure out what we think Putin wants and do the opposite. That man has to be laughing out loud and how easily manipulated we are.

And okay, the NY Times cited a former Clinton policy aid as "seeing Gabbard as a potentially useful vector...."

Also, do you know anything anout the other NY Times source, the Alliance for Securing Democracy? Any comnection to Hillary? Any connection to that same former Clinton aid wbo they cited as discussed above?

Why no mention of the CNN commentator's smear?

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

So, we just need to figure out what we think Putin wants and do the opposite. That man has to be laughing out loud and how easily manipulated we are.

sarcasm or irony?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

So, we just need to figure out what we think Putin wants and do the opposite. That man has to be laughing out loud and how easily manipulated we are.

And okay, the NY Times cited a former Clinton policy aid as "seeing Gabbard as a potentially useful vector...."

Also, do you know anything anout the other NY Times source, the Alliance for Securing Democracy? Any comnection to Hillary? Any connection to that same former Clinton aid wbo they cited as discussed above?

Why no mention of the CNN commentator's smear?

The logic you are pulling at is like saying The NY Times endorsed calling Africa a place full of shirthole countries because they cited Trump’s words in an article discussing the incident.

Nothing in the aforementioned article claims or even infers she is a Russian asset. But the article does make clear that the Russian government sees something of value in putting resources to work promoting and defending her through their disinformation networks.