journalism   132841

« earlier    

Media Literacy Is About Where To Spend Your Trust. But You Have To Spend It Somewhere. | Hapgood
"A lot of approaches to online media literacy highlight “debunking” and present a large a portion of cases where students debunk tree octopuses and verifiably false things. And show students how they are manipulated, etc.

And this is good in the right amounts. There’s a place for it. It should comprise much of your curriculum.

But the core of media literacy for me is this question of “where you spend your trust.” And everything has to be evaluated in that framework.

There’s not an option to not trust anyone, at least not an option that is socially viable. And societies without trust come to bad ends. Students are various, of course, but what I find with many students is they are trust misers — they don’t want to spend their trust anywhere, and they think many things are equally untrustworthy. And somehow they have been trained to think this makes them smarter than the average bear.

A couple stories will illustrate the problem. I was once working with a bunch of students and comparing Natural News (a health supplements site which specializes in junk science claims) and the Mayo Clinic, one of the most respected outfits out there. OK, I say, so what’s the problem with taking advice from Natural News?

Well, says a student, they make their money selling supplements, and so they have an incentive to talk down traditional medicine.

I beam like a proud papa. Good analysis!

“And,” the student continues, “the Mayo Clinic is the same way. They make money off of patients so they want to portray regular hospitals as working.”

Houston, we have a problem.

I was in an upper division class another time and we were looking at an expert in a newspaper cited for his background in the ethnobiology of issues around the study of birds. I did what I encourage students to do in such cases: as a sanity check, make sure that the person being quoted as an academic expert has a publication record in the relevant area, preferably with a cite or two. (There are other varieties of expertise, of course, but in this case the claimed expertise was academic).

The record comes up. This guy’s top article on birds, biologists, and indigenous knowledge has something like 34 citations in Google Scholar. “So what do you think?” I ask them.

“Eh,” they say. “Not great.”

This was, mind you, not a room full of published ethnobiologists. And the ethnobiologist quoted in the article was not claiming to overturn the fundamental insights of ethnobiology, or anything requiring extraordinary evidence.

So 34 other experts had considered this person’s niche work worth talking about but hey, we’re still not sure this guy’s worth listening to on a subject we know nothing about and in which he is making rather moderate claims…

Hrmm.

Another class, looking at Canadian paper the National Post, noted that while it was a “real” paper with a real staff, the Wikipedia page on it noted a controversy about some wrong information they published in 2006, where the editor had to actually pen an apology. “So kind of half-and-half, right?”

I’ve referred to this before as trust compression, the tendency for students to view vastly different levels of credibility of sources all as moderately or severely compromised. Breitbart is funded by the Mercers, who are using it directly to influence political debate, but the Washington Post is also owned by Jeff Bezos who donated to Democrats. So it’s a wash. And yes, we have the word of an expert in a subject where she has multiple cites against the word of a lobbying group but neither one is perfect really. Everyone’s got an agenda, nobody knows everything, and there’s not 100% agreement on anything anyway.

You see this in areas outside of expertise as well, incidentally. With quotes I often ask students (and faculty!) to source the quote and then say if the quote was taken out of context. The answer? You’ll always get a range from “completely taken out of context” to “somewhat taken out of context”. That upper register of “Nope, that quote was used correctly” is something you really have to coax the students into.

I don’t quite know how to square this with the gullibility often on display, except to say that very often that gullibility is about not being able (or willing) to distinguish gradations of credibility.

This should scare you, and it has to be at the core of what we teach — to teach students they need to decompress their trust, get out of that mushy middle, and make real distinctions. And ultimately, put their trust somewhere. Otherwise we end up with what Hannah Arendt so accurately described as the breeding ground of totalitarianism:
In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, that everything was possible and that nothing was true… Mass Propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow…

I do believe this insight — that trust has to be spent somewhere and that our problem is not gullibility, but rather the gullibility of cynics — has to be at the core of what we teach and how we teach it. You have some trust, and you have to be willing to spend it somewhere. So enough of the “this isn’t great either”, enough of the “eh”. What’s your best option for spending that trust? Why?

If everything is compromised, then everything can be ignored, and filtering is simply a matter of choosing what you want to hear. And students will economize that lesson in a heartbeat. In fact, I’m worried they already have, and it’s up to us to change that."
medialiteracy  mikecaulfield  internet  web  media  authority  trust  hannaharendt  trustworthiness  online  journalism  bias  expertise  gullibility  propaganda  2018 
18 minutes ago by robertogreco
What Ever Happened To Brendan Fraser? | GQ
That's a pretty good Brendan Fraser story. He just disappeared from Hollywood one day.
journalism 
yesterday by shurane
After years of testing, The Wall Street Journal has built a paywall that bends to the individual reader » Nieman Journalism Lab
The Wall Street Journal thinks it might know your reading habits — and your potential spending habits — better than you know them yourself. via Pocket
pocket  favorites  paywalls  journalism  internet  payments  economics  business-model 
yesterday by bschlagel

« earlier    

related tags

2018-02  2018  4460  4480  a:ed-yong★  abuse  activismmodel  ad-tech  advertising  advice  advocacy  ai  analysis  analytics  ann-althouse  archives  article  asia  audience  authority  bari_weiss  bias  blogging  blogs  borndigital  bret_stephens  business-model  business  businessmodels  by:danhett  cannibalism  career  cee  china  citizen  collaboration  commentary  communication  community  conservatism  conspiracy  content  contentmarketing  contentstrategy  corruption  criticalthinking  criticism  culture  d:2018.02.06  dasgeileneueinternet  data  datadecisions  datamining  decentralisedweb  development  discrimination  discussion  dit  diversity  diy  donald_trump  donaldtrump  donors  easterneurope  economics  editing  edshift  education  english  espionage  ethics  europe  event  experience  experiments  expertise  facebook  fake-news  fake  fakenews  favorites  fcc  feminism  foundations  fraud  freedeniz  from:cjr  fund  funders  funding  gafa  games  gawker  gender-balance  gender-ratio  gender-representation  gender  geo:unitedkingdom  gerrymandering  good  gop  government  guide  guides  gullibility  guncontrol  hannaharendt  harassment  history  howto  idea  ifttt  immigration  india  indie  infidelity  informationarchitecture  innovation  innovative  innovator  inspiring  interesting  internet  internetarchive  interview  introduction  investigativejournalism  ipfs  ira  islam  it  josh.marshall  jrmc  karenmcdougal  laurenduca  law  ma  machine-learning  mainstream  mapping  maps  market_microstructure  marketing  max-fisher  media  media1_news  medialit  medialiteracy  mediashift  mediterranean  mena  mental_health  mentalhealth  migration  mikecaulfield  military  mime:germany  mmj  mobilefirst  monetization  multimedia  narrative  nat_rev  ncpin  nct  new_york_times  news  newspapers  newsrooms  newyorker  ny-times  nyt  nytimes  objectivity  ohforfuckssake  online  onlinejournalism  opensource  opinion  opinions  orf  p:the-atlantic★★  panamapapers  payments  paywalls  phd  photography  platform_economics  pocket  podcast  polarization  politics  post  press  pressfreedom  pricing  print_is_dead  prize  production  programming  propaganda  pseudoscience  psychology  publishers  publishing  python  quinn_norton  race  racism  reference  relationships  religion  republicans  research  revenue  rss  russia  sad  satire  science  series  sex  sexual-harassment  sinclair  social  social_media  socialmedia  society  sociology  sports  statistics  stories  subscriptions  tabloids  teaching  teaching_socialmedia  tech&society  terrorism  tips  today  tools  tpm  trends  trolls  trump  trust  trustworthiness  turkey  twitter  uk  university  us  usa  viaswampers  video  vienna  visegrad4  visualisation  visualization  w:2000  wash  washington  web  webarchives  women  work  writing  youth 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: