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.

 

[CoolBrees]

First, saying I sound like TaylorB I will take as a compliment - thank you for you kind words. I agree with you. I too think he is highly intelligent and articulates his opinion impeccably. But I digress.

Jim, last point on this because I too busy to go too far down rabbit holes- You brought up Obama. Barack Obama is neither a corporation nor a labor union. He could have - and has - released anything he wants under his own name (and I think you know that). Same with those who were involved in the crap show on video you are defending. If it was an individual, then no problem.

But it wasn’t an Individual. The crapfest was written, directed and paid for by a Special interest corporation with the sole purpose of misleading the public before a vote. You know one of the only two groups the law affects. Not some hardworking conservative who just wants his opinion heard. No, a corporation whose opinion should NOT be heard - because corporations are faceless monoliths with profit as their only concern. And I am a founding principal in one. We make decisions based on what’s best for the company not America or god or even the people who work there. Profit uber alles.

And don’t say that corps have people that work in them- because they do - but those people still have their own rights and voting privileges as a citizen and are free to exercise within the law.

So why would I want to let that nonliving organization that doesn’t have our best interest at heart have a say in our politics? I wouldn’t and can’t imagine why anyone would.

By overturning the decision, the SCOTUS also gave personhood to corporations. That is what I oppose. That is what we ALL oppose I think. But again, I think you know that and are being coy.

 

[TaylorB]

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"

The RNC supports overturning Obergefell in which SCOTUS struck down a number of state laws prohibiting same sex marriage:

https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/static/home/data/platform.pdf?_ga=2.19152312.1277793932.1583864424-1565123588.1583864424

Jim's logic means "all Rs are in favor of all the same-sex laws Obergefell struck down," which of course makes all Republicans "gay discriminators."

"We're not gay discriminators," Rs say, "we just think the government should preserve the traditional definition of marriage." "Practically, I wish we could craft laws that try to accomplish both -- protecting gay people from discrimination while preserving the traditional definition of marriage," Rs say.

"Nope, sorry." Ds say in response. "You haven't shown that the practical effect of the specific laws Obergefell struck down wasn't discriminatory, and if we overturn Obergefell then who is to say states wouldn't write more laws banning gay relationships entirely, or worse -- it's simply impossible to draw the line and you haven't explained practically how it would work to try to come up with an alternative. So I'm sorry that you're embarrassed about this, R's, but you're all gay discriminators -- no nuance -- just, gay discriminators. As long as you don't like Obergefell it means you're a gay discriminator and I don't want to hear you talk about why you're against it because practically there's no way for those views to co-exist or for us to figure out a balance."

That's how we're debating complex issues now?

[Edit: to be abundantly clear, this is satirical hyperbole. Viewpoints across the political spectrum on hot-button issues like same-sex marriage are invariably more complex than this, which is precisely my point.]

 

[RobF]

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

Jim, failing to read the post you're replying to correctly and then LOLing and ROFLMAOing at it does not reflect well on you.

I referred clearly, to the continuing prohibitions on foreign backed electioneering communications. Citizens United overturned the prohibition on corporate funded electioneering communications, it did not overturn the prohibition on foreign funded electioneering communications.

the idea that Obama's autobiography is not an electioneering comunication defies all logic.

That's not what defies all logic here. It's almost like laws are typically interpreted with nuance rather than hyperbole, isn't it.

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

Again, that's not the alternative, regulating is. Arguing that "regulating = banning" is hyperbole. By that logic, Republicans support banning firearms.

But that said, "I'm fine with foreign money buying elections," is certainly a bold stance, but I'm fairly sure it's not the Republican one, which, again, by your tortured logic means Republicans are book-burners.

 

[JimEverett]

Jim, last point on this because I too busy to go too far down rabbit holes-

I am not sure why you are dismissing my argument as a rabbit hole. It is not. It is rather simple.

1. In order to stop corporate money from influencing elections, you must prohibit a corporation from influencing elections.
2. Publication and distribution of film, or a book, or a pamphlet that advocates for or against a particular candidate is an act of influencing an election
3. If an act of influencing an election is funded in part by a corporate entity, then
4. the publication, distribution, public showing, etc. of that film or book ill be stopped/banned.

Now, you can qualify it with a 30/60 day rule, but the purpose: the banning/criminalization of the publication and distribution of information is undeniable. It requires no going down a rabbit hole.

You brought up Obama. Barack Obama is neither a corporation nor a labor union. He could have - and has - released anything he wants under his own name (and I think you know that). Same with those who were involved in the crap show on video you are defending. If it was an individual, then no problem.

But it wasn’t an Individual. The crapfest was written, directed and paid for by a Special interest corporation with the sole purpose of misleading the public before a vote. You know one of the only two groups the law affects. Not some hardworking conservative who just wants his opinion heard. No, a corporation whose opinion should NOT be heard - because corporations are faceless monoliths with profit as their only concern. And I am a founding principal in one. We make decisions based on what’s best for the company not America or god or even the people who work there. Profit uber alles.

And don’t say that corps have people that work in them- because they do - but those people still have their own rights and voting privileges as a citizen and are free to exercise within the law.

So why would I want to let that nonliving organization that doesn’t have our best interest at heart have a say in our politics? I wouldn’t and can’t imagine why anyone would.

By overturning the decision, the SCOTUS also gave personhood to corporations. That is what I oppose. That is what we ALL oppose I think. But again, I think you know that and are being coy.

So, you would get around the corporate funding part by putting teh publication under one person's name? That seems weird and akes the law pointless.
So Exxon could just hire John Doe to write a book advocating for Candidate X, pay for its publication and distribution and that would be fine? I mean, that is what happened with Obama's book and you seem fine with that.
What about a movie? Only movies made solely by 1 person escapes the government's banning? Because there are very few movies made without corporate funds.

 

[JimEverett]

The RNC supports overturning Obergefell in which SCOTUS struck down a number of state laws prohibiting same sex marriage:

https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/static/home/data/platform.pdf?_ga=2.19152312.1277793932.1583864424-1565123588.1583864424

Jim's logic means "all Rs are in favor of all the same-sex laws Obergefell struck down," which of course makes all Republicans "gay discriminators."

"We're not gay discriminators," Rs say, "we just think the government should preserve the traditional definition of marriage." "Practically, I wish we could craft laws that try to accomplish both -- protecting gay people from discrimination while preserving the traditional definition of marriage," Rs say.

"Nope, sorry." Ds say in response. "You haven't shown that the practical effect of the specific laws Obergefell struck down wasn't discriminatory, and if we overturn Obergefell then who is to say states wouldn't write more laws banning gay relationships entirely, or worse -- it's simply impossible to draw the line and you haven't explained practically how it would work to try to come up with an alternative. So I'm sorry that you're embarrassed about this, R's, but you're all gay discriminators -- no nuance -- just, gay discriminators. As long as you don't like Obergefell it means you're a gay discriminator and I don't want to hear you talk about why you're against it because practically there's no way for those views to co-exist or for us to figure out a balance."

That's how we're debating complex issues now?

[Edit: to be abundantly clear, this is satirical hyperbole. Viewpoints across the political spectrum on hot-button issues like same-sex marriage are invariably more complex than this, which is precisely my point.]

If the Republican PArty platform supports overturning Obergefell then I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that Republicans support criminalizing gay marriage. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that Republicans believe the right to marriage only applies to one group of people and not another. Becasue that is the DIRECT result of overturning Obergefell. Just like the direct result of overturning Citizens United is that movies and books, and lots of other things would be subject to government banning.

 

[Beach Friends]

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 have an issue with this desire to have a prior restraint on speech based on the premise it may not be "true."

Elizabeth Warren sounded like she wanted to go down that road and it sounds pretty Orwellian to me.

I don't want Warren or anyone else heading up a Ministry of Truth.

 

[TaylorB]

For what it's worth, Citizens has never been particularly popular among any party:

From Politico, July 2019:

Ipsos, August 2017:

ABC-WaPo, 2010

So apparently lots of people are book burners. Except that the questions in those polls are framed in the way you'd expect them to be framed, discussing SuperPACs and campaign spending. If they'd asked "do you support banning books" without context I figure the results would be different.

And do we suppose the increase in R support over the years is tied to some of them coming around to not wanting to be "book burners," or because of the studies showing how much of an advantage the Citizens decision gives Rs in congressional elections?

 

[JimEverett]

Jim, failing to read the post you're replying to correctly and then LOLing and ROFLMAOing at it does not reflect well on you.

I referred clearly, to the continuing prohibitions on foreign backed electioneering communications. Citizens United overturned the prohibition on corporate funded electioneering communications, it did not overturn the prohibition on foreign funded electioneering communications.

What specifically are you referring to? Because you were not clear. What statute (with the name "Bipartisan" in the title) authorizes the government to ban movies/books if a foreign corporate entity finances any part of the publication and it is deemed electioneering?

That's not what defies all logic here. It's almost like laws are typically interpreted with nuance rather than hyperbole, isn't it.

I was referring to "The Audacity of Hope" - so maybe I was wrong to say autobiography. That Audacity of Hope was published 3 months before Obama officially declared his candidacy. It was an electioneering publication. And I am sure his autobiography was re-released as well in an effort to help Obama get elected.

Again, that's not the alternative, regulating is. Arguing that "regulating = banning" is hyperbole. By that logic, Republicans support banning firearms.

Citizens United overturned a law that PROHIBITED . . . So yes, in this case regulating does equal banning.

But that said, "I'm fine with foreign money buying elections," is certainly a bold stance, but I'm fairly sure it's not the Republican one, which, again, by your tortured logic means Republicans are book-burner

 

[V Chip]

So I'm sorry that you're embarrassed about this, R's, but you're all gay discriminators -- no nuance -- just, gay discriminators.

According to Jim, all Republicans hate gays, blacks, women, the educated... the list goes on. It's the logical conclusion of the official positions of the Republican Party platform, right?

 

[Farb]

Yeah Jim. Get with it. The left doesn't want to ban books, just at certain times and about certain subjects. What so hard about that? It is not like they want to censor your freedom of speech on Facebook and Twitter....well, only for specific messages that they don't like.

Remember abortion..."safe, legal and rare"? Thats all they want and that is all they seek. Not safe, celebrated and in abundance. Your being paranoid.

Remember guns. Stop being so paranoid, they don't want to take you guns. Just scary ones. Ask Biden and his new gun czar, Beto. Your being paranoid.

Remember your religion, its fine. No one cares where you worship, as long as that religion supports their views and you don't talk about your beliefs in public. And it better not be christian because that is the majority, can't have that.

No, your being paranoid. The left (not democrats) always says very clearly what they want to do and it is pretty straight forward and forward thinking and they never keep pushing for more than they really say. Don't be a alt right crazy.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Do you imagine you’re helping Jim’s argument?

 

[BobE]

 

[Joe Okc]

According to Jim, all Republicans hate gays, blacks, women, the educated... the list goes on. It's the logical conclusion of the official positions of the Republican Party platform, right?

Actually, that is the Democratic marketing campaign to try an obtain the vote. You very well know that the old statement "If you voted for Trump your a racist" has been thrown around by the Democrats for the past three years...

That's funny right there... Just proves what I said to v chip.. how the left will fling insults when it suits their needs....

 

[FullMonte]

That's funny right there... Just proves what I said to v chip.. how the left will fling insults when it suits their needs....

Or, they were using a term that was being used, and found out it was offensive to some in the intervening two month period.

The argument would work better if the NYT used that term AFTER they reported it was offensive.

 

[RobF]

OK, for the record:

2 U.S.C. § 441e(a) as amended in 2002 by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibits foreign nationals from financing electioneering communications, much as 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b) prohibited corporations or labor organisations from financing electioneering communications.

Citizens United v. FEC overturned the latter (corporate), but not the former (foreign).

Bluman v. FEC upheld the former, ruling that 2 U.S.C. § 441e(a) as amended in 2002 barred Benjamin Bluman, a Canadian, from, among other things having flyers printed supporting President Obama's reelection and distributing them in Central Park.

If barring electioneering communications financed by corporations is tantamount to book-burning - which it is not - then so is barring electioneering communications financed by foreign nationals. Republicans do not, to my knowledge, support foreign money buying elections and do not have lifting the prohibition as part of their platform, ergo, by the tortured logic being presented, they support book burning. Which they do not in this regard, any more than Democrats do, because that entire argument is absurd hyperbole.

'Electioneering communication' is defined by law with nuance, and not by partisan hyperbole, regulating foreign expenditure is necessary to preserve the process of democratic self-government, and it is entirely valid to believe that regulating corporate expenditure is also necessary for the same.

As this has very little to do with media literacy or fake news - apart from the argument itself constituting fake news - this concludes my contributions to this particular topic here.

 

[TaylorB]

OK, for the record:

2 U.S.C. § 441e(a) as amended in 2002 by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibits foreign nationals from financing electioneering communications, much as 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b) prohibited corporations or labor organisations from financing electioneering communications.

Citizens United v. FEC overturned the latter (corporate), but not the former (foreign).

Bluman v. FEC upheld the former, ruling that 2 U.S.C. § 441e(a) as amended in 2002 barred Benjamin Bluman, a Canadian, from, among other things having flyers printed supporting President Obama's reelection and distributing them in Central Park.

If barring electioneering communications financed by corporations is tantamount to book-burning - which it is not - then so is barring electioneering communications financed by foreign nationals. Republicans do not, to my knowledge, support foreign money buying elections and do not have lifting the prohibition as part of their platform, ergo, by the tortured logic being presented, they support book burning. Which they do not in this regard, any more than Democrats do, because that entire argument is absurd hyperbole.

'Electioneering communication' is defined by law with nuance, and not by partisan hyperbole, regulating foreign expenditure is necessary to preserve the process of democratic self-government, and it is entirely valid to believe that regulating corporate expenditure is also necessary for the same.

As this has very little to do with media literacy or fake news - apart from the argument itself constituting fake news - this concludes my contributions to this particular topic here.

This is a really strong argument. I can't come close to topping this, so I'll concur in the mic drop on the topic and bow out until the next one. I reiterate my commitment to non-hyperbolic debate on partisan issues for any who are willing to engage. I don't think we are as far apart as we've recently convinced ourselves we are.

 

[JimEverett]

OK, for the record:

2 U.S.C. § 441e(a) as amended in 2002 by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibits foreign nationals from financing electioneering communications, much as 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b) prohibited corporations or labor organisations from financing electioneering communications.

Citizens United v. FEC overturned the latter (corporate), but not the former (foreign).

Bluman v. FEC upheld the former, ruling that 2 U.S.C. § 441e(a) as amended in 2002 barred Benjamin Bluman, a Canadian, from, among other things having flyers printed supporting President Obama's reelection and distributing them in Central Park.

If barring electioneering communications financed by corporations is tantamount to book-burning - which it is not - then so is barring electioneering communications financed by foreign nationals. Republicans do not, to my knowledge, support foreign money buying elections and do not have lifting the prohibition as part of their platform, ergo, by the tortured logic being presented, they support book burning. Which they do not in this regard, any more than Democrats do, because that entire argument is absurd hyperbole.

Okay, then I was correct in what I thought you are referring to when I was "LOLing and ROFLMAOing" at your post that you claim I did not read. That 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act received less than 20% support from Republican members and 95% support from Democratic members. The idea that it was bipartisan is somewhat laughable - hence the smiley in my response to you.

Further, your point rests on the idea that Republicans are somehow equally as supportive of the legislation when less than a fifth of Republicans supported it vs. 95% of Democrats is also laughable.

The fact is that it is not bipartisan. Democrats overwhelmingly support the idea of prohibiting speech based on its political content and its funding sources, Republicans, based on the vote of the legislation you are referring to - overwhelming reject prohibiting such speech.

Furthermore, only 1 party has in its platform support for overturning a Supreme Court decision that restricted the government from banning a movie.

 

[Joe Okc]

Just figured this needed to go here... wanna discuss??? No.. Cause I view it as par for the course..

Mainstream media ignore report of Joe Biden's brother facing fraud allegations

A new report revealed legal problems and allegations of possible fraud involving former Joe Biden's brother, James, on Monday – but anyone who relies on the mainstream media would have no idea.

www.foxnews.com