6. How Do You Evaluate Internet Sources?
Most of the time when I am on the internet, I use social media like Instagram and Twitter. When I read things like posts, tweets, or headlines, typically I just read them without a second glance and continue scrolling. But if I see a news headline that interests me, I am typically moved to investigate a little further to make sure my perception of the topic is not skewed or that I am being misled.
The entire article, "How to spot fake news, propaganda and deceptive social media posts" by Robin Cangie was practically very useful to me. I am embarrassed to say that it was really difficult for me to find the propaganda posts in most of the examples, but her practical tips were definitely helpful. Cangie says that she was able to see past "the immediate emotional response that propaganda is designed to evoke" using the different questions that she asked herself for each post (Cangie). First impressions are very important, and propaganda is certainly aiming for those immediate knee-jerk reactions that it gets from a quick glance. All of the tips that Cangie included, from cultural stereotypes, absolutist language, strong agenda, and emotion, all provoke a sort of emotional response from the viewer, and knowing this is helpful for me so when I see something that makes me feel strongly, I can pause and evaluate if I'm looking at propaganda first. The article definitely is relevant today because social media gives a huge voice for people who intend to spread propaganda, and it is ridiculously easy to post and spread propaganda. Too many times I have seen users on twitter grab false information and run with it. As users, we need to be more aware of these tactics so we can stop them.
The article I selected was on the Washington Post, "The very different media universes in which Americans live, visualized" by Philip Bump. The article consisted of multiple visualizations of different demographics in American population and what news sources they watched. The demographics included age, vaccination status, political party. The second half of the article showed the same demographics but new visualizations showing what news sources they trust. Something interesting about these visualizations is how those who consider themselves democrats and/or are vaccinated trust a much wider range of sources than those who identify as republican and/or are not vaccinated. Bump's analysis of this strikes me when he says the explanation for this concept is that "Democrats divide their attention between multiple sources of news far more than do Republicans. This is the main reason that Fox consistently leads in the ratings. It’s not because Americans trust it (it trails most other national outlets); it’s because Republicans often rely on it to the exclusion of other sources. With effects felt everywhere else" (Bump). Because Republicans, as the data shows, tend to rely on fewer news sources, the possibility of receiving misinformation is much higher than the people who consume a wider range of sources. However, I think that more sources in the study were simply more left-leaning, and I did not recognize the names of the more right-leaning sources, so maybe they are not as well-known. Washington Post is also more left-leaning, so maybe this is an example of the skew of information we see given a source's bias.
Replies:
Hi []! I find it interesting that you said that by the NYT saying how difficult it is to spot fake news, it implies that we are victims to social media/fake news. I think in some cases we definitely are, and it's through our unintentional ignorance that these news can spread. I also think it's interesting that in the article you chose, Dr. Murthy says that like buttons reward emotionally charged content. That's a really interesting way to put it and I agree!
Hi []! Performance activism is definitely an issue and I see it all the time, on Instagram and Twitter. I feel like there's something about a canva infographic having a professional, put-together look that instantly makes it seem more credible even though it could be loaded with blatant misinformation. Your chrome extension seems really cool and convenient! A good way to be aware of the biases that surround us every day.
The entire article, "How to spot fake news, propaganda and deceptive social media posts" by Robin Cangie was practically very useful to me. I am embarrassed to say that it was really difficult for me to find the propaganda posts in most of the examples, but her practical tips were definitely helpful. Cangie says that she was able to see past "the immediate emotional response that propaganda is designed to evoke" using the different questions that she asked herself for each post (Cangie). First impressions are very important, and propaganda is certainly aiming for those immediate knee-jerk reactions that it gets from a quick glance. All of the tips that Cangie included, from cultural stereotypes, absolutist language, strong agenda, and emotion, all provoke a sort of emotional response from the viewer, and knowing this is helpful for me so when I see something that makes me feel strongly, I can pause and evaluate if I'm looking at propaganda first. The article definitely is relevant today because social media gives a huge voice for people who intend to spread propaganda, and it is ridiculously easy to post and spread propaganda. Too many times I have seen users on twitter grab false information and run with it. As users, we need to be more aware of these tactics so we can stop them.
The article I selected was on the Washington Post, "The very different media universes in which Americans live, visualized" by Philip Bump. The article consisted of multiple visualizations of different demographics in American population and what news sources they watched. The demographics included age, vaccination status, political party. The second half of the article showed the same demographics but new visualizations showing what news sources they trust. Something interesting about these visualizations is how those who consider themselves democrats and/or are vaccinated trust a much wider range of sources than those who identify as republican and/or are not vaccinated. Bump's analysis of this strikes me when he says the explanation for this concept is that "Democrats divide their attention between multiple sources of news far more than do Republicans. This is the main reason that Fox consistently leads in the ratings. It’s not because Americans trust it (it trails most other national outlets); it’s because Republicans often rely on it to the exclusion of other sources. With effects felt everywhere else" (Bump). Because Republicans, as the data shows, tend to rely on fewer news sources, the possibility of receiving misinformation is much higher than the people who consume a wider range of sources. However, I think that more sources in the study were simply more left-leaning, and I did not recognize the names of the more right-leaning sources, so maybe they are not as well-known. Washington Post is also more left-leaning, so maybe this is an example of the skew of information we see given a source's bias.
Replies:
Hi []! I find it interesting that you said that by the NYT saying how difficult it is to spot fake news, it implies that we are victims to social media/fake news. I think in some cases we definitely are, and it's through our unintentional ignorance that these news can spread. I also think it's interesting that in the article you chose, Dr. Murthy says that like buttons reward emotionally charged content. That's a really interesting way to put it and I agree!
Hi []! Performance activism is definitely an issue and I see it all the time, on Instagram and Twitter. I feel like there's something about a canva infographic having a professional, put-together look that instantly makes it seem more credible even though it could be loaded with blatant misinformation. Your chrome extension seems really cool and convenient! A good way to be aware of the biases that surround us every day.