Rather than providing constructive criticism to the effort, the article (on Fox News) goes on to assert that the government will be telling people what is truth and what is a falsehood. It’s...
The law is aimed at helping students better determine credible sources by learning the difference between news and opinion, as well as primary and secondary sources, and improving their research methods and literacy skills.
Rather than providing constructive criticism to the effort, the article (on Fox News) goes on to assert that the government will be telling people what is truth and what is a falsehood. It’s almost like Fox News wants this effort to fail. Now why would an upstanding, reputable and highly objective news source like Fox News be trying to discredit attempts to teach people how to be more critical about the news? Hmm…
When I was in primary school (when I was like 8) I remember having a whole course on how to do research in books and online and I remember a large part of it being using multiple sources across...
When I was in primary school (when I was like 8) I remember having a whole course on how to do research in books and online and I remember a large part of it being using multiple sources across different types of media to verify claims. I honestly didn't think it was that radical a class but maybe it is
I had similar classes in middle school in Canada in the early 2000s - or rather, it was baked into the curricula of various courses, rather than just one media literacy course. In Social Studies...
I had similar classes in middle school in Canada in the early 2000s - or rather, it was baked into the curricula of various courses, rather than just one media literacy course. In Social Studies we were taught how to do research appropriately on the internet (the teacher even specifically mentioned we may find sites which espouse Holocaust denialism and to not entertain them at all). In English class we were taught about the tricks that advertisers use to make ads not look like ads and their persuasive techniques. And in Science we were taught to be critical of who funded various studies and papers (the example was oatmeal in meatloaf versus breadcrumbs... a small study funded by Quaker oats).
I would have been around twelve years old when I was taught this stuff. I can't believe it would be at all controversial.
I remember being taught critical thinking in Canadian schools. I also remember ads on TV telling us to be critical of what we see on TV. Case in point: Concerned Children's Advertisers - House...
I may be cynical, but the way I remember that playing out, the majority of people ended up believing in House Hippos. I can't say whether or not my generation ended up with better media literacy and skepticism due to the program, but I have to wonder if starting earlier would have helped.
Now that AI is a thing, I feel like it's more important than ever to teach your kids how to identify correct information, but also harder than ever. Suddenly we need to teach this earlier, and in a much broader scope. It used to be: Research any claims that aren't supported by links to scholarly articles. Now it's: Do the above but also derive a knack for noticing AI. This is a big one, and I'm not sure how long humans will be able to do it. Perhaps less than a few years.
It's a radical, reprehensible approach when your goal is to dumb people down, not sharpen them up. A similar thing has been happening in Russia, but in the US, the process appears to have been...
It's a radical, reprehensible approach when your goal is to dumb people down, not sharpen them up.
A similar thing has been happening in Russia, but in the US, the process appears to have been underway for much longer.
I get why Fox News puts media literacy and disinformation in scare quotes, but I feel like maybe the a better version of this story could be found that isn’t trying to sneakily poison the well.
I get why Fox News puts media literacy and disinformation in scare quotes, but I feel like maybe the a better version of this story could be found that isn’t trying to sneakily poison the well.
There are definitely better versions of articles on the NJ law, but I posted this version as an illustration of what @ThatFanFicGuy mentions above (in the reply to rmgr). One of the most widely...
There are definitely better versions of articles on the NJ law, but I posted this version as an illustration of what @ThatFanFicGuy mentions above (in the reply to rmgr). One of the most widely viewed news outlets in the US is actively and intentional trying to disarm the voting public.
I know this is Fox News, so the bar is low, but it's still shocking to me to see a network quote a single person from their own editorial arm¹ for half of an article as evidence that something is...
I know this is Fox News, so the bar is low, but it's still shocking to me to see a network quote a single person from their own editorial arm¹ for half of an article as evidence that something is controversial. It's the laziest way of saying "this isn't an opinion piece and is still neutral journalism, because I'm quoting someone's opinion, not saying it myself!" It's intentionally muddying the distinction between both news / opinion and primary / secondary sources.
I think it fitting to end by reiterating the only quote —the singular sentence— from the article that actually describes what the bill does:
The law is aimed at helping students better determine credible sources by learning the difference between news and opinion, as well as primary and secondary sources, and improving their research methods and literacy skills.
1: Could they not find any more reputable dissent? Honestly, maybe not. The bill apparently had bipartisan support, according to the article.
Rather than providing constructive criticism to the effort, the article (on Fox News) goes on to assert that the government will be telling people what is truth and what is a falsehood. It’s almost like Fox News wants this effort to fail. Now why would an upstanding, reputable and highly objective news source like Fox News be trying to discredit attempts to teach people how to be more critical about the news? Hmm…
I feel like there's been a collision between two sentences and one of the phrasial passengers flew into the other sentence on impact.
I also got a kick out of how "media literacy" and "disinformation" are in quotes, as if they're new-fangled made up things.
When I was in primary school (when I was like 8) I remember having a whole course on how to do research in books and online and I remember a large part of it being using multiple sources across different types of media to verify claims. I honestly didn't think it was that radical a class but maybe it is
I had similar classes in middle school in Canada in the early 2000s - or rather, it was baked into the curricula of various courses, rather than just one media literacy course. In Social Studies we were taught how to do research appropriately on the internet (the teacher even specifically mentioned we may find sites which espouse Holocaust denialism and to not entertain them at all). In English class we were taught about the tricks that advertisers use to make ads not look like ads and their persuasive techniques. And in Science we were taught to be critical of who funded various studies and papers (the example was oatmeal in meatloaf versus breadcrumbs... a small study funded by Quaker oats).
I would have been around twelve years old when I was taught this stuff. I can't believe it would be at all controversial.
I remember being taught critical thinking in Canadian schools. I also remember ads on TV telling us to be critical of what we see on TV. Case in point: Concerned Children's Advertisers - House Hippo (1999).
I may be cynical, but the way I remember that playing out, the majority of people ended up believing in House Hippos. I can't say whether or not my generation ended up with better media literacy and skepticism due to the program, but I have to wonder if starting earlier would have helped.
Now that AI is a thing, I feel like it's more important than ever to teach your kids how to identify correct information, but also harder than ever. Suddenly we need to teach this earlier, and in a much broader scope. It used to be: Research any claims that aren't supported by links to scholarly articles. Now it's: Do the above but also derive a knack for noticing AI. This is a big one, and I'm not sure how long humans will be able to do it. Perhaps less than a few years.
It's a radical, reprehensible approach when your goal is to dumb people down, not sharpen them up.
A similar thing has been happening in Russia, but in the US, the process appears to have been underway for much longer.
I get why Fox News puts media literacy and disinformation in scare quotes, but I feel like maybe the a better version of this story could be found that isn’t trying to sneakily poison the well.
There are definitely better versions of articles on the NJ law, but I posted this version as an illustration of what @ThatFanFicGuy mentions above (in the reply to rmgr). One of the most widely viewed news outlets in the US is actively and intentional trying to disarm the voting public.
I know this is Fox News, so the bar is low, but it's still shocking to me to see a network quote a single person from their own editorial arm¹ for half of an article as evidence that something is controversial. It's the laziest way of saying "this isn't an opinion piece and is still neutral journalism, because I'm quoting someone's opinion, not saying it myself!" It's intentionally muddying the distinction between both news / opinion and primary / secondary sources.
I think it fitting to end by reiterating the only quote —the singular sentence— from the article that actually describes what the bill does:
1: Could they not find any more reputable dissent? Honestly, maybe not. The bill apparently had bipartisan support, according to the article.