Media Literacy and Fake News (9 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.

 

[Beach Friends]

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.

The Trump statement was the story.

The quote from the former Clinton aid was made for the purpose of weaving it into the narrative to smear Tulsi.

 

[Sledge Hammer]

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.

The point of ignoring people is to not bring attention to it.

We don't need to be pointing out or somewhat celebrating 'ignores'. It doesn't add to the conversation or encourage civil discussion.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

The Trump statement was the story.

The quote from the former Clinton aid was made for the purpose of weaving it into the narrative to smear Tulsi.

I read the article, I’ve read your assertions, so you can’t really gaslight this.

Correct where I am wrong, but the conversations have been illicited when you asserted that the Times, CNN, and Hillary have called her a Russian asset. To support this you point to an article in the Times that cites a Hillary aid.

Additionally, you are ascribing motive without evidence. Unless we are reading a different article, the article in question spoke about was Tulsi’s unconventional campaign, her choice of signaling, and the odd coalition of support she has formed, including the Russian disinformation networks now involved in directly promoting her and attacking her perceived adversaries. All above board commentary and statements rooted in fact.

It also spoke about her campaign being reflective of a certain sect of veteran, a sect that has a non-traditional cross section of support. That cuts across normal ideological lines people think of. Which is probably why she appeals to White Nationalists, a sect of vets, some Chapo lefties, Trump supporters, and even some moderate democrats....But also why she is struggling to gain broad appeal.

 

[LA - L.A.]

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 missed the point of what I was saying. The focus of my response to you was the distinction between what you know and what you believe. If you know something, then you can prove it. If you can't prove it, then you only believe it.

It's the difference between thinking and saying "I know their claims are outlandishly untrue" and "I think/believe their claims are outlandishly untrue."

To say "I know their claims are outlandishly untrue," means you would have proof of that claim. If you have such proof, then why not share the proof? If you want others to know that truth, then why not share the proof of that truth?

 

[LA - L.A.]

The quote from the former Clinton aid was made for the purpose of weaving it into the narrative to smear Tulsi.

Do you believe this or do know you this?

 

[Lazybones]

You missed the point of what I was saying. The focus of my response to you was the distinction between what you know and what you believe. If you know something, then you can prove it. If you can't prove it, then you only believe it.

It's the difference between thinking and saying "I know their claims are outlandishly untrue" and "I think/believe their claims are outlandishly untrue."

To say "I know their claims are outlandishly untrue," means you would have proof of that claim. If you have such proof, then why not share the proof? If you want others to know that truth, then why not share the proof of that truth?

We all keep going in circles. In fairness, I am applying the same logic to you when it comes to John Bolton. Let’s move on.

 

[LA - L.A.]

We all keep going in circles. In fairness, I am applying the same logic to you when it comes to John Bolton. Let’s move on.

I'm only responding to what others are saying to me.

You aren't actually applying the same logic to me, because I never once said I know that Carlson is wrong. I've never even said I believe Carlson is wrong.

I only pointed out that it was incorrect to say that Carlson was only stating his opinions. He made factual claims that he never supported. That's the objective truth and it's the only thing I said I know.

 

[Beach Friends]

Some people see the NY Times as a smear piece, some don't.

I am just glad I am in the former group.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Some people see the NY Times as a smear piece, some don't.

I am just glad I am in the former group.

Smear implies false accusations and slander, quote me the lines or paragraphs that you think demonstrate false accusations that The NY Times either directly endorsed or implied an endorsement of?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

this is about media literacy isn’t it? Are you telling me I shouldn’t vet the fact checkers? That’s the whole point Jim E was making. because their name says fact-check the common public thinks it’s ok and unbiased. I’m sorry if I’m not willing to accept the narrative the Internet puts forth when I am digesting information.

If you want to fact check the fact checkers, see what they say and search for the answer yourself. Daniel Dale's twitter feed, where he live checked Trump's rally speech on 10-17, has been linked. Transcripts of the speech are online. Why not read the Daniel Dale fact checking tweets, go to the transcript to make sure that Trump actually made the claim that Dale says he did, then turn to Google to see who is correct: Dale or Trump.

I'll give you one for free:

Trump's Claim, taken from the transcript at https://www.rev.com/blog/donald-trump-dallas-rally-speech-transcript-october-17-2019

We will achieve new breakthroughs in science and medicine, finding new cures for childhood cancer and ending the AIDS epidemic in America in less than 10 years. We’re doing that. Who would have believed we could do that? We’re doing that. And the previous administration spent no money on that, and we’re spending a lot. But think of that. Who would have thought that we’re going to end, within 10 years, the AIDS epidemic in our country? Who would have thought we’ve advanced that far?

Dale's Tweet:



Where to find the truth:

U.S. Federal Funding for HIV/AIDS: Trends Over Time | KFF

This fact sheet provides an updated overview of federal funding for HIV/AIDS, highlighting key domestic and global HIV/AIDS programs and comparisons over time.

www.kff.org

 

[MT15]

The Trump statement was the story.

The quote from the former Clinton aid was made for the purpose of weaving it into the narrative to smear Tulsi.

you’ve made the assertion a couple of times that The NY Times had claimed Gabbard is a Russian asset, when they did nothing of the sort. That’s the reason I went and searched for the article, because I thought it surely was an opinion piece if it said what you claimed., and it didn’t say what you claimed, so I didn’t bother to look up the CNN piece. I don’t generally watch them. my guess is it was an opinion segment, though.

so, to recap, we have a pretty much factual NY times piece, and an opinion voiced by a private person, although on a TV interview. Which I said I didn’t agree with Clinton’s opinion. We have a CNN piece that I haven’t listened to because I’ve already wasted too much time on this conspiracy theory.

I will give my opinion on the Gabbard tweet rant, it was very Trumpian and I didn’t care for it. We need a return to normality, a certain civility, a grace under pressure that was sorely lacking. JMO, anyway.

 

[Intensesaint]

I will give my opinion on the Gabbard tweet rant, it was very Trumpian and I didn’t care for it. We need a return to normality, a certain civility, a grace under pressure that was sorely lacking. JMO, anyway.

Are you kidding me? How is it civil or graceful for Hillary to call Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset without an iota of proof. Seems like you want to apply a standard of decorum to Gabbard, without expecting Hillary to have any standards.

 

[yuyi64]

The left always calls for a return to normality and civility right after they attack and smear someone they target. It's like the kid in school who hits another kid and then yells "teacher" when the other kid retaliates. It's wishful thinking to think we'll see a return to civility anytime soon in this climate of overreaction and over pretending.

 

[Andrus]

Keep it civil!

 

[MT15]

Are you kidding me? How is it civil or graceful for Hillary to call Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset without an iota of proof. Seems like you want to apply a standard of decorum to Gabbard, without expecting Hillary to have any standards.

I already said I didn’t approve of Clinton’s statement either. I’m not seeing how this is a double standard.

 

[samiam5211]

[/QUOTE]

The left always calls for a return to normality and civility right after they attack and smear someone they target. It's like the kid in school who hits another kid and then yells "teacher" when the other kid retaliates. It's wishful thinking to think we'll see a return to civility anytime soon in this climate of overreaction and over pretending.

Who is "the left"?

 

[Lazybones]

Who is "the left"?
[/QUOTE]

The media/Washington Democrat’s

 

[samiam5211]

The media/Washington Democrat’s
[/QUOTE]

Just checking, because the context of your post seemed to suggest that mt15 was "the left".