“We’re taught that, in order to protect ourselves from bad information, we need to deeply engage with the stuff that washes up in front of us,” Mr. Caulfield told me recently. He suggested that the dominant mode of media literacy (if kids get taught any at all) is that “you’ll get imperfect information and then use reasoning to fix that somehow. But in reality, that strategy can completely backfire.”
|
The US media machine is starting to damage control for all the Uyghur genocide debunkings ha ha yay
*Mr. Caulfield walked me through the process using an Instagram post from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent anti-vaccine activist, falsely alleging a link between the human papillomavirus vaccine and cancer. “If this is not a claim where I have a depth of understanding, then I want to stop for a second and, before going further, just investigate the source,” Mr. Caulfield said. He copied Mr. Kennedy’s name in the Instagram post and popped it into Google. “Look how fast this is,” he told me as he counted the seconds out loud. In 15 seconds, he navigated to Wikipedia and scrolled through the introductory section of the page, highlighting with his cursor the last sentence, which reads that Mr. Kennedy is an anti-vaccine activist and a conspiracy theorist.
“Is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. the best, unbiased source on information about a vaccine? I’d argue no. And that’s good enough to know we should probably just move on,” he said.
He probed deeper into the method to find better coverage by copying the main claim in Mr. Kennedy’s post and pasting that into a Google search. The first two results came from Agence France-Presse’s fact-check website and the National Institutes of Health. His quick searches showed a pattern: Mr. Kennedy’s claims were outside the consensus — a sign they were motivated by something other than science. "|
Aren't immediately sure whether something is true? Spend 15 seconds skimming articles on a website that has never historically been edited by the CIA or FBI. Still not sure? Just believe the consensus :stress:
This seems like a weird argument too? See a guy advocating against vaccines? Well if you google him you'll learn that he advocates against vaccines! This new information really changes things.
Like what? There are so many better arguments for debunking anti vaxxers than "Did you know anti vaxxers are against the vaccines?" of all things
Yeah, it fucking hurts to read. I really, really hope the Average NYT Fan doesn't buy into stuff this obviously bullshit.
The article is full of "reasonable" things to get you to nod along and ignore the absolutely bonkers argument they try to make. The SIFT thing sounds like a reasonable thing to do, because it actually is a good way to sniff out misinformation from the get-go. But then the article tries to equate that with "don't use critical thinking," trying to extend the validity of the former to the latter.
I mean most of this pearl clutching is just consumption expressing itself. The idea that the modern person must be informed was coincidentally born around the time of mass communication which is just selling TVs and radios and newspapers. You're a stupid and/or immoral person if you don't consume. You're irresponsible! Now we're in such a media-saturated environment it's hard to get eyeballs in the right places. Social media places the NYT next to Infowars. So the strategy is make a big deal over misinformation. You're bad if you watch the other guy's shitty cable news program instead of ours. Theirs is misinformation, ours is trusted. But they're both companies and therefore not beholden to any truth whatsoever. In fact they both clearly and openly function as state media, when their guy is in charge. They clearly have agendas. Nothing about it is not misinformation. In fact, it's not a coincidence this kind of piece is in the NYT of all places. Just the paper of record lamenting about how nobody listens to them because misinformation.
The US media machine is starting to damage control for all the Uyghur genocide debunkings ha ha yay
Aren't immediately sure whether something is true? Spend 15 seconds skimming articles on a website that has never historically been edited by the CIA or FBI. Still not sure? Just believe the consensus :stress:
This seems like a weird argument too? See a guy advocating against vaccines? Well if you google him you'll learn that he advocates against vaccines! This new information really changes things.
Like what? There are so many better arguments for debunking anti vaxxers than "Did you know anti vaxxers are against the vaccines?" of all things
Yeah, it fucking hurts to read. I really, really hope the Average NYT Fan doesn't buy into stuff this obviously bullshit.
The article is full of "reasonable" things to get you to nod along and ignore the absolutely bonkers argument they try to make. The SIFT thing sounds like a reasonable thing to do, because it actually is a good way to sniff out misinformation from the get-go. But then the article tries to equate that with "don't use critical thinking," trying to extend the validity of the former to the latter.
I mean most of this pearl clutching is just consumption expressing itself. The idea that the modern person must be informed was coincidentally born around the time of mass communication which is just selling TVs and radios and newspapers. You're a stupid and/or immoral person if you don't consume. You're irresponsible! Now we're in such a media-saturated environment it's hard to get eyeballs in the right places. Social media places the NYT next to Infowars. So the strategy is make a big deal over misinformation. You're bad if you watch the other guy's shitty cable news program instead of ours. Theirs is misinformation, ours is trusted. But they're both companies and therefore not beholden to any truth whatsoever. In fact they both clearly and openly function as state media, when their guy is in charge. They clearly have agendas. Nothing about it is not misinformation. In fact, it's not a coincidence this kind of piece is in the NYT of all places. Just the paper of record lamenting about how nobody listens to them because misinformation.