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.

 

[Joe Okc]

Amazing... I put this here instead of a new thread or the Corona virus thread...

So many people have been saying that Trumps has done a terrible job with the corona virus... So I googled "Trump's actions on Corona virus"... and here are the results.. All the front page is Negative.




So for S&G's i decided to use Bing and guess what... All the Front page was Positive.




With this kind of media and social media actions... It's no wonder our kids eat Tide Pods.
I am really at a loss for words but I think the pics will speak for themselves..

Amazed I am really... I think Search Engines should search fairly.. But it is obvious that they are manipulated in their searches...

 

[TaylorB]

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

The implication I took from the article is that the money that was supposed to come from the Middle East was somehow tied to a promise of favorable policy in the event of a Biden presidency. I don't know enough about Americore Health's business to understand what that promise would look like but that would certainly be problematic. I didn't see anything specific that Joe did as far as any sort of promise.

Hopefully Joe Biden has a good grip on how shady his brother is if the core allegations turn out to be true, meaning he'd be smart enough to stay away from those business ventures. My guess is if the brother has a tendency to throw around his last name and otherwise engage in shady business practices, he'd have done it while Joe was VP and Joe would have become aware of that at some point.

Interestingly, the plaintiffs in the Tennessee case claim the money James Biden was soliciting from the Middle East was the Qatar Investment Authority, which was a big shareholder in the investment group that bailed Jared Kushner out of his failing investment at 666 5th Ave. at a time when Trump and Kushner were publicly supporting a blockade against Qatar -- and which was lifted after they bailed Kushner out. I think QIA is still possibly fighting over subpoenas in sealed proceedings related to the Mueller probe -- who knows if anything related to this might turn up.

Fox breaks the irony meter when it complains about how the media covers Trump's opponents. But the investigations into these companies are worth watching. If James Biden is corrupt and breaks the law, he should be punished, just like everybody else. If Joe has been secretly promising foreign policy favors to Qatar he shouldn't be president. Joe OKC just remember to be honest with yourself about how you'd feel if it turned out Joe Biden were secretly negotiating a billion dollar Biden Tower in Doha, instructing his surrogates to lie about it, all while publicly calling on Qatar to hack Trump's campaign emails.

 

[brandon]

Amazing... I put this here instead of a new thread or the Corona virus thread...

So many people have been saying that Trumps has done a terrible job with the corona virus... So I googled "Trump's actions on Corona virus"... and here are the results.. All the front page is Negative.




So for S&G's i decided to use Bing and guess what... All the Front page was Positive.




With this kind of media and social media actions... It's no wonder our kids eat Tide Pods.
I am really at a loss for words but I think the pics will speak for themselves..

Amazed I am really... I think Search Engines should search fairly.. But it is obvious that they are manipulated in their searches...

I tested your experiment because I found it interesting. I received the exact same results.

One thing that is relevant to the discussion - Google's search results are significantly more up-to-date than Bing's.

Google Page 1 Results Dates, in order of search result:
3/8/20
3/2/20
3/7/20
3/9/20
3/5/20
3/6/20
3/5/20
3/10/20
3/7/20

Bing Page 1 Results Dates, in order of search result:
2/11/20
1/31/20
3/3/20
2/29/20
2/26/20
2/8/20
2/18/20
2/2/20
3/3/20
3/6/20

 

[insidejob]

I tested your experiment because I found it interesting. I received the exact same results.

One thing that is relevant to the discussion - Google's search results are significantly more up-to-date than Bing's.

Google Page 1 Results Dates, in order of search result:
3/8/20
3/2/20
3/7/20
3/9/20
3/5/20
3/6/20
3/5/20
3/10/20
3/7/20

Bing Page 1 Results Dates, in order of search result:
2/11/20
1/31/20
3/3/20
2/29/20
2/26/20
2/8/20
2/18/20
2/2/20
3/3/20
3/6/20

And he only showed the part of the page with only positive results.

But you're also correct that Bing is only showing pretty much old stories. Definitely not the most recent like Google is.

 

[Joe Okc]

I tested your experiment because I found it interesting. I received the exact same results.

One thing that is relevant to the discussion - Google's search results are significantly more up-to-date than Bing's.

Google Page 1 Results Dates, in order of search result:
3/8/20
3/2/20
3/7/20
3/9/20
3/5/20
3/6/20
3/5/20
3/10/20
3/7/20

Bing Page 1 Results Dates, in order of search result:
2/11/20
1/31/20
3/3/20
2/29/20
2/26/20
2/8/20
2/18/20
2/2/20
3/3/20
3/6/20

But what then is the criteria for front page news selection? Date, clicks, hits, or personal preference?
Funny though, how one spins Trump negative and the other positive.. when they should be searching the same interwebs.

 

[TaylorB]

But what then is the criteria for front page news selection? Date, clicks, hits, or personal preference?
Funny though, how one spins Trump negative and the other positive.. when they should be searching the same interwebs.

I guess that proves in this digital age that if you are trying to choose which search engine to use in a global pandemic, you just have to decide whether you're looking for up-to-date information on the 1,000+ confirmed US cases, or whether you want articles from 6 weeks ago when there were no US cases talking about how much Trump's admin is crushing it.

 

[Joe Okc]

I guess that proves in this digital age that if you are trying to choose which search engine to use in a global pandemic, you just have to decide whether you're looking for up-to-date information on the 1,000+ confirmed US cases, or whether you want articles from 6 weeks ago when there were no US cases talking about how much Trump's admin is crushing it.

But my search was defined to Trumps actions... not virus cases... so when I searched for Trumps actions one site brought up nothing but Trump screwed it up, and the other brought up praise...

I am at work and can't do it, but I wonder if you searched "Biden on gun control" on Bing and Google how far apart they would be?

 

[brandon]

But what then is the criteria for front page news selection? Date, clicks, hits, or personal preference?
Funny though, how one spins Trump negative and the other positive.. when they should be searching the same interwebs.

I think it may be a result of the fact that a month ago, things did not appear as serious as they do now.

 

[MT15]

On Joe’s Bing search the only positive articles are from NYPost, PJ Media and Fox. The npr article is neutral reporting and so is the CNBC article. I think we all know why those three articles are positive.

 

[wardorican]

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.


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.

So, not burning books then?

 

[JimEverett]

So, not burning books then?

I said earlier that "burning books" was definitely hyperbole, and is often used as a stand-in for banning books. Functionally, I don;t think there is a real difference between a book burn and a government book ban - except when the former is done by private citizens - like a Church, and the former by government edict, the latter is far more problematic.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I said earlier that "burning books" was definitely hyperbole, and is often used as a stand-in for banning books. Functionally, I don;t think there is a real difference between a book burn and a government book ban - except when the former is done by private citizens - like a Church, and the former by government edict, the latter is far more problematic.

So why did you intentionally use an inflammatory and hyperbolic stand in instead of just saying what you meant in the first place?

 

[JimEverett]

So why did you intentionally use an inflammatory and hyperbolic stand in instead of just saying what you meant in the first place?

Because I did mean to call book banners - "book burners", the same way I would describe someone who wanted to ban books at the local library.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Because I did mean to call book banners - "book burners", the same way I would describe someone who wanted to ban books at the local library.

Good to know. Great job elevating the discourse, Jim.

 

[JimEverett]

Good to know. Great job elevating the discourse, Jim.

Good to know you cannot address the issue. Great job deflecting, Cuddle.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Good to know you cannot address the issue. Great job deflecting, Cuddle.

The only issue I am addressing is your inflammatory remarks. Others have already addressed your arguments, so I see no need to continue piling on.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

The only issue I am addressing is your inflammatory remarks. Others have already addressed your arguments, so I see no need to continue piling on.

I think he thinks he made his point
As hard as that is to imagine

 

[MT15]

And he persisted with the hyperbole until he was pretty much forced to stop. Over several days and with multiple posters. I get being passionate about an issue and I’ve been known to be hyperbolic myself, it seems this is JimE‘s “trigger” maybe? I guess we can agree to disagree, because I will never welcome foreign interference in our political process, and I think it’s worth thinking about how to limit outsized influence by people or corporations with large amounts of money.