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 is an analysis piece, so basically an opinion piece, that tells the story of how the WSJ came to debunk (or more accurately failed to verify) the Hunter Biden email story. Yes, some of those same emails were provided to the WSJ before Rudy gave them to the NY Post. The WSJ insisted on investigating and attempting to verify them, the Trump gang got impatient, and voila we had the shirt show that we all witnessed.

Interestingly, the laptop being dropped off for repair and not picked up was never pitched to the WSJ. That appears to be a Rudy story. It was other guys communicating with the WSJ.

Anyway, the article really isn’t about that timeline, it discusses the decisions that have to be made by news departments, and how they are trying to make their way in an age where everything can be found on the internet anyway. It’s not that long, lol, you can read it pretty quickly, as opposed to my ramblings.

Trump Had One Last Story to Sell. The Wall Street Journal Wouldn’t Buy It. (Published 2020)

Inside the White House’s secret, last-ditch effort to change the narrative, and the election — and the return of the media gatekeepers.

www.nytimes.com

 

[MT15]

I watched the 60 Minutes interviews tonight. This moment really stuck out to me. Check out Harris’ response, it is totally the correct response to that ridiculous question. It was embarrassing for O’Donnell to have asked. She did not impress me during either interview, although I don’t recall anything this cringeworthy during her interview with Biden. Edit: warning, one f-bomb in the tweet that I didn’t see earlier.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I watched the 60 Minutes interviews tonight. This moment really stuck out to me. Check out Harris’ response, it is totally the correct response to that ridiculous question. It was embarrassing for O’Donnell to have asked. She did not impress me during either interview, although I don’t recall anything this cringeworthy during her interview with Biden. Edit: warning, one f-bomb in the tweet that I didn’t see earlier.

I watched the entire thing as well, there were no questions to Biden/Harris about what type of ice cream they like. I believe trump's questions were no harder than Biden's, it's just that trump is not smart enough to understand and answer those questions.

 

[MT15]

Trump cannot stand to have a woman ask him questions unless she is subservient. When Stahl challenged him on his lies, ever so politely, it was too much for him. Fragile.

I thought O’Donnell came across as a lightweight. She tried to look tough by sitting there and basically scowling. But she doesn’t show any skill as an interviewer.

 

[V Chip]

This is an analysis piece, so basically an opinion piece, that tells the story of how the WSJ came to debunk (or more accurately failed to verify) the Hunter Biden email story. Yes, some of those same emails were provided to the WSJ before Rudy gave them to the NY Post. The WSJ insisted on investigating and attempting to verify them, the Trump gang got impatient, and voila we had the shirt show that we all witnessed.

Interestingly, the laptop being dropped off for repair and not picked up was never pitched to the WSJ. That appears to be a Rudy story. It was other guys communicating with the WSJ.

Anyway, the article really isn’t about that timeline, it discusses the decisions that have to be made by news departments, and how they are trying to make their way in an age where everything can be found on the internet anyway. It’s not that long, lol, you can read it pretty quickly, as opposed to my ramblings.

Trump Had One Last Story to Sell. The Wall Street Journal Wouldn’t Buy It. (Published 2020)

Inside the White House’s secret, last-ditch effort to change the narrative, and the election — and the return of the media gatekeepers.

www.nytimes.com

I liked this excerpt from the piece.

Perhaps the most influential media document of the last four years is a chart by a co-director of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard, Yochai Benkler. The study showed that a dense new right-wing media sphere had emerged — and that the mainstream news “revolved around the agenda that the right-wing media sphere set.”

Mr. Bannon had known this, too. He described his strategy as “anchor left, pivot right,” and even as he ran Breitbart News, he worked to place attacks on Hillary Clinton in mainstream outlets. The validating power of those outlets was clear when The New York Times and Washington Post were given early access in the spring of 2015 to the book “Clinton Cash,” an investigation of the Clinton family’s blurring of business, philanthropic and political interests by the writer Peter Schweizer.

Mr. Schweizer is still around this cycle. But you won’t find his work in mainstream outlets. He’s over on Breitbart, with a couple of Hunter Biden stories this month.

(Emphasis mine)

Quite a departure from the "mainstream media is biased against the right" mantra we keep hearing.

 

[insidejob]

Totally bumping this dead thread because this article deserves to be read (even if it is written by Drew Magary):

Magary: Maggie Haberman and the Times will never get over themselves

To the point that the Times went ahead and profiled Trump correspondent Maggie Haberman...

www.sfgate.com

In 2020, I had to come with grips with the fact that many of the things about America I would like to change right now will instead take GENERATIONS to change, if they ever change at all. I’d like the Republican Party wiped off the face of the earth. I’d like Democrats to actually want this as well, instead of pretending that Republicans are somehow their most important voting base (by all electoral evidence, and by all common sense, they are the precise opposite). And I’d like the New York Times to pull its head out of its arse.

There’s no chance of ANY of those things happening any time soon. And while 2020 has forced the Times to perform the barest amount of public introspection and to engage in more diverse hiring practices (below its senior levels, at least), this longread from Reeves Wiedemann in New York Magazine offers predictable, enervating proof that the paper remains the dominion of clueless butt crevasses who abhor the idea of journalistic evolution. There are profit motives behind this, of course. Wiedemann says the paper’s subscription rate grew TENFOLD after Trump got elected. But more important, there remains the paper’s unofficial collective insistence that The Times Knows Best. And no one embodies those two qualities more than Trump correspondent Maggie Haberman, whom the Times went ahead and profiled themselves on Sunday. Why not? They have no public editor at that joint anymore. LET’S GET F--KING CRAZY!

...


The Trump Presidency Is Ending. So Is Maggie Haberman’s Wild Ride.

That’s the headline, the second part of which is inaccurate. In the profile itself, author Ben Smith notes that Haberman will remain on the Trump beat even after Joe Biden takes the oath of office. This supposed wild ride — four years of absolute f--king horror that proved tragic for millions of Americans and resulted in Haberman being subjected to unrelenting abuse herself — will go on. There is nothing all that heartening about this. But the Times is telling their own underdog story here, so Smith lionizes Haberman’s dogged reporting, her robust page view tallies, and the quality scoopage that she was able to mine from her exhaustive efforts. He does NOT note that Haberman is a product of nepotism (her old man is a former Times columnist), or that she has an extremely transparent habit of framing her likely sources in the most favorable possible light, with Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump being the most obvious benefactors of her horse trades. He also doesn’t note that one of the Times’ other White House insiders, Glenn Thrush, was demoted after horrifying accusations of sexual harassment and then quietly worked back into the fold, sharing a byline WITH Haberman today, no less.

...

That brand is currently profitable but also spiritually empty. That’s how the Times ended up being the voice of a white Democratic Party establishment that just got obliterated down ballot and has drawn all of the exact wrong conclusions as to why. That’s how, according to Wiedemann, Black employees at the paper are still evaluated in a disproportionately negative fashion compared to their counterparts. The Times sells itself as a mission to new employees and then, in the name of access preservation, undercuts that mission at seemingly every turn. They are deaf. I’m also a deaf person, but at least I came about my deafness literally, and by accident. For the Times, and for Haberman, it’s all by design. Tell them what they wanna hear and they’ll print anything.

I quoted more than a tease, so mod-edit if necessary, but I think everyone who's been trashing Maggie Haberman - like me - for the past four years would/will/should enjoy this read.

 

[RobF]

(Cross-posting from the Trump loyalists thread since it's more on-topic here)

I'd probably agree, and it it was not just limited to Social Media. Our BBC was VERY anti-Brexit, with over 75% of the pundits they interviewed being anti-Brexit. The tabloid newspapers stirred the brew by publishing all MANNER of scare stories, both pro and con ! People lost faith in the 'established' or 'mainstream' media, pushing them into the arms of Social Media !!

So I just wanted to note that the figure quoted there regarding the BBC is an essentially arbitrary and false figure put out by right-wing campaign groups who are actually biased.

For example, there's the 'Campaign for Common Sense' which is pretty much what you'd infer it is from the phrasing of this tweet, even if you didn't know it was founded by a Conservative:



Note that's not about 75% of pundits, it's about 75% of comedians appearing on the BBC, and it's based on their (again, biased) assessments of how 'woke' those comedians are.

Then there's also groups like 'news-watch', which describe themselves as 'independent' and 'media analysts' but in reality very obviously exist for the purpose of claiming the BBC is biased, are funded by right-wing groups and individuals to do so, and produce low quality 'research' claiming to show bias which is then taken up and promoted by right-wing media.

Naturally groups and individuals assess whether something is biased from their own biased point of view. If you're extremely left-wing, from that point of view the BBC will look like it's biased to the right, and vice versa. You can't assess to what extent the BBC is fair and impartial from a biased point of view.

But personally, I'd argue that the problem with the BBC, and media more widely, tends to be along the lines of false balance, and groups like the above exist to actively exploit this. Because inherent in the accusations of bias is the notion that there should be equivalence regardless of reality. For example, they'll complain that academics appearing on the BBC in an arbitrary week mostly opposed Brexit, and assert that this doesn't reflect reality... except that it does reflect reality, because academics do overwhelmingly oppose Brexit. Groups like the above exist to lobby the BBC into misrepresenting reality by over-representing pro-Brexit academics, and to give members of the public the impression that if most academics appearing on the BBC oppose Brexit, that's somehow not reflective of the reality. That in itself gives a false impression to the public and undermines trust in the BBC, to the long-term detriment of the public... but in the short-term (at least) interests of those groups.

This isn't new of course, we've seen similar things with lobbying and advocacy for action on climate change over the last few decades for example, and it also results in things like the unedifying sight of minorities being forced to defend why they should have basic fundamental rights against someone claiming they shouldn't, as if those positions are of equal merit.

 

[Roofgardener]

(Cross-posting from the Trump loyalists thread since it's more on-topic here)


So I just wanted to note that the figure quoted there regarding the BBC is an essentially arbitrary and false figure put out by right-wing campaign groups who are actually biased.

For example, there's the 'Campaign for Common Sense' which is pretty much what you'd infer it is from the phrasing of this tweet, even if you didn't know it was founded by a Conservative:



Note that's not about 75% of pundits, it's about 75% of comedians appearing on the BBC, and it's based on their (again, biased) assessments of how 'woke' those comedians are.

Then there's also groups like 'news-watch', which describe themselves as 'independent' and 'media analysts' but in reality very obviously exist for the purpose of claiming the BBC is biased, are funded by right-wing groups and individuals to do so, and produce low quality 'research' claiming to show bias which is then taken up and promoted by right-wing media.

Naturally groups and individuals assess whether something is biased from their own biased point of view. If you're extremely left-wing, from that point of view the BBC will look like it's biased to the right, and vice versa. You can't assess to what extent the BBC is fair and impartial from a biased point of view.

But personally, I'd argue that the problem with the BBC, and media more widely, tends to be along the lines of false balance, and groups like the above exist to actively exploit this. Because inherent in the accusations of bias is the notion that there should be equivalence regardless of reality. For example, they'll complain that academics appearing on the BBC in an arbitrary week mostly opposed Brexit, and assert that this doesn't reflect reality... except that it does reflect reality, because academics do overwhelmingly oppose Brexit. Groups like the above exist to lobby the BBC into misrepresenting reality by over-representing pro-Brexit academics, and to give members of the public the impression that if most academics appearing on the BBC oppose Brexit, that's somehow not reflective of the reality. That in itself gives a false impression to the public and undermines trust in the BBC, to the long-term detriment of the public... but in the short-term (at least) interests of those groups.

