Come check out my dating blog. The Pool Thanks! Etty
I will not forget
the way it felt to swoon into your grip,
Nor will I forget the feeling
of you believing in me like scripture
some ancient verse civilizations follow
I will not forget
the way it felt to wake
seeing you smile at me,
Good morning love.
My body keeps going through these
but now they are wrong and the
are making me forget to
breathe, eat, and sleep.
I hope to forget
but my muscle memory
won’t yet let me
and while my mind says move on
the involuntary reflex is so
“To prosper in the Digital Age, people must become masters of information.” — C. Stern, 2003
Recently, a Facebook friend shared a political link. In the ensuing thread, another person commented that the information shared was in fact not true. In reply, my friend commented, “That was not really my motivation in sharing this link anyway.” The exchange left me scratching my head in bewilderment. Sharing the truth was not his motive? Then what was? Why would a person share unproven information, even if the idea behind it supported an agenda they had? Why not do the legwork and find something based on fact, or, better yet, adapt their viewpoint based on facts discovered through research?
The old adage states, “Don’t believe everything you read.” It holds true today, more than ever. Since the advent of widespread access to the internet, social media, and other forms of computer-mediated communication, it has become ridiculously easy to disseminate information with a mere click of a button. This becomes problematic when people spread information without adequately vetting their sources, turning fiction into widely-accepted fact. Conspiracy theories and pseudo-scientific ideas have the opportunity to spread quickly through large groups of people, and they often do.
What is the answer to this problem? Surely it cannot be censorship, not with the First Amendment protecting our right to free speech. Rather than blame the medium, I say that we must put responsibility in the hands of the reader. It is imperative that readers learn how to become savvy consumers of media by discerning legitimate news sources from questionable ones. Reliable press is imperative to a functioning democracy, and Americans must learn how to tell when what they are reading is not trustworthy. In a time where information about virtually any topic is available, critically thinking about news, information, and media has become a more essential skill than ever before.
News, information, and media literacy are aimed at helping a reader discern the trustworthiness of sources of information. The term “information literacy” was first coined in 1974 by a copyright lawyer, Paul G. Zurkwoski. President of the Information Industry Association at the time, Zurkowski said of information literacy:
People trained in the application of information resources to their work can be called information literates. They have learned techniques and skills for utilizing the wide range of information tools as well as primary sources in molding information solutions to their problems. The individuals in the remain portion of the population, while literate in the sense that they can read and write, do not have a measure for the value of information, do not have an ability to mold information to their needs and realistically must be considered to be information illiterate. (“Paul G. Zurkwoski”)
Zurkowski felt that information literacy is critical to “the creation of wealth, a key element in the blueprint for our national economic recovery” (“Paul G. Zurkwoski”).
Learning to critically think is an important part of creating intelligent consumers of media. Information literacy expert Crystle Martin states that a person with information literacy skills “demonstrates an ability to think critically and problem solve… people deal with information constantly… and they need to be able to decide the validity of information given, the bias of the conveyer of information, and the meaning of that information” (Martin 268). With the abundance of information at our fingertips in the form of articles, blog posts, viral posts, social media, and breaking news stories, information literacy is more important than ever before.
Information literacy includes asking crucial questions about the material at hand. According to the “Critical Evaluation Checklist for Internet Websites,” published online by Indiana Wesleyan University, there are five aspects of a Web site which should be analyzed: author, purpose, accuracy, currency, and audience. The checklist also includes a guide for printed materials (see Appendix). By investigating these aspects of an article, the reader is able to better understand the veracity of the information.
Although the term “information literacy” was not coined until the 1970s, the ability to discern legitimate information from sensationalist fabrication has been an issue since newspapers began to circulate. “Historically, it has been difficult at times to know whether the media was reporting an event versus influencing it” (McBrien 19). One of the most notable examples of this was during the Spanish-American War of 1898, when publishers William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer ran stories that arguably influenced the course of history. According to McBrien, when the U.S.S. Maine sunk, Hearst and Pulitzer both blamed Spain, despite the actual cause being undetermined. “The media frenzy provoked American hostility toward Spain, and the United States entered into a war that resulted in approximately 3,300 American and many more Spanish lives lost” (19).
Perhaps the “heavyweight champion of media hoaxes” (Simon), Orson Welles’s “The War of the Worlds” radio broadcast made listeners think aliens had invaded planet Earth. Broadcast on Halloween of 1938, the radio program panicked over a million listeners. According to Simon, Welles studied and imitated the way radio broadcasters reported the eventual war in Europe. “[T]hey studied the intonations of the auditory medium: how leaders spoke and how reporters reacted to the unexpected” (Simon). The attempt to emulate current news broadcasts was successful. Many listeners tuned in late and mistakenly thought the broadcast was real.
According to Marjorie Heins and Christina Cho, “Until the 1970s, the U.S. media literacy movement consisted primarily of scattered, small-scale efforts.” There were a couple attempts to guide people’s media use before the 70s, however. In the 1930’s, “a group of English teachers… founded the Wisconsin Association for Better Broadcasting. They circulated a list of ‘good’ radio programs… to increase listeners ‘awareness, critical evaluation, and appreciation.’” By 1953, the group morphed into the American Council for Better Broadcasts, creating “a basic syllabus for analyzing TV shows and conducted summer workshops in curricular development” (Heins and Cho 7).
By 1969, the National Education Association passed a “resolution recommending critical viewing curricula to counteract the presumed ill effects of media violence” (7). A year later, in 1970, WNET, New York City’s public television station started offering workshops in area schools, aimed at guiding educators as to how to incorporate TV into the classroom. According to Heins and Cho, in 1970, a resolution was passed by the National Council of Teachers of English which encouraged teachers to include “non-print texts” (film and TV) in their classrooms.
Over the next decade, programs were launched both in and out of public schools. Government organizations and nonprofit groups drove these efforts. One particular project thrived, called Media Action Research Center (or MARC). MARC “highlighted the disparity between Christian values and prevalent media messages” (7). MARC taught from a religious perspective rather than a neutral one. Harvard University also began a project aimed at studying media literacy efficacy in children. New York’s East Syracuse-Minoa school system offered voluntary summer workshops for teachers, collaborating on a media literacy curriculum and basic TV education. The workshops were helpful but failed to reach beyond the pool of the volunteering teachers.
In the late 70s, more programs appeared in schools and at universities. The federal government got involved in 1978, calling for funding for “curricular projects to equip students with critical viewing skills” (10). Programs in Austin, San Francisco, Boston, and New York City were put in place as a result. However, the programs were criticized as a waste of tax money and didn’t last long. According to Heins and Cho, the programs were called off officially in mid-1981, not too long Ronald Regan assumed the Presidency. Part of his campaign platform was dissolving the two-year-old Department of Education, and by 1982, all four of the programs lost federal funding. As a recession loomed, the subject of media literacy began to seem frivolous to the general public. Heins and Cho quote media literacy expert Kathleen Tyner on the subject: “Because media education was linked in the public’s mind with the recreational technology of television, the critical viewing curriculum was seen as an unnecessary frill.” A “back-to-basics” approach to education became a predominant theme in the U.S. While there were some additional efforts to integrate media literacy into schools, the rest of the 80s were a relatively quiet period.
In the 90s, likely due to heightened concern with media content and a changed political atmosphere, media literacy efforts were revived. Curricula and books were published with a new air of enthusiasm, recommendations were generated, and multiple national media literacy conferences were held.
As the field seemed to thrive, it became clear that the problem with media literacy education was that it was too fragmented, popping up as lone, disconnected efforts, and lacking a central mission objective to create a level of consistency. Another problem was a lack of appropriate evaluation criteria of the effectiveness of these efforts. These problems remain in the present day.
Problems: “The Inoculation Effect”
In a 2010 interview, expert on media literacy, author, and professor David Considine says media literacy hasn’t yet come far enough. “Media literacy is an innovation and you are trying to put an innovation into an institution, which is actually an institution of inertia… The culture and climate of schools swallows education” (Considine 6-7). The U.S. lags behind other countries in media literacy education. According to Heins and Cho, “While media literacy continues to develop by fits and starts in the U.S., in many other countries it is accepted as an essential part of basic education” (Heins and Cho 32).
Another problem that media literacy efforts face is a disagreement among leaders over the fundamental objectives. According to Considine:
So, you’ve got a big struggle and you can sum up that struggle with two different perspectives: the group that wants to control media and technology, and the group that sees media and technology in terms of challenge and creativity. And there is no clear winner. And I think in most cases, kids, the students, and their teachers are often the losers. (Considine 7)
Fear is a major motivator for many efforts to increase media literacy in the U.S. This is referred to as an “inoculation effect” (Office of National Drug Control Policy 11) or protectivism. Brooklyn College of the City University of New York faculty member Katherine Fry says, “Fear has been the catalyst for media literacy efforts…The currently unfolding digital era brings with it a whole new set of changes, problems, and fears” (Fry 65).
In an article in the Journal of Media Literacy and Education, Fry tells a story of an incident she was involved in at Brooklyn parochial school. A middle school student had sent threatening text messages to several students. The police were involved, and they, the principal, and parents were all in an uproar. The principal contacted The Learning About Multimedia Project (The LAMP) to come into the school and discuss speaking to the students. At the meeting between the members of LAMP and the principal unfolded, the LAMP members in attendance began describing their objective to work with students and parents to help them develop healthy digital relationships.
[T]he policeman cut us off short. “No,” he exclaimed loudly, slapping both hands down on the table for emphasis. “That’s not what we want you to do.” He leaned in towards us from across the table and said, lower and slower, “We want you to come in and scare the [expletive] out of them.” The principal nodded in agreement. Despite our efforts to convince them that our less aggressive, less fear-mongering approach might be more effective, we were not asked back. (Fry 66)
This fear-based, protectionist approach to media literacy comes from a place of anxiety and seeks to address the specific fear at hand. Fry argues that news and media literacy has a much larger domain that to just allay fear. “But it must be built correctly and adopted early, before a crisis. Ideally, in place of a crisis”(69).
Evidence of this fear-motivated approach to media literacy education is clear in a 1999 press release by Discovery Communications, Inc. DCI is a global mass media and entertainment company based in Silver Spring, Maryland which started off as The Discovery Channel. They issued this press release on May 3, 1999, a couple weeks after the tragic school shooting in Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado left 13 dead, plus the two shooters, and 21 injured. DCI offered to conduct media literacy and critical viewing conferences in all 1,400 public schools in the state of Maryland. Concerned about the students’ exposure to the violent events portrayed in the media, DCI’s President and COO Judith McHale stated the conferences hoped “to reach those most directly effected [sic] by images they may be unprepared to use wisely, specifically elementary, secondary and high school students” (“In Response to the Tragic Events…”). Although rooted in good intentions, the move seemed to be yet another case of looking to media literacy after a crisis. McHale said in the statement:
Rather than merely condemning the media or parents, we should work together to provide proactive tools that educators, parents, and young people can use to help prevent tragedies like the one in Littleton. The key is to help all consumers of media, and especially children, better evaluate the information they receive from the media and use it in more positive ways.
Further evidence of media literacy as a crisis intervention technique is clear in a 2001 report from the National Youth Anti-Media Campaign Summit at the White House Conference Center, “Helping Youth Navigate the Media Age: A New Approach to Drug Prevention.” Sponsored by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Summit sought to “explore the topic of media literacy specific to illicit drugs and to identify challenges and opportunities to advance this approach” (“Office of National Drug Control Policy” 8). In the report, the broader benefits of media literacy education are mentioned as a mere afterthought. “In addition to providing youth with ‘protective’ skills against the negative influences of the media, media literacy may equally offer young people positive ‘preparatory’ skills for responsible citizenship.” They go on to say that media literacy can help youth to become “positive contributors to society, to challenge cynicism and apathy and to serve as agents of social change” (10). These skills which can be taught by media literacy seem to be incredibly vital to creating a smarter, more competent, and more savvy society, and perhaps they deserve more than to be merely dusted off in the face of a school crisis.
