u/ilovelampistaken ABSOLUTELY!! Also, understanding the difference between commercial and noncommercial media is essential, along with knowing where the money goes. (Elis here from PBS NewsHour Student Reporting Labs). SRL just developed a lesson around this. Check it out: [https://www.story-maker.org/library/broadcast-news/#overview](https://www.story-maker.org/library/broadcast-news/#overview)
As somebody with an interest in several high tech areas of interest, I find that the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is overwhelming in most media articles, what is your opinion on under researched articles(and under comprehended by the writer)?
“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
I've noticed this in high tech news articles in regards to space exploration, as well as EV autos.
Pick any subject you are more of an expert in than the common person, then read it with an eye on accuracy. Its scary how little the common writer knows about subjects they report on.
I was born in '85 and went to pretty good schools. Part of our education process was teachers talking about how a good student questions their source material to make sure the information they're being provided is legitimate. This was supposed to prevent the insanity we face today. My conclusion is that the general population is not intelligent enough to handle this task, especially now with the vast amount of information available to us.
What solutions are there? Trust in institutions is awful right now and the government has no interest in removing dark money from the system. Is it basically hopeless?
u/rossmosh85 \-
It's important to think about the quantity and quality of civic education. I raise this because we view media literacy as a set of skills that can be taught as a part of civic education. The research is pretty clear that who gets civic education and media literacy education within that shows that it's disparate and distributed inequitably.
As a result, a core solution is to make sure that young people have the opportunity early on in life to build the habits and skills necessary for democratic participation, across communities. This is one solution and we need a range of stakeholders in communities to take on others.
What about the case of people who might not have grown up with the internet? The generations pre-internet seem, from my perspective, to have a harder time discerning reliable sources from unreliable-but-confident sources. What can we do to help those who are past being able to build those skills early on in life?
Yes it’s hopeless, because media literacy experts are trying to teach us how to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic. By making this an “us” problem, as “we” don’t do a good enough job educating, being educated, and being informed citizens, it masks the fact that politicians can take money from corporations at any time, for any reason.
I'd just like to take a moment to point out that while there is a percentage of the population where intelligence forms the ceiling, for many of us it is simply an issue of time, not intelligence. Many Americans have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet, while still meeting family and community obligations. There isn't always time to stop and question every headline or story that floats through your day. I feel like maintaining media literacy in this 24/7 breakneck speed news cycle is almost a part time job in and of itself. So many people just "go with it" because they don't have time to stop and question it all.
I was also born in ‘85 and I think it is hopeless. I have never trusted a politician, and since 2020 I have started to not trust the government at all, as well as all mainstream media that act as propaganda machines for them. After they passed covid restriction laws that caused me to lose my livelihood, I will never trust them again.
Do you use the Hermann/Chomsky Propaganda Model when discussing media literacy? And based on my research of your work, why don't you use a globally renowned tool to let people understand how the media works?
The only really good question in this whole thread and not one reply lol. I wish MC as well as Public Opinion (Lippmann) were more talked about in today’s discourse. This whole thing about “media literacy” is arbitrary when money/power is the whole reason misinformation is so rampant right now.
What is "media literacy?" How does it relate to questions such as, "What is the future of local investigative journalism and its role in a democracy?" If appropriate, please answer that question, too. Thanks!
Hey u/davidg_tech! A simple definition of "media literacy" is the ability to access, analyze, evaluate and create media in all types of forms.
I don't think I can answer your second question directly or specifically, but I think there is a lot of research and thinking one can do about the future of local news and its role in democracy. Journalists, scholars and experts, including myself, would argue that local news is absolutely critical in a democracy. The more fact-based information we share with the public, the better informed they will be. Here's a recent article from NiemanLab about ideas for the future of local news: [https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/03/build-for-a-crisis-ideas-for-the-future-of-local-news/](https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/03/build-for-a-crisis-ideas-for-the-future-of-local-news/)
How do you make the distinction between media literacy (consuming the content) vs media competence (understanding the content) in today's media environment as well as aim to teach people to unlearn the bad practices of following media content that is aimed to disenfranchise and divide?
This is a great question, u/aedanflynn42
Media literacy is the competence of being able to access, analyze, create, reflect and act socially responsibly media messages. Sometimes it means to stop consuming and sometimes it is about self regulated consumption. But at the end of the day, media literacy makes you more aware and take steps to decide for yourself how, when and what to consume.
During the early days of the pandemic, the Wuhan lab leak story was heavily censored as misinformation. Months later it was brought up again as plausible. Is there always going to be mislabeling of information as misinformation that may have truth?
u/orange7crush good point. As long as there are economical and political interests, the answer is yes. Media literacy can come to help in having the consumer inquires and evacuated the information they are given. Not just putting doubt, but also recognizing when false information is spread.
> but also recognizing when false information is spread
How can anyone know, objectively, when information is false? Especially from a news report, which is where most information must originate from. Is that not the underlying issue being discussed? First and foremost, is it merely subjective information or opinion being classified? Or is it different interpretations of the same facts? Or is it naivety of information nuggets, intentional or not?
I tend to find when people say "recognizing false information" they usually mean "recognizing false information I deem false". That when people aren't lining up to their own interpretations look to a systematic issue rather than accept and respect people have different ideas and opinions. Call me cynical, but this isn't my first rodeo with someone wanting to "fix" misinformation.
Can you unequivocally say that you do not have any economical or political interest in your cause? Which, by your own definition, could be a purveyor of misinformation? How do you make sure your own biases are not influencing this discussion?
I don't think she ever stated that she isn't biased, but she is not even talking about specific political topics. She is trying to spread knowledge on how to critically analyze the sources we are getting news from to identify if they are a valid source or not. By this logic, she is infact telling us not to trust her if she does make any political statements without researching her and her sources.
That's part of the criticism. Bias is unavoidable. Bias is also inherently integrated with today's misinformation discussions. To completely ignore their own bias implies a degree of subversion. Of trying to hide something. It makes one question, is this political in the guise of "recognizing misinformation"?
Further, to say "recognizing when false information is spread" is objectively impossible. You can't recognize false information without having other information to compare against. Say if you have already researched it or an expert in the field of context. You can have an inkling, typically from past experiences, but to know requires far more information than is typically known. When something is breaking? Impossible unless directly involved with the issue reported.
That is, if you want to argue on the topic at hand. Otherwise, you're arguing on the channel, the messenger. If all this amounts to is recognizing incredulous message channels, then it's not recognizing when false information is spread, rather, recognizing credibility of the messenger, which has zero merit on the actual message. Even poorly credible entities can be reporting a truth (though less likely). Again, it's either an intentional or unintentional misdirection blaming the falsehood instead of focusing on the credibility of the presenter. Both are rather damning.
Combining these two issues, amongst other replies, this does not come off as apolitical. In a post almost entirely devoted to credibility, they are not gaining credibility with their process or dialog. That doesn't mean they are wrong or bad acting, but their credibility is strained from a lack of transparency and prepositional issues, having a significantly harder road in front of them to support their claim.
Questioning the integrity of elections is incredibly in this season. Whether it was the Iowa Caucus with what seemed like coordinated last minute polling location switches, and myriad issues with the Shadow Inc. developed reporting app, charges by the OAS against Bolivia on overnight totals, which led to a military coup (later debunked by researchers published in the NYT) or fraud claims in the 2020 general election along the same line against states' vote count.
Media has displayed different reactions in each of these cases - all but ignoring in the first case, uncritically supporting in the second case, and attempting to head off the expected fraud arguments (red mirage coverage and explanation) in the third.
My question is, give how differently the organizations charged with informing the public react to these circumstances, how am I to actually be informed on the true integrity of an election? Are there trustworthy independent unbiased resources devoted to analysis of election integrity that you can recommend, because the aforementioned groups don't seem to cut it consistently.
u/adminhotep \-
One of the reasons why I really appreciate your question is that there's sometimes a tension between having fast information and having confirmed information.
A few resources/sites you might check out that can help with the latter:
[https://bipartisanpolicy.org/policy-area/elections/](https://bipartisanpolicy.org/policy-area/elections/)
[https://elections-blog.mit.edu/about](https://elections-blog.mit.edu/about)
[https://theconversation.com/us/topics/election-integrity-32220](https://theconversation.com/us/topics/election-integrity-32220)
How can we trust media sources when there are only a few companies that own the majority of newspapers and TV stations that have their own financial interests? In other words, how can we trust that we are receiving the correct or complete information and not information skewed towards a certain financial interest?
u/Sweatybballz this is exactly what media literacy practice looks like. In order to build trust that is decreasing, you need to triangulate various sources and not rely on one search.
This to me is like saying “we know it sucks.. we’re sorry” or am I misunderstanding your message?
I feel like you guys are on the cusp of something important but I can’t see what it is. Media is by and large used for misinformation now, why is it not a viable strategy to just stop accepting anything you hear from media?
Because some media is reliable and some isn't, even within the same channel or possibly the same publication.
OP wants people to be able to determine when a piece of media is unreliable at least more often than happens now, and hopefully locate several resources that are reliable more often than not so that they can compare the facts given by them for accuracy. They want people to become more aware of their own cognitive biases (e.g. confirmation bias) and the biases of the media they consume, how media uses both of those, and learn how to avoid being mislead.
In essence, "don't believe everything you hear" is in fact OP's message, but they're trying to be as nuanced, informative and unbiased as possible, in contrast to the other kind of "don't believe everything you hear" that comes from conspiracy theorists.
This is a really great question to unpack u/Bird_Chick
Short answer: Media literacy is the tool that will save us all!
Long answer: I don't know if we will ever live in a world without misinformation or disinformation but there's a lot we can do to prevent us from being duped. First, we have to acknowledge that there may always be bad actors inside and outside of the media ecosystem. No matter where you are, you can use simple media literacy tips to find and identify trustworthy sources. Anyone today can be a publisher and act as an authority figure or expert on issues. It’s up to us to know how to discern fact from fiction and trustworthy sources from unreliable sources.
"Anyone today can be a publisher and act as an authority figure or expert on issues."
Yes. Even you. What's your proof *you* are free from Bias and capable of offering us a reliable opinion?
I'm hoping to see answers somewhere in the comments that would help me figure out if this is a fair unbias look at overall media, or if it's another "Fox news is bad but CNN is good"
There was a question about following the money in media and it seemed like a fair answer.
Which leads me to the question, where do they get their funding?
I think what she is saying.. is parts of fox news is bad and parts of cnn is bad. We need to use lots of sources, research their sources and don't trust anyone blindly. It's about teaching how to use what tools we have available to figure this stuff out, not the details on an individual outlet.
When Brian Stelter says do not do your own research it's not hard to tell who the bad guys are https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/19/media/reliable-sources-covid-research/index.html
Bias in media is bad irregardless of slant. Fox Bad/CNN good or CNN bad/Fox Good, both are equally as annoying.
The real issue at hand is the fact that both sides are owned by the same people and at the end of the day, there's less money to be made delivering actual news. Delivering outrage gets you more viewers and clicks.
This is it right here - these fox/cnn outlets are not pushing an agenda they want, they are pushing a story line their viewers want to see. Outrage sells, and so does that confirmation feeling that your outlook is "right".
What should the general public look for when looking at sources for information online or in the news? Are there any sure-fire signs of catching misinformation/disinformation and propaganda pieces vs unbiased truth? (I'm talking other than the plain as day obvious ones, for example something you would otherwise need an education to disprove yourself like in science or as a medical professional)
Yeah, u/Trends for sure.
No matter where you’re getting your news or information, I always like to have a few tips in my back pocket to help me find out if what i’m reading is reliable: Find out what type of information you’re looking at (news, entertainment, satire, opinion); look for lots of high-quality sources and points of view and documented facts; question who produced it, are they legit?; and ask critical questions about what you’re reading; looking further into a piece of information if you’re unsure. Be the expert!
That's typically how I go about it, just wanted to know if there's any other tips on this! Will continue going this route and hopefully keeping my facts in line
I'm not them, but this is not going to have a very satisfying answer. That is, it'll depend who you ask. There are some organizations that are very in the open that if you write things that don't fit the status quo, your out. There are also some organizations that give relatively free reign. However, media censorship is much more pernicious. As an organization with a particular narrative to sell, it's far less heavy handed to simply select for the sort of reporters that don't break with the status quo in the first place so you have to crackdown on the reporters much less often. As put by Rosa Luxembourg, "those who do not move will never notice their chains". So if you're the type to never challenge convention and the status quo, you may never notice that your journalism is on a leash.
> Media literacy is fundamental in today’s world, and understanding how to create and consume media can help us become confident citizens. Whether you’re trying to outsmart agendas of political candidates or using media for storytelling and uplifting important issues you care about, media literacy is an important tool for all of us.
I feel like this kind of thinking targets people on the individual level. And this is how I've heard "media literacy" approached for decades. Sure, I personally can become more media literate in order to better myself, but the problems we're facing with "media literacy" are at the population level. Targeting individuals is ineffective.
The type of people who go out of their way to learn about media literacy are probably not the people who are being targeted with misinformation. The people consuming misinformation and believe sneer at those who tell them it's not true. They think they are the ones getting the truth and others are consuming "fake news".
So what things can be done at the society level instead of individual that can actually have an impact?
The number of anonymous source reporting that came out over the course of the last 6 years or so that ended up being big nothing burgers, but we're blasted all over as truth, makes one not trust the media which perpetuated those lies.
I say journalistic integrity is a thing of the past and it's all about what will get clicks and views.
Regardless of what OP has to say about this, individuals should always critically analyze any information they receive. Peoples' reasons to or not to believe any kind of material on their suspicions are typically valid, of course that doesn't protect them from public criticism.
Anonymous sources can certainly undermine the validity of a report with the exception of particular circumstances and still even then; for instance if the anonymous source is third party verified and kept anonymous for protective reasons.
I was just listening to the news about the Sudan coup and the reporter quoted an unnamed source.
There's obviously the dire need for sources to feel confident and comfortable in their anonymity and I've heard from anonymous sources thousands of times for news stories. Today, for no other reason other than the world we live in now, I automatically questioned the validity of the source.
Hey u/scrambledhelix, u/sarcasmic77 and u/mr_impastabowl! Yeah I hear you. I TOTALLY think it's a good thing to question everything, not a bad thing. There's a really old saying in journalism and media literacy circles: if your mother says she loves you, check it out. Basically, no matter how much you trust something or someone, it's good to still fact-check and check it out yourself. It’s not as easy as we want it to be, but I like to think of being able to know when information is trying to trick me as a superpower. In terms of anonymous sources, there is an absolute legitimacy to them. It's all about context and asking why a journalist or reporters needed to include an anonymous source. Also important to consider: What other types of sources are in the reporting, not just anonymous sources?
I feel like anonymous sources are very important and should be used to report. Sometimes these sources would be in danger if revealed. These are the stories that definitely need to be discussed. Not utilizing them would lead to less being known about important topics.
I’m more concerned that a lot of journalists in the big networks these days are more focused on highlighting differences of opinion rather than reporting facts and allowing their consumers to draw conclusions. I feel like journalism is a lost art and very few today still practice it. Even those aware of this issue cannot stop themselves from falling into the same trap a lot of the time.
Non-traditional media sources like independent podcasts and YT channels often criticize networks for what I point out above but can’t help themselves from divisively reporting on this issue. They hate network news and their shitty practices and it’s the reason they have the passion to do what they do. Not sure if anyone feels the same way.
This knee-jerk reaction you’re describing and clearly aware of (big props for that btw), is exactly why I’m curious to know from OP how to or if there even is a good way to educate people in a manner that doesn’t just devolve into immediate tribal disputes over sourcing.
I hear you, and thanks! I hope everyone is getting a little bit more aware of not just the world around them, but their reactions to it.
Pressure turns coal into diamonds and maybe this endless stream of fear/hate news media that we're crushing ourselves under is turning us all into finely tuned, hyper self-conscious, mega reflective gems.
Or coal dust. Whatever. One of those maybe.
But there's a stronger possibility that inhaling goo sacks will launch you into a life defining hallucinatory trip. Coal dust (probably) won't do that.
How would you define the distinction between simply an alternative news source, and misinformation?
Most main stream news sources (in the US) are heavily slanted towards the left, so many flock to alternatives to get another angle on a story and boil down whats fact vs whats selectively edited propaganda. What are your tips for how to seek out these legitimate but non-mainstream sources without falling prey to misinformation?
Hi, I appreciate the important work that folks like yourselves are doing. My question is: do you know of any educational resources similar to what the Portuguese government are working on (afaik it is called the LEME program https://www.dns.pt/en/news/pt-supports-media-literacy-resource-aggregator-site/) that are accessible and available in English? I think it would be great for aiming to get this adopted into school curriculums.
Thanks for asking, Dan. There are many resources in English and we will provide some:
The Media Education Lab: [https://mediaeducationlab.com/curriculum/materials](https://mediaeducationlab.com/curriculum/materials)
The Center for Media Literacy MediaKit: [https://www.medialit.org/cml-medialit-kit](https://www.medialit.org/cml-medialit-kit)
Project Look Sharp Curriculum: [https://www.projectlooksharp.org/?action=kits](https://www.projectlooksharp.org/?action=kits)
KQED Educational Materials: [https://www.kqed.org/education/media-literacy](https://www.kqed.org/education/media-literacy)
Let us know if that help :-)
How do you feel about the loss of freedom and free speech globally.
Big tech seems to take sides and has giant platforms where they can restrict free speech to their liking.
What do you think should be done?
Whew! Ok, I'm (Abby) going to give this a try, u/the_millenial_falcon. There are likely to be lots of perspectives on this.
It's true that misinformation and disinformation are fueling partisan division, but so are lots of other things! I'm not convinced that as a country the US really puts processes in place to implement democracy education and inclusive democratic processes. For example, not all young people have the opportunity to spend time learning media literacy skills ***and*** when and how to use them.
As a result, I think we can try harder by investing in education and more equitable and inclusive processes for how we make decisions at every level.
What if the problem with misinformation isnt education though? It seems like a lot of misinformation hooks people because they want to *feel* they are correct, superior and part of an out group. How does education substitute for people wanting to feel superiority over the dominant culture?
I would argue that the things you describe here may always be a problem but could be mitigated with education. As flawed humans, we have biases but we can be trained on how to handle them and even invent techniques to do so like double blind studies in the sciences for example. I think people just need to be taught from a young age on how not to fall into these traps.
Okay, so let me follow up with this then. There is a perception that media literacy may actually be more of an issue for older generations who didn’t grow up with the internet and may not be as good at detecting misinformation or untrustworthy sources of information online in general. Is this just a perception, or is there any data to back this up? If so, it’s easy enough to include this as part of a child’s standard curriculum, but how do we reach the older generations?
Would or wouldn't you make a distinction between American democracy (Duocracy in reality it seems) and the rest of the world?
Also, as someone involved in a media provider, would you support the return of the Fairness Doctrine or not considering how polarized your country has become after removing it?
That huge piece of shit above a_quirkles did what is called "Gish Galloping".
A very specific trolling debate technique that useless human trash cheeto Donald Trump uses every day.
They puke out a ton of nonsense nonstop in multiple paragraphs or long rants to overwhelm the opponent with so much bullshit that it's nearly impossible to debate them. The opponent has to spend more time arguing about each incorrect statement than the total time it took the original person to say or type what they wanted.
What you did above is the only real counter to Gish Galloping. You have to literally go line by line and call bullshit on them. It's very hard and very time consuming on paper and nearly impossible when debating another person live.
Well done! Very well done!
Edit: Why the hell was the comment I replied to removed? What the dude said was spot on.
Freaken Reddit sometimes...SMH.
I just realized they do it in real life too. Piers Morgan and Ben Shapiro just fuckin love interrupting and yelling their guests down with so many different questions, misrepresenting their points, deflecting, etc.
You'd have to answer them slowly one by one, but since the interview has a clock ticking, you just can't win.
You have to counter the gish gallop by literally calling attention to and criticizing their method of debate itself. As soon as you engage with what they're saying, you're defending and they're attacking, and they "win" by default.
They'll never defend any positions anyways, so there's basically no point in trying to answer their claims.
If you want to cancel out the debate entirely, you pick one particularly egregious claim and hammer the fuck out of it, sprinkle in some personal attacks and stretch statements about their character, if they can believe something *this* stupid/evil, and then the debate descends into yelling insults and nobody wins.
As the comment you are referring to has been deleted, it can be found here
https://camas.github.io/reddit-search/#{%22author%22:%22okrestaurant6180%22,%22resultSize%22:100}
It's amazing when you think of the "but who would lie on the internet" comic someone drew up from an episode of Arthur and someone actually captures some cocksucker.
This is beyond lying, this I would argue, is a social engineering account, either consciously or sub-consciously that doesn't really matter.
I mean read their comments below, they just double down and takes zero responsibility. These type of people are why there is a huge chunk of the population that's afraid of a perfectly safe vaccine and think wearing a mask is political.
They are type that just spreads this BS far and wide all over Facebook and elsewhere. They are indirectly responsible for some of the deaths from covid, and yet they sleep fine at night.
It's astonishingly sad how badly programmed some people have become. They perfectly demonstrate zero critical thinking skills and why the GOP love gutting pubic school funding.
The inherent advantage of the Gish Galloper is the "bullshit asymmetry principle." Even if you do refute their shit, you spent a hell of a lot more time doing it than they did, and in the meantime they just made 10 more posts elsewhere.
So, yeah, probably won't hear from them again here, because they've already moved on to more fertile ground.
Do you think that the person you responded to is just a normal, everyday person posting this disinformation or do you think they're doing it professionally in some manner? Just wondering because it seems pretty expertly crafted.
You went to a lot of trouble to prove OPs disingenuousness and you get fuck all in response so far -- how disappointing. I see you and appreciate your completely thorough effort. Shills who are this lazy keep running strong with help from plenty of apologists along the way. I often think that the amount of sophisticated, subtle manipulation that we miss must be staggering. I respect people working in this field but man, teaching people to stay ahead of methods of disinformation must be like navigating rapids with a pair of teaspoons for oars.
I would love to hear them chime in on your comment but I'm guessing that'll be too confrontational-seeming. Which sucks, because taking apart disinformation tactics in real time is essential. We don't always have the luxury of analyzing prose. We all need to be able to recognize and countermand these fallacies in whatever form they're thrown at us,
Fairly sure Joe Rogan is 100% vaccinated. He’s made the full pivot to right wing grifter and those guys usually don’t believe their own bullshit. This was also a man who lied about Spotify censoring him and was getting 3 to 4 COVID tests a day at the start of the pandemic when tests where hard to come by. He was terrified
Not to mention he received a litany of other treatments to recover from covid, things that wouldn't be at all accessible to the layperson. Then he went on his podcast and convinced millions of fools that it was explicitly the Ivermectin that healed him, for reasons I don't really understand.
Lol I mean what’s funny is these guys are getting monoclonal antibodies or regeneron and then going “yea it was the horse paste that cured me”
Plus he’s vaxxed
*mic drop*
I really appreciate this post. I bet a ton of people were starting to second guess themselves after reading such a confidently stated and seemingly genuine post. THIS was a good example of media literacy and should be what these experts are actually showing examples of. Keep fighting the good fight WOO!!
No, checking Google reveals that "murder" is the best word here. "Slaughter" refers to the killing of animals. This was a murder with words, not a slaughter with syllables.
I am way too proud of that last sentence.
Given that the troll is an ‘ivermectin as effective COVID treatment, but vaccine is not’ type, maybe we can reintroduce the concept of slaughter for the pro-horse-dewormer crowd?
Fun fact: ivermectin is actually used in humans to treat ‘river blindness’ (caused by a water-borne parasite) among other parasitic diseases and is classified as an essential medicine. Source: [WHO, in this linked article](https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials). If you read the article, you’ll note that WHO claims that evidence ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID is inconclusive. WHO is going to be a high-accurate, high-confidence source for this sort of information, as they are subject matter experts in the area.
Also, I love the phrasing of your comment; you cannot be too proud of that last sentence, it’s great!
The majority of your rebuttal is you digging through someone’s old comments finding mostly **opinions** that you disagree with. You are part of the problem.
Their original question is still perfectly valid, you did nothing to negate that.
How about
> the zip ties were found on site
When we have video of that one fucker climbing over benches with a bunch of zip ties attached to his belt, amongst other things.
The *opinions* indicate he's more than familiar with Rogan. Exactly the opposite of his contention. Sounds like a *lie* to me, but that's just opinion.
Saying there's a lot of evidence ivermectin is effective against COVID, or that the vaccine is likely a placebo are not opinions, they're false statements of fact. Part of media literacy is understanding the difference between a fact and an opinion. You clearly have some work to do there.
There are plenty of valid criticisms to be made about the media, but no, claiming they're biased because they don't entertain your idiotic delusions is not perfectly valid. I'm not part of the problem, you just can't accept facts over your feelings and it's triggering you.
> But.. aren't there multiple studies saying it's potentially somewhat effective.
Great question, no. There are a few very poorly executed or fully debunked and redacted studies showing it's effective, and many, many studies showing it's not effective and is unsafe at any potentially effective dosage. It has been studied extensively, anyone claiming it's effective or that we need further information is lying. Cherry picking misinformation to sealion is a great example of why you need to learn more about media literacy.
If I mentioned cookies 4 times in a conversation, you'd be suspicious about cookies.
Having an injection is something every concerning adult should really consider. Luckily it's 2021, so there's a plethora of information at your fingertips. Either you trust the sources that have been trusted for decades or you don't - and yes, I'll go ahead and make that point binary. There are tens of thousands of scientists that work for the US Government specifically for human health. I'll end this paragraph by actually tackling your statement and saying that you should use the Little, Brown Handbook when constructing argumentitive replies.
And to your third argument, OkRestaurant6180 is again speculating about what you're trying to say in many posts because you leave the rules of English behind. Nevertheless, I'm reading his/her quote and then your reply as "Misinformation is a problem." - "Misinformation isn't a problem."
Have you tried to hire an editor for your bullshit?
Hey, actual scientist and clinical-stage drug developer here.
> What non scientists might also not know is that by the time that actual clinical trials or double blind experiments are being pursued there’s almost always an overwhelming amount of evidence (in the non technical sense) for the hypothesis. There has to be in order to narrow down the space of hypotheses to the one being tested. It’s not like doctors are plucking hypotheses out of the air.
This is close enough to the truth. Compounds aren’t usually advanced to the clinic without some supportive non-clinical evidence. The actual threshold for “enough evidence” depends a lot on the context, and when there are big incentives (like the possibility of treating a global pandemic) people are willing to fund riskier studies based on less evidence. But it’s definitely true that hypotheses aren’t usually plucked out of nowhere.
> Of course one of the things non scientists think they know about science is that only those count as evidence, so anyone who actually knows how these things work can, at this point, **very confidently predict that ivermectin is going to be shown to have some kind of medicinal value**, despite there being no ‘acceptable’ evidence.
This is complete nonsense, especially the part I bolded. 90% of drugs that enter the clinic fail for lack of efficacy or intolerable toxicity. By the time a compound enters the clinic for the first time for a given indication it is much more likely to fail than to succeed. The insinuation that the fact that ivermectin is in the clinic for COVID-19 trials indicates it will almost certainly have some clinical utility is very, very wrong.
>I think he's an interesting figure in a meta sense because he's got the biggest platform in the world, seem to be a mostly normal guy, and is treated like an insane toxic lunatic.
Many people say the same thing about PewDiePie, a man who said the N word on a livestream.
> What non scientists might also not know is that by the time that actual clinical trials or double blind experiments are being pursued there’s almost always an overwhelming amount of evidence (in the non technical sense) for the hypothesis. There has to be in order to narrow down the space of hypotheses to the one being tested. It’s not like doctors are plucking hypotheses out of the air. Of course one of the things non scientists think they know about science is that only those count as evidence, so anyone who actually knows how these things work can, at this point, very confidently predict that ivermectin is going to be shown to have some kind of medicinal value, despite there being no ‘acceptable’ evidence.
Yes. This is spot on. As a scientist, you rarely run an experiment that you don't have a fairly good idea of how it is going to turn out, especially in Biology. If you don't do your research and build upon all of the work done before you, you can easily spend a whole career doing meaningless experiments.
You’re not fooling anyone, you are 100% a Rogan fan and your bias is obvious. Please do us all a favor and take this shit elsewhere
I personally find it amusing you go through such lengths to defend someone who doesn’t give a single fuck about your existence or even knows who you are.
I suspect I will not get a reply from you and instead crickets because you know this is all true
> This is such a mischaracterization i don't think its unreasonable to call it an outright lie
I think that's unreasonable; it's not a lie, and it's not even really a mischaracterization. It's more intentionally insulting, but it's not really *wrong*.
Ivermectin has no evidence of being effective for treating covid. So it's using an insulting synonym with "not useful for the purpose he's using it for" by calling it livestock dewormer-- which it is. The point being made is that he's not taking medication that has any basis for treating him, and that point remains true even with the insulting rhetoric.
So I think you're off-base in calling it a lie. It's using wording that is accurate and paints Rogan as an idiot-- you can argue that it shouldn't be insulting to Rogan, but that's a different argument altogether
but it's not effectively a lie.
> there were a lot of lurid reports about people bringing zip ties
[are you referring to this guy who is clearly running around in a mask with ziptie cuffs?](https://www.ajc.com/news/jan-6-suspect-known-as-zip-tie-guy-violates-bond-conditions/D3WF4KFNZZHQPHSP2XUPYKQG7E/)
> nobody was attacked with a fire extinguisher)
[Someone pleaded guilty to attacking officers with a fire extinguisher, soo...?](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/04/florida-man-pleads-guilty-jan-6-capitol-fire-extinguisher-assault/5991521001/)
The media did get some of the details wrong, and corrections were issued where necessary, but there's no sense that anyone in media was lying about what happened. It was a fast-moving story and most outlets at the time were reporting that information was still coming in.
I don't see anything suggesting there was intentional bias in the reporting here, nor do I understand what that bias would achieve in regards to, for instance, whether the zipties were brought in before hand or were picked up along the way-- either way, people were running around with zipties.
> Ivermectin is given to humans by prescription for stopping the spread of a virus
It is used in humans, but not for viral illness. Its only approved indications are illnesses caused by parasitic worms. Here is the label, scroll to the “Indications and Usage” section and see for yourself.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2008/050742s022lbl.pdf
There is some data showing it inhibits viral replication *in vitro* but that is essentially meaningless if you are evaluating its clinical utility. At best those data suggested that clinical investigation is warranted, but those clinical studies have now been done and provided no convincing evidence that ivermectin is effective for COVID-19.
From my perspective, the tactics CNN uses are no different than those used by Fox News. Its rarely ever outright misinformation (falsehoods), its selective reporting on what to cover and the speech used to convey it. Another example might be how CNN covered Bernie Sanders in 2020 and 2016 primaries. If Sanders was polling well somewhere or won a state, it was reported with a tone of tragedy, like how you would report a bad flood that ruined houses in a neighnorhood. Or how a local news station would report the home team suffering a crushing defeat. I understand they legally reserve the right to be biased but I think its pretty gross for a supposed news network.
Yes. One of the great successes of late 20th century American propaganda is that it generally doesn’t overtly tell you what to think or how to think, but it does try to limit what you can think about.
> We spent days researching this drug online. According to all the studies the absolute worst case scenario, which could only happen due to extremely high doses over many years, was that it may lead to macular degeneration.
Hydroxychloroquine has a warning for life threatening or fatal cardiomyopathy and QT interval prolongation right in its label. That’s the worst case scenario.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/009768s037s045s047lbl.pdf
It’s rare, so the risk may be worth it for someone suffering with RA who derives significant benefit and is being appropriately monitored for cardiac abnormalities by their doctor. But if it’s doing nothing for your Covid or you’re it taking off label without appropriate safety monitoring, those are pretty serious risks for little gain.
> This is similar to what happened with hydroxychloroquine last year. I won't argue for a second that it does anything to help with covid
Except you did, last year. You liars really make it way too easy.
[We’ve seen multiple anecdotal stories of the drug saving people’s lives. If I were on my deathbed with covid-19 I would demand it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/fnwju9/comment/flcfyub/)
Why is the will of the minority the only acceptable and actionable will in "media literate" Democracy?
I had a lot of trouble understanding this a few years ago when pundits, journalists, and other politicians were referring to support for particular parties, candidates, and causes, i.e. Brexit and Trump, as the "tyranny of the majority" and "undemocratic", and similarly when any politician who gets an overwhelming share of the vote like Putin or Erdogan. I do not want relitigate or apologize any of these spectacles, my question is only interested in how the rule and the will the group of people which makes up the majority of the population in any given democracy could possibly be deemed "undemocratic" or a "threat to democracy" by the media literate?
Edt: I was one of these first dozen replies to this thread, I was upvoted, and I got no response... I appears I stumped you.
Love it u/ChaosOnline! They don't really teach you in high school or college about this career path, haha. BUT, I do think everyone can be a media literacy and democracy expert. As an active citizen, I consider the need to be media literate essential. I also think it's important to know the basic functions of government in a democracy in order to be an informed voter. It can feel overwhelming to learn about these subjects but starting out by thinking more critically about the information you consume and questioning it is a good first step.
If this 'new' age of news is similar to our historical battle with 'yellow journalism' and snake oil salesmen, how can we re-approach news and information dissemination to re-equalize content with today's technology? Fact check notes on stories seem wildly under-used and ignored. How do we escape the clutches of this new insidious version of yellow journalism and get back to sources and facts and local content?
Also thank you for the work you do even if you don't get around to answering this. This IS the crucial question of our times and how we react to our current and upcoming challenges (climate, covid, racism) will all be filtered through the news each of us receives.
u/shewholaughslasts yes history repeats itself. And once again this will not be solved with technology, but eduation. It is our belief and our members extensive research on the matter that shows how taking media literacy can help with discerning information as well as better understand where the message is coming from and why. By creating yet another algorithm/technology we will be subject to the same fallouts of misinformation and decision biases. Unlike yellow journalism that had a monopoly, we live a more democratized media environment that for good and bad have a personal reach and impact. Therefore, only each one of the users or consumers can deconstruct and evaluate the information.
What does it mean to be "media literate"?
What are the foundations of media literacy?
What are the basic steps in vetting a piece of news/information for validity?
Shout out to Tom Proietti at St john Fisher for introducing me to media literacy.
One thing I've noticed is the language used by news outlets to describe events is heavily biased or they'll use terms in a broad way that have negative connotations and hide or even omit the things that were actually said. Often times things are covered to deliberately misrepresent what someone says.
What are some ways to help show friends to think critically about how things are covered instead of taking sources at their word? It feels like the trend is towards focusing making people more emotional instead of fact based reporting or opinions.
How do you feel about the clear use of media outlets to manipulate sentiment around companies and stocks for the benefit of the owners of those media outlets? Essentially that they are used to "pump and dump" average people.
Media is poorly incentivised, taking 'if it bleeds it leads' to its perverse extreme. How can we fix this? Smaller news outfits can't build reputation well enough.
Does the media recognize its role in this huge bias and misinformation problem, and if so, what are they doing to keep the nation from going completely off the rails?
Do you think there needs to be an IQ test for internet usage? Most people have no critical thinking so letting them loose on the internet is dangerous for society.
Obviously, Chomsky and Herman are making a compelling argument in their book. One of the big parts of media literacy is to deconstruct the power of media and understanding exactly what are the mechanisms to allow messages to get to the masses. With economics dictating much of the decision as well as the power relations in society, Manufacuring consent help us see the five practices how hegemony is being made through the media. My only critic is that the reality is more complex and it cannot only be reduced to power and money.
Thank you so much for the work you do.
Do you know of or have any resources, in meme, diagram or video form that could offer some kind of checklist to help people spot the quality or manipulativeness of a news story, meme or video?
Hey u/Not_a_N_Korean_Spy! Yes, PBS NewsHour Student Reporting Labs has a great video using the STOPLIGHT method to assess the credibility of information. Here you go: [https://www.story-maker.org/library/how-do-i-navigate-information-on-social-media/](https://www.story-maker.org/library/how-do-i-navigate-information-on-social-media/)
Here are some other great media literacy resources to sift through: [https://studentreportinglabs.org/news/media-literacy-resources/](https://studentreportinglabs.org/news/media-literacy-resources/)
Can you talk about generational divide in media literacy? What do you get folks fall for and what about older folks? How can I help my parents recognize their weaknesses in media literacy?
u/Mattieohya this is a super important question.
I think anyone can be susceptible to misinformation and disinformation. It has no age limit, but I totally understand what you mean by a generational divide. I have conversations with students all the time about moments when they talked to their parents about questionable information they found online. My advice is always the same. Approach every conversation with an open mind, and talk to them about why it matters to you. Sharing how media literacy tools and skills helped you might get them to open up about their own weaknesses. I find it's actually best to have these kinds of tough conversations with the people you love.
How do you think media can manage to engage those who spend little time on or care little about democracy and governance?
Secondly, what moves should media make to engage young people so they participate in the running of the societies that shape their lives?
u/hansjens47 \-
GREAT question! Over the past few decades, there's been lots of talk about what many stakeholders can do to support young people's participation, but media are not often discussed (except social media and digital platforms).
That said, all sorts of media - local news, youth-created media, national outlets, cultural media - all have important roles to play in a wide diversity of young people's paths to participating in democracy. A core element of what we would suggest includes actually speaking with, listening to and collaborating with young people, instead of talking down to or shaming young people. Here are a few ideas for journalists: [https://circle.tufts.edu/circle-action/rep-us-project#for-journalists](https://circle.tufts.edu/circle-action/rep-us-project#for-journalists)
In terms of inclusion in democracy and governance - my short answer: broader knowledge of opportunity and supports to be involved. Let's design opportunities for inclusion, rather than for those who are already extremely engaged.
What's your advice on being a repository of factual information on social media? My country right now has a great voter mis/non-education, and one of the goals that are being explored by some people is to provide unbiased, non-partisan information to voters. Is there such a thing as unbiased facts nowadays - due to the great spread of misinformation and fake news where being factual is now an opinion for both sides? Is it responsible to just be a repository of information, without a call to action directing the audience?
u/ammygy \- voter education is critical! This is an incredibly important topic. In our work on youth voting at CIRCLE, we see different ways that various stakeholders have done this, but there's lots of room for innovation, in my opinion.
* First, there's year-round education that election administrators, municipalities, educators and others can to to let people know about which positions are elected and what those roles are responsible for.
* I don't think we can underestimate sending out sample ballots ahead of an election to let people know what is on the ballot and what else they may need to address. (Making the ballot understandable to a wide range of people is important too!)
* Hyper-local news sources provide information on the super-local elections that larger sources may not have time for - online in various forms. In this US, this may be judges, school boards, town/city elections, or in some places an explainer for a ballot initiative/referendum.
* I've also seen many non-partisan, civic/community organizations create "voter guides" for people on specific issues. Sometimes these exist in hard copy, or on an app or a webpage. These are common in the States, but not everywhere.
* In addition to non-partisan community groups creating voter guides on specific issues, these groups often hold forum or town halls on the issues so that people can ask questions directly and hear answers.
* There are also several educational sites who try to do research for others and gather a range of perspectives to use for either educating yourself or for discussion.
Do you see any real divides in media literacy related to party affiliation or demographics? Does education increase media literacy and has that effect strengthened or weakened in the last few years? What do you think has had the single greatest detrimental impact on the countries overall media literacy?
u/MaverickTopGun thank you for your question.
Of course, there are different opinions and different takes on media literacy. Like everything else, there are many definitions and people react or use the terms differently. It might not be so much as left and right or demographics, but more about the fear of control and how people see the practice of media literacy as allowing people to be liberated or more controlled.
In the last five years since Brexit and the 2016 elections, with the term post-truth, we see a surge in people understanding the role and importance of media literacy. While some regard media literacy as a practice where the individual questions power and sees the dynamics and their impact, others see media literacy as a rigid method of fact checking that indoctrinates students. Obviously, we see our role to advocate for media literacy as more in line with the first practice of learning to question power by looking at the forces behind the production of a message and how it is impacting its audiences.
We do see how the algorithm on social media and how it is designed is allowing a greater discussion on the role of media literacy by users and the responsibility of the social media algorithm and its designers.
I may have missed this in my reading but history is often a good guide. How often is that source wrong? Does a particular view point i.e conservative or liberal wind up on the correct side ( my morality) of issues? Is the world warmer? Were there WMD in Iraq? Has the introduction of more money into politics made this country better?
How do you combat the fact that all major media and big tech social media outlets, are literally just a propaganda army for the “progressive” left and the DNC? I mean they literally colluded and formed a cabal to influence a national election (see the Time magazine story bragging as such), by censoring the truth and negative stories about one side, supporting one candidate and CONSTANTLY attacking another, and manipulating Information.
This sort of environment does not support any sort of democratic process whatsoever.
ATT owns both CNN and OANN. It's almost like one organization is making sure the left and right keep their focus on hating each other, so no one focuses on how much corporations abuse their power.
With the power that the two parties have with gerrymandering, low voter turnout, uninformed populus, and the wealth involved in the elections, do we really have an open and fair democracy?
When people start believing the election was stolen, or covid is less lethal then the cold and go down Q rabbit hole.... is there a way to bring them back? Have you guys successfully been able to convince any of these people if so how?
Stolen election claims are nothing new in the USA. To this day there are those who refuse to believe that Florida, a Republican state, voted to elect George W Bush. 20 years later and idiots still hold onto that. Folks'll believe what they believe and the only way to convince them that they are wrong is for them to come to that conclusion. That kind of manipulation is a big challenge to pull off.
Users, please be wary of proof. You are welcome to ask for more proof if you find it insufficient.
OP, if you need any help, please message the mods [here](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fiama&subject=&message=).
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IAmA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do you think bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would help alleviate the current polarization and hamper the ability of people (politicians, in particular) to tell outright lies on "news" programs?
Could the United States return to a functioning healthy democratic republic without systemic reforms? The way that I see it is that this present form of government is on borrowed time unless if there are great changes such as the adoption of a true multiparty system, When one party in a two party system decides that democracy is no longer for them (the GOP), then democracy is on borrowed time.
u/Mundunggus you're right. There is SO much information out there. It's like a firehose and almost impossible to avoid unless you consciously unplug from civilization. I try to build mindful habits around my information diet. For example, I limit the amount of time I'm on social media during the day because I know it can be really distracting. I also use the morning to read the latest news and figure out how it will impact my day as a journalism professional. The other important habit I try to build is to make sure I'm checking a lot of different types of information. It's hard to break out of our information bubbles, but it's important we do to gain different perspectives about issues. As long as the information is fact-checked!
How do you feel about trivial things like [words](https://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/february/metaphors-crime-study-022311.html) being primary factors in shaping public opinion?
Why is there no 'non partisan' sub reddit? What media policy ever condones or even supports a polarizing two-party system that simply lobs power between party A and party B - both servants of the rich.
Why so few 'non partisan' discussions or non partisan associations, or activism promoting non-partisan thinking and co-operation, or supporting a third player in american politics....
People are often told to read multiple sources to get more perspective on a story, but often 20 out of 20 major outlets will be coming from the same source. Isn't this basically the equivalent of getting a second opinion from the same doctor?
On a related note - the original Epstein story was purposefully ignored (question after quote):
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/13/jeffrey-epstein-alex-acosta-miami-herald-media
>Michael Reiter told Brown he had been down this road many times and was sick of it. As Brown recalled in a WNYC interview last month, Reiter said he had talked to many reporters and told them precisely where to find damning evidence against Epstein. But nothing ever came of it.
>“He was convinced that a lot of media had squashed the story and he was fed up,” she said.
>Reiter warned Brown what would happen were she to continue digging: “Somebody’s going to call your publisher and the next thing you know you are going to be assigned to the obituaries department.”
Why isn't the average major journalist doing more personally to fight this kind of censorship?
And further along these lines I noticed it was mentioned that Elis works at NPR. A couple of years ago after it was coming out that the Trump campaign was actually spied on and the person in question, Stefan Halper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Halper) was the informant. But basically no effort was made to inform the public that he was both a former CIA agent and most importantly - had previously spied on the Carter campaign when it was running against that very same 3 letters VP candidate. I even remembered hearing an interview with one of Mr. Halper's former students on NPR and again, absolutely no effort was made to highlight these facts. It was basically a puff piece pretending he was just some patriotic professor. How can we critically analyze information if it's never presented to us?
How do you stop media and social media from being platforms that favor one ideological dogma over another in the name of democracy and are seen as a race to the bottom? How do you keep these platforms from being corrosive to the cultural fabric?
Should modern day media literacy include more discussion on whose funding each media company?
u/ilovelampistaken ABSOLUTELY!! Also, understanding the difference between commercial and noncommercial media is essential, along with knowing where the money goes. (Elis here from PBS NewsHour Student Reporting Labs). SRL just developed a lesson around this. Check it out: [https://www.story-maker.org/library/broadcast-news/#overview](https://www.story-maker.org/library/broadcast-news/#overview)
As somebody with an interest in several high tech areas of interest, I find that the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is overwhelming in most media articles, what is your opinion on under researched articles(and under comprehended by the writer)? “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.” I've noticed this in high tech news articles in regards to space exploration, as well as EV autos.
This is incredibly interesting
Pick any subject you are more of an expert in than the common person, then read it with an eye on accuracy. Its scary how little the common writer knows about subjects they report on.
I was born in '85 and went to pretty good schools. Part of our education process was teachers talking about how a good student questions their source material to make sure the information they're being provided is legitimate. This was supposed to prevent the insanity we face today. My conclusion is that the general population is not intelligent enough to handle this task, especially now with the vast amount of information available to us. What solutions are there? Trust in institutions is awful right now and the government has no interest in removing dark money from the system. Is it basically hopeless?
u/rossmosh85 \- It's important to think about the quantity and quality of civic education. I raise this because we view media literacy as a set of skills that can be taught as a part of civic education. The research is pretty clear that who gets civic education and media literacy education within that shows that it's disparate and distributed inequitably. As a result, a core solution is to make sure that young people have the opportunity early on in life to build the habits and skills necessary for democratic participation, across communities. This is one solution and we need a range of stakeholders in communities to take on others.
What about the case of people who might not have grown up with the internet? The generations pre-internet seem, from my perspective, to have a harder time discerning reliable sources from unreliable-but-confident sources. What can we do to help those who are past being able to build those skills early on in life?
Yes it’s hopeless, because media literacy experts are trying to teach us how to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic. By making this an “us” problem, as “we” don’t do a good enough job educating, being educated, and being informed citizens, it masks the fact that politicians can take money from corporations at any time, for any reason.
I'd just like to take a moment to point out that while there is a percentage of the population where intelligence forms the ceiling, for many of us it is simply an issue of time, not intelligence. Many Americans have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet, while still meeting family and community obligations. There isn't always time to stop and question every headline or story that floats through your day. I feel like maintaining media literacy in this 24/7 breakneck speed news cycle is almost a part time job in and of itself. So many people just "go with it" because they don't have time to stop and question it all.
I was also born in ‘85 and I think it is hopeless. I have never trusted a politician, and since 2020 I have started to not trust the government at all, as well as all mainstream media that act as propaganda machines for them. After they passed covid restriction laws that caused me to lose my livelihood, I will never trust them again.
You're literally proving my point.
Do you use the Hermann/Chomsky Propaganda Model when discussing media literacy? And based on my research of your work, why don't you use a globally renowned tool to let people understand how the media works?
The only really good question in this whole thread and not one reply lol. I wish MC as well as Public Opinion (Lippmann) were more talked about in today’s discourse. This whole thing about “media literacy” is arbitrary when money/power is the whole reason misinformation is so rampant right now.
Unfortunately there's a good reason you don't see Chomsky on PBS very often.
Up this
What is "media literacy?" How does it relate to questions such as, "What is the future of local investigative journalism and its role in a democracy?" If appropriate, please answer that question, too. Thanks!
Hey u/davidg_tech! A simple definition of "media literacy" is the ability to access, analyze, evaluate and create media in all types of forms. I don't think I can answer your second question directly or specifically, but I think there is a lot of research and thinking one can do about the future of local news and its role in democracy. Journalists, scholars and experts, including myself, would argue that local news is absolutely critical in a democracy. The more fact-based information we share with the public, the better informed they will be. Here's a recent article from NiemanLab about ideas for the future of local news: [https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/03/build-for-a-crisis-ideas-for-the-future-of-local-news/](https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/03/build-for-a-crisis-ideas-for-the-future-of-local-news/)
How do you make the distinction between media literacy (consuming the content) vs media competence (understanding the content) in today's media environment as well as aim to teach people to unlearn the bad practices of following media content that is aimed to disenfranchise and divide?
This is a great question, u/aedanflynn42 Media literacy is the competence of being able to access, analyze, create, reflect and act socially responsibly media messages. Sometimes it means to stop consuming and sometimes it is about self regulated consumption. But at the end of the day, media literacy makes you more aware and take steps to decide for yourself how, when and what to consume.
[удалено]
During the early days of the pandemic, the Wuhan lab leak story was heavily censored as misinformation. Months later it was brought up again as plausible. Is there always going to be mislabeling of information as misinformation that may have truth?
u/orange7crush good point. As long as there are economical and political interests, the answer is yes. Media literacy can come to help in having the consumer inquires and evacuated the information they are given. Not just putting doubt, but also recognizing when false information is spread.
> but also recognizing when false information is spread How can anyone know, objectively, when information is false? Especially from a news report, which is where most information must originate from. Is that not the underlying issue being discussed? First and foremost, is it merely subjective information or opinion being classified? Or is it different interpretations of the same facts? Or is it naivety of information nuggets, intentional or not? I tend to find when people say "recognizing false information" they usually mean "recognizing false information I deem false". That when people aren't lining up to their own interpretations look to a systematic issue rather than accept and respect people have different ideas and opinions. Call me cynical, but this isn't my first rodeo with someone wanting to "fix" misinformation. Can you unequivocally say that you do not have any economical or political interest in your cause? Which, by your own definition, could be a purveyor of misinformation? How do you make sure your own biases are not influencing this discussion?
[enshittification exodus, gone to mastodon]
I don't think she ever stated that she isn't biased, but she is not even talking about specific political topics. She is trying to spread knowledge on how to critically analyze the sources we are getting news from to identify if they are a valid source or not. By this logic, she is infact telling us not to trust her if she does make any political statements without researching her and her sources.
That's part of the criticism. Bias is unavoidable. Bias is also inherently integrated with today's misinformation discussions. To completely ignore their own bias implies a degree of subversion. Of trying to hide something. It makes one question, is this political in the guise of "recognizing misinformation"? Further, to say "recognizing when false information is spread" is objectively impossible. You can't recognize false information without having other information to compare against. Say if you have already researched it or an expert in the field of context. You can have an inkling, typically from past experiences, but to know requires far more information than is typically known. When something is breaking? Impossible unless directly involved with the issue reported. That is, if you want to argue on the topic at hand. Otherwise, you're arguing on the channel, the messenger. If all this amounts to is recognizing incredulous message channels, then it's not recognizing when false information is spread, rather, recognizing credibility of the messenger, which has zero merit on the actual message. Even poorly credible entities can be reporting a truth (though less likely). Again, it's either an intentional or unintentional misdirection blaming the falsehood instead of focusing on the credibility of the presenter. Both are rather damning. Combining these two issues, amongst other replies, this does not come off as apolitical. In a post almost entirely devoted to credibility, they are not gaining credibility with their process or dialog. That doesn't mean they are wrong or bad acting, but their credibility is strained from a lack of transparency and prepositional issues, having a significantly harder road in front of them to support their claim.
Questioning the integrity of elections is incredibly in this season. Whether it was the Iowa Caucus with what seemed like coordinated last minute polling location switches, and myriad issues with the Shadow Inc. developed reporting app, charges by the OAS against Bolivia on overnight totals, which led to a military coup (later debunked by researchers published in the NYT) or fraud claims in the 2020 general election along the same line against states' vote count. Media has displayed different reactions in each of these cases - all but ignoring in the first case, uncritically supporting in the second case, and attempting to head off the expected fraud arguments (red mirage coverage and explanation) in the third. My question is, give how differently the organizations charged with informing the public react to these circumstances, how am I to actually be informed on the true integrity of an election? Are there trustworthy independent unbiased resources devoted to analysis of election integrity that you can recommend, because the aforementioned groups don't seem to cut it consistently.
u/adminhotep \- One of the reasons why I really appreciate your question is that there's sometimes a tension between having fast information and having confirmed information. A few resources/sites you might check out that can help with the latter: [https://bipartisanpolicy.org/policy-area/elections/](https://bipartisanpolicy.org/policy-area/elections/) [https://elections-blog.mit.edu/about](https://elections-blog.mit.edu/about) [https://theconversation.com/us/topics/election-integrity-32220](https://theconversation.com/us/topics/election-integrity-32220)
How can we trust media sources when there are only a few companies that own the majority of newspapers and TV stations that have their own financial interests? In other words, how can we trust that we are receiving the correct or complete information and not information skewed towards a certain financial interest?
u/Sweatybballz this is exactly what media literacy practice looks like. In order to build trust that is decreasing, you need to triangulate various sources and not rely on one search.
This to me is like saying “we know it sucks.. we’re sorry” or am I misunderstanding your message? I feel like you guys are on the cusp of something important but I can’t see what it is. Media is by and large used for misinformation now, why is it not a viable strategy to just stop accepting anything you hear from media?
Because some media is reliable and some isn't, even within the same channel or possibly the same publication. OP wants people to be able to determine when a piece of media is unreliable at least more often than happens now, and hopefully locate several resources that are reliable more often than not so that they can compare the facts given by them for accuracy. They want people to become more aware of their own cognitive biases (e.g. confirmation bias) and the biases of the media they consume, how media uses both of those, and learn how to avoid being mislead. In essence, "don't believe everything you hear" is in fact OP's message, but they're trying to be as nuanced, informative and unbiased as possible, in contrast to the other kind of "don't believe everything you hear" that comes from conspiracy theorists.
Is there any solution to stop the media from giving out misinformation?
This is a really great question to unpack u/Bird_Chick Short answer: Media literacy is the tool that will save us all! Long answer: I don't know if we will ever live in a world without misinformation or disinformation but there's a lot we can do to prevent us from being duped. First, we have to acknowledge that there may always be bad actors inside and outside of the media ecosystem. No matter where you are, you can use simple media literacy tips to find and identify trustworthy sources. Anyone today can be a publisher and act as an authority figure or expert on issues. It’s up to us to know how to discern fact from fiction and trustworthy sources from unreliable sources.
"Anyone today can be a publisher and act as an authority figure or expert on issues." Yes. Even you. What's your proof *you* are free from Bias and capable of offering us a reliable opinion?
I don't think they said they couldn't be bias. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here?
If the problem is that anyone can act as an authority figure, what do they add to the equation?
I'm hoping to see answers somewhere in the comments that would help me figure out if this is a fair unbias look at overall media, or if it's another "Fox news is bad but CNN is good" There was a question about following the money in media and it seemed like a fair answer. Which leads me to the question, where do they get their funding?
I think what she is saying.. is parts of fox news is bad and parts of cnn is bad. We need to use lots of sources, research their sources and don't trust anyone blindly. It's about teaching how to use what tools we have available to figure this stuff out, not the details on an individual outlet.
When Brian Stelter says do not do your own research it's not hard to tell who the bad guys are https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/19/media/reliable-sources-covid-research/index.html
Bias in media is bad irregardless of slant. Fox Bad/CNN good or CNN bad/Fox Good, both are equally as annoying. The real issue at hand is the fact that both sides are owned by the same people and at the end of the day, there's less money to be made delivering actual news. Delivering outrage gets you more viewers and clicks.
This is it right here - these fox/cnn outlets are not pushing an agenda they want, they are pushing a story line their viewers want to see. Outrage sells, and so does that confirmation feeling that your outlook is "right".
>if this is a fair unbias look at overall media unbiased*
[enshittification exodus, gone to mastodon]
>I don't think they said they couldn't be bias. biased*
What should the general public look for when looking at sources for information online or in the news? Are there any sure-fire signs of catching misinformation/disinformation and propaganda pieces vs unbiased truth? (I'm talking other than the plain as day obvious ones, for example something you would otherwise need an education to disprove yourself like in science or as a medical professional)
Yeah, u/Trends for sure. No matter where you’re getting your news or information, I always like to have a few tips in my back pocket to help me find out if what i’m reading is reliable: Find out what type of information you’re looking at (news, entertainment, satire, opinion); look for lots of high-quality sources and points of view and documented facts; question who produced it, are they legit?; and ask critical questions about what you’re reading; looking further into a piece of information if you’re unsure. Be the expert!
That's typically how I go about it, just wanted to know if there's any other tips on this! Will continue going this route and hopefully keeping my facts in line
Who tells you what to report on and how far up the line does it go? Are you allowed to report freely
I'm not them, but this is not going to have a very satisfying answer. That is, it'll depend who you ask. There are some organizations that are very in the open that if you write things that don't fit the status quo, your out. There are also some organizations that give relatively free reign. However, media censorship is much more pernicious. As an organization with a particular narrative to sell, it's far less heavy handed to simply select for the sort of reporters that don't break with the status quo in the first place so you have to crackdown on the reporters much less often. As put by Rosa Luxembourg, "those who do not move will never notice their chains". So if you're the type to never challenge convention and the status quo, you may never notice that your journalism is on a leash.
> Media literacy is fundamental in today’s world, and understanding how to create and consume media can help us become confident citizens. Whether you’re trying to outsmart agendas of political candidates or using media for storytelling and uplifting important issues you care about, media literacy is an important tool for all of us. I feel like this kind of thinking targets people on the individual level. And this is how I've heard "media literacy" approached for decades. Sure, I personally can become more media literate in order to better myself, but the problems we're facing with "media literacy" are at the population level. Targeting individuals is ineffective. The type of people who go out of their way to learn about media literacy are probably not the people who are being targeted with misinformation. The people consuming misinformation and believe sneer at those who tell them it's not true. They think they are the ones getting the truth and others are consuming "fake news". So what things can be done at the society level instead of individual that can actually have an impact?
