Media Literacy and Fake News (2 Viewers)

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.
     
    And that is how corporations were made into people. With arguments like that.

    Again, Jim I would want you as my lawyer.
     
    And that is how corporations were made into people. With arguments like that.

    Again, Jim I would want you as my lawyer.
    What does that mean?

    I could write a book or direct/make a movie. If I set up a company to distribute it or hire one to do so- do/should I suddenly lose my free speech rights in the product?
     
    No. A movie was not allowed for 30 days before a Presidential primary and 60 days prior to the general election. And the Supreme Court challenge was whether it could be construed as an ad.

    Again, this is exactly how we ended up with corporations owning our government.
     
    No. A movie was not allowed for 30 days before a Presidential primary and 60 days prior to the general election. And the Supreme Court challenge was whether it could be construed as an ad.

    Again, this is exactly how we ended up with corporations owning our government.
    Anything that mentions a candidate could be construed as an ad. Again - a book (to use Justice Robert's example) that is 500 pages long that says in the last sentence, "People should consider John Doe's record when deciding whether to vote for him" would fall under the statute and be banned.
     
    And that is how corporations were made into people. With arguments like that.

    Again, Jim I would want you as my lawyer.
    I should have added - with comments like that I am not sure how anyone could conclude that you are not for banning books, given that virtually every book today is published via some form of corporate money.
     
    So maybe let’s go at this the other way. Should someone with a vested interest be able to publish lies about a candidate and pay to send a copy of these lies into every voter’s home so close to the election that the lies cannot be refuted? Is that a problem, or no?
     
    I don’t agree with banning books. I don’t agree with propaganda being released to swing elections no matter the timing, but people are allowed to be sleaze.

    I think you know what part of Citizens United the Democrats disagree with, and it has nothing to do with the film itself. It is the unintended consequences of allowing corporations carte blanche to buy elections.
     
    So maybe let’s go at this the other way. Should someone with a vested interest be able to publish lies about a candidate and pay to send a copy of these lies into every voter’s home so close to the election that the lies cannot be refuted? Is that a problem, or no?
    You can justify book banning all you want. My concern is with the government banning any speech, not to mentions giving the govenment the power to determine whether a book has "lies" in it.
     
    I don’t agree with banning books. I don’t agree with propaganda being released to swing elections no matter the timing, but people are allowed to be sleaze.

    I think you know what part of Citizens United the Democrats disagree with, and it has nothing to do with the film itself. It is the unintended consequences of allowing corporations carte blanche to buy elections.
    That sounds like Taylor's argument. Speak in broad generalities and ignore how the view is put into actual practice.

    If you want to use the power of the state to prohibit corporate money from influencing an election then it stands to reason you are for banning books that attempt to influence an election and that are funded, in any way, with corporate money. That makes you a book banner, or the more hyperbolic and pejorative - "book burner"
     
    you know, one side is discussing in good faith and trying to find common ground without throwing out accusations. And then there’s you, Jim.

    You are obviously incapable or discussing this civilly. I wonder why, but sadly, am not surprised anymore.
     
    you know, one side is discussing in good faith and trying to find common ground without throwing out accusations. And then there’s you, Jim.

    You are obviously incapable or discussing this civilly. I wonder why, but sadly, am not surprised anymore.
    Frankly I am not surprised that you continue to discuss personal issues as opposed to sticking to the topic. So sad, but I guess that is what you have become.
     
    Oh, I don’t take your hostility personally. Just find it sad that you cannot even discuss the issue without resorting to it. You weren’t always like this.
     
    you know, one side is discussing in good faith and trying to find common ground without throwing out accusations. And then there’s you, Jim.

    You are obviously incapable or discussing this civilly. I wonder why, but sadly, am not surprised anymore.
    It's baffling. It's a clearly flawed argument, relying entirely on hyperbole, that would also apply to the Republican party (partly because it was a bipartisan act - literally in the name - and partly because the provision on foreign nationals and governments still stands in federal law and after all, "If you want to use the power of the state to prohibit corporate foreign money from influencing an election then it stands to reason you are for banning books that attempt to influence an election and that are funded, in any way, with corporate foreign money).

    It's very strange.
     
    It's baffling. It's a clearly flawed argument, relying entirely on hyperbole, that would also apply to the Republican party (partly because it was a bipartisan act - literally in the name - and partly because the provision on foreign nationals and governments still stands in federal law and after all, "If you want to use the power of the state to prohibit corporate foreign money from influencing an election then it stands to reason you are for banning books that attempt to influence an election and that are funded, in any way, with corporate foreign money).

    It's very strange.
    The Republican party does not have in their platform the call for a constitutional amendment overturning the Citizens United case - so your argument that my argument would apply to the Republican PArty as well is clearly flawed.
    As far as the foreign nationals argument - I am not sure what you are saying.
    I do know that Barack Obama's autobiography was published by Random House - which is owned by Bertelsmann - a German company. Are you saying that the U.S. government had the power to stop the distribution of Obama's autobiography because of foreign corporate money used in its publication and dissemination?
     
    Republicans supported the act in the first place - again, bipartisan - and don't, as far as I am aware, support overturning the prohibitions against foreign spending, and hence, according to the terrible logic being applied here, support book burning.

    Did anyone else not get that? I can try to make it clearer.

    Obama's autobiography isn't an electioneering communication.

    Do you support foreign money influencing elections, Jim?
     
    Republicans supported the act in the first place - again, bipartisan - and don't, as far as I am aware, support overturning the prohibitions against foreign spending, and hence, according to the terrible logic being applied here, support book burning.

    Did anyone else not get that? I can try to make it clearer.
    LOL.
    Again - Republicans are not calling for the repeal of the decision. It is not part of the party platfor.

    Also, less than a fifth of the Republican members of Congress voted for the legislation. 95% of Democrats voted for it. Yeah, your argument is a good one :ROFLMAO:

    Obama's autobiography isn't an electioneering communication.
    the idea that Obama's autobiography is not an electioneering comunication defies all logic. Why? Because it did not explicitly say "Vote for me"?
    Which brings up another point - if it did say that, you would suddenly be in favor of banning it?

    Do you support foreign money influencing elections, Jim?

    I am fine with foreign money funding books, films, pamphlets, etc. especially given the alternative of banning them.

    Are you in favor of banning books on the basis of their political content and the fact that foreign money was used in any way for its pubicantion and distribution?
     
    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?
    within a 30 day window....does that change things?
     

    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