Category: Media Literacy

  • Is social media turning our hearts to stone?

    Is social media turning our hearts to stone?

    As global digital participation grows, our ability to connect emotionally may be shifting. Social media has connected people across continents, but it also reshapes how we perceive and respond to others’ emotions, especially among youth. 

    Empathy is the ability to understand and share another’s feelings, helping to build connections and support. It’s about stepping into someone else’s shoes, listening and making them feel understood.

    While platforms like Instagram, TikTok and X offer tools for global connection, they may also be changing the way we experience empathy.

    Social media’s strength lies in its speed and reach. Instant sharing allows users to engage with people from different backgrounds, participate in global conversations and discover social causes. But it also comes with downsides. 

    “People aren’t doing research for themselves,” says Marc Scott, the diversity, equity and community coordinator at the Tatnall School, the private high school that I attend in the U.S. state of Delaware. “They see one thing and take it for fact.”

    Communicating in a two-dimensional world

    That kind of surface-level engagement can harm emotional understanding. The lack of facial expressions, body language and tone — key elements of in-person conversation — makes it harder to gauge emotion online. This often leads to misunderstandings, or worse, emotional detachment.

    In a world where users often post only curated highlights, online personas may appear more polished than real life. “Someone can have a large following,” Scott said. “But that’s just one person. They don’t represent the whole group.” 

    Tijen Pyle teaches advanced placement psychology at the Tatnall School. He pointed out how social media can amplify global polarization. 

    “When you’re in a group with similar ideas, you tend to feel stronger about those opinions,” he said. “Social media algorithms cater your content to your interests and you only see what you agree with.” 

    This selective exposure limits empathy by reducing understanding of differing perspectives. The disconnect can reinforce stereotypes and limit meaningful emotional connection.

    Over exposure to media

    Compounding the problem is “compassion fatigue” — when constant exposure to suffering online dulls our emotional response. Videos of crisis after crisis can overwhelm users, turning tragedy into background noise in an endless scroll.

    A widely cited study published in the journal Psychiatric Science in 2013 examined the effects of exposure to media related to the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq War. The study led by Roxanne Cohen Silver, found that vicariously experienced events, such as watching graphic media images, can lead to collective trauma.

    Yet not all emotional connection is lost. Online spaces have also created powerful support systems — from mental health communities to social justice movements. These spaces offer users a chance to share personal stories, uplift one another and build solidarity across borders. “It depends on how you use it,” Scott said.

    Many experts agree that digital empathy must be cultivated intentionally. According to a 2025 Pew Research Center study, nearly half of U.S. teens believe that social media platforms have a mostly negative effect on people their age, a significant increase from 32% in 2022. This growing concern underscores the complex nature of online interactions, where the potential for connection coexists with the risk of unkindness and emotional detachment. ​

    So how do we preserve empathy in a digital world? It starts with awareness. Engaging critically with content, seeking out diverse viewpoints and taking breaks from the algorithm can help. “Social media can expand your perspectives — but it can also trap you in a single mindset,” Scott said. 

    I initially started thinking about this topic when I was having the same conversations with different people and feeling a sense of ignorance. It wasn’t that they didn’t care — it was like they didn’t know how to care. 

    The way they responded to serious topics felt cold or disconnected, almost like they were watching a video instead of talking to a real person. 

    That made me wonder: has social media changed the way we understand and react to emotions?

    Ultimately, social media isn’t inherently good or bad for empathy. It’s a tool. And like any tool, its impact depends on how we use it. If we use it thoughtfully, we can ensure empathy continues to grow, even in a world dominated by screens.

    Questions to consider:

    1. What is empathy and why is it important?

    2. How can too much time spent on social media dull our emotional response?

    2. How do you know if you have spent too much time on social media? 

     

    Source link

  • News Decoder helps launch digital student journalism tool

    News Decoder helps launch digital student journalism tool

    Gathering and assessing the quality of information is one of the most effective ways to develop media literacy, critical thinking and effective communication skills. But without guidance, too many young people fail to question the reliability of visual images and overly rely on the first results they find on Google.

    That’s why News Decoder has been working with the Swedish nonprofit, Voice4You, on a project called ProMS to create a self-guided digital tool that guides students in writing news stories.

    The tool, called Mobile Stories, is now available across Europe. It takes students step-by-step through the journalistic process. Along the way, they gain critical thinking skills and a deeper understanding about the information they find, consume and share.

    It empowers students to develop multimedia stories that incorporate original reporting for school, community or global audiences, with minimal input from educators. It comes with open-access learning resources developed by News Decoder.

