Media Literacy and Fake News (1 Viewer)

[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.

 

[JimEverett]

So, we are going to talk about the poster and not the content?

No one has answered the questions I asked - or really no one has even attempted to answer them.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

So, we are going to talk about the poster and not the content?

No one has answered the questions I asked - or really no one has even attempted to answer them.

Taylor dismantled your argument (while supporting it - which was a neat trick)
You are way out on a thin branch and no one is biting in the hyperbole bait (to mix metaphors)

And your complaint might have a bit more uumph if you hadn’t JUST done what you accuse others of

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

But do the Woody Allen book next

 

[JimEverett]

Taylor dismantled your argument (while supporting it - which was a neat trick)
You are way out on a thin branch and no one is biting in the hyperbole bait (to mix metaphors)

And your complaint might have a bit more uumph if you hadn’t JUST done what you accuse others of

I made a personal cmment after several of yours. Maybe I took the bait.

And Taylor did not dismantle my argument. Quite the contrary. His argument is basically "Democrats don't really want to ban books even though they want to overturn a decision that stops the government from banning books."
That is not really much of an argument at all.

How about this question - do you think the Hillary film should have been banned by the government?

 

[Joe Okc]

That's the pattern when he clearly has lost the argument.

He didn't lose anything. What he's saying makes perfect sense.. Your just not getting it or you don't want to admit it...

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I made a personal cmment after several of yours. Maybe I took the bait.

And Taylor did not dismantle my argument. Quite the contrary. His argument is basically "Democrats don't really want to ban books even though they want to overturn a decision that stops the government from banning books."
That is not really much of an argument at all.

How about this question - do you think the Hillary film should have been banned by the government?

I think McCain feingold is ok legislation (could /should be MUCH stronger) is constitutional
And much more should be done to prevent corporations and other monies interests from having outsized influence on our democracy

 

[JimEverett]

I think McCain feingold is ok legislation (could /should be MUCH stronger) is constitutional
And much more should be done to prevent corporations and other monies interests from having outsized influence on our democracy

Okay - so you are for banning movies based on their political content. Why would that also not be applied to books?
Say, a corporation paid an author and paid for advertising of the book, and paid for the distribution of the book - and the contents of the book were basically the exact same as the contents of the Hilary film you believe should be banned.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I made a personal cmment after several of yours. Maybe I took the bait.

And Taylor did not dismantle my argument. Quite the contrary. His argument is basically "Democrats don't really want to ban books even though they want to overturn a decision that stops the government from banning books."
That is not really much of an argument at all.

How about this question - do you think the Hillary film should have been banned by the government?

Btw what were my personal comments?
I didn’t remember any and looked and didn’t find any that preceded the book burner thing
??

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Okay - so you are for banning movies based on their political content. Why would that also not be applied to books?
Say, a corporation paid an author and paid for advertising of the book, and paid for the distribution of the book - and the contents of the book were basically the exact same as the contents of the Hilary film you believe should be banned.

I’m sure it was first year law, but do remember which logical fallacy you are committing here?

 

[JimEverett]

I’m sure it was first year law, but do remember which logical fallacy you are committing here?

Failure to understand cryptic messages?

Why not just make your point?

 

[TaylorB]

If the government can ban a documentary film due to its content then what stops the government from banning a book based on its content? There is no intellectual leap required - and the lawyer tasked with defending the law admitted as much.

Intellectual leaps are in bold ☝

I could do the same thing: if the first amendment completely precludes the government from taking any action to address corporate political expenditures, then what stops anonymous foreign donors and special interest groups from funneling unlimited amounts of dark money into SuperPACs and putting their thumbs on the scale of politics? Pointing out negative consequences of a position is different than claiming those negative consequences are desired by the other side.

The specific fact-pattern Citizens addressed was not a law "banning books." It was a set of laws with a provision prohibiting corporate expenditures with specific political messages within 30 days of an election. No one was charged with a crime -- Citizens sought a declaratory judgment out of alleged concern of criminal liability for paying to broadcast the film within 30 days of an election. Citizens' point was the same as yours -- if the government can ban "X," then can't it also ban "Y"? What about "Z"? That's an intellectual leap -- following a logical argument to its extremity to test its limits. It was a smart argument, and one I'd have made if I were their lawyer.

While using those intellectual leaps is an effective way to argue an issue of constitutional law, it's an unfair way to frame an entire group's platform on an issue (remember my example with Trump and the pornstar?). This is especially true in this case, in which the proponent of the argument is acutely aware -- if for no other reason, because we've repeatedly said so in this thread -- that the Dems objection to Citizens has nothing to do with whether the government can specifically ban "X," "Y," or "Z," but rather has to do with the broader implication of the ruling: that the government can do literally nothing to curb that kind of spending.

Sure, if Citizens were overturned, we'd then be tasked with figuring out how to strike the proper balance with 1A vs. corporations, and we'd need to avoid slippery slopes. Justice Stevens took 90 pages of dissent to discuss this and much of other nuance in this thread. It would have been a lot easier for Justice Stevens to write "we should ban books," but that's just not what the opposition to Citizens is. I can't make you see it that way, but at this point I've done all I can possibly do to explain it.

 

[JimEverett]

Intellectual leaps are in bold ☝

I could do the same thing: if the first amendment completely precludes the government from taking any action to address corporate political expenditures, then what stops anonymous foreign donors and special interest groups from funneling unlimited amounts of dark money into SuperPACs and putting their thumbs on the scale of politics? Pointing out negative consequences of a position is different than claiming those negative consequences are desired by the other side.