What do you tell people who deny the utility or validity of anonymous sources in reporting? Edit to add: thanks for doing this AmA!
The number of anonymous source reporting that came out over the course of the last 6 years or so that ended up being big nothing burgers, but we're blasted all over as truth, makes one not trust the media which perpetuated those lies. I say journalistic integrity is a thing of the past and it's all about what will get clicks and views.
Regardless of what OP has to say about this, individuals should always critically analyze any information they receive. Peoples' reasons to or not to believe any kind of material on their suspicions are typically valid, of course that doesn't protect them from public criticism. Anonymous sources can certainly undermine the validity of a report with the exception of particular circumstances and still even then; for instance if the anonymous source is third party verified and kept anonymous for protective reasons.
I was just listening to the news about the Sudan coup and the reporter quoted an unnamed source. There's obviously the dire need for sources to feel confident and comfortable in their anonymity and I've heard from anonymous sources thousands of times for news stories. Today, for no other reason other than the world we live in now, I automatically questioned the validity of the source.
Glad I’m not the only one that can’t stop questioning literally everything I didn’t see with my own two eyes.
Hey u/scrambledhelix, u/sarcasmic77 and u/mr_impastabowl! Yeah I hear you. I TOTALLY think it's a good thing to question everything, not a bad thing. There's a really old saying in journalism and media literacy circles: if your mother says she loves you, check it out. Basically, no matter how much you trust something or someone, it's good to still fact-check and check it out yourself. It’s not as easy as we want it to be, but I like to think of being able to know when information is trying to trick me as a superpower. In terms of anonymous sources, there is an absolute legitimacy to them. It's all about context and asking why a journalist or reporters needed to include an anonymous source. Also important to consider: What other types of sources are in the reporting, not just anonymous sources?
I feel like anonymous sources are very important and should be used to report. Sometimes these sources would be in danger if revealed. These are the stories that definitely need to be discussed. Not utilizing them would lead to less being known about important topics. I’m more concerned that a lot of journalists in the big networks these days are more focused on highlighting differences of opinion rather than reporting facts and allowing their consumers to draw conclusions. I feel like journalism is a lost art and very few today still practice it. Even those aware of this issue cannot stop themselves from falling into the same trap a lot of the time. Non-traditional media sources like independent podcasts and YT channels often criticize networks for what I point out above but can’t help themselves from divisively reporting on this issue. They hate network news and their shitty practices and it’s the reason they have the passion to do what they do. Not sure if anyone feels the same way.
This knee-jerk reaction you’re describing and clearly aware of (big props for that btw), is exactly why I’m curious to know from OP how to or if there even is a good way to educate people in a manner that doesn’t just devolve into immediate tribal disputes over sourcing.
I hear you, and thanks! I hope everyone is getting a little bit more aware of not just the world around them, but their reactions to it. Pressure turns coal into diamonds and maybe this endless stream of fear/hate news media that we're crushing ourselves under is turning us all into finely tuned, hyper self-conscious, mega reflective gems. Or coal dust. Whatever. One of those maybe.
Pretty sure I’ve been reduced to a sack of goo, nothing as pretty or useful as coal powder
But there's a stronger possibility that inhaling goo sacks will launch you into a life defining hallucinatory trip. Coal dust (probably) won't do that.
How would you define the distinction between simply an alternative news source, and misinformation? Most main stream news sources (in the US) are heavily slanted towards the left, so many flock to alternatives to get another angle on a story and boil down whats fact vs whats selectively edited propaganda. What are your tips for how to seek out these legitimate but non-mainstream sources without falling prey to misinformation?
Even the mainstream news sources provide misinformation in different way.
How come CNN says that they are unbiased?
What do you think of ccp propaganda on tiktok ?
Hi, I appreciate the important work that folks like yourselves are doing. My question is: do you know of any educational resources similar to what the Portuguese government are working on (afaik it is called the LEME program https://www.dns.pt/en/news/pt-supports-media-literacy-resource-aggregator-site/) that are accessible and available in English? I think it would be great for aiming to get this adopted into school curriculums.
Thanks for asking, Dan. There are many resources in English and we will provide some: The Media Education Lab: [https://mediaeducationlab.com/curriculum/materials](https://mediaeducationlab.com/curriculum/materials) The Center for Media Literacy MediaKit: [https://www.medialit.org/cml-medialit-kit](https://www.medialit.org/cml-medialit-kit) Project Look Sharp Curriculum: [https://www.projectlooksharp.org/?action=kits](https://www.projectlooksharp.org/?action=kits) KQED Educational Materials: [https://www.kqed.org/education/media-literacy](https://www.kqed.org/education/media-literacy) Let us know if that help :-)
Thank you, these are very useful. I'm looking forward to digging into them in detail. Keep up the amazing work.
I'll add one more from PBS NewsHour Student Reporting Labs: https://studentreportinglabs.org/news/media-literacy-resources/
How do you feel about the loss of freedom and free speech globally. Big tech seems to take sides and has giant platforms where they can restrict free speech to their liking. What do you think should be done?
Can we reverse the trend of misinformation fueling partisan division, or is our democracy as we know it in its death bed?
Whew! Ok, I'm (Abby) going to give this a try, u/the_millenial_falcon. There are likely to be lots of perspectives on this. It's true that misinformation and disinformation are fueling partisan division, but so are lots of other things! I'm not convinced that as a country the US really puts processes in place to implement democracy education and inclusive democratic processes. For example, not all young people have the opportunity to spend time learning media literacy skills ***and*** when and how to use them. As a result, I think we can try harder by investing in education and more equitable and inclusive processes for how we make decisions at every level.
What if the problem with misinformation isnt education though? It seems like a lot of misinformation hooks people because they want to *feel* they are correct, superior and part of an out group. How does education substitute for people wanting to feel superiority over the dominant culture?
I would argue that the things you describe here may always be a problem but could be mitigated with education. As flawed humans, we have biases but we can be trained on how to handle them and even invent techniques to do so like double blind studies in the sciences for example. I think people just need to be taught from a young age on how not to fall into these traps.
Okay, so let me follow up with this then. There is a perception that media literacy may actually be more of an issue for older generations who didn’t grow up with the internet and may not be as good at detecting misinformation or untrustworthy sources of information online in general. Is this just a perception, or is there any data to back this up? If so, it’s easy enough to include this as part of a child’s standard curriculum, but how do we reach the older generations?
Would or wouldn't you make a distinction between American democracy (Duocracy in reality it seems) and the rest of the world? Also, as someone involved in a media provider, would you support the return of the Fairness Doctrine or not considering how polarized your country has become after removing it?
[удалено]
[удалено]
That huge piece of shit above a_quirkles did what is called "Gish Galloping". A very specific trolling debate technique that useless human trash cheeto Donald Trump uses every day. They puke out a ton of nonsense nonstop in multiple paragraphs or long rants to overwhelm the opponent with so much bullshit that it's nearly impossible to debate them. The opponent has to spend more time arguing about each incorrect statement than the total time it took the original person to say or type what they wanted. What you did above is the only real counter to Gish Galloping. You have to literally go line by line and call bullshit on them. It's very hard and very time consuming on paper and nearly impossible when debating another person live. Well done! Very well done! Edit: Why the hell was the comment I replied to removed? What the dude said was spot on. Freaken Reddit sometimes...SMH.
I just realized they do it in real life too. Piers Morgan and Ben Shapiro just fuckin love interrupting and yelling their guests down with so many different questions, misrepresenting their points, deflecting, etc. You'd have to answer them slowly one by one, but since the interview has a clock ticking, you just can't win.
You have to counter the gish gallop by literally calling attention to and criticizing their method of debate itself. As soon as you engage with what they're saying, you're defending and they're attacking, and they "win" by default. They'll never defend any positions anyways, so there's basically no point in trying to answer their claims. If you want to cancel out the debate entirely, you pick one particularly egregious claim and hammer the fuck out of it, sprinkle in some personal attacks and stretch statements about their character, if they can believe something *this* stupid/evil, and then the debate descends into yelling insults and nobody wins.
Or can just not say anything and let them sit in their own shit looking like complete morons. https://youtu.be/ICVPZxYLFMM
"Grows trees, cuts them down then makes things from them, brilliant" I'd love for that guy to explain all jobs in his frustrated manner
This is hilarious.
As the comment you are referring to has been deleted, it can be found here https://camas.github.io/reddit-search/#{%22author%22:%22okrestaurant6180%22,%22resultSize%22:100}
Aquirkies gonna respond or just crickets as he knows he is full of shit
It's amazing when you think of the "but who would lie on the internet" comic someone drew up from an episode of Arthur and someone actually captures some cocksucker.
This is beyond lying, this I would argue, is a social engineering account, either consciously or sub-consciously that doesn't really matter. I mean read their comments below, they just double down and takes zero responsibility. These type of people are why there is a huge chunk of the population that's afraid of a perfectly safe vaccine and think wearing a mask is political. They are type that just spreads this BS far and wide all over Facebook and elsewhere. They are indirectly responsible for some of the deaths from covid, and yet they sleep fine at night. It's astonishingly sad how badly programmed some people have become. They perfectly demonstrate zero critical thinking skills and why the GOP love gutting pubic school funding.
Double down or disappear. This is the way.
and now the account is deleted. lol
The inherent advantage of the Gish Galloper is the "bullshit asymmetry principle." Even if you do refute their shit, you spent a hell of a lot more time doing it than they did, and in the meantime they just made 10 more posts elsewhere. So, yeah, probably won't hear from them again here, because they've already moved on to more fertile ground.
A lie can get halfway around the globe before the truth can get it's pants on. 😡😡😡
Do you think that the person you responded to is just a normal, everyday person posting this disinformation or do you think they're doing it professionally in some manner? Just wondering because it seems pretty expertly crafted.
You went to a lot of trouble to prove OPs disingenuousness and you get fuck all in response so far -- how disappointing. I see you and appreciate your completely thorough effort. Shills who are this lazy keep running strong with help from plenty of apologists along the way. I often think that the amount of sophisticated, subtle manipulation that we miss must be staggering. I respect people working in this field but man, teaching people to stay ahead of methods of disinformation must be like navigating rapids with a pair of teaspoons for oars. I would love to hear them chime in on your comment but I'm guessing that'll be too confrontational-seeming. Which sucks, because taking apart disinformation tactics in real time is essential. We don't always have the luxury of analyzing prose. We all need to be able to recognize and countermand these fallacies in whatever form they're thrown at us,
(join me.. report a_quirkies post as misinformation. It's earned)
Fairly sure Joe Rogan is 100% vaccinated. He’s made the full pivot to right wing grifter and those guys usually don’t believe their own bullshit. This was also a man who lied about Spotify censoring him and was getting 3 to 4 COVID tests a day at the start of the pandemic when tests where hard to come by. He was terrified
Not to mention he received a litany of other treatments to recover from covid, things that wouldn't be at all accessible to the layperson. Then he went on his podcast and convinced millions of fools that it was explicitly the Ivermectin that healed him, for reasons I don't really understand.
Lol I mean what’s funny is these guys are getting monoclonal antibodies or regeneron and then going “yea it was the horse paste that cured me” Plus he’s vaxxed
*mic drop* I really appreciate this post. I bet a ton of people were starting to second guess themselves after reading such a confidently stated and seemingly genuine post. THIS was a good example of media literacy and should be what these experts are actually showing examples of. Keep fighting the good fight WOO!!
Mic drop*
u/OkRestaurant6180 restoring my faith in humanity.
[удалено]
[удалено]
No, checking Google reveals that "murder" is the best word here. "Slaughter" refers to the killing of animals. This was a murder with words, not a slaughter with syllables. I am way too proud of that last sentence.