Creating a Better Democracy
Can media and information literacy really shape better citizens? Studies suggest that yes, they can. A 2013 study examined the relationship between civic engagement and students who were enrolled in multimedia production classes at a high school. The results provided evidence that having experience in multimedia production contributed to democratic attitudes. According to the study’s results, “Civic engagement is associated with positive attitudes about the news, media, literacy competencies, and in-class pre-production experience” (Hobbs et al. 242). Basically, when students are exposed to how news and media are produced, they are more likely to actively participate in a civic way. As the study says, “By connecting classroom and culture, students increase skills of leadership, intellectual curiosity, and collaboration” (243).
The study also addresses a counterargument. Some critics say that developing media literacy may increase “cynicism, alienation, and disengagement from the political process.” Not necessarily. “The study found that the most media-literate students have more positive but nuanced perspectives on the role of journalism and society” (244). Media and information literacy and critical thinking are essential to a functioning democracy. “It is important, even vital to democracy, that students become critical consumers of media messages” (McBrien 31).
An article in the Columbia Review of Journalism discusses a study conducted by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation at Stony Brook University. In 2006, the foundation gave the university $1.7 million to enroll 10,000 students in a news literacy course. Assessment in 2008 showed a strong short-term influence from the course. Polled at the beginning of the semester, 72 percent of students said they felt a free press is important for democracy. By the end of the course, 93 percent believed it. “On the whole, news-literacy students were more likely to say they registered to vote since they enrolled in the class, more likely to report a positive view of the media, and more likely to say they consumed news from a variety of sources” (Beyerstein 46).
So can cultivating a nation of critical thinkers improve our American democracy? Quite possibly. But, according to the experts, changes must happen with the field of media literacy first. Faith Rogow, one-time president of the Alliance for a Media Literate America and expert in the field, says media literacy education has focused too much on media and not enough on the aspect of literacy. There has been too much emphasis on the effects of media and cultural criticism. The educators “generally saw it as their job to disseminate information about the potential or actual dangers of media… pedagogically speaking, its approach was fatally flawed” (Rogow 30). She says this reason is why media literacy has failed to catch on in many classrooms across the U.S. Students will not benefit from having an adult tell them what to think about what they see and hear in media. Rogow argues, “[S]uch teaching limits itself to the presentation of a set of conclusions – rather than also teach how to use questions or skills to reach those conclusions” (31). Additionally, teaching these critical thinking skills must leave room for varying interpretations. “[We] must allow for the distinct possibility that students, when provided with the skills to analyze for themselves, will come to conclusions that differ from our own” (31). Critical thinking does not come in one-size-fits-all.
The evidence is strong. As access to information expands exponentially, critically thinking about information, media, news, and advertising is of the utmost importance. However, the approach is integral to success. Media literacy cannot be expected to work properly if it is only used as a Band-Aid in a crisis. Learning critical thinking is a skill that develops over a lifetime. While there are several organizations across the U.S. devoted to information literacy, there is no nation-wide standard for teaching it in schools. The U.S. would stand to benefit from teaching these skills to children from a young age. Beyerstein argues that despite being a fledgling field, media and news literacy belong in schools now.
There are critics who say news literacy is trying to run before it can walk. They say, “Come back when you have all the evidence and then we’ll talk about adding it to the curriculum.” But there’s a strong case that news literacy deserves a place in our public schools right now, even before all the evidence is in (Beyerstein 49).
Minus the flying cars and moon colonies, we are living in a future that people could have only daydreamed about 50 years ago. We carry personal computers around in our pockets and have real-time access to breaking news and articles and forums about any subject we could dream up. We are able to access this information and, with a mere click, we can also share it with our friends and family. Rather than fear or condemn this amazing access, we must embrace it with intelligence.
As citizens in a democracy it is our responsibility to think critically and use this information with wisdom. People must know how to discern valid information from the invalid, and to know how to ask the questions to figure it out. Avoidance and censorship are not the answer. We are lucky to have the freedom to seek answers to any questions we have, and we must honor that freedom by being willing to think critically about what we find.
Beyerstein, Lindsay. “Can News Literacy Grow Up?.” Columbia Journalism Review 53.3 (2014): 45. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.
Considine, David. “Voices of Media Literacy: International Pioneers Speak: David Considine Interview Transcript.” Interview by Dee Morgenthaler. Medialit.org. Center For Media Literacy, 12 July 2010. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.
“Critical Evaluation Checklist for Internet Websites.” Evaluating Information Sources. Indiana Wesleyan University, n.d. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.
Heins, Marjorie, and Christina Cho. “An Alternative to Censorship – Free Expression Policy Project.” Fepproject.org. Free Expression Policy Project, 2003. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.
Hobbs, Renee, et al. “Learning To Engage: How Positive Attitudes About The News, Media Literacy, And Video Production Contribute To Adolescent Civic Engagement.” Educational Media International 50.4 (2013): 231-246. Education Research Complete. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.
“In Response to the Tragic Events in Colorado, Discovery Communications, Inc. Pledges to Offer Media Literacy and Critical Viewing Conferences to All Public School Students in the State of Maryland.” Prnewswire.com. PR Newswire Association LLC., 3 May 1999. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.
Martin, Crystle. “An Information Literacy Perspective On Learning And New Media.” On The Horizon 19.4 (2011): 268-275. Education Research Complete. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.
McBrien, J. Lynn. “Uninformed In The Information Age: Why Media Necessitate Critical Thinking Education.” Yearbook Of The National Society For The Study Of Education (Wiley-Blackwell) 104.1 (2005): 18-34. Education Research Complete. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.
Office of National Drug Control Policy, Washington, DC, ed. The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign Media Literacy Summit. White House Conference Center, Washington D.C. Rockville, MD: Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse, 2001. 1-27. ERIC – Helping Youth Navigate the Media Age: A New Approach to Drug Prevention. Findings of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign Media Literacy Summit. Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse, 1 June 2001. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.
“Paul G. Zurkowski.” National Forum on Information Literacy RSS. National Forum on Information Literacy, n.d. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.
Rogow, Faith. “Shifting From Media To Literacy: One Opinion On The Challenges Of Media Literacy Education.” American Behavioral Scientist 48.1 (2004): 30-34. Education Research Complete. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.
Simon, Ron. “The Greatest Media Hoax” The Paley Center for Media. The Paley Center for Media, 29 Oct. 2013. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.
Recently, my eleven year old daughter and my nine year old son approached me, brandishing a dollar bill. Wide-eyed, they pointed to the back of it, to the pyramid and the eye, and informed me this was an insignia of the Illuminati. I laughed a bit uncomfortably and asked where they had heard of that term. The answer? YouTube videos. I actually can say I saw that one coming. According to a 2013 report by the World Economic Forum, per minute, 48 hours’ worth of content is uploaded to YouTube. That’s a lot of “information.”
Another similar incident happened over Easter weekend, but it was more alarming. The holidays are a time of fun and family togetherness. This Easter, for me, it was also a time of having strange arguments with my family, namely, my father. Interesting thing, it turns out my father believes the Earth is flat. He also believes in FEMA camps, the Illuminati “culling the herd,” and also chem-trails. With what I felt was a strange glimmer in his eyes, he told me about how amazing YouTube is, where he is able to learn these so-called truths from Average Joe’s publishing videos on their own channel.
Yes, amazing, Dad. Thank heavens for YouTube.
One of the most alarming and unnerving aspects of social media is the way rumors and questionable or false information spread like wildfire, particularly conspiracy theories. According to the World Economic Forum, massive digital misinformation is one of the main risks for modern society. “Our hyper-connected world could… enable the rapid viral spread of information that is either intentionally or unintentionally misleading or provocative, with serious consequences” (“Digital Wildfires…”). This is a valid concern. Why does misinformation travel so far and effectively, and what, if anything, can be done to stop it?
Look at how much traction was gained by Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s later-disproven anti-vaccine study, remnants of it still swirling across social media today. Almost 20 years later, despite being completely debunked, some are still not willing to vaccinate their children for fear of autism or other reactions. After the story became widespread, it caused panic among parents, “driving MMR uptake percentages down as much as 30 percent and increasing measles cases more than 18 times” in the U.K. (McIntosh White 79). This is just one example of the harm that can come from the spreading of false information. It can literally lead to a public health crisis.
