Media Literacy and Fake News (7 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]

You can see the same thing in talk radio, Facebook posts and message board posts. It's kind of eery.



24 hour news is the worst. I've been pushing that for years. It makes us dumber.... there's also a heavier reliance on anonymous sources, and a rush to get a story out first without properly vetting sources.

I wish I could find the link to that interview with the reporter from Rolling Stone.

He discussed how when CNN first came out they basically just had the news on a loop. You watch at 2pm and you would see the same thing you saw at 10am.

Then several things happened. Competition came and the loop just wasn't good enough.

They noticed how popular Crossfire was.

They put these observations together and realized it was cheap and effective to have guests come on throughout the day and simply argue with each other.

And then networks realized that rather than try to be balanced, it was less expensive and more profitable to pick a fan base and cater to them.

And he talked about how, as a print journalist, he is limited by the short news cycle. It really is not feasible to spend an enermous amount of time investigating a story - it will be all but forgotten in a day.

The bad part was that, as I recall, he was short on solutions as to how we can recover.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I wish I could find the link to that interview with the reporter from Rolling Stone.

He discussed how when CNN first came out they basically just had the news on a loop. You watch at 2pm and you would see the same thing you saw at 10am.

Then several things happened. Competition came and the loop just wasn't good enough.

They noticed how popular Crossfire was.

They put these observations together and realized it was cheap and effective to have guests come on throughout the day and simply argue with each other.

And then networks realized that rather than try to be balanced, it was less expensive and more profitable to pick a fan base and cater to them.

And he talked about how, as a print journalist, he is limited by the short news cycle. It really is not feasible to spend an enermous amount of time investigating a story - it will be all but forgotten in a day.

The bad part was that, as I recall, he was short on solutions as to how we can recover.

So, my recollection for the down fall was the first Gulf War. CNN was all about sensationalist coverage of the war. Reporters on rooftops in Tel Aviv as scud missiles were fired at them, and so on... a lot of money was spent on graphics and so on. It worked.

Since this is a politics board, so I'll point out this is a case where the profit motive does not necessarily mean a better result for society.

I don't have a solution either. You really can't police it too much, b/c who does that and what standard do they apply? I'd love it if people just stopped watching the news. You don't really need that information on an hourly or even daily basis. A weekly summary is good enough, and then find some good articles that go into depth using copious sourcing. But ain't nobody got time for that.

 

[wardorican]

I wish I could find the link to that interview with the reporter from Rolling Stone.

He discussed how when CNN first came out they basically just had the news on a loop. You watch at 2pm and you would see the same thing you saw at 10am.

Then several things happened. Competition came and the loop just wasn't good enough.

They noticed how popular Crossfire was.

They put these observations together and realized it was cheap and effective to have guests come on throughout the day and simply argue with each other.

And then networks realized that rather than try to be balanced, it was less expensive and more profitable to pick a fan base and cater to them.

And he talked about how, as a print journalist, he is limited by the short news cycle. It really is not feasible to spend an enermous amount of time investigating a story - it will be all but forgotten in a day.

The bad part was that, as I recall, he was short on solutions as to how we can recover.

Jon taking down CNN and crossfire was amazing.

Tucker got so mad...

 

[JimEverett]

Cable news is one thing, these "daily show" type of shows, including Maher and Oliver, are another.
But more important imo has been the transformation of "serious" journalism. I am simplifying it, of course, but it seems to have been driven to a point of simply doing the bidding of forces who want certain stories out there.
Stories really aren't broken by journalists much anymore, instead, they are fed stories by leakers or people unwilling to go on the record and then the journalist's job seems to be whether to run with that story or not - perhaps after claiming (whether real or not) confirmation from [other] unnamed sources.

 

[Beach Friends]

Cable news is one thing, these "daily show" type of shows, including Maher and Oliver, are another.
But more important imo has been the transformation of "serious" journalism. I am simplifying it, of course, but it seems to have been driven to a point of simply doing the bidding of forces who want certain stories out there.
Stories really aren't broken by journalists much anymore, instead, they are fed stories by leakers or people unwilling to go on the record and then the journalist's job seems to be whether to run with that story or not - perhaps after claiming (whether real or not) confirmation from [other] unnamed sources.

What is the new phrase now, "sources familiar with the thoughts of...."

 

[Lazybones]

So, my recollection for the down fall was the first Gulf War. CNN was all about sensationalist coverage of the war. Reporters on rooftops in Tel Aviv as scud missiles were fired at them, and so on... a lot of money was spent on graphics and so on. It worked.

Since this is a politics board, so I'll point out this is a case where the profit motive does not necessarily mean a better result for society.

I don't have a solution either. You really can't police it too much, b/c who does that and what standard do they apply? I'd love it if people just stopped watching the news. You don't really need that information on an hourly or even daily basis. A weekly summary is good enough, and then find some good articles that go into depth using copious sourcing. But ain't nobody got time for that.

I can’t tell you the last time the tv was on in my house that didn’t have a sporting event or street outlaws (I love hot rods).

 

[superchuck500]

Cable news is one thing, these "daily show" type of shows, including Maher and Oliver, are another.
But more important imo has been the transformation of "serious" journalism. I am simplifying it, of course, but it seems to have been driven to a point of simply doing the bidding of forces who want certain stories out there.
Stories really aren't broken by journalists much anymore, instead, they are fed stories by leakers or people unwilling to go on the record and then the journalist's job seems to be whether to run with that story or not - perhaps after claiming (whether real or not) confirmation from [other] unnamed sources.

I think that's largely true - but what's worse is that there are still quality journalists out there doing real, old-school shake-the-trees work. And it goes unappreciated or even discounted because people don't know the difference anymore.

 

[Dragon]

Very good article which shows that the Russian fake new threat is far from a thing in the past.

Ahead of 2020, 'Putin's chef' sharpens Russian propaganda skills in Africa

On Wednesday, Facebook announced it had removed three networks of accounts, totaling dozens of pages, targeting a number of African countries. The pages were linked to Russian businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin, dubbed by the Russian media as "Putin's chef," who was sanctioned by the US for funding the Internet Research Agency that US prosecutors allege meddled in the 2016 presidential election.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/31/europe/russia-africa-propaganda-intl/index.html

 

[wardorican]

Cable news is one thing, these "daily show" type of shows, including Maher and Oliver, are another.
But more important imo has been the transformation of "serious" journalism. I am simplifying it, of course, but it seems to have been driven to a point of simply doing the bidding of forces who want certain stories out there.
Stories really aren't broken by journalists much anymore, instead, they are fed stories by leakers or people unwilling to go on the record and then the journalist's job seems to be whether to run with that story or not - perhaps after claiming (whether real or not) confirmation from [other] unnamed sources.

I think political news has been like that for a long time.

The big difference is that the 24 hour news cycle demands attention. And now, with every other news group on the internet.. their own web site, staff on twitter, the company on twitter, instagram, facebook.. they are all fighting for attention. They want clicks, reactions, $$$$. They're chasing money and doing it by messing with our emotions.

Headlines being misleading is nothing new, but I feel like some take it to an artform that's pretty dishonest.

 

[Ayo]

There have been a few things I've wanted to add to this thread, but crazy hectic work schedule has largely prevented it.

So, I figured I could drop the quickest of them here, because I find it a useful tool to look at how different sides frame the same story - with links.

It's AllSides.com and they collect news from various 'news' outlets, labeled from far left to far right - and it can be both helpful and interesting because they'll pull articles on the same topic from different sites while also looking at what's trending on different sites. It also labels Opinion pieces.

Link: AllSides.com News

they also have a page where they list the news sources and their estimated bias: Media Bias Ratings

and this graphic which depicts the more commonly used places:

 

[Intensesaint]

I agree with that graphic, as it shows all mainstream television news outlets on the primary channels, NBC, CBS, and ABC as leaning left. On the flipside, I would actually put all of Fox News in the Right column.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

There have been a few things I've wanted to add to this thread, but crazy hectic work schedule has largely prevented it.

So, I figured I could drop the quickest of them here, because I find it a useful tool to look at how different sides frame the same story - with links.

It's AllSides.com and they collect news from various 'news' outlets, labeled from far left to far right - and it can be both helpful and interesting because they'll pull articles on the same topic from different sites while also looking at what's trending on different sites. It also labels Opinion pieces.

Link: AllSides.com News

they also have a page where they list the news sources and their estimated bias: Media Bias Ratings

and this graphic which depicts the more commonly used places:

This may be the rare instance why I am finding myself drawing a rather stark contrast with something you posted lol.

IMO, putting CNN opinion/The New Yorker/NY Times opinion and Jacobin/Democracy Now in the same bracket is insane.

There is literally not a single person that would faithfully represent Jacobin’s POV represented on the NY Times editorial board and really speaks to how casually the American political mindset just instinctively lumps very distinctive factions on the left into the same basket of left-side politics. Including people that really should not be framed as far left.

Of course in a culture so caught up conflating editorial slant with objectivity or factual representation, I personally don’t care for this sort of angling in terms of media framing and find it a bit problematic. Even with the caveat at the top. As people will mostly use it as confirmation bias to dismiss something as partisan or falsely equivocate two starkly different sources since it completely avoids casting a proper and contexted value judgment around whether their journalistic standards are credible or accurate measured over a meaningful timeframe. Where it inferentially legitimizes entirely disreputable sources like Fox News(yes, even the news hours) and the WSJ opinion by framing them as an ideological yang to reputable outlets like The New York Times or The Guardian.

 

[JRad]

I agree with that graphic, as it shows all mainstream television news outlets on the primary channels, NBC, CBS, and ABC as leaning left. On the flipside, I would actually put all of Fox News in the Right column.

I can't think of a better way to phrase this, so it may come off a little combative, but honest question:

For our Fox folks - does seeing the majority of media outlets lean left ever make you consider your stances?

 

[Farb]

I can't think of a better way to phrase this, so it may come off a little combative, but honest question:

For our Fox folks - does seeing the majority of media outlets lean left ever make you consider your stances?

I am having a slow morning so I am not sure if I am following you on this and I am having a hard time relaying this as well.

Do you mean that since there are more mainstream media that leans left, do those of us that watch Fox, begin to question if our political beliefs are incorrect due to the numbers that don't follow?

 

[JRad]

I am having a slow morning so I am not sure if I am following you on this and I am having a hard time relaying this as well.

Do you mean that since there are more mainstream media that leans left, do those of us that watch Fox, begin to question if our political beliefs are incorrect due to the numbers that don't follow?

No worries, it's hard to get what I'm asking across without sounding like a call out.

Not necessarily "your beliefs are incorrect", but I guess maybe why they're the minority opinion?
If Fox says "The dress is blue", and CBS, NBC, etc are all saying "The dress is yellow", does that ever have you step back and say "why do more outlets say it's yellow?"

I guess part of what I'm driving at is more focused on how it feels to have "your side of the news" be represented as the minority, and what, if any, impact that has on how you analyze things.

I feel like that absolutely did not help though haha

 

[BobE]

For our Fox folks - does seeing the majority of media outlets lean left ever make you consider your stances?

If you mean evolve and maybe re position my stance on an issue or two. Yes. Though a debate can be had if it was "left" news or just evolving in life.

 

[V Chip]

There have been a few things I've wanted to add to this thread, but crazy hectic work schedule has largely prevented it.

So, I figured I could drop the quickest of them here, because I find it a useful tool to look at how different sides frame the same story - with links.

It's AllSides.com and they collect news from various 'news' outlets, labeled from far left to far right - and it can be both helpful and interesting because they'll pull articles on the same topic from different sites while also looking at what's trending on different sites. It also labels Opinion pieces.

Link: AllSides.com News

they also have a page where they list the news sources and their estimated bias: Media Bias Ratings

and this graphic which depicts the more commonly used places:

Just a note that AllSides only concerns itself with the ONLINE portions of those media companies. So seeing CNN in the "L" column is for CNN Online news only, NOT the TV channel or TV shows or opinion shows, etc. These ratings have nothing to do with the broadcast portions of these media companies.

 

[Farb]

No worries, it's hard to get what I'm asking across without sounding like a call out.

Not necessarily "your beliefs are incorrect", but I guess maybe why they're the minority opinion?
If Fox says "The dress is blue", and CBS, NBC, etc are all saying "The dress is yellow", does that ever have you step back and say "why do more outlets say it's yellow?"

I guess part of what I'm driving at is more focused on how it feels to have "your side of the news" be represented as the minority, and what, if any, impact that has on how you analyze things.

I feel like that absolutely did not help though haha

I get it. Good question and this is something I have thought about but my answer might not make much sense, but I will try and I am discussing the media as a whole (tv and online)
I personally don't think Conservatives really care if there are more left leaning political outlets out there. I think that has been a given for along time, at least as long as I can remember (didn't pay attention very much to politics in my glory days). The reason I think that is so is mainly because people of any political opinion tend to associate with other that are more like minded. I do have a few very good friends that I consider brothers that are liberal/Dem/left, whatever but the overwhelming amount of my friends and family are conservative/Rep/Right ect.. birds of a feather and all that.
I have noticed the same thing on the left too so I think it is quite normal..whats not normal or healthy is when you refuse to associate with someone that has a different political opinion just because of that opinion. I know a lot of smart, good, decent people that are right and left.
It is odd that you can look at the exact same issue on CNN and FOX and they are night and day different.
All that to say that because I am a conservative, I don't look at the media outlets and see that the majority disagree with me and then think that my positions or thoughts are incorrect. This is because I have seen the CNN's of the worlds be completely wrong on something and never admit it. FOX is also guilty of this.

I feel like I just threw up words and did not answer your question at all, sorry. I know what I am trying to say. lol

Do you as a left/Dem/liberal whatever, feel like your opinions are reaffirmed because more talking heads are behind your stance? That was not meant to be snarky at all, but it probably came off that way. I am going to stop typing now.