|
|
 |
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
|
Hanna Barczyk for NPR
Learning To
Spot Fake News: Start With A Gut Check
Anya Kamanetz
October 31, 2017
Which of these statements seems more trustworthy to you?
1) Americans are drowning in a tsunami of ignorance! There is a
conspiracy at the highest levels to replace all knowledge with
propaganda and disinformation.
2) A recent Stanford University report found that more than 80 percent
of middle schoolers didn't understand that the phrase "sponsored
content" meant "advertising."
For most of the NPR audience, this shouldn't be a tough question. The
first sentence is a florid, mislabeled statement of opinion with an
unverifiable, overgeneralized, ideological claim ("conspiracy at the
highest levels").
The second is more measured in tone and limited in scope. And, it has a
link that goes straight to the original source: a press release from a
reputable university.
But these days, statements of all stripes are bombarding us via
broadcast and social media. The trick is classifying them correctly
before we swallow them ourselves, much less before we hit "Like,"
"Share" or "Retweet."
And that is the goal of an educational initiative that will be adopted
by 10 universities across the country this spring.
Thinking like fact-checkers
This new approach seeks to get students thinking like, and doing the
work of, fact-checkers.
"We have approached media literacy and news literacy in the past sort
of like rhetoricians," says Mike Caulfield, director of blended and
networked learning at Washington State University in Vancouver. (Can
that be right? A public university based in the United States with a
campus in Canada? No, it's Vancouver, Wash.)
In other words, he explains, we teach students close reading and
analysis of elements, like tone. "Fact-checkers," on the other hand,
"get to the truth of an issue in 60 to 90 seconds."
He says fact-checkers read laterally — moving quickly away from the
original text, opening up a series of tabs in a browser to judge the
credibility of its author and the sources it cites.
A new working paper, by the same Stanford researchers cited earlier,
provides support for this proposition.
They pit professional fact-checkers against historians and
undergraduates. When evaluating websites and searching for information
online, the researchers said, "fact-checkers arrived at more warranted
conclusions in a fraction of the time."
Four moves and a habit
Caulfield has distilled this approach into what he calls "Four moves
and a habit," in a free online textbook that he has published. It's
aimed at college students, but frankly it's relevant to everyone.
The moves are:
Check for previous work: Look around to see whether someone else has
already fact-checked the claim or provided a synthesis of research.
[Some places to look: Wikipedia, Snopes, Politifact and NPR's own Fact
Check website.]
Go upstream to the source: Most Web content is not original. Get to the
original source to understand the trustworthiness of the information.
Is it a reputable scientific journal? Is there an original news media
account from a well-known outlet? If that is not immediately apparent,
then move to step 3.
Read laterally: Once you get to the source of a claim, read what other
people say about the source (publication, author, etc.). The truth is
in the network.
Circle back: If you get lost or hit dead ends or find yourself going
down a rabbit hole, back up and start over.
Finally, Caulfield argues in his book that one of the most important
weapons of fact-checking comes from inside the reader: "When you feel
strong emotion — happiness, anger, pride, vindication — and that
emotion pushes you to share a 'fact' with others, STOP."
His reasoning: Anything that appeals directly to the "lizard brain" is
designed to short-circuit our critical thinking. And these kinds of
appeals are very often created by active agents of deception.
"We try to convince students to use strong emotions as the mental
trigger" for the fact-checking habit, he says.
Caulfield is also the director of the Digital Polarization Initiative
of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities's
American Democracy Project. Starting this spring, the initiative will
bring at least 10 universities together to promote web literacy. They
will each adopt Caulfield's ebook as a text across several courses in
different disciplines: from history to science to journalism. Students
will fact-check, annotate and provide context to news stories that show
up in social media feeds.
Their efforts will be published, in the hope of helping others get to
the truth a little faster. You can see some initial efforts at this
link.
For example, last spring, students at Western Kentucky University took
up the question "Are the protesters against Trump being paid to
protest?" The students traced the claim back to a Tweet by an Austin,
Texas, resident that was later retracted. But his retraction, they
found, received much less notice than his original, baseless statement.
The speed of a lie
I asked Caulfield whether the protester example doesn't point up a
problem with trying to leverage education to combat hoaxes in the first
place. He's asking students to take "90 seconds to two minutes" to
confirm something before passing it along.
That is certainly faster than other media literacy methods. But
half-truths and misstatements, meanwhile, spread entirely unchecked.
That's the meaning behind the maxim "A lie can travel halfway around
the world before the truth can get its boots on." (Who said this?
Probably not Mark Twain. Jonathan Swift said something similar,
according to this site.)
Caulfield argues education does have a role, alongside changes like
better algorithms on social networks and tighter regulations, in
improving the information landscape. Plus, for him, this kind of work
answers a philosophical question: "What do we want education for
citizens to look like in a networked world?" He uses an ecological
metaphor to explain what he means:
"If you have a couple of people in a large group who identify as
scientists, humanists, activists, historians, you build up a herd
immunity" to falsehoods, he says. For example, a study by Facebook
showed that when someone references Snopes in the comments of a
Facebook share, the original sharer is 4.4 times more likely to delete
his or her post. And that is the truth ... as far as I know.
Sites For Spotting Lies
Fact-checking sites recommended by the book Web Literacy For Student
Fact-Checkers, by Michael Caulfield
Politifact
http://www.politifact.com/
Factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/
Washington Post Fact Checker
Washington Post Fact Checker
Snopes
Snopes
Truth be Told
http://truthbetold.news/category/fact-checks/
NPR Fact-Check
http://www.npr.org/sections/politics-fact-check
Lie Detector (Univision, Spanish language)
http://especiales.univision.com/detector-de-mentiras/
Hoax Slayer
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/
FactsCan
http://factscan.ca/
El Polígrafo (Mexico, Spanish Language)
http://www.milenio.com/poligrafo/
Guardian Reality Check
https://www.theguardian.com/news/reality-check
|
|
|
|
