return2ozmaRecognizing fake news now a required subject in California schools
SSUPIIInternet shizzos will believe this is indoctrination and brainwashing
They already think that about science class
sugarfreeIf they believe 500 were killed in an Israeli strike on a hospital in Gaza they must fail the class immediately xD
Sir_KevinThat depends on which of the several bombed hospitals you’re talking about.
I’m talking about the Al-Alhi hospital. Hamas terrorists claimed 500 people died around 10 minutes after the explosion took place in the parking lot. Meanwhile, Israel is still identifying bodies from the October 7th terror attacks.
Meanwhile, Israel is still identifying bodies from the October 7th terror attacks.
Imagine writing this comment as a justification for bombing a hospital
PupBiruhospitals do have lists of patients and staff though… and they’re usually centralised… so it’s pretty easy to tally up a rough estimate for who was in a hospital at a given time
sure, hamas is full of shit: they lie about loads of things… but having quick numbers for who died when a hospital was destroyed is far from unlikely… let’s make sure we accuse people of the right things and not make the disinformation worse aye?
The hospital was not destroyed. The failed missile strike landed in the courtyard, and analysts currently view it as a Hamas misfire.
So yes, let’s not make disinformation worse.
there have been multiple hospital strikes
Cool so maybe don’t get confused?
I’m not sure what you want from this conversation. Nothing will make anything said above accurate.
i think that you’re misunderstanding or interesting perverting pretty much everything i’ve said
i’ve not used any absolutes, i haven’t “blamed” anyone for anything, i haven’t even really said much that would sound like specific fact… just general statements about the feasibility of data collection (well i did say that there have been multiple hospital strikes, but i’m not sure if there’s some kind of problem with that: it’s just a fact)
i’d like to suggest that you’re interpreting something i said through a particular lens and getting defensive about it
Hamas terrorists claimed 500 people died around 10 minutes after the explosion took place in the parking lot
That ‘claim’ turned out to have been invented by the media, possibly due to language issues. There was an article a while back about how there’s no actual source for the claims that doesn’t go in a circle.
It’s actually insane how you are getting downvoted when the Hamas’ claim is already debunked as being in fact fake news.
Isreal is doing a lot of bad shit, and has been for a long time. But this particular bombing never happened as described by Hamas.
Perhaps it’s because an explosion at a hospital, no matter the cause, isn’t really something to “xD” about.
Exactly right, his comment has the typical shill signature.
It’s absolutely irrelevant to the topic at hand is just shit stirring for no reason.
It’s not irrelevant, because this place has a lot of people who believe complete bullshit.
They’re gonna be big mad when California is less leftist and more liberal as a result of this program
neocon says what?
I’m a liberal broheim
OoopsYou are refering to western media inventing that claim from a post actually talking about probably up to 500 casualties (dead or injured), aren't you?
If not... here's your chance to not fail the class: show any actual source for that claim that isn't media themselves refering to "we haerd someone said".
Yes, the same for claims that Israel didn’t murder tens of thousands of civilians on a disproportionate response (like a certain world leader before having to stick his feet into his mouth). Focusing on one instance of disinformation to create a smokescreen for war crimes is disingenuous at best.
proleWho the fuck ends a comment like that with “xD”
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.
…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.
I don’t like the headline description of this because I really hate the term “fake news”, given who originated it. Reading the article though, CA seems to refer to it as “media literacy”, which seems more apt, that or “critical thinking skills” or something. Just anything other than the term “fake news”.
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.
FuglyDuckYou’re saying… Donald saying he created something……
….
….
….
Is….
Fake news?
(I’ll see myself out,)
….
….
….
Is….
Fake news?
(I’ll see myself out,)
it was in existence long before he started using it.
Notably, in late 30s Germany by a pretty infamous man.
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.
You’re correct and this is why I think things like these are needed. We’re literally talking about something that is maybe 10 years old at best.
Can we call the skills “media literacy” and “critical thinking”… and call fake news what it is: propaganda?
ares35the 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.
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.
vaultdweller013A lot of shit was fucked up by standardized testing and what not. Not bashing the concept just its current implementation. So this is probably one of the easier ways to do this.
Noble Shift“You will each write an essay, to be handed in to me, on the ways you recognize and kill werewolves. I want two rolls of parchment on the subject, and I want them by Monday morning …”
LoyalOrange503Something we need, not just in schools but outside as well.
Are Republicans already unironically upset that the majority of examples of misinformation are from conservative sources?
Flying SquidI 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.
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.
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.
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.
Gnome KatLiterally any political messaging is propaganda, be it fake or true.
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
as it seemed disingenuous to present both sides as equal
Because it is.
A_Random_Idiotand it serves no purpose but to minimize right wing political terrorism.
joel_feilaYeah the fairness doctrine would help
oxjoxThe 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 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.
It exists. Just show the kids dumb tankie stuff and let them deconstruct it.
Daily KOS has entered the chat
Daily Kos?
What are their viewership numbers?
Are they among the highest rated news shows?
The numbers are irrelevant. The point is that they are a very biased and highly edited propaganda spreader and fall under the umbrella of fake news. It really annoys me to because they leave the left open to attack and ridicule.
The amount of people who view propaganda is irrelevant?
I’d say it would be one if the most important things.
No, thats not what I said at all.
No, that’s not what I said at all. Your initial question implied that their views were itrelevant because they aren’t one of the “top rated” news outlets
Daily Kos?
What are their viewership numbers?
Are they among the highest rated news shows?
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.
GloomyIt doesn’t answer your question conpletly, 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.