The specific fact-pattern Citizens addressed was not a law "banning books." It was a set of laws with a provision prohibiting corporate expenditures with specific political messages within 30 days of an election. No one was charged with a crime -- Citizens sought a declaratory judgment out of alleged concern of criminal liability for paying to broadcast the film within 30 days of an election. Citizens' point was the same as yours -- if the government can ban "X," then can't it also ban "Y"? What about "Z"? That's an intellectual leap -- following a logical argument to its extremity to test its limits. It was a smart argument, and one I'd have made if I were their lawyer.

While using those intellectual leaps is an effective way to argue an issue of constitutional law, it's an unfair way to frame an entire group's platform on an issue (remember my example with Trump and the pornstar?). This is especially true in this case, in which the proponent of the argument is acutely aware -- if for no other reason, because we've repeatedly said so in this thread -- that the Dems objection to Citizens has nothing to do with whether the government can specifically ban "X," "Y," or "Z," but rather has to do with the broader implication of the ruling: that the government can do literally nothing to curb that kind of spending.

Sure, if Citizens were overturned, we'd then be tasked with figuring out how to strike the proper balance with 1A vs. corporations, and we'd need to avoid slippery slopes. Justice Stevens took 90 pages of dissent to discuss this and much of other nuance in this thread. It would have been a lot easier for Justice Stevens to write "we should ban books," but that's just not what the opposition to Citizens is. I can't make you see it that way, but at this point I've done all I can possibly do to explain it.

The problem with your argument is that you are basically saying the issue is with corporate money/dark money, etc and the issue starts and ends there - as if the general point or purpose somehow makes the actual practice of little or no import.
Banning a movie is exactly the result of the statute that was trying to keep corporate money out of elections. Surely you will not claim that THAT is an intellectual leap. It is not simpy a "negative consequence" - somehow unwanted. It is the exact consequence desired. I do not understand how that is obtuse or an intellectual leap, or whatever.

If you want corporate money out of politics then by necessity you are going to ban any item funded by corporate money that seeks to influence politics.

And my argument is not a slippery slope argument or anything close to that. And certainly not some "intellectual leap." Keeping corporate money out of electioneering means banning a movie like "Hillary" if corporate money was used in its production or dissemination. Its not a slippery slope to say books can be/will be/should be, etc. banned if the content is similar and corporate money was used in the production or dissemination in any way

 

[CoolBrees]

Again, Jim.

They didn’t object to the release of that piece of garbage. They object with the TIMING of the release of the garbage hit piece. It was within the 30 day prior to an election time limit for corporate release of propaganda films. Why do you keep ignoring this?

Arguing the merits of the law is pointless. It was standing law at the time, so stopping the realease was NOT an attempt at infringing in free speech, rather is WAS an attempt to make them follow the law.

 

[JimEverett]

Again, Jim.

They didn’t object to the release of that piece of garbage. They object with the TIMING of the release of the garbage hit piece. It was within the 30 day prior to an election time limit for corporate release of propaganda films. Why do you keep ignoring this?

Arguing the merits of the law is pointless. It was standing law at the time, so stopping the realease was NOT an attempt at infringing in free speech, rather is WAS an attempt to make them follow the law.

Okay - banning a book 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election still makes you a book banner, does it not?
And it is not strictly about the "release" - it would apply if a book or movie were released a year before the election - the book would be banned and anyone who sold it, read it publicly, showed it publicly, etc. would be under threat of prosecution - if done within the time frame the State commands that no one disseminates the information. I think that is very similar to Stalin's policies on the dissemination of information, maybe not as extreme - but certainly something of substance that Democrats and Stalin share.

Now the following might accurately be called a "leap" even though I do not think so - granting the government power to ban films, books, pamphlets, etc 30 days before primaries and 60 days before general elections strikes me as leaving the door open to banning them 45 days and 75 days, and then 60 days and 100 days, etc. I mean there sin;t anything "Constitutional" about a 30 day and 60 day ban, right? But, admittedly that is something different from what we are talking about.

 

[MT15]

Okay not a lawyer, obvs. But the premise I seem to be reading is that the “release” of said political pieces cannot be within 30 days of an election. To me, that just helps out in allowing proper vetting of untrue claims, it seems reasonable that is the intent. But there’s nothing to prevent the publishing of such pieces either before or after the window. So how is that “banning” of anything?

It seems like a leap to be sure.

 

[CoolBrees]

I will ignore the fact that it was standing law and how that excuse is dragged out ad nauseum on other issues and humor your unrelated question-

I would say it makes them a “book delayer.” I would say no one is saying you can’t release anything, you just can’t be a corporation or a union and release propaganda within 30 days. How hard was that? I would say, if your goal was to be released before election, get production done prior to 30 days - you know the law or should.

 

[JimEverett]

Okay not a lawyer, obvs. But the premise I seem to be reading is that the “release” of said political pieces cannot be within 30 days of an election. To me, that just helps out in allowing proper vetting of untrue claims, it seems reasonable that is the intent. But there’s nothing to prevent the publishing of such pieces either before or after the window. So how is that “banning” of anything?

It seems like a leap to be sure.

It is "banning" because the government is literally banning it. The government is criminalizing speech.

If the police search homes, businesses, any and every private space there is without a warrant, but only in the summer months, does that mean they are not unreasonably searching?

 

[JimEverett]

I will ignore the fact that it was standing law and how that excuse is dragged out ad nauseum on other issues and humor your unrelated question-

I would say it makes them a “book delayer.” I would say no one is saying you can’t release anything, you just can’t be a corporation or a union and release propaganda within 30 days. How hard was that? I would say, if your goal was to be released before election, get production done prior to 30 days - you know the law or should.

That is not true. Like I said above. It applies whether the release was before 30/60 or not. A movie released 90 days before an election would be banned within 60 days of the election.

I am not sure what the point is about "standing law" - of course it was standing law. Hence the challenge.