This isn't new of course, we've seen similar things with lobbying and advocacy for action on climate change over the last few decades for example, and it also results in things like the unedifying sight of minorities being forced to defend why they should have basic fundamental rights against someone claiming they shouldn't, as if those positions are of equal merit.

My apologies RobF, my 75% claim WAS incorrect.

It should have been 93% !!!

Pro-Brexit voices drowned out in BBC news programmes, new analysis shows

Pro-Brexit views have been under-represented on flagship BBC news programmes for decades, a new report published today by Civitas shows. While a large section of the population have long supported …

www.civitas.org.uk

I take your point about false equivelance. But then... why did the BBC even BOTHER to interview academics when the subsequent vote proved how out-of-touch with British feeling they where ?

 

[Dragon]

My apologies RobF, my 75% claim WAS incorrect.

It should have been 93% !!!

Pro-Brexit voices drowned out in BBC news programmes, new analysis shows

Pro-Brexit views have been under-represented on flagship BBC news programmes for decades, a new report published today by Civitas shows. While a large section of the population have long supported …

www.civitas.org.uk

I take your point about false equivelance. But then... why did the BBC even BOTHER to interview academics when the subsequent vote proved how out-of-touch with British feeling they where ?

Maybe because "feelings" and "fact" are two different things and not equivalent?

The academics may have said that from an economic or political point of view the UK was better off staying in the EU rather than leave?

That doesn't discount that people may FEEL that for other reasons it may be better to stand alone?

 

[Roofgardener]

Maybe because "feelings" and "fact" are two different things and not equivalent?

The academics may have said that from an economic or political point of view the UK was better off staying in the EU rather than leave?

That doesn't discount that people may FEEL that for other reasons it may be better to stand alone?

Well, I lived through it, and I got the distinct impression of bias. It's all very well saying '...from and economic or political point..." that Brexit would be bad, but then that has got to be offset by people highlighting the political and social point, which I don't think they DID.

 

[Dragon]

Well, I lived through it, and I got the distinct impression of bias. It's all very well saying '...from and economic or political point..." that Brexit would be bad, but then that has got to be offset by people highlighting the political and social point, which I don't think they DID.

It's not their job... If you ask a professor in Economics about Brexit he will naturally speak from that point of view..
And you "feeling" it was biased is again - just an oppinion based on your personal experience and feelings about Brexit which I don't think is neutral either


And when I look at Civitas (the group behind the article you quoted) I find that this study is among those they supported.

"He is the author of ‘The British Constitution Resettled: Parliamentary Sovereignty Before and After Brexit’ (Palgrave Macmillan) which looks at how EU membership impacted on historical precedents underpinning UK parliamentary sovereignty – and the basis for a new constitutional resettlement of powers after Brexit."

Hardly neutral I would say

 

[RobF]

My apologies RobF, my 75% claim WAS incorrect.

It should have been 93% !!!

Pro-Brexit voices drowned out in BBC news programmes, new analysis shows

Pro-Brexit views have been under-represented on flagship BBC news programmes for decades, a new report published today by Civitas shows. While a large section of the population have long supported …

www.civitas.org.uk

"These findings are drawn from a sequential analysis of the News-watch reports dating back to 1999"

Again, that's a regurgitation of News-watch's poor quality and highly biased 'research'. And Civitas itself is a right-wing think tank.

I take your point about false equivelance. But then... why did the BBC even BOTHER to interview academics when the subsequent vote proved how out-of-touch with British feeling they where ?

I'm not sure what you're arguing for there... even putting aside the point that how people vote is itself influenced by how a subject is covered and false equivalence is a factor in that, are you suggesting that the BBC should have deliberately excluded the majority academic view entirely on the grounds that it turned out that 'only' 16 million people agreed with it and 17 million people didn't at that particular point in time?

That seems like a reach.