1227
submitted 11 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 135 points 11 months ago

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

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 66 points 11 months 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 62 points 11 months 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 34 points 11 months 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

[-] s_i_m_s@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

as it seemed disingenuous to present both sides as equal

Because it is.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months 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 12 points 11 months 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Pips@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Gloomy@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It doesn't answer your question completely, but apparently conservatives are more likley to belive fake news.

Here is a quote from a study with a lot of links to related works.

In particular, Grinberg, Joseph, Friedland, Swire-Thompson, and Lazer [[42], p. 374] found that “individuals most likely to engage with fake news sources were conservative leaning.” Indeed, political bias can be a more important predictor of fake news believability than conspiracy mentality [43] despite conspirational predispositions playing a key role in motivated reasoning [44]. Perhaps because of this, an important body of research has examined whether conservatism influences fake news believability [45,46]. Tellingly, Robertson, Mourão, and Thorson [47] found that in the US liberal news consumers were more aware and amenable to fact-checking sites, whereas conservatives saw them as less positive as well as less useful to them, which might be why conservative SM users are more likely to confuse bots with humans, while liberal SM users tend to confuse humans with bots [48]. In particular, those who may arguably belong to the loud, populist and extremist minority wherein “1% of individuals accounted for 80% of fake news source exposures, and 0.1% accounted for nearly 80% of fake news sources shared” ([42], p. 374).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378720622001537#bib0045

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Synthead@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

Credibility works in mysterious ways

[-] paddirn@lemmy.world 99 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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 35 points 11 months ago

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

[-] ares35@kbin.social 25 points 11 months ago

the bits and pieces required to recognize 'fake news' should already be a part of a required curriculum at a public high school; and i do remember some exercises in one class in particular that compared tabloids to mainstream newspapers. this was in the 1980s, in a fairly progressive part of minnesota.

[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Silly boy, education is the secondary purpose to school for conservatives. The primary purpose is to create obedient worker drones that do what they're told.

Critical thinking skills are always antithetical to that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] blattrules@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months 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 15 points 11 months ago

it was in existence long before he started using it.

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

[-] Pips@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 11 months ago

In the modern context (2010s), it came into use to describe articles from organizations that called themselves news outlets literally making up fake stories. The right co-opted the term to apply it to anything they don't like because they disliked serious journalists calling out right wing talking heads and here we are.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 68 points 11 months ago

I mean, we learned all about citing and sources in 8th grade social studies.

[-] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months 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!

[-] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 10 points 11 months ago

Yes, just like how we all learned about how important it is to pay off credit card debt and the benefits of long term investing while in school (aka compound interest...in math class). Yet far too many people act like this is something that needs to be added to the curriculum when it's already there.

[-] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

FWIW, I don't think we all learned that, they literally never taught that in my school. Like, they literally never explicitly mentioned "credit card debt" or "long-term investments" or any investments really in my classes, and I think they should have.

Of course it's gonna be different from school to school, state to state, and country to country.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] jopepa@lemmy.world 61 points 11 months 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 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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).

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] rckclmbr@lemm.ee 58 points 11 months 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

[-] SSUPII@sopuli.xyz 56 points 11 months ago

Internet shizzos will believe this is indoctrination and brainwashing

[-] BossDj@lemm.ee 23 points 11 months ago

They already think that about science class

[-] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 39 points 11 months ago

I know adults who need to take that class.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Smacks@lemmy.world 36 points 11 months ago

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

load more comments (14 replies)
[-] ExLisper@linux.community 24 points 11 months ago

Is this real? I can't tell.

[-] nrezcm@lemmy.world 43 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Should move to California. I hear they're teaching about how to tell if something is real or not.

[-] morrowind@lemmy.ml 10 points 11 months ago

Can't believe everything you hear I'm afraid

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months 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".

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 19 points 11 months ago

Thinking critically about internet content

Random confession bear meme on the board

"Ok class. What are some things wrong with this meme? Samantha?"

"It's not actually confessing anything?"

"Correct!"

[-] rayyy@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

Really bad news for the MAGAs.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LoyalOrange503@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

Something we need, not just in schools but outside as well.

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Navarian@lemm.ee 12 points 11 months ago

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 10 points 11 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
1227 points (98.5% liked)

News

23293 readers
4569 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS