Are Republicans already unironically upset that the majority of examples of misinformation are from conservative sources?
I honestly hope that isn’t true, even if left wing sources are harder to find. This is a case where I believe showing ‘both sides’ is necessary. It’s less likely that they will be duped by people on the left, but it is still possible and they need to be aware of that.
I don’t like the idea of having to provide an equal amount of examples from ‘both sides’ when that isn’t matching reality, on an issue specifically affecting one political party more than the other (or maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine, I don’t know). There are misinformation examples from probably every part of the political spectrum, but they should be exemplified proportionally. Showing the reality, which is that a majority of fake news is generated by conservative sources, is important.
Yeah, I recall someone from the BBC saying something similar when it came to covering Brexit. It would take their producers days to find a credible, coherent voice that was pro-Brexit, while the anti-Brexit folks were basically lined up to voice their reasoning. That dichotomy was never revealed to listeners and caused some strife amongst the news team as it seemed disingenuous to present both sides as equal
It shouldn’t be about who is doing it more, it should be about how to recognize propaganda. Propaganda can come from any side of the political spectrum. Saying “they do it more” doesn’t help when just trying to teach the basics.
It isn’t about who is doing it more, it’s about giving examples. Those examples have to come from somewhere, and if you aren’t cherrypicking…those examples are going to skew in one direction, which is the original complaint I was anticipating.
But propaganda and fake news are different things. Propaganda can be made up but it doesn’t have to be, it can be (and frequently is) entirely truthful. If there’s a class on spotting fake news, and it’s any good, it will note that distinction.
Yeah the fairness doctrine would help
The problem is that we’ve gotten so far from the middle that it’s going to take a generation to wrangle it (reasonable intellectual debate) back. If you’re giving equal opportunity to both sides, you’ll need time for lengthy debates to resolve in an acceptably neutral manner.
The “truth” used to be within arm’s reach. Reasonable discussion could be had from either side of an issue. Today, you’ve got two parties (regardless of politics) who appear to maybe be commenting on the same topic but it’s like they’re on different planets now. Few people, including you and I right this moment, take enough time to engage in the original conversation and instead inject their narrative into something unrelated.
The internet has allowed everyone with an opinion to barf it all over the place while their lemmings lick it up and regurgitate the same cold greasy pizza. This (literally, this comment) distracts from the topic at hand and diverts people to engage in things that infrequently mean anything at all.
This really comes down to responsible journalism. It seems to me that responsible journalism, and “equal time for both sides”, can’t proliferate in a world driven by hits of dopamine on social media. What schools should be teaching is how to avoid addiction, how to strengthen your attention span, how to find the time and the value in reading long form articles, and how to deeply decipher propaganda.
Edit: in related news… “ Americans flock to TikTok for news ” https://www.axios.com/2023/11/15/tiktok-social-media-news-source-us-data
The share of TikTok users who consume news through the platform has nearly doubled since 2020, according to new Pew Research Center data.
Why it matters: News organizations, business leaders and brands are being forced to evolve and meet audiences where they are in order to break through.
What’s happening: The Pew study shows that news consumers have accelerated their shift toward digital channels in the past year.
Americans are roughly twice as likely to say they prefer getting news on digital devices (58%) than television (27%). Meanwhile, audience preference for radio and print media remains roughly stagnant at 6% and 5% respectively.
State of play: Roughly half of Americans say they get some news from social media platforms.
News audiences are increasing the most on TikTok and Instagram. Platforms like LinkedIn, Twitch and Nextdoor are also gaining traction as news sources.
It doesn’t answer your question completely, but apparently conservatives are more likley to belive fake news.
Here is a quote from a study with a lot of links to related works.
In particular, Grinberg, Joseph, Friedland, Swire-Thompson, and Lazer [[42], p. 374] found that “individuals most likely to engage with fake news sources were conservative leaning.” Indeed, political bias can be a more important predictor of fake news believability than conspiracy mentality [43] despite conspirational predispositions playing a key role in motivated reasoning [44]. Perhaps because of this, an important body of research has examined whether conservatism influences fake news believability [45,46]. Tellingly, Robertson, Mourão, and Thorson [47] found that in the US liberal news consumers were more aware and amenable to fact-checking sites, whereas conservatives saw them as less positive as well as less useful to them, which might be why conservative SM users are more likely to confuse bots with humans, while liberal SM users tend to confuse humans with bots [48]. In particular, those who may arguably belong to the loud, populist and extremist minority wherein “1% of individuals accounted for 80% of fake news source exposures, and 0.1% accounted for nearly 80% of fake news sources shared” ([42], p. 374).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378720622001537#bib0045
This is an example of something to be careful with. Reading random studies you find on news sites that are outside your area of expertise is an easy way to be led to believe something based only on parts of the truth.
In this case, as in many, we have to rein in our judgments for what the study indicates. Just because it says it found A doesn’t mean B is true.
Reading random studies
I searched for related studies and found this one relevant. That is not random.
you find on news sites
It’s from a scientific journal tough, not a new site?
that are outside your area of expertise
While true, this is not a study about biology or medicine. It’s not hard to understand for lay people.
an easy way to be led to believe something based only on parts of the truth.
That’s why you read more then one study. You know, like I specifically called out that this one links to a lot of related work?
In this case, as in many, we have to rein in our judgments for what the study indicates
It indicates that republicans are more likley to belive fake news.
Just because it says it found A doesn’t mean B is true.
Yes, but nobody did that here? I’m confused what you are getting at.
TLDR: check your ego, it’s not about you. you apply media literacy to my comment instead of the article you shared, but maybe there’s something else going on. stop trying to protect your ego and just recognize the “good points”. any pissed off tone you get from me in this message is just me flabbergasted that you responded so defensively. we’re cool otherwise.
and to be clear, I think conservatives ARE fucking morons, but that prejudice is exactly why this kind of study is the perfect example of when we need media literacy.
It’s from a scientific journal tough, not a new site?
I didn’t say YOU found it in a news site. but these kinds of studies always pop up on Science subreddits. someone posting any study with little to no context is where manipulation begins.
While true, this is not a study about biology or medicine. It’s not hard to understand for lay people.
Overconfidence is the FUCKING HEART of this issue. You dont know what you dont know, but you want to think you do. That’s true for all of us. Have you ever had to review a study’s methodology in grad school? Do you know what resources to check to determine if a study is adequately peer reviewed, and by whom? if someone says No to these, there’s a bigger risk of manipulation. There’s always more to learn.
That’s why you read more then one study.
YOU ONLY LINKED ONE. How many people here are going to go through finding evidence to the contrary when this supports their bias already?? Maybe a few but not a lot! Telling people to read more is great, BUT DID YOU? How many others reading this even clicked your link, let alone the follow ups? Id be shocked if it’s more than a couple of people. We make the conclusions we want to make.
Just because it says it found A doesn’t mean B is true.
Yes, but nobody did that here? I’m confused what you are getting at.
I understand that. I’m not saying anyone did do that. I’m saying it’s a risk. Yes, conservatives might believe more fake news. But the study cannot tell us why that is, only that it is. People love to fill in the gaps.
Daily KOS has entered the chat
Daily Kos?
What are their viewership numbers?
Are they among the highest rated news shows?
deleted by creator
The amount of people who view propaganda is irrelevant?
I’d say it would be one if the most important things.
deleted by creator
Credibility works in mysterious ways
I don’t like the headline description of this because I really hate the term “fake news”, given who originated it (or at least who popularized it). Reading the article though, CA seems to refer to it as “media literacy”, which seems more apt, that or “critical thinking skills” would be so much better. Just anything other than the term “fake news”.
Can we call the skills “media literacy” and “critical thinking”… and call fake news what it is: propaganda?
the bits and pieces required to recognize ‘fake news’ should already be a part of a required curriculum at a public high school; and i do remember some exercises in one class in particular that compared tabloids to mainstream newspapers. this was in the 1980s, in a fairly progressive part of minnesota.
Silly boy, education is the secondary purpose to school for conservatives. The primary purpose is to create obedient worker drones that do what they’re told.
Critical thinking skills are always antithetical to that.
He didn’t originate that term. He claims that he did and he appropriated it, but it was in existence long before he started using it.
it was in existence long before he started using it.
Notably, in late 30s Germany by a pretty infamous man.
In the modern context (2010s), it came into use to describe articles from organizations that called themselves news outlets literally making up fake stories. The right co-opted the term to apply it to anything they don’t like because they disliked serious journalists calling out right wing talking heads and here we are.
You’re saying… Donald saying he created something……
….
….
….
Is….
Fake news?
(I’ll see myself out,)
Internet shizzos will believe this is indoctrination and brainwashing
They already think that about science class
I mean, we learned all about citing and sources in 8th grade social studies.
Is this real? I can’t tell.
Should move to California. I hear they’re teaching about how to tell if something is real or not.
Can’t believe everything you hear I’m afraid
I hear that you can
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Nearly every act of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia and transphobia ever committed has been committed by by conservatives.
We should be teaching our children why it is immoral to do business or keep relationships with conservatives.
…Progressive here. Blatantly untrue. First of all, all those words are a form of bigotry, for clarification. Second of all, everyone is capable of— and has participated in— bigotry at some point. It’s just baked into culture and you pick it up through osmosis— whether you wanted to or not. Some of it you may never participate in, but others? It takes effort to fight the stuff that slips through the cracks.
Something we need, not just in schools but outside as well.
Nice! I had that when I grew up actually!
I’m 38.
It has been the one most useful thing I learned in any school honestly
deleted by creator
Thinking critically about internet content
Random confession bear meme on the board
“Ok class. What are some things wrong with this meme? Samantha?”
“It’s not actually confessing anything?”
“Correct!”
I still remember a 2 day assignment we had of finding scientific articles, and classifying them as trustworthy or not. Ie, was it in a peer reviewed journal vs a study at a “clinic” that has bias in the outcome. I remember that to this day and feel like it was a major shift toward my ability to think critically
deleted by creator
Media literacy, did you read the article?
Yes, did you?
Then I don’t really follow your reasoning…
Define media literacy.
Define ‘fake news’.
Define ‘alternative facts’
Define personal bias
And do it without being led by the nose by identity politicking or ‘feelings’ over facts.
They did not dictate the implementation of a neutral oversight committee to insure critical thinking skills, they’re only adding what the current administration views as a ‘requirement for media literacy’ without defining what that actually means to them.
Hence my DIRECT comparison to the horse shit everyone went through in the early 00s
It’s almost like you didn’t read the bill or the standards they are putting in but instead going off the headline for “fake news”
So this is what they are using for media literacy.
School Library Standards for Students incorporate information literacy skills. Students learn to access, evaluate, use, and integrate information and ideas found in print, media, and digital resources, enabling them to function in a knowledge-based economy and technologically oriented society.
Organization of the Standards
- Students access information The student will access information by applying knowledge of the organization of libraries, print materials, digital media, and other sources.
1.1 Recognize the need for information.
1.2 Formulate appropriate questions.
1.3 Identify and locate a variety of resources online and in other formats by using effective search strategies.
1.4 Retrieve information in a timely, safe, and responsible manner.
- Students evaluate information The student will evaluate and analyze information to determine what is appropriate to address the scope of inquiry.
2.1 Determine the relevance of the information.
2.2 Assess the comprehensiveness, currency, credibility, authority, and accuracy of resources.
2.3 Consider the need for additional information.
- Students use information The student will organize, synthesize, create, and communicate information.
3.1 Demonstrate ethical, legal, and safe use of information in print, media, and online resources.
3.2 Draw conclusions and make informed decisions.
3.3 Use information and technology creatively to answer a question, solve a problem, or enrich understanding.
- Students integrate information literacy skills into all areas of learning The student will independently pursue information to become a lifelong learner.
4.1 Read widely and use various media for information, personal interest, and lifelong learning.
4.2 Seek, produce, and share information.
4.3 Appreciate and respond to creative expressions of information.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/librarystandards.pdf
Can’t wait to see them teach kids “anyone who disagrees with you is wrong”.
Looks like they aren’t teaching critical thinking only telling the kids what is “fake news”.
Remember when they told us there were WMDs in Iraq? Well if you questioned the narrative then you were called a liar, disloyal to your people or outright fake news.
Now we all know the official story was horse shit and wmds never existed.
So, again, what are they really teaching these kids?
Wah wah wah cry harder dirtbag. Everyone else knows what the goal is, you clearly dont. It’s about understandng bias, not indoctrination.
Ah, so you completely miss the point of my comment and immediately go for personal insults instead of engaging with the realities that I noted.
It’s odd that so many people using lemmy lack effective critical thinking skills.
It always has to be ‘an attack’ on you or your group instead of acknowledging serious flaws in both what was presented in the article and what is happening on the ground compared to what has happened in history.
If they believe 500 were killed in an Israeli strike on a hospital in Gaza they must fail the class immediately xD
That depends on which of the several bombed hospitals you’re talking about.
I’m talking about the Al-Alhi hospital. Hamas terrorists claimed 500 people died around 10 minutes after the explosion took place in the parking lot. Meanwhile, Israel is still identifying bodies from the October 7th terror attacks.
hospitals do have lists of patients and staff though… and they’re usually centralised… so it’s pretty easy to tally up a rough estimate for who was in a hospital at a given time
sure, hamas is full of shit: they lie about loads of things… but having quick numbers for who died when a hospital was destroyed is far from unlikely… let’s make sure we accuse people of the right things and not make the disinformation worse aye?
The hospital was not destroyed. The failed missile strike landed in the courtyard, and analysts currently view it as a Hamas misfire.
So yes, let’s not make disinformation worse.
there have been multiple hospital strikes
Hamas terrorists claimed 500 people died around 10 minutes after the explosion took place in the parking lot
That ‘claim’ turned out to have been invented by the media, possibly due to language issues. There was an article a while back about how there’s no actual source for the claims that doesn’t go in a circle.
deleted by creator
Who the fuck ends a comment like that with “xD”
It’s actually insane how you are getting downvoted when the Hamas’ claim is already debunked as being in fact fake news.
Isreal is doing a lot of bad shit, and has been for a long time. But this particular bombing never happened as described by Hamas.
Perhaps it’s because an explosion at a hospital, no matter the cause, isn’t really something to “xD” about.
Exactly right, his comment has the typical shill signature.
It’s absolutely irrelevant to the topic at hand is just shit stirring for no reason.
xD
It’s not irrelevant, because this place has a lot of people who believe complete bullshit.
They’re gonna be big mad when California is less leftist and more liberal as a result of this program
deleted by creator
I’m a liberal, broheim. Thought that was pretty obvious
You are refering to western media inventing that claim from a post actually talking about probably up to 500 casualties (dead or injured), aren’t you?
If not… here’s your chance to not fail the class: show any actual source for that claim that isn’t media themselves refering to “we haerd someone said”.
Yes, the same for claims that Israel didn’t murder more than ten thousand civilians on a disproportionate response (like a certain world leader did before having to stick his feet into his mouth). Focusing on one instance of disinformation to create a smokescreen for war crimes is disingenuous at best.
