Media Literacy and Fake News (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Ayo

    Spirit Grocer
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    896
    Reaction score
    2,307
    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.
     
    'Trump May Be a 'Habitual Liar and an Unreconstructed Narcissist,' But So is CNN'

    I think Cooke hits the nail on the head here:

    CNN was careful and self-consciously nonpartisan — or, at least, it was keen for viewers to believe that it was.

    ...These days, CNN is a peculiar and unlovely hybrid of progressive propaganda outlet, oleaginous media apologist, sexless cultural scold, and frenzied Donald Trump stalkerblog.
    I’m ok with removing Trump and CNN
     
    My editors used to send notices for reporters to stop using this word, or that word, because they had become overused, trite and meaningless.

    It reaches a point where readers either read past the word or ignore any story that contains such a word in the headline.

    Such is the case with "bombshell" and "explosive" of late.

    Previous posts and discussions about the overuse of the term "bombshell" by CNN and the NYT:

    AdamSchiffDevinNunesAPimage.jpg


    We are full steam ahead into day five of the public impeachment inquiry theatrics hearings taking place on Capitol Hill, and the way the mainstream media has breathlessly reported on the various testimonies, you'd think that everything was a "bombshell" indictment of President Trump and even VP Pence, and that Americans were glued to their TVs and smartphones in record numbers to watch the goings on.

    Continue reading...
    Day after day after day after day of "BOMBSHELL!" and "EXPLOSIVE!" testimony will do that to you.
    I haven’t been able to stand watching CNN for years precisely because of that crap. It’s like nails on a chalkboard at times.
    I wish I had a nickle for every "explosive" and "bombshell" report by the NYT that "unnamed senor officials" said they told DJT to do one thing in the interest of the nation, but he did something else, so THAT is proof that he only looks out for his own interests and THAT warrants removing him from office.

    Good grief, Charlie Brown.

    Wow. It's another CNN "bombshell." Yawn.

     
    Last edited:
    Perhaps try and make your point about sensational headlines overstocking their landing to attract consumers that respond to it with an article more suited to the task next time?

    One that’s substance isn’t about unredacted emails that expose Trump and the administration, making it clear that actions he was insisting upon were counter to our national security interests and possibly illegal. That confirms Trump’s awareness of these facts and subsequent decision to continue pushing forward with the extortion anyways. Because using this article, in this thread, comes off like you are simply trying to lazily handwave a substantive piece of journalism rooted in primary documents because you have a subjective disagreement about what constitutes the use of the word bombshell. This thread is seemingly for improving media literacy, not live-blogging the ways people feed their motivated reasoning processes.
     
    its an opinion piece. It’s important to make that distinction, yet you continue to conflate the two. It’s rather odd for a former journalist, no?
    It was a follow-on of a chain of posts examining the overuse of the word "bombshell" by the NYT and CNN, as part of the discussion "Media Literacy and Fake News."
    See Post 401 for reference.
     
    You could have a point, but using an opinion piece as an illustration really dilutes the point you were trying to make. At least to me.
     
    COVINGTON, Ky. (FOX19) - CNN agreed Tuesday to settle a lawsuit with Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann.
    The amount of the settlement was not made public during a hearing at the federal courthouse in Covington, Kentucky.
    Sandmann’s lawsuit sought $800 million from CNN, the Washington Post and NBC Universal.
    Trial dates are still not set for Sandmann’s lawsuit against NBC Universal and the Washington Post.
    The Washington Post suit sought $250 million. A federal judge let a portion of the suit go forward after The Post filed a motion to dismiss it.

     
    The following video is NSFW due to language. For those who are not familiar with him, Jimmy Dore is a progressive comedian who focuses on political issues. Here he exposes in one short clip the bias of the NY Times and CNN against Bernie Sanders in the "Bernie is a Sexist" campaign:
     
    The following video is NSFW due to language. For those who are not familiar with him, Jimmy Dore is a progressive comedian who focuses on political issues. Here he exposes in one short clip the bias of the NY Times and CNN against Bernie Sanders in the "Bernie is a Sexist" campaign:


    Yea, Bernie isn't a sexist.

    A large number of his millennial supporters are sexist. That is why Bernie gets such bad rap.

    Socialist incels are all Berniebros
     

    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.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom