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.

 

[MT15]

This doesn’t have anything to do with ”fake” news. If you want to discuss the NYT editorial policy, it should go in its own thread.

 

[SaintForLife]

Look at the Washington Post reporter purposely leaving out the next thing she said to leave a dishonest impression. It's hard to tell the difference between some reporters and Democratic activists.

 

[SaintForLife]

Look. 3 more reporters doing the same dishonest shirt. Most of the national media is nothing more than an arm of the Democratic Party.

 

[RobF]

Look at the Washington Post reporter purposely leaving out the next thing she said to leave a dishonest impression. It's hard to tell the difference between some reporters and Democratic activists.

They're all accurately, and clearly, reporting that Melania Trump said, "give me a <expletive> break," in reference to being asking about children being separated from their parents. The quote in the first tweet you've included there begins the quote with, "They said", and in the subsequent tweets, the first one states she says it "about reporters asking her," the second one also begins "they said" (and the third one is quoting her on "Christmas stuff" - not sure why you've included that one).

The context is clear in all of them. Not one of them suggests she's saying it literally "about the children", an interpretation which makes literally no sense.

And as for omitting the next thing said, that was, "Where they were saying that when Obama did that?" Which, inaccuracy of the statement itself aside, doesn't change the context of her preceding "give me a <expletive> break" which is in reference to reporters asking her about it, as the relevant tweets you've presented are showing.

It's really not clear what you're going for here, SFL, either in terms of why you think accurately quoting Melania Trump is 'dishonest', or in terms of what you think would represent honest reporting in this context. Perhaps you could present an example of a tweet you think accurately conveyed this story by way of contrast?

 

[SaintForLife]

This doesn’t have anything to do with ”fake” news. If you want to discuss the NYT editorial policy, it should go in its own thread.

Thanks pseudo-moderator, but the thread is also about the media.

 

[RobF]

Thanks pseudo-moderator, but the thread is also about the media.

It's about media literacy.

In that context, it makes little sense to assert that the NYT staff haven't objected, and implicitly that they aren't going to object, to an op-ed on the same day it was published. Much of the reaction to the Tom Cotton op-ed was behind the scenes and only in public in the following days; it was published on the 3rd June, and much of the coordinated tweeting of "Running this puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger" was the next day. So can you show that NYT staff haven't objected to this op-ed? No. Can you show that they won't object? Clearly not.

Especially since it seems highly unlikely. Even allowing for the inevitability of the distancing factor (an inflammatory article relating to the US will inevitably draw a larger, more widespread, and more immediate response than an article about China) and the corresponding factors (other events happening concurrently may inflame or dampen said response), there's simply no way that this op-ed, which is drawing critical responses from many of those who objected to the Tom Cotton op-ed, won't draw critical responses from NYT staffers.

Examples of that response:



And to really underline that, here's an example of a NYTimes writer objecting to it:

 

[MT15]

Thanks pseudo-moderator, but the thread is also about the media.

hey, I can’t help it that [mod edit: watch the personal attacks, please]

 

[SaintForLife]

They're all accurately, and clearly, reporting that Melania Trump said, "give me a <expletive> break," in reference to being asking about children being separated from their parents. The quote in the first tweet you've included there begins the quote with, "They said", and in the subsequent tweets, the first one states she says it "about reporters asking her," the second one also begins "they said" (and the third one is quoting her on "Christmas stuff" - not sure why you've included that one).

The context is clear in all of them. Not one of them suggests she's saying it literally "about the children", an interpretation which makes literally no sense.

And as for omitting the next thing said, that was, "Where they were saying that when Obama did that?" Which, inaccuracy of the statement itself aside, doesn't change the context of her preceding "give me a <expletive> break" which is in reference to reporters asking her about it, as the relevant tweets you've presented are showing.

It's really not clear what you're going for here, SFL, either in terms of why you think accurately quoting Melania Trump is 'dishonest', or in terms of what you think would represent honest reporting in this context. Perhaps you could present an example of a tweet you think accurately conveyed this story by way of contrast?

The following sentence is “where were they when Obama was doing that” which seems like important context when a reporter is tweeting about it don't you think?

 

[RobF]

The following sentence is “where were they when Obama was doing that” which seems like important context when a reporter is tweeting about it don't you think?

I already addressed that, in the post you're quoting and replying to:

"And as for omitting the next thing said, that was, "Where they were saying that when Obama did that?" Which, inaccuracy of the statement itself aside, doesn't change the context of her preceding "give me a <expletive> break" which is in reference to reporters asking her about it, as the relevant tweets you've presented are showing."

 

[SaintForLife]

I already addressed that, in the post you're quoting and replying to:

"And as for omitting the next thing said, that was, "Where they were saying that when Obama did that?" Which, inaccuracy of the statement itself aside, doesn't change the context of her preceding "give me a <expletive> break" which is in reference to reporters asking her about it, as the relevant tweets you've presented are showing."

Yeah I saw what you said and I disagreed.

 

[JimEverett]

What legislation have the Dems proposed to censor Americans? Trump is literally spewing that these protests are illegal and should be shut down which is the ESSENCE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. Also he constantly states the press should be censored. Your pearl clutching is tiresome.

Off the top of my head - Joe Biden wants to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act - and has argued that criminal liability for internet platforms is open. I think that clearly qualifies as censorship. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...nytimes-interview.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Not to mention the plank in the Democratic Party platform that seeks to overturn Citizens United - criminalizing books, movies, pamphlets, etc that promote a particular political campaign.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Off the top of my head - Joe Biden wants to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act - and has argued that criminal liability for internet platforms is open. I think that clearly qualifies as censorship. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...nytimes-interview.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Not to mention the plank in the Democratic Party platform that seeks to overturn Citizens United - criminalizing books, movies, pamphlets, etc that promote a particular political campaign.

Corporations aren’t people my friend.

And repealing Citizens United wouldn’t criminalize political promotion, what nonsense is this?

And unless I can’t read, Biden is simply reiterating the fairly well argued point that the current regulation regarding information platforms like Facebook is insufficient and should not be immune from civil accountability platforms like The Times are subject to.

But there continues to be a great bit of irony and doubt in my mind that people clutching pearls about Democrats taking away civil liberties and privacy truly care when they simultaneously bend over backwards to defend or deflect about Trump and Republicans explicitly doing just that time and time again. Whether it is in regards to labor rights and the right to assemble into unions, or to peacefully gather to protest in public areas, or for monopolistic ISP’s to harvest your data without consent and sell it to the highest bidder, or just whether it’s ok to write something mean about him.

 

[JimEverett]

Corporations aren’t people my friend.

That is a silly and vacuous phrase.

And repealing Citizens United wouldn’t criminalize political promotion, what nonsense is this?

Read the case - that is exactly what it is about.

And unless I can’t read, Biden is simply reiterating the fairly well argued point that the current regulation regarding information platforms like Facebook is insufficient and should not be immune from civil accountability platforms like The Times are subject to.

What Biden is arguing is that social media platforms, like this one, should be civilly, and perhaps criminally, responsible for user-generated content. Comparing that to the New York Times shows a lack of understanding of the difference between what a corporation like the Times does and what Twitter or MadAboutPolitics does.

But there continues to be a great bit of irony and doubt in my mind that people clutching pearls about Democrats taking away civil liberties and privacy truly care when they simultaneously bend over backwards to defend or deflect about Trump and Republicans explicitly doing just that time and time again. Whether it is in regards to labor rights and the right to assemble into unions, or to peacefully gather to protest in public areas, or for monopolistic ISP’s to harvest your data without consent and sell it to the highest bidder, or just whether it’s ok to write something mean about him.

Question was asked and I answered it.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

That is a silly and vacuous phrase.


Read the case - that is exactly what it is about.


What Biden is arguing is that social media platforms, like this one, should be civilly, and perhaps criminally, responsible for user-generated content. Comparing that to the New York Times shows a lack of understanding of the difference between what a corporation like the Times does and what Twitter or MadAboutPolitics does.


Question was asked and I answered it.

Again, I can read, that is not what Biden is calling for there as a whole. It’s not the most clear articulation but he is reiterating the argument that Facebook and major social media platforms should have larger liability and responsibility and the current regulation does not suffice.

And I have read the case, nowhere does repealing Citizens United magically criminalize political speech. It allows, based on the assumption that doing so would not corrupt or create the appearance of corruption, something the court has said allows for restrictions in this space, the unlimited spending of corporations and organizations in elections as long as the money is not directly coordinated or sent to the political individual or party being advocated for.

Reversing that ruling, or revisiting that ruling and concluding that such spending does in fact corrupt and promote the perception of corruption(pretty widely held view that this system is corrupt at this point) and therefore undermines public trust in our democratic system, doesn’t magically criminalize political speech, give me a break.

 

[JimEverett]

Again, I can read, that is not what Biden is calling for there.

He says it himself in the interview - he would hold Twitter civilly and perhaps criminally liable for user-generated posts.

And I have read the case, nowhere does repealing Citizens United magically criminalize political speech. It allows, based on the assumption that doing so would not corrupt or create the appearance of corruption, something the court has said allows for restrictions in this space, the unlimited spending of corporations and organizations in elections as long as the money is not directly coordinated or sent to the political individual or party being advocated for.

Reversing that ruling, or revisiting that ruling and concluding that such spending does in fact corrupt and promote the perception of corruption(pretty widely held view that this system is corrupt at this point) and therefore undermines public trust in our democratic system, doesn’t magically criminalize political speech, give me a break.

The case is exactly about criminalizing political speech. The broadcast of a film critical of Hilary Clinton was illegal under the law precisely because it was electioneering speech.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

He says it himself in the interview - he would hold Twitter civilly and perhaps criminally liable for user-generated posts.


The case is exactly about criminalizing political speech. The broadcast of a film critical of Hilary Clinton was illegal under the law precisely because it was electioneering speech.

It was illegal under the parameters of the working legislation, McCain-Feingold, for being an explicitly political advertisement against a campaign inside 30 days of an election.

Reversing that ruling doesn’t magically criminalize anything, let alone creat a vast free speech wasteland like you imply. It simply allows once again the space to regulate political money and advertising in that manner. Something we still do mind you. And something the court agrees is allowable for the reasons I already stated, even in Citizens United. The contention rests on what is an acceptable regulation on that activity in order to preserve the electoral processes integrity, and what is overstepping it and infringing on first amendment grounds because it is argued not to be activity that would undermine that process, in perception or in reality.

Now if you want to claim that unlimited dark money through super pacs and the like are not corrupting the electoral process or creating the perception of corruption, that will be a tough case to make but I’m open to hearing it.

 

[JimEverett]

It was illegal under the parameters of the working legislation, McCain-Feingold, for being an explicitly political advertisement against a campaign inside 30 days of an election.

So, the movie is illegal under McCain-Feingold.
Why is it illegal? because of its political content, namely - criticism of a politician running for election. How can you say that does not criminalize political speech? Seems like the definition of criminalizing political speech.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

So, the movie is illegal under McCain-Feingold.
Why is it illegal? because of its political content, namely - criticism of a politician running for election. How can you say that does not criminalize political speech? Seems like the definition of criminalizing political speech.

All the ruling did is reset the parameters for where and how election related speech can be regulated, and who or what is entitled to that judgement....It’s just that where they set the new boundaries and how is insanely problematic and directly produced the exact outcome the court argued in its majority would not happen and need not be concerned with.

It is/was the height of disingenuousness to claim that reversing that ruling magically criminalizes political speech about campaigns in some blanket fashion. It doesn’t. A reversal would in all likelihood simply allow laws like McCain-Feingold to be passed again. And what we have in absence of that is a system that now largely favors ultra wealthy donors and industries that have grown to have enormous outsize influence on funding the infrastructure around a candidates success and therefore making them responsive to their needs in an outsized way, undermining the very core of representative democracy.


Now if you want to start on that argument for why this arrangement we are currently in is an ideal structure to maintain the integrity of the democratic process, have at it, I’m curious to hear it.