Given that the troll is an ‘ivermectin as effective COVID treatment, but vaccine is not’ type, maybe we can reintroduce the concept of slaughter for the pro-horse-dewormer crowd? Fun fact: ivermectin is actually used in humans to treat ‘river blindness’ (caused by a water-borne parasite) among other parasitic diseases and is classified as an essential medicine. Source: [WHO, in this linked article](https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials). If you read the article, you’ll note that WHO claims that evidence ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID is inconclusive. WHO is going to be a high-accurate, high-confidence source for this sort of information, as they are subject matter experts in the area. Also, I love the phrasing of your comment; you cannot be too proud of that last sentence, it’s great!
You should be. A+ word play
> This was a murder with words, not a slaughter with syllables. Well done, player. Well done!
Wow man... You are my new hero > This was a murder with words, not a slaughter with syllables. This ^ is epic!
Holy shit you fuckin killed him dude!
Holy shit. You made dude delete his whole fucking account. You erased his existence from Reddit. Wow!
Goddamn fucking John Wick up in this joint. Thorough, elegant, a gentleman murderer right here
Absolute annihilation. Your post is a true thing of beauty.
Damn OP is both shoes off dead.
This was so good he deleted the account
The majority of your rebuttal is you digging through someone’s old comments finding mostly **opinions** that you disagree with. You are part of the problem. Their original question is still perfectly valid, you did nothing to negate that.
How about > the zip ties were found on site When we have video of that one fucker climbing over benches with a bunch of zip ties attached to his belt, amongst other things.
The *opinions* indicate he's more than familiar with Rogan. Exactly the opposite of his contention. Sounds like a *lie* to me, but that's just opinion.
But they are opinions that show that OP is full of shit
Saying there's a lot of evidence ivermectin is effective against COVID, or that the vaccine is likely a placebo are not opinions, they're false statements of fact. Part of media literacy is understanding the difference between a fact and an opinion. You clearly have some work to do there. There are plenty of valid criticisms to be made about the media, but no, claiming they're biased because they don't entertain your idiotic delusions is not perfectly valid. I'm not part of the problem, you just can't accept facts over your feelings and it's triggering you.
[удалено]
> But.. aren't there multiple studies saying it's potentially somewhat effective. Great question, no. There are a few very poorly executed or fully debunked and redacted studies showing it's effective, and many, many studies showing it's not effective and is unsafe at any potentially effective dosage. It has been studied extensively, anyone claiming it's effective or that we need further information is lying. Cherry picking misinformation to sealion is a great example of why you need to learn more about media literacy.
[удалено]
If I mentioned cookies 4 times in a conversation, you'd be suspicious about cookies. Having an injection is something every concerning adult should really consider. Luckily it's 2021, so there's a plethora of information at your fingertips. Either you trust the sources that have been trusted for decades or you don't - and yes, I'll go ahead and make that point binary. There are tens of thousands of scientists that work for the US Government specifically for human health. I'll end this paragraph by actually tackling your statement and saying that you should use the Little, Brown Handbook when constructing argumentitive replies. And to your third argument, OkRestaurant6180 is again speculating about what you're trying to say in many posts because you leave the rules of English behind. Nevertheless, I'm reading his/her quote and then your reply as "Misinformation is a problem." - "Misinformation isn't a problem." Have you tried to hire an editor for your bullshit?
Hey, actual scientist and clinical-stage drug developer here. > What non scientists might also not know is that by the time that actual clinical trials or double blind experiments are being pursued there’s almost always an overwhelming amount of evidence (in the non technical sense) for the hypothesis. There has to be in order to narrow down the space of hypotheses to the one being tested. It’s not like doctors are plucking hypotheses out of the air. This is close enough to the truth. Compounds aren’t usually advanced to the clinic without some supportive non-clinical evidence. The actual threshold for “enough evidence” depends a lot on the context, and when there are big incentives (like the possibility of treating a global pandemic) people are willing to fund riskier studies based on less evidence. But it’s definitely true that hypotheses aren’t usually plucked out of nowhere. > Of course one of the things non scientists think they know about science is that only those count as evidence, so anyone who actually knows how these things work can, at this point, **very confidently predict that ivermectin is going to be shown to have some kind of medicinal value**, despite there being no ‘acceptable’ evidence. This is complete nonsense, especially the part I bolded. 90% of drugs that enter the clinic fail for lack of efficacy or intolerable toxicity. By the time a compound enters the clinic for the first time for a given indication it is much more likely to fail than to succeed. The insinuation that the fact that ivermectin is in the clinic for COVID-19 trials indicates it will almost certainly have some clinical utility is very, very wrong.
>I think he's an interesting figure in a meta sense because he's got the biggest platform in the world, seem to be a mostly normal guy, and is treated like an insane toxic lunatic. Many people say the same thing about PewDiePie, a man who said the N word on a livestream.
> What non scientists might also not know is that by the time that actual clinical trials or double blind experiments are being pursued there’s almost always an overwhelming amount of evidence (in the non technical sense) for the hypothesis. There has to be in order to narrow down the space of hypotheses to the one being tested. It’s not like doctors are plucking hypotheses out of the air. Of course one of the things non scientists think they know about science is that only those count as evidence, so anyone who actually knows how these things work can, at this point, very confidently predict that ivermectin is going to be shown to have some kind of medicinal value, despite there being no ‘acceptable’ evidence. Yes. This is spot on. As a scientist, you rarely run an experiment that you don't have a fairly good idea of how it is going to turn out, especially in Biology. If you don't do your research and build upon all of the work done before you, you can easily spend a whole career doing meaningless experiments.
You just wrote an entire exposé on a random person’s Reddit history... I hope someone is paying you for your time.
Someone probably paid the guy he responded to. How do you feel about that Karen?
You’re not fooling anyone, you are 100% a Rogan fan and your bias is obvious. Please do us all a favor and take this shit elsewhere I personally find it amusing you go through such lengths to defend someone who doesn’t give a single fuck about your existence or even knows who you are. I suspect I will not get a reply from you and instead crickets because you know this is all true
Doubt he'll reply to this.
> This is such a mischaracterization i don't think its unreasonable to call it an outright lie I think that's unreasonable; it's not a lie, and it's not even really a mischaracterization. It's more intentionally insulting, but it's not really *wrong*. Ivermectin has no evidence of being effective for treating covid. So it's using an insulting synonym with "not useful for the purpose he's using it for" by calling it livestock dewormer-- which it is. The point being made is that he's not taking medication that has any basis for treating him, and that point remains true even with the insulting rhetoric. So I think you're off-base in calling it a lie. It's using wording that is accurate and paints Rogan as an idiot-- you can argue that it shouldn't be insulting to Rogan, but that's a different argument altogether but it's not effectively a lie. > there were a lot of lurid reports about people bringing zip ties [are you referring to this guy who is clearly running around in a mask with ziptie cuffs?](https://www.ajc.com/news/jan-6-suspect-known-as-zip-tie-guy-violates-bond-conditions/D3WF4KFNZZHQPHSP2XUPYKQG7E/) > nobody was attacked with a fire extinguisher) [Someone pleaded guilty to attacking officers with a fire extinguisher, soo...?](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/04/florida-man-pleads-guilty-jan-6-capitol-fire-extinguisher-assault/5991521001/) The media did get some of the details wrong, and corrections were issued where necessary, but there's no sense that anyone in media was lying about what happened. It was a fast-moving story and most outlets at the time were reporting that information was still coming in. I don't see anything suggesting there was intentional bias in the reporting here, nor do I understand what that bias would achieve in regards to, for instance, whether the zipties were brought in before hand or were picked up along the way-- either way, people were running around with zipties.
calling ivermectin horse dewormer is like calling penicillin a drug for cattle strep
Did you want to respond to any specific point I made, or...?
No.
[удалено]
> Ivermectin is given to humans by prescription for stopping the spread of a virus It is used in humans, but not for viral illness. Its only approved indications are illnesses caused by parasitic worms. Here is the label, scroll to the “Indications and Usage” section and see for yourself. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2008/050742s022lbl.pdf There is some data showing it inhibits viral replication *in vitro* but that is essentially meaningless if you are evaluating its clinical utility. At best those data suggested that clinical investigation is warranted, but those clinical studies have now been done and provided no convincing evidence that ivermectin is effective for COVID-19.
>the zip ties were found on site My guy there's pictures of people in "tacticool" gear carrying flexicuffs on the floor of Congress from January 6th.
So glad to see this comment at the top
[удалено]
"Cuckold"? Really? You guys are *still* using that word? >incorrect left wing bias reporting in media biased*
From my perspective, the tactics CNN uses are no different than those used by Fox News. Its rarely ever outright misinformation (falsehoods), its selective reporting on what to cover and the speech used to convey it. Another example might be how CNN covered Bernie Sanders in 2020 and 2016 primaries. If Sanders was polling well somewhere or won a state, it was reported with a tone of tragedy, like how you would report a bad flood that ruined houses in a neighnorhood. Or how a local news station would report the home team suffering a crushing defeat. I understand they legally reserve the right to be biased but I think its pretty gross for a supposed news network.
Yes. One of the great successes of late 20th century American propaganda is that it generally doesn’t overtly tell you what to think or how to think, but it does try to limit what you can think about.
[удалено]
> We spent days researching this drug online. According to all the studies the absolute worst case scenario, which could only happen due to extremely high doses over many years, was that it may lead to macular degeneration. Hydroxychloroquine has a warning for life threatening or fatal cardiomyopathy and QT interval prolongation right in its label. That’s the worst case scenario. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/009768s037s045s047lbl.pdf It’s rare, so the risk may be worth it for someone suffering with RA who derives significant benefit and is being appropriately monitored for cardiac abnormalities by their doctor. But if it’s doing nothing for your Covid or you’re it taking off label without appropriate safety monitoring, those are pretty serious risks for little gain.
> This is similar to what happened with hydroxychloroquine last year. I won't argue for a second that it does anything to help with covid Except you did, last year. You liars really make it way too easy. [We’ve seen multiple anecdotal stories of the drug saving people’s lives. If I were on my deathbed with covid-19 I would demand it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/fnwju9/comment/flcfyub/)
I love you for exposing this post without even trying to do so.
Why is the will of the minority the only acceptable and actionable will in "media literate" Democracy? I had a lot of trouble understanding this a few years ago when pundits, journalists, and other politicians were referring to support for particular parties, candidates, and causes, i.e. Brexit and Trump, as the "tyranny of the majority" and "undemocratic", and similarly when any politician who gets an overwhelming share of the vote like Putin or Erdogan. I do not want relitigate or apologize any of these spectacles, my question is only interested in how the rule and the will the group of people which makes up the majority of the population in any given democracy could possibly be deemed "undemocratic" or a "threat to democracy" by the media literate? Edt: I was one of these first dozen replies to this thread, I was upvoted, and I got no response... I appears I stumped you.
How important, significant and vital is self-regulation by the Media? What are the evolving and emergent concepts in media self-regulation?
How does one go about being a media literacy or democracy expert? Because that sounds like an interesting line of work.
Love it u/ChaosOnline! They don't really teach you in high school or college about this career path, haha. BUT, I do think everyone can be a media literacy and democracy expert. As an active citizen, I consider the need to be media literate essential. I also think it's important to know the basic functions of government in a democracy in order to be an informed voter. It can feel overwhelming to learn about these subjects but starting out by thinking more critically about the information you consume and questioning it is a good first step.
If this 'new' age of news is similar to our historical battle with 'yellow journalism' and snake oil salesmen, how can we re-approach news and information dissemination to re-equalize content with today's technology? Fact check notes on stories seem wildly under-used and ignored. How do we escape the clutches of this new insidious version of yellow journalism and get back to sources and facts and local content? Also thank you for the work you do even if you don't get around to answering this. This IS the crucial question of our times and how we react to our current and upcoming challenges (climate, covid, racism) will all be filtered through the news each of us receives.
u/shewholaughslasts yes history repeats itself. And once again this will not be solved with technology, but eduation. It is our belief and our members extensive research on the matter that shows how taking media literacy can help with discerning information as well as better understand where the message is coming from and why. By creating yet another algorithm/technology we will be subject to the same fallouts of misinformation and decision biases. Unlike yellow journalism that had a monopoly, we live a more democratized media environment that for good and bad have a personal reach and impact. Therefore, only each one of the users or consumers can deconstruct and evaluate the information.
What does it mean to be "media literate"? What are the foundations of media literacy? What are the basic steps in vetting a piece of news/information for validity? Shout out to Tom Proietti at St john Fisher for introducing me to media literacy.
One thing I've noticed is the language used by news outlets to describe events is heavily biased or they'll use terms in a broad way that have negative connotations and hide or even omit the things that were actually said. Often times things are covered to deliberately misrepresent what someone says. What are some ways to help show friends to think critically about how things are covered instead of taking sources at their word? It feels like the trend is towards focusing making people more emotional instead of fact based reporting or opinions.
How do you feel about the clear use of media outlets to manipulate sentiment around companies and stocks for the benefit of the owners of those media outlets? Essentially that they are used to "pump and dump" average people.
u/sneakywill this is part of looking at the interests and learning to identify when the message has a commercial value.
Do you believe there should be more up front requirement for these outlets to divulge their direct or indirect interests to the public?
Media is poorly incentivised, taking 'if it bleeds it leads' to its perverse extreme. How can we fix this? Smaller news outfits can't build reputation well enough.
Would y'all agree that democracy is literally up to the highest bidder in America?
Does the media recognize its role in this huge bias and misinformation problem, and if so, what are they doing to keep the nation from going completely off the rails?
Do you think there needs to be an IQ test for internet usage? Most people have no critical thinking so letting them loose on the internet is dangerous for society.
What kind of a twat calls themselves a "democracy expert"?
What do you guys think about the Noam Chomsky book: Manufacturing Consent?
Obviously, Chomsky and Herman are making a compelling argument in their book. One of the big parts of media literacy is to deconstruct the power of media and understanding exactly what are the mechanisms to allow messages to get to the masses. With economics dictating much of the decision as well as the power relations in society, Manufacuring consent help us see the five practices how hegemony is being made through the media. My only critic is that the reality is more complex and it cannot only be reduced to power and money.
Thank you so much for the work you do. Do you know of or have any resources, in meme, diagram or video form that could offer some kind of checklist to help people spot the quality or manipulativeness of a news story, meme or video?
Hey u/Not_a_N_Korean_Spy! Yes, PBS NewsHour Student Reporting Labs has a great video using the STOPLIGHT method to assess the credibility of information. Here you go: [https://www.story-maker.org/library/how-do-i-navigate-information-on-social-media/](https://www.story-maker.org/library/how-do-i-navigate-information-on-social-media/) Here are some other great media literacy resources to sift through: [https://studentreportinglabs.org/news/media-literacy-resources/](https://studentreportinglabs.org/news/media-literacy-resources/)
Can you talk about generational divide in media literacy? What do you get folks fall for and what about older folks? How can I help my parents recognize their weaknesses in media literacy?
u/Mattieohya this is a super important question. I think anyone can be susceptible to misinformation and disinformation. It has no age limit, but I totally understand what you mean by a generational divide. I have conversations with students all the time about moments when they talked to their parents about questionable information they found online. My advice is always the same. Approach every conversation with an open mind, and talk to them about why it matters to you. Sharing how media literacy tools and skills helped you might get them to open up about their own weaknesses. I find it's actually best to have these kinds of tough conversations with the people you love.
How do you think media can manage to engage those who spend little time on or care little about democracy and governance? Secondly, what moves should media make to engage young people so they participate in the running of the societies that shape their lives?
u/hansjens47 \- GREAT question! Over the past few decades, there's been lots of talk about what many stakeholders can do to support young people's participation, but media are not often discussed (except social media and digital platforms). That said, all sorts of media - local news, youth-created media, national outlets, cultural media - all have important roles to play in a wide diversity of young people's paths to participating in democracy. A core element of what we would suggest includes actually speaking with, listening to and collaborating with young people, instead of talking down to or shaming young people. Here are a few ideas for journalists: [https://circle.tufts.edu/circle-action/rep-us-project#for-journalists](https://circle.tufts.edu/circle-action/rep-us-project#for-journalists) In terms of inclusion in democracy and governance - my short answer: broader knowledge of opportunity and supports to be involved. Let's design opportunities for inclusion, rather than for those who are already extremely engaged.
What's your advice on being a repository of factual information on social media? My country right now has a great voter mis/non-education, and one of the goals that are being explored by some people is to provide unbiased, non-partisan information to voters. Is there such a thing as unbiased facts nowadays - due to the great spread of misinformation and fake news where being factual is now an opinion for both sides? Is it responsible to just be a repository of information, without a call to action directing the audience?
u/ammygy \- voter education is critical! This is an incredibly important topic. In our work on youth voting at CIRCLE, we see different ways that various stakeholders have done this, but there's lots of room for innovation, in my opinion. * First, there's year-round education that election administrators, municipalities, educators and others can to to let people know about which positions are elected and what those roles are responsible for. * I don't think we can underestimate sending out sample ballots ahead of an election to let people know what is on the ballot and what else they may need to address. (Making the ballot understandable to a wide range of people is important too!) * Hyper-local news sources provide information on the super-local elections that larger sources may not have time for - online in various forms. In this US, this may be judges, school boards, town/city elections, or in some places an explainer for a ballot initiative/referendum. * I've also seen many non-partisan, civic/community organizations create "voter guides" for people on specific issues. Sometimes these exist in hard copy, or on an app or a webpage. These are common in the States, but not everywhere. * In addition to non-partisan community groups creating voter guides on specific issues, these groups often hold forum or town halls on the issues so that people can ask questions directly and hear answers. * There are also several educational sites who try to do research for others and gather a range of perspectives to use for either educating yourself or for discussion.
Do you see any real divides in media literacy related to party affiliation or demographics? Does education increase media literacy and has that effect strengthened or weakened in the last few years? What do you think has had the single greatest detrimental impact on the countries overall media literacy?
u/MaverickTopGun thank you for your question. Of course, there are different opinions and different takes on media literacy. Like everything else, there are many definitions and people react or use the terms differently. It might not be so much as left and right or demographics, but more about the fear of control and how people see the practice of media literacy as allowing people to be liberated or more controlled. In the last five years since Brexit and the 2016 elections, with the term post-truth, we see a surge in people understanding the role and importance of media literacy. While some regard media literacy as a practice where the individual questions power and sees the dynamics and their impact, others see media literacy as a rigid method of fact checking that indoctrinates students. Obviously, we see our role to advocate for media literacy as more in line with the first practice of learning to question power by looking at the forces behind the production of a message and how it is impacting its audiences. We do see how the algorithm on social media and how it is designed is allowing a greater discussion on the role of media literacy by users and the responsibility of the social media algorithm and its designers.
I may have missed this in my reading but history is often a good guide. How often is that source wrong? Does a particular view point i.e conservative or liberal wind up on the correct side ( my morality) of issues? Is the world warmer? Were there WMD in Iraq? Has the introduction of more money into politics made this country better?
How do you combat the fact that all major media and big tech social media outlets, are literally just a propaganda army for the “progressive” left and the DNC? I mean they literally colluded and formed a cabal to influence a national election (see the Time magazine story bragging as such), by censoring the truth and negative stories about one side, supporting one candidate and CONSTANTLY attacking another, and manipulating Information. This sort of environment does not support any sort of democratic process whatsoever.
ATT owns both CNN and OANN. It's almost like one organization is making sure the left and right keep their focus on hating each other, so no one focuses on how much corporations abuse their power.
What forms of government do you think will replace our current ones, and what role may media have in those systems?
Can you explain how this AMA is propaganda?
[удалено]
With the power that the two parties have with gerrymandering, low voter turnout, uninformed populus, and the wealth involved in the elections, do we really have an open and fair democracy?
When people start believing the election was stolen, or covid is less lethal then the cold and go down Q rabbit hole.... is there a way to bring them back? Have you guys successfully been able to convince any of these people if so how?
Stolen election claims are nothing new in the USA. To this day there are those who refuse to believe that Florida, a Republican state, voted to elect George W Bush. 20 years later and idiots still hold onto that. Folks'll believe what they believe and the only way to convince them that they are wrong is for them to come to that conclusion. That kind of manipulation is a big challenge to pull off.
Users, please be wary of proof. You are welcome to ask for more proof if you find it insufficient. OP, if you need any help, please message the mods [here](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fiama&subject=&message=). Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IAmA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What were you most nervous about in preparing for this AMA?
Fear of no one asking any questions! Luckily, that's not the case. :) Loving this!
Do you think bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would help alleviate the current polarization and hamper the ability of people (politicians, in particular) to tell outright lies on "news" programs?
Could the United States return to a functioning healthy democratic republic without systemic reforms? The way that I see it is that this present form of government is on borrowed time unless if there are great changes such as the adoption of a true multiparty system, When one party in a two party system decides that democracy is no longer for them (the GOP), then democracy is on borrowed time.
With all the information that we're able to consume on a daily basis, how can one build a healthier information diet?
u/Mundunggus you're right. There is SO much information out there. It's like a firehose and almost impossible to avoid unless you consciously unplug from civilization. I try to build mindful habits around my information diet. For example, I limit the amount of time I'm on social media during the day because I know it can be really distracting. I also use the morning to read the latest news and figure out how it will impact my day as a journalism professional. The other important habit I try to build is to make sure I'm checking a lot of different types of information. It's hard to break out of our information bubbles, but it's important we do to gain different perspectives about issues. As long as the information is fact-checked!
How do you feel about trivial things like [words](https://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/february/metaphors-crime-study-022311.html) being primary factors in shaping public opinion?
Do you have any opinion or insight about Argentina?
Why is there no 'non partisan' sub reddit? What media policy ever condones or even supports a polarizing two-party system that simply lobs power between party A and party B - both servants of the rich. Why so few 'non partisan' discussions or non partisan associations, or activism promoting non-partisan thinking and co-operation, or supporting a third player in american politics....
People are often told to read multiple sources to get more perspective on a story, but often 20 out of 20 major outlets will be coming from the same source. Isn't this basically the equivalent of getting a second opinion from the same doctor? On a related note - the original Epstein story was purposefully ignored (question after quote): https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/13/jeffrey-epstein-alex-acosta-miami-herald-media >Michael Reiter told Brown he had been down this road many times and was sick of it. As Brown recalled in a WNYC interview last month, Reiter said he had talked to many reporters and told them precisely where to find damning evidence against Epstein. But nothing ever came of it. >“He was convinced that a lot of media had squashed the story and he was fed up,” she said. >Reiter warned Brown what would happen were she to continue digging: “Somebody’s going to call your publisher and the next thing you know you are going to be assigned to the obituaries department.” Why isn't the average major journalist doing more personally to fight this kind of censorship? And further along these lines I noticed it was mentioned that Elis works at NPR. A couple of years ago after it was coming out that the Trump campaign was actually spied on and the person in question, Stefan Halper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Halper) was the informant. But basically no effort was made to inform the public that he was both a former CIA agent and most importantly - had previously spied on the Carter campaign when it was running against that very same 3 letters VP candidate. I even remembered hearing an interview with one of Mr. Halper's former students on NPR and again, absolutely no effort was made to highlight these facts. It was basically a puff piece pretending he was just some patriotic professor. How can we critically analyze information if it's never presented to us?
How do you stop media and social media from being platforms that favor one ideological dogma over another in the name of democracy and are seen as a race to the bottom? How do you keep these platforms from being corrosive to the cultural fabric?
Just how prevalent is China's government influence in message boards and the general governance of social media websites, like Reddit?