I honestly hope that isn’t true, even if left wing sources are harder to find. This is a case where I believe showing ‘both sides’ is necessary. It’s less likely that they will be duped by people on the left, but it is still possible and they need to be aware of that.
I don’t like the idea of having to provide an equal amount of examples from ‘both sides’ when that isn’t matching reality, on an issue specifically affecting one political party more than the other (or maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine, I don’t know). There are misinformation examples from probably every part of the political spectrum, but they should be exemplified proportionally. Showing the reality, which is that a majority of fake news is generated by conservative sources, is important.
Yeah, I recall someone from the BBC saying something similar when it came to covering Brexit. It would take their producers days to find a credible, coherent voice that was pro-Brexit, while the anti-Brexit folks were basically lined up to voice their reasoning. That dichotomy was never revealed to listeners and caused some strife amongst the news team as it seemed disingenuous to present both sides as equal
It shouldn’t be about who is doing it more, it should be about how to recognize propaganda. Propaganda can come from any side of the political spectrum. Saying “they do it more” doesn’t help when just trying to teach the basics.
It isn’t about who is doing it more, it’s about giving examples. Those examples have to come from somewhere, and if you aren’t cherrypicking…those examples are going to skew in one direction, which is the original complaint I was anticipating.
But propaganda and fake news are different things. Propaganda can be made up but it doesn’t have to be, it can be (and frequently is) entirely truthful. If there’s a class on spotting fake news, and it’s any good, it will note that distinction.
The issue with not having this be “both sides” is some people won’t learn from it if they feel targeted. However, those are also the people who need it most. They need to learn to recognize bad media, and then when they actually go to apply it they’ll realize how bad most of the stuff on the right is.
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.
The share of TikTok users who consume news through the platform has nearly doubled since 2020, according to new Pew Research Center data.
Why it matters: News organizations, business leaders and brands are being forced to evolve and meet audiences where they are in order to break through.
What’s happening: The Pew study shows that news consumers have accelerated their shift toward digital channels in the past year.
Americans are roughly twice as likely to say they prefer getting news on digital devices (58%) than television (27%). Meanwhile, audience preference for radio and print media remains roughly stagnant at 6% and 5% respectively.
State of play: Roughly half of Americans say they get some news from social media platforms.
News audiences are increasing the most on TikTok and Instagram. Platforms like LinkedIn, Twitch and Nextdoor are also gaining traction as news sources.
It doesn’t answer your question completely, but apparently conservatives are more likley to belive fake news.
Here is a quote from a study with a lot of links to related works.
In particular, Grinberg, Joseph, Friedland, Swire-Thompson, and Lazer [[42], p. 374] found that “individuals most likely to engage with fake news sources were conservative leaning.” Indeed, political bias can be a more important predictor of fake news believability than conspiracy mentality [43] despite conspirational predispositions playing a key role in motivated reasoning [44]. Perhaps because of this, an important body of research has examined whether conservatism influences fake news believability [45,46]. Tellingly, Robertson, Mourão, and Thorson [47] found that in the US liberal news consumers were more aware and amenable to fact-checking sites, whereas conservatives saw them as less positive as well as less useful to them, which might be why conservative SM users are more likely to confuse bots with humans, while liberal SM users tend to confuse humans with bots [48]. In particular, those who may arguably belong to the loud, populist and extremist minority wherein “1% of individuals accounted for 80% of fake news source exposures, and 0.1% accounted for nearly 80% of fake news sources shared” ([42], p. 374).
This is an example of something to be careful with. Reading random studies you find on news sites that are outside your area of expertise is an easy way to be led to believe something based only on parts of the truth.
In this case, as in many, we have to rein in our judgments for what the study indicates. Just because it says it found A doesn’t mean B is true.
TLDR: check your ego, it’s not about you. you apply media literacy to my comment instead of the article you shared, but maybe there’s something else going on. stop trying to protect your ego and just recognize the “good points”. any pissed off tone you get from me in this message is just me flabbergasted that you responded so defensively. we’re cool otherwise.
and to be clear, I think conservatives ARE fucking morons, but that prejudice is exactly why this kind of study is the perfect example of when we need media literacy.
It’s from a scientific journal tough, not a new site?
I didn’t say YOU found it in a news site. but these kinds of studies always pop up on Science subreddits. someone posting any study with little to no context is where manipulation begins.
While true, this is not a study about biology or medicine. It’s not hard to understand for lay people.
Overconfidence is the FUCKING HEART of this issue. You dont know what you dont know, but you want to think you do. That’s true for all of us. Have you ever had to review a study’s methodology in grad school? Do you know what resources to check to determine if a study is adequately peer reviewed, and by whom? if someone says No to these, there’s a bigger risk of manipulation. There’s always more to learn.
That’s why you read more then one study.
YOU ONLY LINKED ONE. How many people here are going to go through finding evidence to the contrary when this supports their bias already?? Maybe a few but not a lot! Telling people to read more is great, BUT DID YOU? How many others reading this even clicked your link, let alone the follow ups? Id be shocked if it’s more than a couple of people. We make the conclusions we want to make.
Just because it says it found A doesn’t mean B is true.
Yes, but nobody did that here? I’m confused what you are getting at.
I understand that. I’m not saying anyone did do that. I’m saying it’s a risk. Yes, conservatives might believe more fake news. But the study cannot tell us why that is, only that it is. People love to fill in the gaps.
Fuck me, it’s a comment on social media, not a grad school dissertation. If you want to discuss this in the detail that you want, make you’re own post. For now, in this context, this is perfectly fine and illustrates the point that the original op was trying to make. This horseshit you’re adding to just strengthens their comments rather than weaken it like you want to do.
So just to be clear, you’re saying it’s media literate to just go by a random study someone linked in a comment section with barely any context? And that that comment is even more media literate because someone says the comment has potential for decreasing media literacy rather than increasing it?
Your comment is actually another great opportunity for readers to practice skepticism and media literacy, thank you.
A question was asked. An answer was given with a source, and a relevant section. That is not random, nor is it without context. Sure, be sceptical of the source, and even attack parts of it that you disagree with. But you did none of that, just assumed that the original poster and everyone else reading it was illiterate in this subject. Did you even read the paper? It’s pretty easy to understand to the layman. Yeah, media literacy is good, but you’ve gone about it entirely wrong here and look like a fool.
This is all highly relevant to the conversation. I’m not 100% familiar with them which means they probably are a fringe site and would be easy to ignore. If they get 10k hits a month on their webpage it’s much different then something like Fox getting millions of hits and being on the highest rated new shows multiple times.
I honestly hope that isn’t true, even if left wing sources are harder to find. This is a case where I believe showing ‘both sides’ is necessary. It’s less likely that they will be duped by people on the left, but it is still possible and they need to be aware of that.
I don’t like the idea of having to provide an equal amount of examples from ‘both sides’ when that isn’t matching reality, on an issue specifically affecting one political party more than the other (or maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine, I don’t know). There are misinformation examples from probably every part of the political spectrum, but they should be exemplified proportionally. Showing the reality, which is that a majority of fake news is generated by conservative sources, is important.
Yeah, I recall someone from the BBC saying something similar when it came to covering Brexit. It would take their producers days to find a credible, coherent voice that was pro-Brexit, while the anti-Brexit folks were basically lined up to voice their reasoning. That dichotomy was never revealed to listeners and caused some strife amongst the news team as it seemed disingenuous to present both sides as equal
Because it is.
and it serves no purpose but to minimize right wing political terrorism.
It shouldn’t be about who is doing it more, it should be about how to recognize propaganda. Propaganda can come from any side of the political spectrum. Saying “they do it more” doesn’t help when just trying to teach the basics.
It isn’t about who is doing it more, it’s about giving examples. Those examples have to come from somewhere, and if you aren’t cherrypicking…those examples are going to skew in one direction, which is the original complaint I was anticipating.
Literally any political messaging is propaganda, be it fake or true.
But propaganda and fake news are different things. Propaganda can be made up but it doesn’t have to be, it can be (and frequently is) entirely truthful. If there’s a class on spotting fake news, and it’s any good, it will note that distinction.
Sounds like some pro-propaganda propaganda to me.
The issue with not having this be “both sides” is some people won’t learn from it if they feel targeted. However, those are also the people who need it most. They need to learn to recognize bad media, and then when they actually go to apply it they’ll realize how bad most of the stuff on the right is.
The problem is that we’ve gotten so far from the middle that it’s going to take a generation to wrangle it (reasonable intellectual debate) back. If you’re giving equal opportunity to both sides, you’ll need time for lengthy debates to resolve in an acceptably neutral manner.
The “truth” used to be within arm’s reach. Reasonable discussion could be had from either side of an issue. Today, you’ve got two parties (regardless of politics) who appear to maybe be commenting on the same topic but it’s like they’re on different planets now. Few people, including you and I right this moment, take enough time to engage in the original conversation and instead inject their narrative into something unrelated.
The internet has allowed everyone with an opinion to barf it all over the place while their lemmings lick it up and regurgitate the same cold greasy pizza. This (literally, this comment) distracts from the topic at hand and diverts people to engage in things that infrequently mean anything at all.
This really comes down to responsible journalism. It seems to me that responsible journalism, and “equal time for both sides”, can’t proliferate in a world driven by hits of dopamine on social media. What schools should be teaching is how to avoid addiction, how to strengthen your attention span, how to find the time and the value in reading long form articles, and how to deeply decipher propaganda.
Edit: in related news… “ Americans flock to TikTok for news ” https://www.axios.com/2023/11/15/tiktok-social-media-news-source-us-data
Yeah the fairness doctrine would help
It exists. Just show the kids dumb tankie stuff and let them deconstruct it.
It doesn’t answer your question completely, but apparently conservatives are more likley to belive fake news.
Here is a quote from a study with a lot of links to related works.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378720622001537#bib0045
This is an example of something to be careful with. Reading random studies you find on news sites that are outside your area of expertise is an easy way to be led to believe something based only on parts of the truth.
In this case, as in many, we have to rein in our judgments for what the study indicates. Just because it says it found A doesn’t mean B is true.
I searched for related studies and found this one relevant. That is not random.
It’s from a scientific journal tough, not a new site?
While true, this is not a study about biology or medicine. It’s not hard to understand for lay people.
That’s why you read more then one study. You know, like I specifically called out that this one links to a lot of related work?
It indicates that republicans are more likley to belive fake news.
Yes, but nobody did that here? I’m confused what you are getting at.
TLDR: check your ego, it’s not about you. you apply media literacy to my comment instead of the article you shared, but maybe there’s something else going on. stop trying to protect your ego and just recognize the “good points”. any pissed off tone you get from me in this message is just me flabbergasted that you responded so defensively. we’re cool otherwise.
and to be clear, I think conservatives ARE fucking morons, but that prejudice is exactly why this kind of study is the perfect example of when we need media literacy.
I didn’t say YOU found it in a news site. but these kinds of studies always pop up on Science subreddits. someone posting any study with little to no context is where manipulation begins.
Overconfidence is the FUCKING HEART of this issue. You dont know what you dont know, but you want to think you do. That’s true for all of us. Have you ever had to review a study’s methodology in grad school? Do you know what resources to check to determine if a study is adequately peer reviewed, and by whom? if someone says No to these, there’s a bigger risk of manipulation. There’s always more to learn.
YOU ONLY LINKED ONE. How many people here are going to go through finding evidence to the contrary when this supports their bias already?? Maybe a few but not a lot! Telling people to read more is great, BUT DID YOU? How many others reading this even clicked your link, let alone the follow ups? Id be shocked if it’s more than a couple of people. We make the conclusions we want to make.
I understand that. I’m not saying anyone did do that. I’m saying it’s a risk. Yes, conservatives might believe more fake news. But the study cannot tell us why that is, only that it is. People love to fill in the gaps.
Fuck me, it’s a comment on social media, not a grad school dissertation. If you want to discuss this in the detail that you want, make you’re own post. For now, in this context, this is perfectly fine and illustrates the point that the original op was trying to make. This horseshit you’re adding to just strengthens their comments rather than weaken it like you want to do.
So just to be clear, you’re saying it’s media literate to just go by a random study someone linked in a comment section with barely any context? And that that comment is even more media literate because someone says the comment has potential for decreasing media literacy rather than increasing it?
Your comment is actually another great opportunity for readers to practice skepticism and media literacy, thank you.
A question was asked. An answer was given with a source, and a relevant section. That is not random, nor is it without context. Sure, be sceptical of the source, and even attack parts of it that you disagree with. But you did none of that, just assumed that the original poster and everyone else reading it was illiterate in this subject. Did you even read the paper? It’s pretty easy to understand to the layman. Yeah, media literacy is good, but you’ve gone about it entirely wrong here and look like a fool.
deleted by creator
Daily Kos?
What are their viewership numbers?
Are they among the highest rated news shows?
deleted by creator
The amount of people who view propaganda is irrelevant?
I’d say it would be one if the most important things.
deleted by creator
This is all highly relevant to the conversation. I’m not 100% familiar with them which means they probably are a fringe site and would be easy to ignore. If they get 10k hits a month on their webpage it’s much different then something like Fox getting millions of hits and being on the highest rated new shows multiple times.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator