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.

 

[zztop]

Here’s a link to the Seattle Times story that details the deceptive tactics.

Fox News runs digitally altered images in coverage of Seattle's protests, Capitol Hill Organized Protest

The image Fox used was a digitally altered mashup of photos from different days, taken by different photographers in Seattle.

www.seattletimes.com

SFL, I never mentioned race in my comment about Carlson, did I? There was nothing incorrect about what was said.

I actually came here to post about this, but looks like I'm a little slow.

 

[SaintForLife]

I don’t see where it’s suggested that he was only referring to black people - I thought it was clear that he was referring those engaging in destruction (some of which is pure 'vandalism' such as store looting, some of which is political in nature including the attacking of monuments). If people insinuated that he was simply referring to black people, that's clearly not accurate.

But his clear use of "they/them" and "us/we" is very deliberate. "They don't own this country, they didn't build it. So why are we letting them destroy it?" certainly suggests that "we" do own this country, we did build it. Even the longer clip has to be seen in context of Carlson's ongoing theme and presentation. Taking the longer clip but not seeing in that context is not much different than taking a short clip out of the context of the full segment. When you're defending the status quo, It's easy to insist on calm, on civility while simultaneously resisting the same objectives when they're pursued in civil fashion.

To be clear, I'm not defending pure vandalism in any way - and while I also reject the use of the destruction of property (such as a monument) as a means to a political end, I also recognize that sometimes those acts reflect the fact that civil means have failed to bring the matter to consideration by proper channels. I'll grant you that he was not referring exclusively to black people.

How would you know who he was referring to if that part of the clip was cut off? Who do you think he is referring to when he said they/them and us/we? Both of the clips were intentionally cut to make it seem like he was talking about black people? The context is quite different and if you think it isn't why do you think they cut it off the way they did? It's not like it was done to save space. The part that was cut off was the previous sentence or 2.

 

[SaintForLife]

Here’s a link to the Seattle Times story that details the deceptive tactics.

Fox News runs digitally altered images in coverage of Seattle's protests, Capitol Hill Organized Protest

The image Fox used was a digitally altered mashup of photos from different days, taken by different photographers in Seattle.

www.seattletimes.com

SFL, I never mentioned race in my comment about Carlson, did I? There was nothing incorrect about what was said.

Who is the "they" you were talking about?

 

[SaintForLife]

Senior producer for MSNBC's Tweet got 15,000 Retweets:


The actual quote:

It's the same media playbook as when they lied about what Trump said about Charlottesville.

 

[MT15]

Who is the "they" you were talking about?

That was answered already by Chuck. Who do you think he was talking about?

What did you think about the misleading vids used by Fox?

 

[MT15]

Senior producer for MSNBC's Tweet got 15,000 Retweets:


The actual quote:

It's the same media playbook as when they lied about what Trump said about Charlottesville.

What do you think Trump was trying to say? Honestly, he’s so inarticulate that it’s hard to make sense out of the rest of that word salad. What is innocent about the concept of a chokehold? What is perfect about the concept of a chokehold?

What does he even mean by the 1 on 1 and 2 on 1 stuff? Which one is a different story? When he says “generally speaking” is he saying there could be times it should be used?

It’s hard to read his words and not think he’s cognitively impaired in some way.

 

[SaintForLife]

That was answered already by Chuck. Who do you think he was talking about?

What did you think about the misleading vids used by Fox?

It's pretty obvious you and chuck were both insuating that he was talking about black people instead of the Democratic politicians and the vanadals. Look at all the comments on the two Twitter posts you each posted. Most of the people commenting were saying he was talking about black people except for the ones who noted who he was actually talking about.

Now it seems like y'all are backtracking after I posted the entire clips. You made a post with quotes with "they" and "you". Are you now saying the "they" was vandals? Who was the "you" that you were referring too? He was referring the vandals in the video Chuck posted and not yours which came first.

Besides, how would you have known that he was talking about Democratic politicians in the clip you posted and vandals in the clip Chuck posted when you hadn't seen the full clip?

The Fox videos are bad and should have never been on the air.

 

[SaintForLife]

What do you think Trump was trying to say? Honestly, he’s so inarticulate that it’s hard to make sense out of the rest of that word salad. What is innocent about the concept of a chokehold? What is perfect about the concept of a chokehold?

What does he even mean by the 1 on 1 and 2 on 1 stuff? Which one is a different story? When he says “generally speaking” is he saying there could be times it should be used?

It’s hard to read his words and not think he’s cognitively impaired in some way.

He said that he thinks it should be ended, but we all know why the MSNBC producer left that part out of his tweet.

 

[MT15]

He said that he thinks it should be ended, but we all know why the MSNBC producer left that part out of his tweet.

well, no he didn’t say exactly that either did he? He qualified it a couple of different ways. Really the part at the beginning of the quote is the most lucid part of that entire mishmash.

 

[MT15]

It's pretty obvious you and chuck were both insuating that he was talking about black people instead of the Democratic politicians and the vanadals. Look at all the comments on the two Twitter posts you each posted. Most of the people commenting were saying he was talking about black people except for the ones who noted who he was actually talking about.

Now it seems like y'all are backtracking after I posted the entire clips. You made a post with quotes with "they" and "you". Are you now saying the "they" was vandals? Who was the "you" that you were referring too? He was referring the vandals in the video Chuck posted and not yours which came first.

Besides, how would you have known that he was talking about Democratic politicians in the clip you posted and vandals in the clip Chuck posted when you hadn't seen the full clip?

The Fox videos are bad and should have never been on the air.

You, and I mean you specifically, need to stop deciding you know what other people really meant and putting words in their mouths. That’s a particularly heinous thing to do. You have zero idea what you are prattling on about.

I generally try to give you the benefit of the doubt, but in this case you have gone to great lengths to be as insulting as you could possibly be. I have zero problem calling out someone for being racist if that is what I see, and would have said so if that is what I meant in this case. I can express myself pretty damn specifically and I do not appreciate you or anyone else telling me I meant something other than exactly what I said.

I called him vitriolic. And that’s exactly what he is. He is carrying on with extremely divisive rhetoric, lying about people in order to fan flames of discord. Generally, when someone goes to great lengths to “other” someone else, they are being divisive. When you say things like he was saying, “they” are coming to get “you” it signifies extreme divisiveness.

He is losing sponsors over this, and he should be.

 

[insidejob]

It's pretty obvious you and chuck were both insuating that he was talking about black people instead of the Democratic politicians and the vanadals

That's your bias, not theirs. I saw those clips as him talking about people rioting and looting. Wasn't a far leap to make based on what was on the screen besides his face.

 

[insidejob]

well, no he didn’t say exactly that either did he? He qualified it a couple of different ways. Really the part at the beginning of the quote is the most lucid part of that entire mishmash.

After the beginning of the quote, it's rambling nonsense so his quote wouldn't have ended there.

 

[SaintForLife]

Only a little over an hour apart. I do understand that one is outside and the other is inside, but the benefits from wearing masks are negated by lack of social distancing and more than 15 minutes of close exposure.

 

[MT15]

SFL, who told you that the benefit of wearing the masks is negated by lack of social distancing and close contact? I’m not aware that we know that yet, at least not in any definitive way.

One instance that might argue against your conclusion is the Springfield MO Great Clips exposures. Two hair stylists were actively ill and still came to work, potentially exposing over 140 people. They were not social distancing and they were in close contact for more than 15 minutes in each case, yet nobody who was exposed to them contracted the virus. Had you asked the medical experts, they would not have bet on that outcome, yet here we are.

The theory in operation is that the face coverings worn by everyone may have made this happy outcome possible. So it very well may turn out that face coverings are our ticket out of this mess. Our way to fully open up the economy. Sort of ironic, huh?

 

[MT15]

The point is that we don’t yet know everything about this virus. But the virus is teaching us as we go along.

Two things about Trump’s rally that make it valid to be questioned by health experts. We do know that transmission of the virus is enhanced indoors. And we do know that face coverings help prevent transmission. Trump’s rally is indoors and face masks are not required, nor likely to be worn.

 

[insidejob]

OAN is not a real news source.

 

[MT15]

For everyone’s consideration. A thread. I feel like this is extremely accurate and we have all seen this tactic used. A lot.

 

[SaintForLife]

NPR vs Reality: