Media Literacy and Fake News (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Ayo

    Spirit Grocer
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    896
    Reaction score
    2,307
    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.


    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.
     
    Out of curiosity, what about Stalin is Leftist?
    Was he liberal? Was he progressive?
    Outside of labeling him a **** commie, what is leftist about him?
    His rule was the "dictatorship of the proletariat" which the people would have to endure with great suffering before achieving "true communism."
    At least, that was the party line at the time.

    Old Soviet Era joke:
    Komsomol youth - "Comrade commissar, can Russia ever achieve true communism?"
    Commissar - "Yes, my young Komsomol, yes! But why don't we do it to the Georgians first?"
     
    When I ignore my kids whining about something, it's not contempt for them. it is just realizing their issues is small potatoes and not worth worrying about.

    It is so sad how you are taking this DD.
    No, it's sad that you're standing up for censorship by omission. Very sad.
     
    His rule was the "dictatorship of the proletariat" which the people would have to endure with great suffering before achieving "true communism."
    At least, that was the party line at the time.

    Old Soviet Era joke:
    Komsomol youth - "Comrade commissar, can Russia ever achieve true communism?"
    Commissar - "Yes, my young Komsomol, yes! But why don't we do it to the Georgians first?"
    i get from your other posts that you're cool with defining terms in the way that strikes your fancy at the time, but this doesn't fly
     
    i get from your other posts that you're cool with defining terms in the way that strikes your fancy at the time, but this doesn't fly
    Yes, it does fly. Perhaps you should take a year of 400-level Russian History courses at a state university. Maybe then you'd understand.
     
    Wish it were a joke but its a plank in the Democratic Party - book burners just like Stalin.

    I'm sure you meant he Christian right. There's no shortage of books, movies, music, porn, evolution, scientific knowledge and theory, etc. that they would love to outlaw and burn out of existence.
     
    I'm sure you meant he Christian right. There's no shortage of books, movies, music, porn, evolution, scientific knowledge and theory, etc. that they would love to outlaw and burn out of existence.
    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.
     
    I'm sure you meant he Christian right. There's no shortage of books, movies, music, porn, evolution, scientific knowledge and theory, etc. that they would love to outlaw and burn out of existence.
    No he means pushback about political hatchet jobs on Clinton - not actual cultural malfeasance
     
    Yes, it does fly. Perhaps you should take a year of 400-level Russian History courses at a state university. Maybe then you'd understand.

    Your Russian jokes aren’t the concern
    It’s your cultural Marxism (I think that’s the phrase BF uses) that’s at issue
     
    Claiming that the reason the left doesn't consider it to be a historical fact that Trump was the grand marshall at a NASCAR race is due to its shared ideology with the leftist Stalinist government who disappeared people is more ridiculous than saying that the right doesn't care about putting kids in cages because of a shared ideology with the right wing views of Hitler who perpetuated the holocaust.

    What DD is describing as "leftist" is authoritarianism, which isn't exclusive to either side of the political spectrum.
     
    Forgive me, I am slow and have trouble reading between the lines. Are you saying that the Democratic Party in America -

    has book burning as a platform (Jim)
    Has the same ethos as Stalin (dreamer)

    You Two seem intelligent, yet you throw out nonsense like this? And then become indignant when anyone brings up the slightest notion that your party is filled with racists or don’t believe in science or hate gays, because those are only small groups that are racist etc and not the majority. Try not comparing your countrymen to Stalin-communists and Nazis.

    But your diatribes have my interest piqued-

    So Jim- do me a favor and post the link to the Democratic platform page that says they support burning books. Or any individual D official for that matter.

    And Dreamer- go ahead and link to your thesis you wrote in that 400 level course about the parallels between the Stalinism and the modern day Democratic Party. Or any paper written by someone not associated with the Heritage Foundation or Cato Institute will do.

    I would really like to have my eyes opened by you two.

    Thanks in advance. Great talking with you as always.
     
    So Jim- do me a favor and post the link to the Democratic platform page that says they support burning books. Or any individual D official for that matter.

    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.

    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). Which makes sense given that the case itself was over whether the Constitution allowed the government to ban a movie.

    You cna find the discussion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2008/08-205.pdf And it is very interesting. Probably starting around page 26.
     
    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.

    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). Which makes sense given that the case itself was over whether the Constitution allowed the government to ban a movie.

    You cna find the discussion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2008/08-205.pdf And it is very interesting. Probably starting around page 26.
    That’s what I 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.

    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). Which makes sense given that the case itself was over whether the Constitution allowed the government to ban a movie.

    You cna find the discussion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2008/08-205.pdf And it is very interesting. Probably starting around page 26.

    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.
     

    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!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom