Posts Tagged ‘media’
Navigating digital information 2
Posted on: January 17, 2019
Here some of my notes on the second part of Crash Course’s series on media and digital literacies.
This episode focused on fact checking. To do this, presenter John Green outlined a Stanford University study on how a group university professors and students evaluated information online.
The participants focused on superficial elements of source sites, e.g., how it presented information, instead of looking deeper on what information it shared.
On the other hand, professional fact checkers armed themselves with at least three questions to evaluate sources:
- Who is behind this information and why are they sharing it?
- What is the evidence for their claims?
- What do other sources say about the sharer and its claims?
Answering these questions is not as simple as ABC, but it does provide an easy-to-remember set of 1-2-3 to evaluate what we read, watch, or listen to.
Near the end of the video, Green highlighted the difference between being cynical and being skeptical. The former is being “generally distrustful of everyone else’s motives” while the latter is being “not easily convinced”.
All of us could use a healthy dose of skepticism every day. The problem is that our bias might raise this shield when the information does not align to what we already know or believe. This is why asking the 1-2-3 regardless of source or our compass helps keep us in check.
Navigating digital information 1
Posted on: January 10, 2019
John Green and co have just released part 1 of their Crash Course series on navigating digital information.
If I had to sum up the takeaway from the video, it would be this: Just because it looks like a news article does not make it one. Appearances like layout, graphics, and slickness matter, but these should not distract from the quality and accuracy of the content. To determine those latter qualities, we need to investigate the sources of the article.
Sounds simple, doesn’t it?
However, Green mentioned a study by the Stanford History Education Group which highlighted how historians and university students focused on the superficial instead of digging deep.
Speaking of digging deep, I could find the Stanford group online, but not the documentation about the study from the Crash Course video page. Might Crash Course consider providing a link to such evidence and not just its main sponsors/collaborators?
Why we need…
Posted on: May 21, 2018
The headlines highlighted in this tweet are why we need:
- science and experts.
- to be information and media literate.
- to follow entities outside our bubbles.
Forbes and NASA have experts that are good at what they do. Both provided commentary on a shared observation. Only one was actually informative — NASA.
If we were information and media literate — collectively digitally literate — we would be skeptical of Forbes’ report and know how to investigate the issue. We would then find NASA’s version of the event and we would be able to evaluate what we find.
Operating outside our bubbles allows us to see what others see. Operate in the Forbes or entertainment bubble and we see only mystery or ignorance. Operate in the scientific bubble and we see more factual information.
That said, I follow You Had One Job on Twitter because it is funny. It is also provocative in that it helps me make critical connections. So while being digitally literate and sourcing expertise are important, it helps to first operate outside one’s bubble.
Foundation of future literacies
Posted on: May 18, 2018
This excellent YouTube series on media literacy ends with the episode below.
The episode focuses on what lies ahead. As it does so, it builds on what was stable, remains stable now, and will be stable in the future.
The future of being media literate is being skeptical. This does not mean that we cannot enjoy watch we hear, read, or watch.
It does mean that we do not take the easy way out. Being skeptical means being aware of our own bias and identifying the bias in media. It means establishing context and being critical “going in” instead of just reacting when “going out”.
Social media granularity
Posted on: April 9, 2018
For me reading some Facebook (FB) group posts is like feeding a morbid habit of watching train wrecks.
I can see them coming because they are guaranteed. The conversations (if they can be called that) are unpleasant, but I plow through anyway. Why? All for the single pearl in the mud trampled by swine.
By comparing what I do and read in FB and Twitter, I realise that the issue is granular control. I can choose who I follow on Twitter. I can only choose which groups I join in FB.
I can even block people in Twitter so that I curate the right kind of followers. This is not the same as muting people on FB as the control is finer and deeper in Twitter.
It is strange that the more verbose FB provides less granularity of control while the shorter form Twitter provides more. This starts to make sense if you buy in to this description: FB is where you hang out with family or friends. Twitter is where you learn from strangers. It makes sense to have locks on your front door, but not on the ones inside.
But this is where the description falls apart. FB groups are full of strangers who have a lot to say with very little sense. You need only examine any FB interest group with the lens of granularity to realise how this leads to breadth instead of depth.
By breadth I mean the reach that large FB groups have in transmitting information. By lack of depth I mean unsubstantiated rumour, baseless information, or knowledge built on weak foundations.
Twitter is not immune from these, of course. But you can choose who to follow and you can even choose who follows you. You can go for quality, not just quantity, and by doing so choose depth over breadth. As you reputation grows over time, you might develop reach and breadth.
Developing depth over breadth is a more responsible approach. I wonder if this is modelled and taught in digital and media literacy modules. If this is not, then learners just go with the flow of popularity contests that favour breadth over depth.
