16 ms·

I've taken a news literacy class at Stony Brook about 10 years ago, when it was then a relatively new program. I think it's an incredibly valuable thing. It w

by bonyt 5y ago

I've taken a news literacy class at Stony Brook about 10 years ago, when it was then a relatively new program. I think it's an incredibly valuable thing. It was taught in more the general sense of how to apply critical thinking to judge news stories. To the people saying that this just instills propaganda about specific news sources: consider learning a little bit more about the class. It teaches about how to tell journalism apart from other kinds of information, like entertainment and opinion; the hallmarks of good reporting, like transparency; discerning assertion from verification, and evidence from inference; the idea of seeking out multiple sources and how to reconcile them, etc. It's more a toolbox of how to inform oneself, regardless of any specific source. It definitely included examples of bad reporting from all sorts of sources, because the message is that its ideas are applicable to any source of information. Ideas: https://www.centerfornewsliteracy.org/what-is-news-literacy/ https://www.centerfornewsliteracy.org/what-is-news-literacy/ Class: https://www.centerfornewsliteracy.org/stony-brooks-center-for-news-literacy-launches-groundbreaking-mooc/ https://www.centerfornewsliteracy.org/stony-brooks-center-fo...

minikites 5y ago
I think this is a well informed take on the issue, unlike so many of the other negative comments here that inadvertently prove the need for media literacy classes.
robxu9 5y ago
I also took News Literacy at Stony Brook in 2013. I think that was one of the more popular classes for students by then, especially since it allowed students to choose which gen ed humanities requirement (out of two) to satisfy that was otherwise a bit tedious to get. Most people I know who went into the course just for credits came out with a greater appreciation for the course in general.
wolverine876 5y ago
Thank you for contributing something positive and informative!
endisneigh 5y ago
How effective is the class? AP English classes have a very similar curriculum (https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-english-language-and-composition/course https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-english-langua...), yet here we are. The fact is there's selection bias in people who even take these types of classes, and there's really no way to know how effective it is in reducing ones propensity to be "misinformed" (by whatever measure).
- wolverine876 5y ago
  AP English is available only to a narrow group of people. > there's really no way to know how effective it is in reducing ones propensity to be "misinformed" (by whatever measure) It seems straightforward to research it.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    > AP English is available only to a narrow group of people. Most regular English classes have a very similar curriculum and almost certainly any English teacher on the high school level will say part of their learning objectives for their students is to improve critical thinking skills. > It seems straightforward to research it. How would you? Seems very difficult to me.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      > How would you? Seems very difficult to me. If the question is "How effective is a course in reducing ones propensity to be "misinformed"?" then that's a pretty basic (and cheap) experimental psychology study. Set up a control group (diverse, large enough) that goes through a traditional curriculum. No added class. Set up a test group (diverse, matched, large enough) that adds the additional class. Afterwards, present both groups with a battery of defensible and indefensible information, with and without source identification. See what the statistics say. Some psychology is hard or impossible to study, but this is relatively straightforward.
      - 5y ago
throwaway894345 5y ago
> It teaches about how to tell journalism apart from other kinds of information, like entertainment and opinion; the hallmarks of good reporting, like transparency; discerning assertion from verification, and evidence from inference; the idea of seeking out multiple sources and how to reconcile them, etc. It's more a toolbox of how to inform oneself, regardless of any specific source. Provided it can stick to that, I'm all for it. But the landscape has become a lot more partisan/ideological in the last 10 years, particularly at universities, so I understand why people are skeptical/concerned. One also wonders what's going on in journalism programs around the country that is allowing for so much unabashedly propagandist content to be pushed out under the guise of "journalism"?
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > But the landscape has become a lot more partisan/ideological in the last 10 years, particularly at universities, so I understand why people are skeptical/concerned. What if the propagandists are portraying it that way, in order to create that skepticism/concern. They do delegitimize one institution after another: Journalism, education, government, etc. - these are the big ones. > so much unabashedly propagandist content to be pushed out under the guise of "journalism"? If you are talking about opinion columns/segments, I agree it's there. But most straight news from major sources is impressively straight, IME.
  - slibhb 5y ago
    > What if the propagandists are portraying it that way, in order to create that skepticism/concern. They do delegitimize one institution after another: Journalism, education, government, etc. - these are the big ones. > But most straight news from major sources is impressively straight, IME. Your attitude is exactly why so many posters here are skeptical of the idea of "News Literacy". Whatever right-wingers are saying, there are good reasons to distrust institutions, including journalistic ones. Any genuine "News Literacy" course will end up teaching radical skepticism. It certainly won't teach fealty to the noble and honorable professional journalists, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bnralt 5y ago
The problem, in my experience, is that most people are happy to learn "how to apply critical thinking to judge news stories," will agree to the principals in a general sense, and then go on and only apply such tools towards things they are biased against and while uncritically believing any reporting that either confirms their bias or seems to be part of the common sense of their peer group. For instance, NPR talks about news literacy here, and I'm sure most of the people at NPR "know" how to be critical, but their level of reporting often doesn't reflect that. For another example, there's a podcast I listen to by journalists that often point out poor reporting and misinformation spread by other journalists. But they'll usually uncritically repeat the "common sense/everyone knows" ideas that permeate the media outside of their wheelhouse. I only saw a realization of this issue once, when they were talking about the Gell-Mann Amnesia affect, then a couple of minutes later were talking about news reports showing XYZ, and they gave some throw away disclaimer to the effect of "although, I suppose going by the Gell-Mann Amnesia idea, we perhaps shouldn't trust these reports 100%." In the end, it seems that news for most people serves as a form of infotainment. Infotainment that spreads a lot of disinformation, but leaves people with the illusion they're informed. I think most people would do well to take a few months off from the news and see how it effects the things they actually have control over (usually a lot less than they assume), or how out of place they'll feel when they jump back in (usually not much, since it seems most news items are forgotten within a few weeks).
- stevofolife 5y ago
  smells like cognitive bias
- downWidOutaFite 5y ago
  By the way, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is bullshit up until someone does an actual study on it. It's just anecdote based at this point, and my personal anecdotes don't support it.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  It's a critical point. After thinking about it (circa 2008ish?), I switched to the BBC for my base American news source, then check both US liberal and conservative media if it's a topic I'm interested in. If you really want the facts, you shouldn't have any opposition to objectively reading someone from the other side, trying to make their case.
paul7986 5y ago
For most media especially any media that is trying to control my life and or other people let it control their life I ignore. I.e. Covid news ... i get my covid news directly from my hospital friends in different cities across the U.S. They have no incentive to lie about their reality vs. all paid media does who wants to get you hooked via fear and make you keep coming back for more. Im sure my views on media arent popular, but i think differently and paid media that controls peoples lives has no place in my life! Its too easy to tweak the truth an inch or more for money/greed. Though if there are now classes where part of the class is teaching if that news source is telling the full truth i guess my views on media aren't that crazy. Either way its tuned out and I listen to no boogieman only my friends who work in hospitals across the country.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  It's amazing how different of a story one gets from ICU nurses and doctors, vs mainstream media. In retrospect, I think the story of the pandemic is going to be how much was concealed from the public, and the impact those images that did break through had (e.g. Dr Li Wenliang's selfies, hooked up to oxygen support). It's easy to live in an abstract world, until you've seen someone struggling for breath or being put under for intubation.
  - paul7986 5y ago
    Ive shared my view on media here before and always get downvoted. That is fine tons and tons of people hook themselves up their boogeyman of choice (Faux News, MSNbsee, C&N, NewsMax, EpochTimes, etc, etc .. all media driven by dollars and making investors and or their parent companies raking in the dough) and let it control their lives. After two months into the pandemic I was done with it and went about living my life with a mask on. Some very close family members struggled with Covid .. it is real for sure but this pandemic is a human experiment where the real truth and facts will come in time. Time will prevail and help us best deal with it ... even at this point i feel we are still in the experiment walking blindly as they change things .. get vaccine no mask.. wait now wear mask if vaccinated ..oh wait your gonna need a booster shot .. lol We are all gerbils even the ones pushing out the dynamic information!
ErikVandeWater 5y ago
Was there anything about the implicit trust of government sources news media seem to have? I'm always annoyed when the media sites "anonymous intelligence sources" for a story. You're telling me that you trust spies to tell you the truth? Spies are probably pretty damn good at lying. The media will cite the Pentagon with a straight face completely forgetting its lies to the whole world about WMDs. And finally somehow both the Army and Pentagon both agreeing on a version of a story means the story is verified. It's not like they communicate with each other and have the same objective!
karmakaze 5y ago
I learned to think critically about what I read from one specific incident. There was a local story about a high-school football game that afterward there was widespread vandalism and high levels of aggression/violence. I was at that game, it it was all very normal, maybe with higher than average attendance, leaving a bit of a mess. The only way I could imagine the news being written as it was, was that the reporter wasn't there, talked to a few people, and extrapolated making the story exciting. There may also have been a motivation to make a school look bad. In any case, the jig was up for the value of in-black-and-white.
dotcommand 5y ago
> It was taught in more the general sense of how to apply critical thinking to judge news stories. Critical thinking is a general thing, not something for news stories. Besides the idea that school teach critical thinking in anything is laughable in this day and age. What should be taught is history of news and why it exists. Not how to decipher good "news" from bad "news" because there is no good or bad "news". There is only agenda. Schools should also teach the history of modern school systems and the education department. Quite eye opening. By your comment, it's apparently clear you didn't learn anything valuable in your class. But then again, it's Stony Brook.

by bonyt 5y ago

minikites 5y ago

I think this is a well informed take on the issue, unlike so many of the other negative comments here that inadvertently prove the need for media literacy classes.

robxu9 5y ago

I also took News Literacy at Stony Brook in 2013. I think that was one of the more popular classes for students by then, especially since it allowed students to choose which gen ed humanities requirement (out of two) to satisfy that was otherwise a bit tedious to get. Most people I know who went into the course just for credits came out with a greater appreciation for the course in general.

wolverine876 5y ago

Thank you for contributing something positive and informative!

endisneigh 5y ago

How effective is the class? AP English classes have a very similar curriculum (https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-english-language-and-composition/course https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-english-langua...), yet here we are. The fact is there's selection bias in people who even take these types of classes, and there's really no way to know how effective it is in reducing ones propensity to be "misinformed" (by whatever measure).

wolverine876 5y ago
AP English is available only to a narrow group of people. > there's really no way to know how effective it is in reducing ones propensity to be "misinformed" (by whatever measure) It seems straightforward to research it.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  > AP English is available only to a narrow group of people. Most regular English classes have a very similar curriculum and almost certainly any English teacher on the high school level will say part of their learning objectives for their students is to improve critical thinking skills. > It seems straightforward to research it. How would you? Seems very difficult to me.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    > How would you? Seems very difficult to me. If the question is "How effective is a course in reducing ones propensity to be "misinformed"?" then that's a pretty basic (and cheap) experimental psychology study. Set up a control group (diverse, large enough) that goes through a traditional curriculum. No added class. Set up a test group (diverse, matched, large enough) that adds the additional class. Afterwards, present both groups with a battery of defensible and indefensible information, with and without source identification. See what the statistics say. Some psychology is hard or impossible to study, but this is relatively straightforward.
    - 5y ago

throwaway894345 5y ago

> It teaches about how to tell journalism apart from other kinds of information, like entertainment and opinion; the hallmarks of good reporting, like transparency; discerning assertion from verification, and evidence from inference; the idea of seeking out multiple sources and how to reconcile them, etc. It's more a toolbox of how to inform oneself, regardless of any specific source. Provided it can stick to that, I'm all for it. But the landscape has become a lot more partisan/ideological in the last 10 years, particularly at universities, so I understand why people are skeptical/concerned. One also wonders what's going on in journalism programs around the country that is allowing for so much unabashedly propagandist content to be pushed out under the guise of "journalism"?

wolverine876 5y ago
> But the landscape has become a lot more partisan/ideological in the last 10 years, particularly at universities, so I understand why people are skeptical/concerned. What if the propagandists are portraying it that way, in order to create that skepticism/concern. They do delegitimize one institution after another: Journalism, education, government, etc. - these are the big ones. > so much unabashedly propagandist content to be pushed out under the guise of "journalism"? If you are talking about opinion columns/segments, I agree it's there. But most straight news from major sources is impressively straight, IME.
- slibhb 5y ago
  > What if the propagandists are portraying it that way, in order to create that skepticism/concern. They do delegitimize one institution after another: Journalism, education, government, etc. - these are the big ones. > But most straight news from major sources is impressively straight, IME. Your attitude is exactly why so many posters here are skeptical of the idea of "News Literacy". Whatever right-wingers are saying, there are good reasons to distrust institutions, including journalistic ones. Any genuine "News Literacy" course will end up teaching radical skepticism. It certainly won't teach fealty to the noble and honorable professional journalists, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bnralt 5y ago

The problem, in my experience, is that most people are happy to learn "how to apply critical thinking to judge news stories," will agree to the principals in a general sense, and then go on and only apply such tools towards things they are biased against and while uncritically believing any reporting that either confirms their bias or seems to be part of the common sense of their peer group. For instance, NPR talks about news literacy here, and I'm sure most of the people at NPR "know" how to be critical, but their level of reporting often doesn't reflect that. For another example, there's a podcast I listen to by journalists that often point out poor reporting and misinformation spread by other journalists. But they'll usually uncritically repeat the "common sense/everyone knows" ideas that permeate the media outside of their wheelhouse. I only saw a realization of this issue once, when they were talking about the Gell-Mann Amnesia affect, then a couple of minutes later were talking about news reports showing XYZ, and they gave some throw away disclaimer to the effect of "although, I suppose going by the Gell-Mann Amnesia idea, we perhaps shouldn't trust these reports 100%." In the end, it seems that news for most people serves as a form of infotainment. Infotainment that spreads a lot of disinformation, but leaves people with the illusion they're informed. I think most people would do well to take a few months off from the news and see how it effects the things they actually have control over (usually a lot less than they assume), or how out of place they'll feel when they jump back in (usually not much, since it seems most news items are forgotten within a few weeks).

stevofolife 5y ago
smells like cognitive bias
downWidOutaFite 5y ago
By the way, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is bullshit up until someone does an actual study on it. It's just anecdote based at this point, and my personal anecdotes don't support it.
ethbr0 5y ago
It's a critical point. After thinking about it (circa 2008ish?), I switched to the BBC for my base American news source, then check both US liberal and conservative media if it's a topic I'm interested in. If you really want the facts, you shouldn't have any opposition to objectively reading someone from the other side, trying to make their case.

paul7986 5y ago

For most media especially any media that is trying to control my life and or other people let it control their life I ignore. I.e. Covid news ... i get my covid news directly from my hospital friends in different cities across the U.S. They have no incentive to lie about their reality vs. all paid media does who wants to get you hooked via fear and make you keep coming back for more. Im sure my views on media arent popular, but i think differently and paid media that controls peoples lives has no place in my life! Its too easy to tweak the truth an inch or more for money/greed. Though if there are now classes where part of the class is teaching if that news source is telling the full truth i guess my views on media aren't that crazy. Either way its tuned out and I listen to no boogieman only my friends who work in hospitals across the country.

ethbr0 5y ago
It's amazing how different of a story one gets from ICU nurses and doctors, vs mainstream media. In retrospect, I think the story of the pandemic is going to be how much was concealed from the public, and the impact those images that did break through had (e.g. Dr Li Wenliang's selfies, hooked up to oxygen support). It's easy to live in an abstract world, until you've seen someone struggling for breath or being put under for intubation.
- paul7986 5y ago
  Ive shared my view on media here before and always get downvoted. That is fine tons and tons of people hook themselves up their boogeyman of choice (Faux News, MSNbsee, C&N, NewsMax, EpochTimes, etc, etc .. all media driven by dollars and making investors and or their parent companies raking in the dough) and let it control their lives. After two months into the pandemic I was done with it and went about living my life with a mask on. Some very close family members struggled with Covid .. it is real for sure but this pandemic is a human experiment where the real truth and facts will come in time. Time will prevail and help us best deal with it ... even at this point i feel we are still in the experiment walking blindly as they change things .. get vaccine no mask.. wait now wear mask if vaccinated ..oh wait your gonna need a booster shot .. lol We are all gerbils even the ones pushing out the dynamic information!

ErikVandeWater 5y ago

Was there anything about the implicit trust of government sources news media seem to have? I'm always annoyed when the media sites "anonymous intelligence sources" for a story. You're telling me that you trust spies to tell you the truth? Spies are probably pretty damn good at lying. The media will cite the Pentagon with a straight face completely forgetting its lies to the whole world about WMDs. And finally somehow both the Army and Pentagon both agreeing on a version of a story means the story is verified. It's not like they communicate with each other and have the same objective!

karmakaze 5y ago

I learned to think critically about what I read from one specific incident. There was a local story about a high-school football game that afterward there was widespread vandalism and high levels of aggression/violence. I was at that game, it it was all very normal, maybe with higher than average attendance, leaving a bit of a mess. The only way I could imagine the news being written as it was, was that the reporter wasn't there, talked to a few people, and extrapolated making the story exciting. There may also have been a motivation to make a school look bad. In any case, the jig was up for the value of in-black-and-white.

dotcommand 5y ago

> It was taught in more the general sense of how to apply critical thinking to judge news stories. Critical thinking is a general thing, not something for news stories. Besides the idea that school teach critical thinking in anything is laughable in this day and age. What should be taught is history of news and why it exists. Not how to decipher good "news" from bad "news" because there is no good or bad "news". There is only agenda. Schools should also teach the history of modern school systems and the education department. Quite eye opening. By your comment, it's apparently clear you didn't learn anything valuable in your class. But then again, it's Stony Brook.