Media Literacy and Fake News (3 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Ayo

    Spirit Grocer
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    896
    Reaction score
    2,328
    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.
     
    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.
    It criminalizes political speech - it is censorship. You yourself seem to admit that but you are now adding the caveat of criminalization in "some blanket fashion" which was not the question asked nor the answer given.

    But even given the limitations McCain-Feingold had in terms of criminalizing political speech - the problem is that in order to uphold the law the Courts must agree that the government does have the power to criminalize speech based on its political content. That is an awfully big right to cast away and once given there seems to be nothing holder back its expansion.
     
    It criminalizes political speech - it is censorship. You yourself seem to admit that but you are now adding the caveat of criminalization in "some blanket fashion" which was not the question asked nor the answer given.

    But even given the limitations McCain-Feingold had in terms of criminalizing political speech - the problem is that in order to uphold the law the Courts must agree that the government does have the power to criminalize speech based on its political content. That is an awfully big right to cast away and once given there seems to be nothing holder back its expansion.
    Oh, the humanity!! Their free speech, GONE

    ...The court has already made that determination that political speech/money can be regulated and has stood by it for a long time now. Including in Citizens United. The question at hand is whether there is sufficient evidence that the unlimited and barely regulated spending of corporations and individuals in service of candidates or parties is in fact, contrary to the court’s basis, corrupting or creating the appearance of corruption in the electoral process. The basis for which is used to adjudicate these matters. So no, the court does not have to rule in favor of criminalizing political speech based on content, that’s nonsense. It simply would need to demonstrate what past rulings upholding things like campaign contribution limits, disclosure laws, and intimidation restrictions have done, which is convince the courts that some proposed legislation or some challenge does in fact adequately address or expose issues of corruption or perceived corruption relative to first amendment concerns that requires an altering of that ruling.

    I’m still waiting for that argument for why this current arrangement is ideal and not fostering that corruption the courts have concerned themselves with? Why a world where limits are placed back on organizations and individuals to not advertise 30 days from an election and puts a cap on donations to Pacs or other political advocacy groups would be the end of freedom in this country?
     
    ...The court has already made that determination that political speech/money can be regulated and has stood by it for a long time now. Including in Citizens United.
    When has the Court ever held that political speech, due it being political speech, could be criminalized?
     
    When has the Court ever held that political speech, due it being political speech, could be criminalized?
    Political speech as in money.

    But the court has long upheld issues around disinformation that corrupts the political process, like the laws mentioned in the cited article under voter intimidation laws.

    And the court continues to uphold regulations around campaign contribution limits, disclosure statements on political advertisements, and other such matters.

    The better argument from your side would be that Citizens United being overturned is in actuality, very likely, not going to be the magical panacea the left tends to think it is. It’s also absolutely not going to be some fan fic libertarian death blow to freedom in this country. It would allow space for some meaningful reforms like a revised McCain-Feingold, but I think it will take a deep and holistic set of reforms to truly create the sort of honesty, equity, transparency, and functionality relative to intent that is needed to bring this system in line with the ideals of this representative democracy. Or at least the ideals most people seem to share.
     
    Okay, this is richly ironic. And I somehow didn’t realize that this particular website was this far gone.

    Read the byline under their name. 🤣🤣🤣

    26CCCB0E-B9D7-44DD-BD1F-F31C5E489717.jpeg
     
    Okay, this is richly ironic. And I somehow didn’t realize that this particular website was this far gone.

    Read the byline under their name. 🤣🤣🤣

    26CCCB0E-B9D7-44DD-BD1F-F31C5E489717.jpeg

    I can’t get past the perfectly punctuated and capitalized title. I’m almost willing to forgive any ridiculousness it contains.
     
    Political speech as in money.
    No, not as in money - actual politcal speech- as in a film with political content.

    But the court has long upheld issues around disinformation that corrupts the political process, like the laws mentioned in the cited article under voter intimidation laws.
    Not a good example. There are clear differences between speech designed to promote or disparage a particular candidate - electioneering speech; and speech designed specifically to intimidate voters. Citizens United has absolutely nothing to do with intimidation or "disinformation"

    And the court continues to uphold regulations around campaign contribution limits, disclosure statements on political advertisements, and other such matters.
    Sure. And Citizens United has little to do with these regulations. McCain Feingold sought a blanket ban on political speech precisely because of its content - not campaign contributions or disclosure information.
     
    I can’t get past the perfectly punctuated and capitalized title. I’m almost willing to forgive any ridiculousness it contains.

    they have an idiot savant running their web page? Because the content is bat shirt.
     
    I can’t wait for his identity to come out. Which it will. He will live the rest of his miserable life being harassed and moving from crappy paying job to crappy paying job because his academic career is over. I will probably send him a box of dog shirt.

    For those who think it is not cool to be happy that this clown is about to have his life ruined. You reap what you sow. You don’t want to be doxxed? Don’t pretend to be someone you aren’t.
     
    I don’t know if this is a new thing, but I cannot imagine that going into a partnership with RT is a good idea.

     
    Maybe they should try to not make it so obvious, but they probably don't even care.



    Politico:

     
    I can’t wait for his identity to come out. Which it will. He will live the rest of his miserable life being harassed and moving from crappy paying job to crappy paying job because his academic career is over. I will probably send him a box of dog shirt.

    For those who think it is not cool to be happy that this clown is about to have his life ruined. You reap what you sow. You don’t want to be doxxed? Don’t pretend to be someone you aren’t.
    Maybe with the cancel culture being all the rage right now with the left (I know, save your screeching, I know the right does it as well, just not nearly on the same level) it kind of a sad statement that a professor has to try and hide his identify in order to have the ability to speak freely.
    No, I don't know what he said as his alter ego, and I don't care. Because it wouldn't matter.
    This past week, a professor wrote an article explaining why college football/athletics were a good thing for America, especially in this strange time. Why, because it brings all of us together. You know sports. He pulled a full on Drew Brees and wrote this:
    https://www.insidehighered.com/view...e-higher-ed-article-he-recently-wrote-opinion

    I wonder if he will be able to keep his job or will be forced to move from one crappy paying job to crappy paying job?
     

    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.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom