4 ms·
I read the article and I disagree that the 2016 election is a specific example of what students in class actually learn about (which is what I interpreted when
by SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
I read the article and I disagree that the 2016 election is a specific example of what students in class actually learn about (which is what I interpreted when you said “used on the kids”). The 2016 example is actually part of a study to claim there is evidence that students have poor ability to discern from good quality and bad quality news sources, such as a video of dubious origin on Facebook.
The actual examples used in class was influencers talking about nutrition and a teacher talking about jan 6 being controversial in the class. And I think your concern that news literacy may be defined too simplistically in the classroom is valid but your reading of the article seems to have poor comprehension.
- Consultant32452 5y agoAn important part of indoctrination is training children that only regime approved news sources are reliable.
- long_time_gone 5y agoDidn't you study the difference in quality versus non-quality sources as a child? I remember lots of term papers where my references were questioned and only references of certain quality were allowed.
- Consultant32452 5y agoYes, that's exactly the training I was referring to.
- long_time_gone 5y agoAre you suggesting that all sources are exactly equal? If not, then people need a framework to determine source quality, otherwise we aren't really preparing them for the world. What is your proposal?
- Consultant32452 5y agoYou cannot learn from the government which news sources will give you reliable information about the government any more than you would trust cigarette manufacturers to tell you which studies about cigarettes to trust. Step 1 is abolishing government schools entirely.
- platz 5y agowhats step 2
- Consultant32452 5y agoSeize the university endowments, the crystallization of privilege, and dispense them as reparations. They are the ones perpetuating this depraved system to the next generation of government agents. No one will believe you unless you work for a place like the NYT, but you can't get into the NYT unless you came through a short list of universities that make sure you know what to say/do. They reinforce this by training the teachers to only accept their approved sources in schools.
- Jarwain 5y agoIsn't the idea not about instilling trust in specific news sources, but teaching how to recognize a good source or critically thinking about and comparing different sources?
- Consultant32452 5y agoNo. At best you get Chomsky's manufactured consent. You get to compare the NYT article to the WaPo article and decide which one has the best information, and you may argue vigorously within that narrow window. You will never be allowed to cite "unapproved" sources in school. You usually won't even be able to cite something like wikileaks except in the context of how an approved source wrote an article about them.
- imwillofficial 5y agoIt doesn't matter how many times these news agencies get caught making stuff up out of whole cloth, they are "reliable news" because people are conditioned to believe it. Faith is strong.
- refurb 5y agoNot sure why this is downvoted. This is what I was taught in the past - mainstream media is reliable and trustworthy. Hell, those same media organizations reinforce that belief when they attack less mainstream news sources. Yet if you look at the list of mistakes the mainstream media has made in the past decade I’m not sure why anyone would assume they are worthy of an assumption of good faith reporting.
- Nursie 5y agoThe problem is the non-mainstream is worse. It's like the alt-med argument - sure, point at "big pharma" and tell us how corrupt they are. That doesn't mean homeopathy works.
- Consultant32452 5y agoThey trained you to divide the world into two neat and convenient boxes where one box is represented by the NYT and the other box is represented by Alex Jones and flat earthers.
- Nursie 5y agoNo, 'they' didn't train me to do that, I'm capable of using my brain and evaluating sources. If anything 'they' taught me to examine primary and secondary sources, look for bias, and draw my own conclusions. 'They' also taught me statistics so I can understand the use and misuse of such things by journalists. I've barely ever come across the NYT in my lifetime, not being American. Good try though.
- Consultant32452 5y agoSometimes people use concrete examples to explain abstract concepts. If the concrete examples aren't a part of your culture, the underlying abstract argument is disproven.
- ajsnigrutin 5y agoOh come on... > https://web.archive.org/web/20171106063502/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/06/trump-dump-president-throws-entire-box-of-fish-food-into-precious-koi-carp-pond https://web.archive.org/web/20171106063502/https://www.thegu... > Trump dump: president throws entire box of fish food into precious koi carp pond > While his host, Japan’s prime minister Shinzo Abe, spoons small amounts of feed, the US leader gives the fish a large feast > Having apparently lost patience with tempting the fish to the edge with modest offerings of food, Trump simply upended his wooden container and dumped its entire contents into the water. > White House reporters captured the moment on their smartphones and tweeted evidence of the president’s questionable grasp of fish keeping. > Abe is seen grinning, as is a woman in a kimono standing to one side. Next to her, Rex Tillerson – perhaps grateful for a moment of comic relief after he was named in the Paradise Papers – could not suppress a laugh, according to witnesses. > Some speculated that a poor palace employee would be dispatched to the scene of Trump’s faux pas to the clean up the mess as soon as the two leaders disappeared inside. > Trump is not alone in misjudging the fishes’ appetite, however. According to the Aquascape website, overfeeding is the most common mistake made by keepers of koi carp. > “This can make your fish sick, and excessive amounts of waste that strains the limits of what can be biologically reduced, results in a decline of water quality,” the site says. The whole article is written as "trump stupid, kill fish" Of course the reality is... trump did it all by protocol, doing what the host did, first feeding by the spoon, then throwing in the rest... but they even managed to crop the video, showing only what trump did, and cutting Abe out of the frame. This is not some random guy on facebook, or some cheap rag.. it's a (once) respectable newspaper. If I cannot trust them with reporting about something, that was recorded by many, many cameras, and with video available everywhere, how can I trust them with reporting about something, I have no direct insight to?
- AustinDev 5y agoOh yeah I remember this whole charade. It happened rather early and was blatantly transparent.
- ajsnigrutin 5y agoyeah, and it's sad, because it wasn't something that was unverifiable, it wasn't an "unnamed source"... it was something recorded by many cameras and broadcasted in many places... figuring out it was a lie was a 5 minute process. How can i trust them then with an "unnamed source" stories, when they lie about stuff recorded on camera?
- bena 5y agoRead what he's concerned about. It's not too difficult to suss out what he wants here. The fact that the mere mention of 2016 sent him into a complaining rant about laptops and lab leaks should tell you what you need to know.