Motives, Word Choice, & Practice
We tell students to avoid biased sources, but that's honestly not possible. Nothing is neutral, so identifying those biases becomes important.
Sometimes the motives behind publishing are reasonably easy to discern, and that's a good place to start.
Does an inflammatory article come from a site selling merchandise (like Infowars)?
Is this think piece put out by a PAC with a clear electoral agenda?
Was a study funded by a corporation with a vested interesting in getting specific results?
Is this YouTube video monetized, and who benefits from that?
Is this article from a journalist working for a reputable organization?
It's not always obvious what counts as a credible non-academic source, so looking at the intent behind publication can help students move past confident headlines or well designed websites.
Looking at language comparisons between sources on a specific topic is interesting too. After George Floyd's tragic murder this summer, I saw headline discussing looters, rioters, protestors, and civil rights demonstrators. They were all talking about the same events, but the implications were different. Getting students to notice that jumpstarts critical thinking on the subject as well. The more outrageously a claim is worded, the more comments and engagement it gets, the more it's important to step back and consider the source.
Finally, I recently read a study(1) that showed teaching people how to create and disseminate mis/disinformation in a game scenario helped them recognize those same tactics in the real world. That makes me think teaching general propaganda techniques early on would be helpful.
(1)Roozenbeek, J., Linden, S. van der, & Nygren, T. (2020). Prebunking interventions based on “inoculation” theory can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.37016//mr-2020-008
(4) |
Comments (4)
I love gamifying this - it's practically a game of whack-a-mole to begin with! No sooner do we manage to discredit a specious source than another pops up.
The same goes for coded or dog-whistle language - like it or not, many people get news or opinions from Twitter, and you can spend infinite time identifying coded speech, acronyms or even punctuation combinations in order to tell people what to watch out for.
Looking at the intent behind it as you say is a valuable strategy but just about impossible on social media. Hard to figure what to do.
I really like the game scenario idea, that seems like an effective way to show people how misinformation works!
Going hand in hand with explaining motives, I try to explain to people how certain platforms work. If someone indicates they get their news from Facebook, I try to explain that Facebook is a platform that is better for advertising than news because it groups users into targetable segments that advertisers can send messages directly to. I like to use anti Vax examples from Facebook to highlight how they can target specific groups like Jewish neighborhoods or people who have autistic children. I think it can be eye opening to some people how social media like Facebook really works.
Love this, word choice and framing is key! I like to ask, "Who is the protagonist in this story?"
Hi Abby:
Teaching kids to spot dis/misinformation should help years down the road. What about the adults who didn't get that education? Do you have ideas about how to teach them information literacy skills?