• NounsAndWords@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Are Republicans already unironically upset that the majority of examples of misinformation are from conservative sources?

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I honestly hope that isn’t true, even if left wing sources are harder to find. This is a case where I believe showing ‘both sides’ is necessary. It’s less likely that they will be duped by people on the left, but it is still possible and they need to be aware of that.

      • NounsAndWords@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        46
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t like the idea of having to provide an equal amount of examples from ‘both sides’ when that isn’t matching reality, on an issue specifically affecting one political party more than the other (or maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine, I don’t know). There are misinformation examples from probably every part of the political spectrum, but they should be exemplified proportionally. Showing the reality, which is that a majority of fake news is generated by conservative sources, is important.

        • sleepdrifter@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, I recall someone from the BBC saying something similar when it came to covering Brexit. It would take their producers days to find a credible, coherent voice that was pro-Brexit, while the anti-Brexit folks were basically lined up to voice their reasoning. That dichotomy was never revealed to listeners and caused some strife amongst the news team as it seemed disingenuous to present both sides as equal

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It shouldn’t be about who is doing it more, it should be about how to recognize propaganda. Propaganda can come from any side of the political spectrum. Saying “they do it more” doesn’t help when just trying to teach the basics.

          • NounsAndWords@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            It isn’t about who is doing it more, it’s about giving examples. Those examples have to come from somewhere, and if you aren’t cherrypicking…those examples are going to skew in one direction, which is the original complaint I was anticipating.

        • oxjox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The problem is that we’ve gotten so far from the middle that it’s going to take a generation to wrangle it (reasonable intellectual debate) back. If you’re giving equal opportunity to both sides, you’ll need time for lengthy debates to resolve in an acceptably neutral manner.

          The “truth” used to be within arm’s reach. Reasonable discussion could be had from either side of an issue. Today, you’ve got two parties (regardless of politics) who appear to maybe be commenting on the same topic but it’s like they’re on different planets now. Few people, including you and I right this moment, take enough time to engage in the original conversation and instead inject their narrative into something unrelated.

          The internet has allowed everyone with an opinion to barf it all over the place while their lemmings lick it up and regurgitate the same cold greasy pizza. This (literally, this comment) distracts from the topic at hand and diverts people to engage in things that infrequently mean anything at all.

          This really comes down to responsible journalism. It seems to me that responsible journalism, and “equal time for both sides”, can’t proliferate in a world driven by hits of dopamine on social media. What schools should be teaching is how to avoid addiction, how to strengthen your attention span, how to find the time and the value in reading long form articles, and how to deeply decipher propaganda.

          Edit: in related news… “ Americans flock to TikTok for newshttps://www.axios.com/2023/11/15/tiktok-social-media-news-source-us-data

          The share of TikTok users who consume news through the platform has nearly doubled since 2020, according to new Pew Research Center data.

          Why it matters: News organizations, business leaders and brands are being forced to evolve and meet audiences where they are in order to break through.

          What’s happening: The Pew study shows that news consumers have accelerated their shift toward digital channels in the past year.

          Americans are roughly twice as likely to say they prefer getting news on digital devices (58%) than television (27%). Meanwhile, audience preference for radio and print media remains roughly stagnant at 6% and 5% respectively.

          State of play: Roughly half of Americans say they get some news from social media platforms.

          News audiences are increasing the most on TikTok and Instagram. Platforms like LinkedIn, Twitch and Nextdoor are also gaining traction as news sources.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t like the headline description of this because I really hate the term “fake news”, given who originated it (or at least who popularized it). Reading the article though, CA seems to refer to it as “media literacy”, which seems more apt, that or “critical thinking skills” would be so much better. Just anything other than the term “fake news”.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can we call the skills “media literacy” and “critical thinking”… and call fake news what it is: propaganda?

    • blattrules@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      He didn’t originate that term. He claims that he did and he appropriated it, but it was in existence long before he started using it.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        it was in existence long before he started using it.

        Notably, in late 30s Germany by a pretty infamous man.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re saying… Donald saying he created something……
        ….
        ….
        ….
        Is….
        Fake news?
        (I’ll see myself out,)

    • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      Look at this guy, learning correctly!

      I’ll have you know buddy, that I’m a moron and was constantly pushed up grades because I showed up enough and did half-ass work to earn a C and didn’t learn anything.

      And most of us are like that! Because the American school system is fucked and rather not fail a kid and now we are in government and believe in Jewish space lasers and will fist fight people we disagree with!

  • jopepa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    News is supposed to tell you what happened not how to feel about it. When you notice an article is using a lot of emotionally charged language, that’s a good sign to check the facts (if there are any)

    • zephyreks@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You might as well only read news wires like Reuters and AP, then.

      Context matters, emotions matter, selective reporting is rampant, and all journalism writes to their audience. It’s usually more accurate to read articles from both sides of an issue and assume that both are wrong, with the truth often somewhere in the middle. On a geopolitical scale, it’s also good to assume rational actors (because, far more often than not, they are rational even if you don’t have the context that rationalizes an action).

    • Synapse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Realistically, any piece of information is reported from a point of view. It is published following an editorial line, tinted by an opinon or an alter motive. This is why you should always consider the source of the information and if you really need to know, crosscheck with multiple independant sources.

      • jopepa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It kind of sounds like you’re mistrusting of journalist in general. I don’t think journalists are the problem though, columnists maybe, and publishers definitely. There is the big difference between calling a LGBT bookreading a hellscape and calling a war zone a hellscape. Some news tells you what is; others chew it, digest it, and put sprinkles on the soft serve for you.

        • Synapse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t distrust journalists. I think it’s always important to consider who I am reading or hearing from, to take this fact into consideration as well in order to make my judgement. There are as many ways to report a fact as there are hands to write about it, the choice of words has an influence, as you pointed out with your example. We can trust reputable sources with more confidence, but non the less, I don’t think it’s ever as simple as reporting “what is”. E.g: “a cat got run over by a car” vs “a man killed a cat with his car” just reporting a fact, very different feeling.

          • jopepa@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Cool, same book, same page. I’ve just seen a lot of journalists get demonized because of the misinformation surge and that sucks because we need more of them more than ever.

            • Synapse@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              We desperatly need more good journalists and more truly independent media. In this day in age we expect a lot for free, but I am glad to pay for newspaper subscription and for public radio/tv.

  • rckclmbr@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I still remember a 2 day assignment we had of finding scientific articles, and classifying them as trustworthy or not. Ie, was it in a peer reviewed journal vs a study at a “clinic” that has bias in the outcome. I remember that to this day and feel like it was a major shift toward my ability to think critically

  • Smacks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can already hear Republicans writing up a ban on this type of class in Florida.

  • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    fully expect the entire right wing media aparatus to be demonizing this as something ridiculous as brainwashing kids against facts and truth, and “LIBERALS REQUIRE FORCED INDOCTRINATION TO MAKE KIDS ACCEPT THEIR LIES”.

    • tlahtolli@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or worse, they have the same sort of class, but opposite- one that teaches kids how to recognize “liberal” prose and teaches them to reject it.

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And you know it will devolve into little more than literal nazi indoctrination, with hatred for trans, gays, jews, immigrants,etc.

  • Navarian@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This, frankly, is an incredible move. Hopefully us Europeans take notice and consider implementing something similar.

  • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Nearly every act of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia and transphobia ever committed has been committed by conservatives.

    We should be teaching our children why it is immoral to do business or keep relationships with conservatives.

    • orphiebaby@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      …Progressive here. Blatantly untrue. First of all, all those words are a form of bigotry, for clarification. Second of all, everyone is capable of— and has participated in— bigotry at some point. It’s just baked into culture and you pick it up through osmosis— whether you wanted to or not. Some of it you may never participate in, but others? It takes effort to fight the stuff that slips through the cracks.