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]

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?

What I am saying is that I think if someone can't see that this is a smear piece just from reading it then there is no way they are going to be moved by that.

The piece tries to portray her as either being under or being susceptible to Russian influence. At the same time, we are supposed to believe that this Somoan, Bernie Sanders' supporting progressive is also the darling of Nazis.

If that doesn't get your radar up then I can't convince you and I know it.

I don't have reason to believe that that author made up a quote from Richard Spencer. But, I think you may be giving Spencer more credit for trustworthiness than he deserves.

I don't doubt that a former Clinton aid provided a quote to the author about seeing a possibility that Tulsi becomes a Russina vector. But, I also see reasons to be suspicious of a Clinton aide's motives.

I don't doubt that the author received data from the group it said it did. But, I also know that group is led by the very same former Clinton aid that provided the Russian vector quote.

Do you doubt that there are powerful people in Washington DC who have vested interests in continuing the very wars that Tulsi keeps talking about ending?

Do you doubt that Clinton may be seeking a little payback because Tulsi supported Bernie in 2016?
That apparently rubbed some people the wrong way as evidenced by the letter Democratic party leaders wrote to Tulsi back in 2016 telling her that they would no longer help her with fundraising since she disrespected Hillary.

 

[MT15]

The media/Washington Democrat’s

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

it was yuyi who called me “the left” to be fair, lol.

 

[MT15]

What I am saying is that I think if someone can't see that this is a smear piece just from reading it then there is no way they are going to be moved by that.

The piece tries to portray her as either being under or being susceptible to Russian influence. At the same time, we are supposed to believe that this Somoan, Bernie Sanders' supporting progressive is also the darling of Nazis.

If that doesn't get your radar up then I can't convince you and I know it.

I don't have reason to believe that that author made up a quote from Richard Spencer. But, I think you may be giving Spencer more credit for trustworthiness than he deserves.

I don't doubt that a former Clinton aid provided a quote to the author about seeing a possibility that Tulsi becomes a Russina vector. But, I also see reasons to be suspicious of a Clinton aide's motives.

I don't doubt that the author received data from the group it said it did. But, I also know that group is led by the very same former Clinton aid that provided the Russian vector quote.

Do you doubt that there are powerful people in Washington DC who have vested interests in continuing the very wars that Tulsi keeps talking about ending?

Do you doubt that Clinton may be seeking a little payback because Tulsi supported Bernie in 2016?
That apparently rubbed some people the wrong way as evidenced by the letter Democratic party leaders wrote to Tulsi back in 2016 telling her that they would no longer help her with fundraising since she disrespected Hillary.

so this is all opinion and analysis, which is fine, but you shouldn’t present it as fact. You have been saying that the NY Times called Gabbard a Russian asset, which just didn’t happen.

 

[Beach Friends]

so this is all opinion and analysis, which is fine, but you shouldn’t present it as fact. You have been saying that the NY Times called Gabbard a Russian asset, which just didn’t happen.

Russian vector is close enough to Russian asset for me, especially since I see this as a coordinated effort.

Also, this reminds me of he the line from Absence of Malice, "everything they said was accurate, but none of it was true."

Ironically, this has all probably helped give Tulsi a bump and I think it helps Trump when Hillary spreads her Russian conspiracy accusations around. It gives the impression that she is unhinged, and that she thinks everyone she does not like is a Russian agent.

I am certain that I would never vote for Tulsi because she is too far to the left for my tastes, but I do think she is a person of character.

 

[MT15]

Once again that “Russian vector” statement wasn’t The NY Times. That was a quote in the article from someone associated with Clinton. The article itself even says there’s no evidence of coordination between Gabbard and the Russians.

It wasn’t a smear piece by any objective standard. It presented the facts, and offered opinions from supporters and detractors.

 

[wardorican]

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'm way behind on this story. Mostly because I dont think it means much, it just riles people up.

However, other than reporting on what Clinton said on a podcast, where did CNN levy an accusation? Was there an op ed? Articles proving it? I'm ignoring the ny times, due to pay walls. (Or is that just the wapo?)

All I found was this.

Hillary Clinton suggests Russians are 'grooming' Tulsi Gabbard for third-party run

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said Thursday the Russians are currently "grooming" a Democrat running in the presidential primary to run as a third-party candidate and champion their interests.

www.cnn.com

"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said, speaking on a podcast with former Obama adviser David Plouffe. "She's the favorite of the Russians."

Is there more?

And I believe Clinton stated that RT and bots were elevating certain Gabbard stories, but I do think we will see that with all of the candidates. I think they are just trying to recreate another "The System is rigged" moment, like they amplified with Bernie.

 

[Beach Friends]

I'm way behind on this story. Mostly because I dont think it means much, it just riles people up.

However, other than reporting on what Clinton said on a podcast, where did CNN levy an accusation? Was there an op ed? Articles proving it? I'm ignoring the ny times, due to pay walls. (Or is that just the wapo?)

All I found was this.

Hillary Clinton suggests Russians are 'grooming' Tulsi Gabbard for third-party run

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said Thursday the Russians are currently "grooming" a Democrat running in the presidential primary to run as a third-party candidate and champion their interests.

www.cnn.com

Is there more?

And I believe Clinton stated that RT and bots were elevating certain Gabbard stories, but I do think we will see that with all of the candidates. I think they are just trying to recreate another "The System is rigged" moment, like they amplified with Bernie.

 

[samiam5211]

I saw one guy make an accusation, and everyone else push back. This is far from an example of "CNN" calling Tulsi a Russian asset.

 

[Beach Friends]

I saw one guy make an accusation, and everyone else push back. This is far from an example of "CNN" calling Tulsi a Russian asset.

You call that "push back?"

With an extraordinary allegation like that (there is no question she is a puppet for the Russians) there should have been a serious inquiry as to the facts that would support that claim.

Instead, what you see is a gigglefest with one person asking "how is there no question?" Which actually just gave him the opportunity to make more ridiculous conclusory statements.

That's all on CNN. This is how smearing someone works.

 

[samiam5211]

You call that "push back?"

With an extraordinary allegation like that (there is no question she is a puppet for the Russians) there should have been a serious inquiry as to the facts that would support that claim.

Instead, what you see is a gigglefest with one person asking "how is there no question?" Which actually just gave him the opportunity to make more ridiculous conclusory statements.

That's all on CNN. This is how smearing someone works.

yea, your analysis of that video shows your bias.

 

[TheRealTruth]

I saw one guy make an accusation, and everyone else push back. This is far from an example of "CNN" calling Tulsi a Russian asset.

I watched the video and really didn't see any push back like you are claiming. The lady sitting next to him clearly had reservations on what he was saying but did not push back. The host just allowed him to further his outlandish remarks.

I don't think it's fair for you to say Beach Friends is showing bias, because you were also showing bias in your own assessment of the video. He was not challenged to present any evidence of his outlandish claims.

I think this attack from Hillary is more of a push back from Tulsi Gabbard supporting Sanders in the prior election.

 

[samiam5211]

I watched the video and really didn't see any push back like you are claiming. The lady sitting next to him clearly had reservations on what he was saying but did not push back. The host just allowed him to further his outlandish remarks.

I don't think it's fair for you to say Beach Friends is showing bias, because you were also showing bias in your own assessment of the video. He was not challenged to present any evidence of his outlandish claims.

I think this attack from Hillary is more of a push back from Tulsi Gabbard supporting Sanders in the prior election.

Allyson literally asked to back up his claim. Everyone else was incredulous.

I guess they could have told him to go to hell and banned him from CNN....

 

[TheRealTruth]

Allyson literally asked to back up his claim. Everyone else was incredulous.

I guess they could have told him to go to hell and banned him from CNN....

Your hyperbole is noted, but the backup to his claim was even more outlandish claims. None of which were backed up with anything of substance. And the segment was left with his claims never being proved.

In this case, your bias is showing.

 

[samiam5211]

Your hyperbole is noted, but the backup to his claim was even more outlandish claims. None of which were backed up with anything of substance. And the segment was left with his claims never being proved.

In this case, your bias is showing.

That clip is not evidence of CNN pushing the idea that Tulsi is a Russian agent. I am sorry you are so desperate to prove it is.

 

[TheRealTruth]

That clip is not evidence of CNN pushing the idea that Tulsi is a Russian agent. I am sorry you are so desperate to prove it is.

I never even said that and now you are attempting to frame it as that. I was simply refuting your biased interpretation of the video. You said there was push back on the host making the outlandish accusation of Tulsi Gabbard being a Russian asset, and I showed you that you were wrong. Now you are being intellectually dishonest by stating that I was saying that CNN as a network is pushing the same narrative as Hillary Clinton.

At least we can agree that Hillary Clinton's narrative is outlandish.

 

[samiam5211]

I never even said that and now you are attempting to frame it as that. I was simply refuting your biased interpretation of the video. You said there was push back on the host making the outlandish accusation of Tulsi Gabbard being a Russian asset, and I showed you that you were wrong

That the reason the video was posted in the first place.

Hillary should sit down and shut up though.

 

[yuyi64]

I saw one guy make an accusation, and everyone else push back.

I've watched that video several times looking for real pushback and I don't see it. You'll probably say I'm biased too or perhaps we have very different definitions of pushback, but that is hardly the video you want to use as an example of credible pushback to an outlandish theory.

 

[LA - L.A.]

What I saw in the video:

• Someone stated their opinion that Gabbard is a Russian puppet
• Another guest reacted with skepticism of that opinion
• An anchor asked the person why they had their opinion
• The person cited Syria as to why they think Gabbard is a Russian puppet
• The anchor reacted with skepticism and said Syria would come up in the debate, but not in the way the person framed it

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.