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.

 

[samiam5211]

Trump is a politician and politicians lie for a living. They state their opinions as facts in order to push their political agendas. If you add the combined lies told on a daily basis by Trump, Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Schumer, etc they probably number in the hundreds. I personally choose not to lose any sleep over politicians lying and I'm not going to even bother counting.

You could add Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, and Schumer's lies together and it wouldn't be half of Trumps.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Trump is a politician and politicians lie for a living. They state their opinions as facts in order to push their political agendas. If you add the combined lies told on a daily basis by Trump, Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Schumer, etc they probably number in the hundreds. I personally choose not to lose any sleep over politicians lying and I'm not going to even bother counting.

i get that 'everyone does it' is the way y'all justify the inanity that comes from your boy on the daily, but there is nothing anywhere close to an equivalency in this

 

[yuyi64]

You could add Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, and Schumer's lies together and it wouldn't be half of Trumps.

For those that prefer equations, the sum of their lies equals fake impeachment inquiry.

 

[samiam5211]

For those that prefer equations, the sum of their lies equals fake impeachment inquiry.

Well, the President sure is melting down over a fake impeachment inquiry. He certainly seems to fear it.

 

[Ayo]

Can you point me to one or two day’s that you are referencing? No offense, but I’m not confident in the nbrs provided. I’m sure you can understand that it is better to judge something for yourself than to take someone’s else’s word for it.

check Daniel Dale's twitter - he was just fact checking Trump's rally last night. He verifies statements and has established himself as a reliable fact checker. He was the DC beat writer for the Toronto Star and started keeping tabs, on his own time, at how often Trump was lying at rallies. It ended up being a full time job and he got more work and exposure doing this - because he was so diligent and detail-oriented

further, this notion of "judge something for yourself than to take someone else's word for it" is a bit misleading. You are not going to watch every rally, read every speech, listen to every appearance in press, read every tweet, etc and *then* follow up by fact checking it all, right?

So, you are going to have to rely on another source - I'm not sure what you are looking for. There's a database that I linked to. If that's not good enough, or you need something else, I don't know what that is.

I included two sources in the post, and one of them was Dale's regarding Trump's 100+ times lying about choice. If that's not explicit and valid enough, this might be a fool's errand I'm on here. Incidentally, he repeated this lie *again* last night (he's probably nearing 120 times, now, for this lie alone)



I am mentioning Dale because he is meticulous and thorough, with documentation to back up his work and claims when Trump skirts veracity.

If the database isn't enough and Dale isn't enough for you to acknowledge Trump's pathological predisposition to lies, then I am not sure what else to tell you.

 

[Beach Friends]

Well, the President sure is melting down over a fake impeachment inquiry. He certainly seems to fear it.

Actually, I have seen him give two MAGA speeches over the last few days and the man is in great spirits. And the crowds are spilling over to the outside.

He's not afraid of removal.

Its still 2/3 of the Senate right?

He's got this. He knows impeachment is a loser for Dems at the ballot box.

 

[yuyi64]

Well, the President sure is melting down over a fake impeachment inquiry. He certainly seems to fear it.

Hardly! It's the Dems who should fear the fury of the backlash coming their way next year.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Media literacy and fake news is a much bigger and more important issue than just Trump. One way or another, Trump's time as president will pass. The need for increasing media literacy and decreasing the influence of false propaganda will not.

I think we need a separate thread dedicated exclusively to the insistent Trump vs anti-Trump fighting. I'd like to say discussion, but there's far more fighting than there is any actual discussion. Every topic of discussion does not need to devolve into a fight over Trump.

The only thing to discuss about Trump in this thread is his direct involvement with or his influence over media outlets and whether or not he engages in false propaganda.

 

[Beach Friends]

I am mentioning Dale because he is meticulous and thorough, with documentation to back up his work and claims when Trump skirts veracity.

Thanks for the heads up on Dale.

I haven't seen you vouch for Snopes in a similar way and I noticed that you opted not to give any comments on whether you saw anything that you found troublesome in the Snopes treatment of the ABC issue.

Do you agree that a media savy person should be aware that Snopes is not really the gold standard of fact checking that more naive people seem to think it is?

Personally, I think that fact checking sites can be especially dangerous because people tend to think that they are free of bias and that they are more worthy of being trusted than perhaps they actually are.

