4 ms·

It seems like we read different articles. My takeaway is that they’re trying to teach students how to identify bad sources/reporting or outright fake news, not

It seems like we read different articles. My takeaway is that they’re trying to teach students how to identify bad sources/reporting or outright fake news, not litigate specific news reports. Using 2016 as an example doesn’t invalidate that goal or imply bias.

chitowneats 5y ago
Hunter Biden's laptop falls under this category. Corporate media and social media companies claim "fake news" and move to censor it a month before the election. An honest look at the actual reporting, as well as what followed, shows that this was not in fact the case.
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  ==shows that this was not in fact the case.== What was not in fact the case? Can you share your evidence?
- avs733 5y ago
  As someone who actually engaged with that story, I found the reporting and posited facts to be incoherent and full of holes. It only made sense if one presumed the outcome. Literacy includes evaluating why something was covered by certain folks and not by others as well as the internal coherence and the inter-relationship.
  - janeroe 5y ago
    > As someone who actually engaged with that story, I found the reporting and posited facts to be incoherent and full of holes. Was the story of Russians electing Trump coherent and without holes?
    - Shared404 5y ago
      https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... It has real evidence. I can hunt down more if you like.
      - janeroe 5y ago
        Like the chemical weapons in Iraq, that kind of evidence?
        Shared404 5y ago
        The kind of evidence provided by the GOP? Yes that kind. The senate council that had those findings was GOP lead. The GOP lies a lot, but usually for their own benefit.
        janeroe 5y ago
        > The kind of evidence provided by the GOP? Yes that kind. Do you assume I somehow care? This and then Obama's 8 years of drone bombing of weddings in Pakistan, hospitals in Afghanistan, prolongation & expansion of mass surveillance all over the world just shows how "trustworthy" your government is (or in fact, any monopoly of violence). > The GOP lies a lot, but usually for their own benefit. For whose benefit is DNC lying?
        Shared404 5y ago
        For the record I'm more of a center libertarian. I dislike both political parties, and wish we would pass ranked choice voting ASAP so we can break out of this two party system already. Both parties are corrupt. However, only one has recently tried to overthrow our entire governmental system. Edits for clarity, and to add that if someone takes an attack on their party as a personal attack, there are larger issues there (not that I am claiming you are, but it seems something worth mentioning in a discussion like this).
        janeroe 5y ago
        Nice. > wish we would pass ranked choice voting Do you believe that parties that in a joint effort "fortified" debates in 2000 to make sure no 3rd party could receive air time and wider audience, would commit political suicide introducing a mechanism that'd shake their positions? > Both parties are corrupt. However, only one has recently tried to overthrow our entire political system. I'm an outsider, is it the one that "fortified" the election [1]? I mean, Trump is an egotistical narcissist who didn't drain any swamps and probably didn't fulfill a single promise. But all those things "Trump has dementia", "he attacks the media", "writes too many executive orders like a dictator"... Weren't they just projections? Whose "press conferences" are even more disgraceful and staged than Putin's "pryamaya liniya" ("direct line")? Whose administration admits they're responsible for the censorship policies of social platforms? Who's flirting with oligarchs (not to be confused with entrepreneurs) and who lifted sanctions on Putin's pipeline while banning the building of a local one? The people from Bush administration, on whose side were they? [1]: https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
- majormajor 5y ago
  What did follow? Where is the evidence that we were promised to eventually be shown? If you make big claims and then don't back them up, it's hard for me to see it as "censorship" vs "hype avoidance."
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    They literally suspended the account of the nation's oldest newspaper for weeks before a Presidential election "Hype avoidance" is a nice euphemism though. I'll be sure to be wary of anyone using it going forward.
throwawayswede 5y ago
> Using 2016 as an example doesn’t invalidate that goal or imply bias. It actually does: > Republicans' trust has not recovered since then, while Democrats' has risen sharply. In fact, Democrats' trust over the past four years has been among the highest Gallup has measured for any party in the past two decades. This year, the result is a record 63-percentage-point gap in trust among the political party groups. https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrus...
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  How does this prove that using a literal example of misinformation from 2016 invalidates the goal of teaching news literacy?
- haswell 5y ago
  You stated that it implies bias without articulating why you believe the bias exists. Will you elaborate on how you feel the quote you included implies bias?
  - throwawayswede 5y ago
    From that report I just wanted to show that shortly before the 2020 election, the Gallup poll showed that confidence in the mass media has continued to decline among Republicans and independent voters, to 10% and 36%, respectively. Among Democratic voters, confidence rose to 73%. Then you have other other polls from Gallup, like this one showing that six in 10 in US see partisan bias in news media. From the report: > Americans Believe News Media Favors Democrats Gallup asked those who perceive political bias in the news media to say which party the news media favors. Almost two-thirds (64%) of those who believe the media favors a political party say it is the Democratic Party. Only about a third as many (22%) believe the media favors Republicans. > This is not new. Americans who perceive media bias have always said the direction of that bias leaned in favor of the Democrats, although the percentage holding that view has varied. The gap was smaller in 2003 and 1995, but was more similar to today's attitudes in 2000. https://news.gallup.com/poll/207794/six-partisan-bias-news-media.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/207794/six-partisan-bias-news-m...
avs733 5y ago
this is why that education is so critical. because the news literacy is countering the exact type of thinking you are responding to. Any analysis is treated as criticism. Analysis isn't criticism, its analysis.
ripply 5y ago
Yes you are correct, you did read a different article, that’s the core problem. A large portion of Trump’s base still believes that fishy things happened in the election, if the journalist covering this story wanted to cover this without bias and truly believes that the program is a net positive (which I agree is probably true) they shouldn’t be injecting divisive politics into their coverage as these people are completely done with the media at this point, the OP is going easy describing what some of these people believe. They roll their eyes at anything these people say now, they have lost all faith in the media. The story reads like the journalist is completely unaware of their implicit left wing bias and makes little effort to fix it - to them, this example is an obvious example to use but it will alienate readers on the other side (like the OP), yet they used it anyway.

chitowneats 5y ago

Hunter Biden's laptop falls under this category. Corporate media and social media companies claim "fake news" and move to censor it a month before the election. An honest look at the actual reporting, as well as what followed, shows that this was not in fact the case.

long_time_gone 5y ago
==shows that this was not in fact the case.== What was not in fact the case? Can you share your evidence?
avs733 5y ago
As someone who actually engaged with that story, I found the reporting and posited facts to be incoherent and full of holes. It only made sense if one presumed the outcome. Literacy includes evaluating why something was covered by certain folks and not by others as well as the internal coherence and the inter-relationship.
- janeroe 5y ago
  > As someone who actually engaged with that story, I found the reporting and posited facts to be incoherent and full of holes. Was the story of Russians electing Trump coherent and without holes?
  - Shared404 5y ago
    https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... It has real evidence. I can hunt down more if you like.
    - janeroe 5y ago
      Like the chemical weapons in Iraq, that kind of evidence?
      - Shared404 5y ago
        The kind of evidence provided by the GOP? Yes that kind. The senate council that had those findings was GOP lead. The GOP lies a lot, but usually for their own benefit.
        janeroe 5y ago
        > The kind of evidence provided by the GOP? Yes that kind. Do you assume I somehow care? This and then Obama's 8 years of drone bombing of weddings in Pakistan, hospitals in Afghanistan, prolongation & expansion of mass surveillance all over the world just shows how "trustworthy" your government is (or in fact, any monopoly of violence). > The GOP lies a lot, but usually for their own benefit. For whose benefit is DNC lying?
        Shared404 5y ago
        For the record I'm more of a center libertarian. I dislike both political parties, and wish we would pass ranked choice voting ASAP so we can break out of this two party system already. Both parties are corrupt. However, only one has recently tried to overthrow our entire governmental system. Edits for clarity, and to add that if someone takes an attack on their party as a personal attack, there are larger issues there (not that I am claiming you are, but it seems something worth mentioning in a discussion like this).
        janeroe 5y ago
        Nice. > wish we would pass ranked choice voting Do you believe that parties that in a joint effort "fortified" debates in 2000 to make sure no 3rd party could receive air time and wider audience, would commit political suicide introducing a mechanism that'd shake their positions? > Both parties are corrupt. However, only one has recently tried to overthrow our entire political system. I'm an outsider, is it the one that "fortified" the election [1]? I mean, Trump is an egotistical narcissist who didn't drain any swamps and probably didn't fulfill a single promise. But all those things "Trump has dementia", "he attacks the media", "writes too many executive orders like a dictator"... Weren't they just projections? Whose "press conferences" are even more disgraceful and staged than Putin's "pryamaya liniya" ("direct line")? Whose administration admits they're responsible for the censorship policies of social platforms? Who's flirting with oligarchs (not to be confused with entrepreneurs) and who lifted sanctions on Putin's pipeline while banning the building of a local one? The people from Bush administration, on whose side were they? [1]: https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
majormajor 5y ago
What did follow? Where is the evidence that we were promised to eventually be shown? If you make big claims and then don't back them up, it's hard for me to see it as "censorship" vs "hype avoidance."
- chitowneats 5y ago
  They literally suspended the account of the nation's oldest newspaper for weeks before a Presidential election "Hype avoidance" is a nice euphemism though. I'll be sure to be wary of anyone using it going forward.

throwawayswede 5y ago

> Using 2016 as an example doesn’t invalidate that goal or imply bias. It actually does: > Republicans' trust has not recovered since then, while Democrats' has risen sharply. In fact, Democrats' trust over the past four years has been among the highest Gallup has measured for any party in the past two decades. This year, the result is a record 63-percentage-point gap in trust among the political party groups. https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrus...

long_time_gone 5y ago
How does this prove that using a literal example of misinformation from 2016 invalidates the goal of teaching news literacy?
haswell 5y ago
You stated that it implies bias without articulating why you believe the bias exists. Will you elaborate on how you feel the quote you included implies bias?
- throwawayswede 5y ago
  From that report I just wanted to show that shortly before the 2020 election, the Gallup poll showed that confidence in the mass media has continued to decline among Republicans and independent voters, to 10% and 36%, respectively. Among Democratic voters, confidence rose to 73%. Then you have other other polls from Gallup, like this one showing that six in 10 in US see partisan bias in news media. From the report: > Americans Believe News Media Favors Democrats Gallup asked those who perceive political bias in the news media to say which party the news media favors. Almost two-thirds (64%) of those who believe the media favors a political party say it is the Democratic Party. Only about a third as many (22%) believe the media favors Republicans. > This is not new. Americans who perceive media bias have always said the direction of that bias leaned in favor of the Democrats, although the percentage holding that view has varied. The gap was smaller in 2003 and 1995, but was more similar to today's attitudes in 2000. https://news.gallup.com/poll/207794/six-partisan-bias-news-media.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/207794/six-partisan-bias-news-m...

avs733 5y ago

this is why that education is so critical. because the news literacy is countering the exact type of thinking you are responding to. Any analysis is treated as criticism. Analysis isn't criticism, its analysis.

ripply 5y ago

Yes you are correct, you did read a different article, that’s the core problem. A large portion of Trump’s base still believes that fishy things happened in the election, if the journalist covering this story wanted to cover this without bias and truly believes that the program is a net positive (which I agree is probably true) they shouldn’t be injecting divisive politics into their coverage as these people are completely done with the media at this point, the OP is going easy describing what some of these people believe. They roll their eyes at anything these people say now, they have lost all faith in the media. The story reads like the journalist is completely unaware of their implicit left wing bias and makes little effort to fix it - to them, this example is an obvious example to use but it will alienate readers on the other side (like the OP), yet they used it anyway.