How does this type of information spread so prolifically? We can thank the World Wide Web. As of 2013, Facebook had a reach of more than 1 billion active users, and Twitter, 500 million (“Digital Wildfires…”) Before, to have the world as a potential audience, one would likely need to be published in some way. Now, anyone with Wi-Fi can speak their piece loud and clear to everyone else with a connection. Logical fallacies and confirmation biases abound. Then, people with common beliefs tend to gather together and reinforce the beliefs in one another, a virtual echo chamber. According to a 2015 research article, when 1.2 million people’s Facebook habits were studied, they found “polarized communities” developed, where people generally consumed only the information that most reinforced their beliefs.
Everyone on the Web can produce, access, and diffuse contents actively participating in the creation, diffusion, and reinforcement of different narratives. Such a large heterogeneity of information fostered the aggregation of people around common interests, worldviews, and narratives (Bessi et al. 2).
I suppose it is not hugely surprising that people prefer to hear the things they already believe to be true. People are creatures of comfort, after all.
Another phenomenon that makes conspiracy theorists more dug into their theories is confirmation bias. “A confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias that involves favoring information that confirms previously existing beliefs or biases” (Cherry). Essentially, when a person believes something is true, they then pay closer attention to the facts and events which support these beliefs. Then, they tune out anything which does not support their beliefs. This runs rampant in conspiracy theorist circles. People will dig up articles and stories which support their beliefs and accept them as confirmation, while they disregard anything that is in contradiction. Look at the issue of gun control. A stanch believer that the government wants to take away everyone’s right to bear arms will cite stories of guns saving lives and politicians who are in favor of gun control as evidence, but will not consider statistics that show that guns are responsible for many accidental deaths. They will generally write that information up as being part of the conspiracy and discredit it.
But what about when false information spreads and then is corrected? Surely, when people learn that what they believe was based on false premises, they would be willing to reconsider, right? Not necessarily. Sources say that not only does debunking usually fail at dispelling misinformation, but it can actually make people believe the false information even more, called a “reinforcement effect” (Bessi et al. 1).
This was the case at my father’s house over Easter. I definitely was lacking in a strong counter-argument that day, as I had not come to celebrate the holiday prepared to give a speech detailing evidence of life on a round planet. But, for anything I did say to him, (“What about the photos from the Space Station?” “That’s what they want you to believe, Elizabeth, we have never been to space.”) he had a strong counter that this was what I was supposed to believe, determined by some group of elites. I see political and scientific arguments devolve this way on social media, too. According to Bessi et al., “Conspiracy theses tend to reduce the complexity of reality by explaining significant social or political aspects as plots conceived by powerful individuals or organizations.” Basically, people can explain any plot holes with the conspiracy itself.
People often use this stance in arguments that reject scientifically-supported facts. Take, for instance, people who argue there is in fact a cure for cancer, one which is being withheld by the government and “Big Pharma.” Never mind that these very employees of the government and the pharmaceutical companies could also get cancer, or their loved ones, and they too would stand to benefit from the eradication of the disease. No way, it’s a conspiracy. There is always an explanation, and anyone who doesn’t believe it too is a brainwashed “sheeple.”
So what is the answer to this problem of rampant misinformation being accepted as truth? Some people might argue for some form of censorship. I feel there is no way that would be acceptable. There are both practical and ideological reasons this is a bad idea. It violates our First Amendment rights, and it takes away our ability to make personal decisions. It would be difficult to establish a thorough-but-fair-but-consistent standard for what to censor. Things would get through, too. Kids would still sneak and find the forbidden material and still be exposed. Censorship is just not the way to solve this problem. Knowing how to grapple with new information is the key. Educating people in media and information literacy is clearly the answer.
Teaching people how to process information in a smart way is something that would make a difference. It did for me. The funny thing about me is that the apple doesn’t fall from the tree. Not only is my father a conspiracy theorist, but I once was too. It’s something I don’t always tell people because it is embarrassing, but I think it is a testimony to how easy it is to get pulled into the world of conspiracies and fear.
Back when I first got on Facebook in 2009, I fell into a bad virtual crowd. I’d always had some amount of cynicism about politics, as many people do have. Some friends close to me posted a lot of links about the terrible things our government was inflicting upon the nation, the world even! The more I saw, the worse it got. I was appalled. FEMA camps were being built across the country, Obama was not really born in the U.S. and wanted to become the forever-President under martial law and take our guns. Gay rights battles like the right to marriage were merely distractions to create conflict among the people of the country so they could grab more of our rights away from us. As I mentioned, vaccines were evil, injecting our babies with cancers and deadly toxins, and I even began to wonder if I had done the wrong thing by having my own kids vaccinated.
It was so fast and so easy to become swept up in this way of thinking. I do not consider myself a stupid individual, but there I was, believing unreliable sources that all quoted one another as resources, with little more than anecdotal data to back up most of the claims made. I fell into the cycle of logically fallacies and confirmation biases. I begin to have rifts with my other friends, who could not believe the things I was beginning to share on Facebook. When they tried to argue with me, I would sneer and say those words – “That’s what they want you to think.” I had a comeback for any argument, no matter how well-thought out it seemed, no matter how uncomfortable it actually made me feel. I got pretty deeply dug into this viewpoint.
So what was it that got me to come back around from the deep end? For me, it was going back to school. At that point, my career in food service had stalled out and life had led me to the conclusion that school would be beneficial to me. Out of my element and nowhere near my usual comfort zone, I enrolled in classes for the spring. I was taking English 1551 that semester and I learned how to write a research paper, something I had never done before. Research was new to me, and it was fascinating to look up a topic in the library database and find all the journal articles about it.
The professor talked to us about ways to tell if a source was reliable and usable in a paper, and I began to realize that I had not been getting good information. The websites I had been reading used heavy biased language, obviously written to sway a person’s sentiment in a certain direction, or to cause excitement for people reaffirming their already-held beliefs. The quality of the writing was often not very good, with poor grammar and spelling. The people who wrote the articles had no real credentials in areas they were discussing, if any credentials at all. There was never actual evidence-based data, scientifically gathered nothing, just a circle of confirming sources, anecdotal evidence, and arguments full of logical fallacies.
I realized by the time that I finished that first paper that I had been wrong. I had let myself get duped into believing things that could actually be harmful to me or other people. I had learned how to better check my sources. I had learned information literacy.
There are different terms to describe this type of thinking – information literacy, media literacy, news literacy, critical thinking. They all fall under the same umbrella of learning to assess information in an intelligent way. “People deal with information constantly during work, leisure, civic, social, and academic activities, and they need to be able to decide the validity of information given, the bias of the conveyer of the information, and the meaning of that information” (Martin 268).
Efforts to teach information literacy have been somewhat scattered since they began in the 1970’s. And often when efforts have been made, they were more of a “protectionist” effort, “which sees media education primarily as a way to protect children from bad messages” (Heins and Cho 5). There has not been a consistent nationwide curriculum put in place in the U.S. for information literacy or teaching children critical thinking. These skills go largely untaught and the kids grow into adults who begin sharing conspiracy theories on Facebook and making YouTube Videos about the Wal-Mart turned into FEMA camp in your hometown.
A few months ago, I let myself get sucked into a Facebook thread argument. I can’t even remember what it was about. But the gentleman began to post links in the thread, and they were to sources with names like Abovetopsecret.com, Commonsenseconspiracy.com, and Beyondnews.com. I have learned not to get pulled into debates like this. People who think this way turn everything you say into a reaffirmation of their beliefs, they argue with unreliable sources, logical fallacies, and anecdotal evidence. I told the man in the Facebook there that he needed to learn how to better discern accurate sources and linked him to a page on how to do this from a university’s writing department. I’m certain he did not take my advice.
I absolutely believe if most people were taught how to tell the difference between reliable and unreliable sources, they too would come to expect higher quality from their information. It is what helped me. When I was a conspiracy theorist, there was nothing anyone could say to me in any argument that would change my mind. I had to learn to ask the right questions and then find the answers in an intelligent way. I had to learn to listen, with an open mind, to information that conflicted with what I wanted to believe.
Adding media/information literacy training to a child’s basic education here in the U.S. would make a difference. It might take a while to manifest on social media, and by then, who knows what medium will be the new big thing? Facebook might go the way of Myspace, once the biggest social media web site, and some new phenomenon will have taken its place. But whatever the medium, teaching people how to tell reliable sources from those that aren’t would help make social media a smarter place. More importantly, it could make the world a better place.