What are your thoughts on that?

 

[Ayo]

I noticed that you opted not to give any comments on whether you saw anything that you found troublesome in the Snopes treatment of the ABC issue.

Simply put, because I didn't read it. And, as a general rule, if I don't feel informed enough about a particular topic, I don't weigh in.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Do you agree that a media savy person should be aware that Snopes is not really the gold standard of fact checking that more naive people seem to think it is?

What did you find factually innacurate in the snopes entry about the ABC video?

 

[Dragon]

Personally, I think that fact checking sites can be especially dangerous because people tend to think that they are free of bias and that they are more worthy of being trusted than perhaps they actually are.

Fact checking sites should as all other sites, be verified by your own research. I have found a couple that is fairly good. What they are good at is getting a quick overview over potential lies and untruths. But you still need to do your own homework too. Especially with the current administration who can't sometimes not even remember what they said the day before and often claim credit for things that happened before they even took power! (easily verifiable)

IMHO in this day and age - NOT checking the facts that we're being fed from many sides - especially Trump, is far mor dangerous than the opposite!!

 

[Dadsdream]

When pressed for answers, the founder of Snopes said he cannot respond due to non-disclosure agreements in his divorce.

Yeah, citing Snopes these days ain't what it used to be.

The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers

Pulling back the curtain, we find that the fact checkers may not be as open and transparent as we thought

www.forbes.com

Tacoma-based Snopes, debunker of fake news, is locked in a nasty legal dispute

After more than two decades battling internet hoaxes, retouched photos, and other fake news, David Mikkelson, co-founder of Snopes, faces a much larger and more existential adversary.

phys.org

 

[LA - L.A.]

When pressed for answers, the founder of Snopes said he cannot respond due to non-disclosure agreements in his divorce.

Yeah, citing Snopes these days ain't what it used to be.

The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers

Pulling back the curtain, we find that the fact checkers may not be as open and transparent as we thought

www.forbes.com

Tacoma-based Snopes, debunker of fake news, is locked in a nasty legal dispute

After more than two decades battling internet hoaxes, retouched photos, and other fake news, David Mikkelson, co-founder of Snopes, faces a much larger and more existential adversary.

phys.org

I read both articles. They raise questions about snopes based on the founder's divorce and business fights. I didn't see any specific examples of snopes being factually inaccurate. Both articles are basically just ad hominem attacks trying to cast doubt on snopes credibility because of a contentious divorce and business relationships.

An important part of media literacy is understanding that bias does not equal factually inaccurate.

There was an example of this said during the cold war between the US and USSR, that just because someone is a Soviet it doesn't mean they are going to lie when an American asks them what time it is. Even now, someone like Putin is going to lie about what the date is. Biased people can be factually accurate, so assuming someone is factually inaccurate solely on the basis of bias is a mistake and demonstrates a lack of media literacy.

 

[Dadsdream]

An important part of media literacy is understanding that when a fact-checker falls back on his divorce decree's non-disclosure agreement to dodge a question posed by the Daily Mail and reported in Forbes, that's squirrely, to say the least!

 

[Beach Friends]

An important part of media literacy is understanding that when a fact-checker falls back on his divorce decree's non-disclosure agreement to dodge a question posed by the Daily Mail and reported in Forbes, that's squirrely, to say the least!

I thought Snopes clearly jumped the shark when they fact checked the Babylon Bee, which for those who are unfamiliar with the BB it's a satire site. I would ask "what's next, the Onion," but they have essentially done that.

 

[samiam5211]

An important part of media literacy is understanding that when a fact-checker falls back on his divorce decree's non-disclosure agreement to dodge a question posed by the Daily Mail and reported in Forbes, that's squirrely, to say the least!

It doesn't really have anything to do with the veracity of the contents of the Snopes website.

Snopes and other fact checking websites have links to other sources and back up their findings.

Do you have examples of Snopes results that are factually incorrect? How many?

 

[yuyi64]

Every topic of discussion does not need to devolve into a fight over Trump.

Bingo! We have a winner! Unfortunately a lot of people here cannot resist the urge to slam Trump every chance they get so I don't think your wish will be granted. I wish people would realize there's life besides Trump and the Democrats and it's not worth obsessing over any politician or party.