I’m not sure how to handle things with my father. He is nearly 70 years old now, and I’m not sure there is any way to teach him to think differently at this point in time. Sometimes, you have to know when to cut your losses and move on. I’m trying to work on media literacy with my kids, though. We talk about things like who publishes those YouTube videos and what their beliefs might be which influence what they talk about. I plan to teach them about using good sources, and triangulating the information they find with other sources to see if it is consistent.
Sometimes, trying to fight this war on social media seems like a dragon I cannot slay. Often, I bite my tongue and I try to pick my battles wisely. Sometimes I post links with checklists for how to analyze media and resources. I’m not sure if they get read, as they are not as flashy as the conspiracy theories headlines. I often get a snarky comment about the MSM (mainstream media). Probably, to those who believe these theories, I am a sell-out. I lost some of my friends when I came around and stopped believing. But, my other friends, the ones who liked me enough to see past my silly little phase, have welcomed me back to logic with open arms and slightly smirky smiles. We talk about it as that time I lost my mind. It is embarrassing that I fell for it, but it is also a testament to how ordinary people become believers in conspiracy theories. Hopefully, as social media ages, it also matures somewhat, and eventually people learn how to use it better, with more wisdom.
Bessi, Alessandro, Mauro Coletto, George Alexander Davidescu, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, and Walter Quattrociocchi. “Science vs Conspiracy: Collective Narratives in the Age of Misinformation.” PLOS ONE. Bessi Et Al., 23 Feb. 2015. Web. 6 Apr. 2016.
Cherry, Kendra. “Why We Favor Information That Confirms Our Existing Beliefs.” About.com Health. About Health, 27 Oct. 2014. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.
“Digital Wildfires in a Hyperconnected World.” Global Risks 2013. World Economic Forum, 2013. Web. 06 Apr. 2016.
Heins, Marjorie, and Christina Cho. “An Alternative to Censorship – Free Expression Policy Project.” Fepproject.org. Free Expression Policy Project, 2003. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.
Martin, Crystle. “An Information Literacy Perspective On Learning And New Media.” On The Horizon 19.4 (2011): 268-275. Education Research Complete. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.
McIntosh White, Judith. “Sabotaging Public Engagement with Science: Missing Scientific Principles in Newspaper Stories about the Wakefield MMR-Autism Controversy.” Sabotaging Public Engagement with Science: Missing Scientific Principles in Newspaper Stories about the Wakefield MMR-Autism Controversy. Romanian Journal of Journalism & Communication, 2012. Web. 06 Apr. 2016.
Tonight the dusk
seems like it will last forever
and the silver crescent
moon is going to hit me on the head
if I don’t duck in time.
But the last paleness leaves the sky
when God spills
an inky black mess
across a beautiful sunset
as an afterthought
decorates with a dash of glittery stars.
I wrap the luxury of my earthly concerns
across my rounded shoulders and exhale and wonder
about my heart and if perhaps I should try to
break it just to see if it still works.
A Friday the 13th massacre in Paris and
yet I had a pretty good day on Friday,
and for this
I am not sure if I am grateful or guilty.
outside my window but
no big deal, I live by
a sportmen’s club and
they routinely practice
less than a mile away from
where I sleep
and it’s a funny thing
can frame the mind
to where I can be
conditioned to see
hearing gunfire as typical
and safe everyday business
but for some, it
means the end of the world,
outside their windows,
right there and
Dave Isay and Brandon Stanton. Photo courtesy StoryCorps.
Between them, Dave Isay, TED Prize winner and founder of StoryCorps, and Brandon Stanton, founder of Humans of New York, have collected more than 75,000 stories from regular people around the world. Isay collects his stories as audio files, while Stanton takes a photo and then interviews his subject — but they’ve both developed fascinating techniques for helping people to open up. They sat down recently to talk about their work and their thoughts on what makes for an honest, open interview environment.
A supportive culture breeds good stories. “We think of the internet as such a coarse place, yet people treat our app with such respect. I am constantly amazed by this,” Isay says about the listener contributions to the StoryCorps app. The secret, he says: Create an intimate culture where trust is paramount. Stanton agrees. “We don’t judge or criticize,” he says. “I am interviewing…
View original post 548 more words