    After a decade of success in Sweden, Voice4You partnered with News Decoder to help make the tool available across Europe and the globe. Throughout the ProMS project, new English language content suitable for high schoolers was developed and piloted in 21 schools in Romania, Ireland and Finland. The Mobile Stories platform has demonstrated remarkable potential in building student confidence and media and information literacy by providing a platform and an opportunity to produce quality journalism.

    From story pitch to publication

    Using the new international version of Mobile Stories, students have already published 136 articles on mobilestories.com, with another 700 currently in production. Their topics range from book reviews and reporting from local cultural events to in-depth feature articles on the decline in young people’s mental health and child labor in the fast fashion industry.

    “The tool looks like a blogging platform and on every step along the way of creating an article, students can access learning materials including video tutorials by professional journalists from around the world, articles and worksheets,” said News Decoder’s ProMS Project Manager Sabīne Bērziņa.

    Some of these resources, such as videos and worksheets are open access, available to all.

    Source link

  • Why you need to triple check your facts

    Why you need to triple check your facts

    There it was. A seemingly well-sourced, carefully crafted and copy-edited article about a new brand of young, vibrant, national leader, with astonishing levels of commitment, courage, creativity and compassion. All ready to be self-published online.

    The only trouble was that my draft article was based on wrong information and it needed to be spiked. That’s a journalism term for sending it to the trash.

    Now, I could moan and blame social media and disinformation for this near mistake. Or I could reflect on how close I came to disseminating gross misinformation and share the concrete learnings that I am taking from this quasi-failure.

    Be open to new story ideas.

    I recently read a WhatsApp post from a trusted Southeast Asian colleague of mine in the United States. He shared an opinion piece from his home country about a relatively new leader in another country in the Global South.

    The opinion writer said that this leader recently told public officials: “I don’t want my photographs in your offices because I am not a god or an icon, but a servant of the nation.” He urged them to hang pictures of their children instead.

    The writer added that this leader then delivered a ‘devastating moral punch’. “Whenever the spirit of theft visits you,” he said, “take a good look at your family’s picture and ask yourself if they deserve to be the family of a thief who has destroyed the nation.”

    It seemed like a great story and when I researched this new leader online, I found posts and articles that corroborated this particularly striking example of a new leader’s bold move against corruption.

    And I found other praiseworthy stories about his economic pragmatism and post-colonial idealism.

    Trust your gut and triple-check the facts.

    As a conscientious former reporter for the Reuters international news service, something troubled me. I thought about something my dearly departed father would say: “If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.”

    So right before publication, I decided to verify some of the facts one last time with two in-country sources I knew in Kigali, Rwanda.

    In no uncertain terms, one of them challenged most of the core aspects of my article and firmly declared that the particularly praiseworthy, anti-corruption initiative that was the centerpiece of my article was actually not true at all.

    She was right. On further investigation, the other stories of this leader’s supposed initiative and success all turned out to be skewed or exaggerated.

    And so the article was sadly consigned to the dustbin of fake news.

    Find the original sources and quote them directly.

    But I was not done. On further investigation, I managed to find a slightly different quotation that the opinion piece was probably based on:

    “We will build the country of other opportunities — the one where all are equal before the law and where all the rules are honest and transparent, the same for everyone. And for that, we need people in power who will serve the people. This is why I really do not want my pictures in your offices, for the president is not an icon, an idol or a portrait. Hang your kids’ photos instead and look at them each time you are making a decision.”

    And I discovered that the person who said this was none other than Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during his inaugural address on 20 May 2019.

    His statement does not talk about a “thief who has destroyed the nation” but it is still deeply impactful, particularly in light of his country’s devastating challenges over the last three years.

    Be willing to do things differently in future.

    I have been a journalist for a long time but here are some key reminders for me of what I need to do going forward:

    → Balance enthusiasm and engagement with integrity and plain hard work;

    → Recognize that in these difficult times, we all yearn for an inspirational story but even with the best of intentions, emotions can get in the way of good judgment;

    → Always take the extra time necessary to track down original and reliable sources;

    → Do this extra work whether you are sharing something with thousands of people on News Decoder or with only one other person in private;

    → If in doubt, cut it out or don’t share it and start again;

    → Have the courage to admit when you are wrong, apologize and make amends as appropriate and learn from that humbling experience.

    And just in case you are wondering, my father never claimed that his beloved saying was his.

    The original source is unknown but Dictionary.com points out that the term was part of the title of Thomas Lupton’s Sivquila; Too Good to be True, which dates back to the 1580s.

    The search for the original source continues as I recall the cynical words of a former official with the title “Minister for the Quality of Life” who counseled journalists to always write “lively and interesting” stories that correspond “where possible” with the truth.

    In future, I promise to always try to write truthful stories that are, where possible, lively and interesting.

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. Have you ever written or said something that you thought that was true but turned out to be false? If so, what did you do?

    2. If not, what would you do if this happens in future?

    3. And what will you do from now on to make sure this doesn’t happen?

    Source link

  • Too much of what’s healthy can be harmful

    Too much of what’s healthy can be harmful

    Some TikTok videos about health and fitness are hard to resist. People describe how they lost weight by eating only raw fruits and vegetables for a month or by substituting protein powder in place of flour or sugar. How many people take these recommendations to heart? What happens if they do?

    Jason Wood was one of them. “I would sprinkle [protein powder] on top of a peanut butter sandwich or a yogurt just to make what I was eating seem healthier,” he said.

    But Wood’s practice of adding protein powder to make his foods healthier wasn’t healthy. Eventually, Wood was diagnosed with orthorexia, an obsession with nutrition. Orthorexia is an eating disorder that differs significantly from better-known eating disorders like bulimia — bingeing and vomiting the food afterwards — and anorexia — not eating at all.

    Wood now works with the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders and speaks to audiences about eating disorders. 

    Studies in Australia, Turkey and the United States have found that the viewership of TikTok lifestyle influencers has led to an increase in orthorexia symptoms, which are not well understood by popular culture and are not explicitly defined in psychiatric textbooks. 

    Avoiding what’s bad isn’t always good.

    Rachel Hogg, psychologist and researcher at Charles Sturt University School of Psychology in Australia, defines orthorexia as “the avoidance of foods that are unhealthy or impure.” 

    The term was first coined in 1996 by California doctor Steven Bratman after he decided to eat only clean, nutritious foods. Eventually his research led him to narrow his food options so much that he cut out entire food groups which caused him physical suffering.

    Wood recalls being freezing cold in the middle of summer with his whole body hurting and frequent dizzy spells. Because it’s an outgrowth of healthy eating, the condition is difficult to identify, says Hogg, who calls it “the wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

    Experts feel it is time people paid attention to the risk of developing orthorexia when exposed to high amounts of TikTok content. 

    Todd Minor Sr. lost his youngest son Matthew in 2019 to the TikTok “Blackout Challenge”; people who took the “challenge” would have themselves choked till they blacked out. In a January 2025 edition of Tech Policy Press, Minor called for social media warning labels as a public health tool. “These labels have a proven track record of raising awareness about the risks of dangerous products, especially among young people,” he wrote. 

    People don’t know what’s bad for them.

    Warning labels inform the consumer of the potential risk of product use and advise limiting dangerous exposure to vulnerable groups of people to avoid premature death or disability. According to orthorexia experts, all of these needs exist when it comes to TikTok. 

    Hadassah Johanna Hazan, a licensed clinical social worker in Jerusalem, knows firsthand how the public is painfully unaware of the dangers of orthorexia from talking to her patients. She describes how over the last 10 years ideal beauty has increasingly been defined as a fit and toned physique for both men and women. 

    This has led people to normalize eating patterns that Hazan describes as “very limiting at best and very harmful and unhealthy at worst.” She said constant and regular avoidance of food groups such as carbs or regularly substituting protein powders for ingredients such as sugar become addictions that her patients do not know how to stop. 

    Even those who teach healthy eating can fall into the orthorexia trap. Research published in the June 2021 supplement of American Society of Nutrition by a group of researchers in the U.S. state of Washington indicated that knowledge of orthorexia was low both in the general public sample group and in the sample group of nutrition students.  

    In fairness to TikTok, the social media giant has established an eating disorder safety page but the term orthorexia is never mentioned and there is no mention of content on TikTok being linked to eating disorders. 

    A balanced diet is best.

    Another group of people who seem ignorant of the risk is the group of TikTok health and fitness influencers who are the ones putting out #WIEIAD (What I Eat In A Day) video diaries and other similar content. 

    Elaina Efird, registered dietician nutritionist and TikTok body positivity influencer, said that influencers don’t realize how much they are entrenched in the problem. What motivates these influencers, she said, is that they either truly believe what they are advertising is healthy or they are so distressed by the alternative of being in a larger body that they overlook the harm in what they promote.

    As a TikTok influencer, Efird creates a space where all body sizes are valued and she wants viewership of her positive message to grow. But as a provider of healthcare to eating disorder patients, she also recognizes her moral responsibility.

    “I tell my clients that if they’re struggling, don’t be on TikTok,” she said. This insight comes from an understanding that certain groups of people are at a higher risk of being triggered by TikTok videos than others. 

    Hogg shares this understanding and even used it when co-designing a research study with fellow researcher Madison R. Blackburn that was published in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS One in August 2024. 

    Each participant was screened to make sure they did not have past or present eating disorders before being asked to watch up to eight minutes of TikTok content, which is the equivalent of just over 50 videos. 

    Algorithms don’t know what’s best for us.

    Hogg said that the sad truth is that an eating disorder patient in remission might search for a body positive video but then suggestions pop up on the TikTok homepage, which is called #ForYou, that might tout orthorexia.  She called the algorithm of TikTok a “blunt instrument.”

    Another vulnerable population with strong connections to TikTok are teens and pre-teens. According to a Statistica 2022 survey, 68% of pre-teens were using social media applications and 47% of respondents ages 11–12 were using TikTok in particular.  As Hogg put it, TikTok is powered by “young people creating content for young people.” 

    The disturbing reality known by psychiatrists is that pre-teens are at the highest risk of developing eating disorders because symptoms manifest typically during adolescence. 

    But what scares the public most about any disease is its lethality. According to an article published in February 2021 by the American Society of Nutrition, some 10,200 people die each year in the United States from eating disorders. 

    Even when death is avoided, an obsession with nutrition can lead to nutritional deficiencies, compromised bone mass, extreme weight loss and malnourishment, including brain starvation, even if that seems counterintuitive. And none of that even touches on the effects on mental or emotional wellbeing. 

    Now that Wood is in remission he wants the label “healthy” to be redefined to indicate support of mental, emotional, social and spiritual health and not just support of physical health. 

    Individuals, he said, should stick to positive reasons for engaging with social media such as community building and avoid using it to make harmful comparisons. 


    Questions to consider:

    1.  How do psychologists define orthorexia?
    2. How does orthorexia differ from anorexia or bulimia?
    3. Has social media influenced what you eat? 

     



    Source link

  • Our navigators in the sea of information

    Our navigators in the sea of information

    While my educational experience is limited in both time and geographic scope, I have been alarmed by the lack of general knowledge and culture among many journalism students. 

    They are unaware of what has happened in the world over the last 50 years, so they don’t understand current events and their potential consequences. We must return to basics, ensuring journalists have an excellent general culture that allows them to make the most of their work.

    Third, and related to acquiring a broad general culture, new journalists must be much better at prioritizing and categorizing news. 

    They need to be out on the streets, taking the pulse of people’s reality, talking to them, empathizing with them and experiencing the world as the majority of people do. This is how one truly understands what is important and what people prioritize. 

    Reconnect the public to the press.

    The detachment between journalists and the public is one of the reasons for the decline in newspaper readership.

    Unfortunately, this is not taught in journalism schools, yet it is essential. Most journalists spend their days in front of screens whether in newsrooms or remotely in their homes. They rely on secondary sources of information that are often produced by organizations with interests different from those of the general public.

    A fourth area for improvement is the permanent implementation of critical thinking throughout journalistic processes. In many daily news articles essential information — the traditional five Ws (who, what, when, where and why) — are missing. Most important, the stories often lack context. 

    Journalists should ask themselves why they report on a given topic, who provides the information, what hidden interests might be involved and what value this information holds for the public.

    It is true that journalists alone cannot change the current media landscape. But in their role as the central actors in the system, they can do much to improve the quality of information and support citizens. 

    A well-rounded “classical” education, coupled with a curious and critical mind, should produce good journalists. These “new professionals” would be better equipped to face the current economic model of information, which favors powerful entities controlling information, the overwhelming information saturation, the prevailing negativity and cynicism and the constant distractions in the form of screens that affect our lives.

    If concerned citizens also make an effort to support and reward this new form of quality journalism, we will all benefit. And our societies will gain a stronger democratic and peaceful coexistence. This is why it is worth valuing and improving journalism education.

     

    Three questions to consider:

    1. What is meant by an “information ecosystem”?
    2. Why does the author argue that many journalists are disconnected from the public they are trying to reach?
    3. If you were a journalist, what stories would you want to tell?

     

    Source link

  • Can fiction help us get to the truth about climate change?

    Can fiction help us get to the truth about climate change?

    Truth in fiction

    That’s where fiction can come in. But most climate fiction presents gloomy scenarios: think the waterless world of Arrakis in Frank Herbert’s “Dune” series or our earth after a virus wiped out most of human life in Margaret Atwood’s “Oryx and Crake” trilogy.

    In contrast, Baden’s story showed more positive solutions. Her own research found that 98% of her readers changed their attitudes. A month after reading the story 60% of readers actually adopted a green alternative.

    She’s set to release “Murder in the Climate Assembly“, a fictional story about the ramifications of a murder that takes place in a citizens’ assembly on climate.

    Some media organizations are now including climate change awareness initiatives that use fictional examples into their marketing campaigns.

    Baden worked with BAFTA, the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, to create social media content that provided solutions with a tinge of humour. For example, they contrasted the carbon footprint of two popular characters from books and movies: James Bond who drives a gas guzzling sports car and has a walk-in wardrobe versus Jack Reacher who traveled by bus and shopped second-hand.

    Making environmentalism fun

    Pilot testing showed interesting results: “If we just presented the negative one like James Bond, some people laughed and thought it was funny, but a few people thought they were being a bit preached at and switched off,” Baden said. “Whereas when you kind of had both together with a bit of humor, that seemed to hit the right spot.”

    Pike agreed: “Comedy too allows us to let our guard down. When we open our mouth to laugh, our mind is open to learn.”

    When Pike was in Chile working on the PhD that led to her book she found that she loved the animated series “The Simpsons“. In 2008, one of the three TV channels played Simpsons episodes endlessly, she said. Simpsons creator Matt Groening intended his show to make people aware of environmental challenges and complications in ways that start conversations, she said.

    Context makes a difference too. “I read ecoactivist discourse in South America and it seemed so darn white and privileged,” Pike said. “If you read “Burning Rage of a Dying Planet” in a comfortable U.S. suburb, it’s one thing. If you read the same book in Chile, it feels different, almost too precious, definitely not the tone I would take in talking about ecology in South American countries.”

    The Center for Health Communication at Harvard University says that showing, not telling induces stronger emotional responses as visual imagery and helps our brains understand abstract and complex associations like those between climate and health.

    Connecting emotion to change

    Telling stories through books, plays or social media also help to create emotion, and change beliefs and behaviours. They may also reduce feelings of anxiety and depression that surface when bombarded with alarmist news about the climate crisis. Focusing on solutions is more effective.

    Pike said the way to get through the barrage of media messages and talk about the climate crisis is with honesty, independence and humour. “Acknowledge the hypocrisy and move on toward solutions,” Pike said. “A solution offers me a choice, agency, a chance to put up a sail and navigate to a goal.”

    Pike taught a class called “Environmental Reporting for a Hopeful Planet” in the spring 2024 semester. One assignment was “Forest Friday”: students were asked to read, watch or listen to examples of environmental storytelling.

    One week, the students were assigned a video of Rebecca Solnit. She’s a writer, historian and activist who has been examining hope and the unpredictability of change for more than two decades. In 2023 she co-edited an anthology called “It’s Not Too Late”, a guide for finding hope even while climate change-induced disasters continue. This is what one student said after they watched that video:

    “I felt reassured by her calmness and her endless lists of knowledge of times and places in which meaningful change has occurred. I think she makes many great points about the way that just because ideas don’t always get the opportunity to fully take shape they are still impactful on society as a whole.”

    So, what’s the best way to write about the climate crisis?

    “Read environmental writing and write,” Pike said. “Be so deeply curious about how ecology works, how nature and culture interact, how businesses and institutions works and their role in the climate crisis.”

    Ways to write effectively

    Having a community of people who also write about and care about the environment can also help. But most importantly, Pike said: “Work to tell a story well.”

    This means reading the publications which interest you and seeing if your story would be a good fit. Try different mediums. Take Dr. Seuss’ “The Lorax”. It’s a children’s book written in 1971 about a character who speaks for the trees as a business tycoon destroys the environment. The story encourages activism and involvement in making the situation better. In it the Lorax tells us: “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

    More recently, there are films like “Flow“, which won an Academy Award for Best Animated Feature and was nominated for Best International Feature Film, and “The Wild Robot“, which was nominated for three Academy Awards including Best Animated Feature.

    In both, climate change is a world-building element; one showed a submerged Golden Gate Bridge, the other showed a flood of biblical proportions. But they’re both animated films, with cute animals coming together to save the world, reaching a younger audience who will grow up with climate change and its impacts.

    Creating a story that can make people think about our planet and how we can tackle climate change isn’t easy. Pike said it is worth persevering.

    “If you get tired, don’t give up,” Pike said. “Rest and get back to it when you can. We all plant seeds and it’s hard to say which ones will take.”

     

    Three questions to consider:

    1. What makes you switch off the news when a story about climate change comes on?
    2. What happens to our brain when we show, rather than tell, in our writing on climate change?
    3. What might you learn in a course like “Environmental Reporting for a Hopeful Planet?” 

     

    Source link

  • Why social media hasn’t ruined our democracy (yet)

    Why social media hasn’t ruined our democracy (yet)

    “The algorithm won’t push posts that aren’t dramatic enough,” Keller said. “If I want something to go viral, I need to communicate differently.”

    Popularity and popular elections

    Effects of algorithms can be seen all around the world. In Romania, the 2024 presidential election was annulled due to alleged disinformation on social media platforms. During the 2022 national election campaign in the Philippines, social media played a significant role in the rapid spread of disinformation narratives.

    In Germany, social media significantly influenced the 10% increase in votes in the recent election for the far right party Alternative for Germany(AfD) compared to 2021. A notable factor was Elon Musk’s promotion of the AfD on Twitter.

    In Switzerland, direct democracy allows citizens to vote directly on laws and policies. This system is a core part of its governance, with frequent referendums and initiatives shaping political decisions.

    On average, there are 3-4 national votes per year, which could make the direct democracy even more susceptible to social media than other types of democracies, as people get to vote on smaller issues than presidential elections, which only happen once every four years. This makes the political processes more inclusive.

    As online campaigns grow more popular, social media can play a larger role in votes. However, Switzerland still relies heavily on traditional media sources for political news consumption. A recent report by research and consulting firm Publicom AG found that 58% of voters form their opinions through radio, TV or print media. Most of these are neutral and based on the information given by the national news agency SRG. That means there is less polarization.

    A generational change

    By contrast, only 16% actively turn to social media to establish a viewpoint. However, these numbers may be misleading. The popularity of social media has been on the rise; for instance, in 2017, just 12% of the population sourced their news from these platforms. It is also important to note that the study groups all voters into one category.

    When focusing specifically on the younger demographic, aged 15–29, the shift is more pronounced. In this age group, social media usage for news has increased by 11 percentage points since 2020, now reaching 40%.

    Despite the significant engagement of young people with news through social media, Switzerland’s democratic system remains largely unaffected. Keller said that the average voter in the country is approximately 55.

    While the influence of social media in Switzerland right now may only be marginal, this could change in the future, once these younger generations, which heavily rely on social media for news, enter the political landscape.

    Many of the students we go to school with acknowledged that social media shapes their beliefs. “It depends on how reliable the source is,” said one 16-year old who we spoke to. “But if a lot of people say the same thing and if I also hear it on multiple platforms, then I’ll probably start believing it too.”

    Positive aspects of social media

    A repeated theme seemed to be, appropriately, repetition. Our schoolmates seem to equate repetition with credibility.  “I think it could [influence my beliefs], if I see the same information multiple times across multiple platforms,” said one student, aged 15.

    Another said that he would question the information he sees but ultimately he would end up believing it. “If I see 10 posts about the CDU [German political party], for example, and they are all positive, I think about what their arguments are, and if they make sense, then yeah, I think I’d believe it,” he said.

    So even though it might not be necessary to implement additional regulations regarding the usage of social media in political campaigns right now, it might become necessary in the future as social media continues to grow in importance.

    Social media in the political process isn’t all about misinformation. It can also provide a platform for people to discuss political issues, regardless of their party. Keller sees social media as an opportunity.

    “I’m more of an optimist than a pessimist,” Keller said.

    For example, Keller said, if he wanted to start a referendum campaign, he could post about that and find other people to help organize it. That also allows people the opportunity to communicate directly with politicians.

    “Nowadays a lot of them are on social media platforms,” he said. “You can tell them your opinion directly … and sometimes they even reply.”

     

    For more about the power of repetition in news coverage check out this News Decoder Top Tip.

     

    Three questions to consider: 

    1. How can a single social media post affect an election?
    2. What do the authors mean by politicians becoming “personalities”?
    3. In what ways are you influenced by what you read or see on social media?

     

    Source link

  • That info you found. You sure of the source?

    That info you found. You sure of the source?

    Ever play telephone? You sit with a bunch of friends and whisper a phrase in the ear of the person next to you. That person whispers it to the next person. So, it goes until the phrase reaches the last person. 

    More times than not, the initial phrase became so convoluted as it is passed from person to person that it is funny. The phrase “80% of success is showing up” might end up as “an Asian person senses a growing pup.”

    That’s often the case with information on the internet. The more sources through which an article has been published through a syndicate or aggregated source, the more likely that article will change. Sometimes important context or nuance is lost. 

    In journalism, the goal is to be as close as possible to the publication making that initial “phone” call.

    “The closer you can get to the source, the better,” said Dan Evon, senior manager of education design at the News Literacy Project, a nonpartisan education nonprofit that provides students with media literacy tools. “It’s important for people to know how to find those sources.” 

    How to know if info has been rehashed

    Sometimes it is difficult to tell an original source from one that has been republished and rehashed. Media consumers often think they got their information from an original source, when they had found it on what is called an aggregator or syndicator.

    An aggregator compiles data from many sources into one. Many institutions host aggregated databases with publications from various sources, including the scientific and medical communities. 

    One such example of an aggregated source is the National Library of Medicine PubMed, the world’s largest biomedical library that hosts more than 37 million citations. Publications hosted by the database span institutions, journals and online books but always include the name of the original publication. 

    These are shown at the top of the webpage near the title; the page should display the original journal or book that the research appeared in. In addition, research studies include a unique code known as a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), and a search of this configuration of numbers and letters will also lead to the original publication. 

    Other aggregators include the Harvard Web of Science, a database that indexes the world’s leading scholarly literature, and Science.gov, an online U.S. government database of millions of scientific research across U.S. federal agencies.

    Syndicators and news wires

    Syndicators are networks of media organizations that share content. Snopes, a U.S.-based fact-checking website, publishes original content. This content can then be republished by its syndicated partners, which include MSN and Yahoo. 

    But just as in that game of telephone, important information can be lost or confused when a story is republished. For example, a syndicate publication may adjust a headline or alter the story’s content, leading to a story being factually incorrect or lacking crucial context. 

    Many news publications, for example, use content from newswire services like the Associated Press or Reuters, but each publication might alter the story or reword photo captions.

    “If you have a correction or an article is withdrawn, or there’s an editor’s note, that might not make it into the sites aggregating it,” said Evon. “When outlets republish articles, sometimes they change headlines, which can sometimes change their meaning — especially when people don’t read past the headlines.” 

    In other words, an update, editor or correction note issued to the original article may not be reflected in a syndicated article published before these additions. 

    Who wrote the story?

    Look to the writer’s byline to find an article’s original publication source. Information about the reporter, original publication outlet, date and location should be included here. Sometimes, that information is at the bottom of the article. 

    Perhaps the most well-known syndicated news source in journalism is The Associated Press, a wire service that covers global news. This independent news source publishes original reporting that websites, newspapers and broadcasts worldwide can republish. AP syndicated stories can appear in various news outlets, including local newspapers.

    To identify an AP style, look for the “AP” and original publication location in the byline. 

    If this information isn’t readily available or apparent, a Google search of the article headline and reporter name may sometimes reveal the original source. In a seemingly endless world of information, how does one determine whether a news source is reputable? Evon advises readers to take their time. 

    “Slow down. There is so much information that comes at you so fast, and you don’t have to look at everything,” Evon said. “The internet is awesome. It has all the information that you need. You just have to slow down and learn how to use it properly. Take a few seconds to look at an account name, who is publishing it, where it’s coming from — there are many basic questions that can be answered in 30 seconds that can really weed about the false information that goes around.”

    Credibility can’t be rushed.

    A credible media outlet or news publication will be transparent in its editorial strategies, correction policies, staff, funding and any conflicts of interest. This information should be easy to find and is often listed on a website’s “About” page. 

    “Once you know that’s a source that you can trust, you don’t have to do that work every time. It’s more about when you come across new and unfamiliar sources,” said Evon. “If you do not recognize the account or the outlet, that should give you pause to do a bit of research.”

    Understanding the different source types can also help determine whether information comes from an aggregated or syndicated source. Sources of information often fall into three categories — primary, secondary and tertiary — based on how close they are to the source. Primary sources are considered original materials or official sources of information, such as a research journal that published a study or a press release issued by a law official. 

    Tracking down the primary source is the best way to track down the first time this information was made available and hasn’t yet been distorted by varying degrees of reporting, interpretations or users who copy and paste text without context. 

    For scientific or social science studies, the primary source will be the study itself and the researchers who conducted it and the university where the research took place. Moreover, once you identify the researchers, you can contact them and interview them for original research of your own. 

    Secondary sources reprint, restate or analyze primary sources. These might include textbooks, articles, biographies, political analyses or commentaries that add value to the primary source but don’t necessarily represent its original context. 

    Tertiary sources compile, index and organize different pieces of information to create a broader understanding of a topic. These include dictionaries or encyclopedias, almanacs and manuals that usually do not credit a particular author.

    “Journalists play a role of an intermediary between sources, so there is this desire or inclination to go to the primary source,” Evon said. “What we hope journalists can do is look at that primary source, parse that data into easily understandable tidbits that they can then put out to the general readership.” 

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. What is meant by a news aggregator?
    2. How do you tell who conducted the research when you find a scientific or social science study on the Internet?
    3. Why is it important to tell if information has been republished and altered?

     

    Source link

  • The legion of journalists who report unbiased news

    The legion of journalists who report unbiased news

    Are you frustrated because politics is bitterly polarized? Have you almost given up on finding news that is fair, accurate, dispassionate and digestible?

    If so, I have a tip for you: Take a look at some of the major international news agencies. It may change how you consume news while making you better informed.

    Also called wire services, news agencies like the Associated Press (AP), Reuters and Agence France-Presse (AFP) have thousands of multimedia journalists — and clients — spread out around the world. With roots in the 19th century, they have impartiality and a commitment to accuracy in their DNA.

    No news organization can be perfectly impartial. But the better wire services offer an antidote to the slanted and unreliable offerings that often pose as “news” on the internet but can represent little more than one-sided, sensationalized accounts that stoke social and political discord.

    Check out this chart: There’s a reason the AP, Reuters and AFP are considered among the most reliable and balanced Western news sources. It has a lot to do with their history and purpose.

    Fast and factual

    The AP, Reuters and AFP were founded in the 19th century to serve a cross-section of newspapers that could ill afford to have journalists around the world at a time when the appetite for international news was on the rise.

    To succeed, the agencies sought to play it straight and to deliver the news quickly and accurately. Their stock-and-trade was unvarnished, accurate, fast coverage that could win space in any newspaper, regardless of its owners’ or readers’ political leanings.

    “To achieve such wide acceptability, the agencies avoid overt partiality,” Jonathan Fenby wrote in a 1986 book on international news agencies. “They avoid making judgments and steer clear of doubt and ambiguity. Though their founders did not use the word, objectivity is the philosophical basis for their enterprises — or failing that, widely acceptable neutrality.”

    By the 1980s, the four biggest news agencies accounted for the vast majority of foreign news printed in the world’s newspapers.

    A great deal has since changed in the news ecosystem, much of it due to the invention of the internet. But most wire services continue to strive to offer comprehensive, impartial and accurate news reports, complemented nowadays by photographs, video and graphics.

    Keeping a cool head in hot spots

    If you’re home watching the news and there is a video report of an event in a far-away country, chances are it was produced by a news agency. Similarly, reports in newspapers, on the radio or even on the internet often come from news agencies, which typically have many more journalists on the ground than other news organizations, especially in hot spots.

    “The first word of natural disasters in out-of-the-way places invariably comes from agencies,” said News Decoder correspondent Barry Moody, who worked for decades at Reuters and ran the agency’s news coverage during the second Iraq war at the beginning of this century.

    “During the Iraq war, we had an army of staff in Middle Eastern capitals, embedded with American and British troops and as ‘unilaterals’ roaming the front. I can remember watching as we filed snaps revealing the speed of the American advance into Iraq and seeing the tickers on TV stations and the market screens lighting up at every new alert.”

    News agencies have been playing a similar role more recently in the conflict in Gaza. Although the outlets’ international correspondents have been barred from entering Gaza, Palestinian journalists have risked their lives to deliver timely accounts to the wire services from inside the enclave.

    With journalists and clients around the world, the big international news agencies look at events through a global lens. 

    Balanced news in a biased world

    Many of the thousands of correspondents who report for newswires are in war zones or disputed territories. To protect their staff and reputations, the agencies need to be sensitive to conflicting viewpoints, to cite reputable, credible sources and to avoid taking sides. That explains why, in a world full of shrill, partisan bickering, their reports can seem dispassionate, neutral and tolerant.

    Such balance is not always easy.

    Randall Mikkelsen, another News Decoder correspondent, remembers being a White House reporter for Reuters after the 9/11 attacks in the United States. Bucking intense pressure from the U.S. administration and public, the news agency refused to call the attackers “terrorists,” instead opting for “militants” or “designated by the State Department as ‘terrorists.’”

    “Our stories were read around the world,” Mikkelsen said. “In some places, people the United States called terrorists were considered by the readers of our work as ‘freedom fighters.’”

    The internet has all but ended two of the biggest advantages that news agencies held during the analog era — speed and the ability to break news to huge numbers of people around the world.

    Increased competition for fast news

    The low cost of entry for competitors into the news ecosystem has undermined the agencies’ traditional, business-to-business model, which was based on the sale of news stories to mainstream media organizations, themselves under financial stress.

    So, the wire services have launched news portals for the public, giving consumers around the world direct access to agency reports. It’s been a challenge for the agencies to make money off of their consumer business, and services like Reuters and Bloomberg continue to pocket the lion’s share of their revenue from well-heeled clients in the financial markets even as they continue to sell content to news organizations.

    If you peruse the agencies’ websites, you’ll find a vast array of multimedia reports from points around the world. Their global footprint remains a competitive advantage.

    Still, as hard as the international agencies try to be balanced and fair, bias can at times creep in. Their journalists are not spread evenly around the world; many more tend to be in Western nations, whose businesses, advertisers and subscribers provide most of the big agencies’ revenues.

    So while a disaster that kills hundreds in a developing country in the Global South may merit coverage, it can be dwarfed by the attention the same agency will pay to an accident or event in a rich nation. As they say, follow the money.

    Still, as News Decoder correspondent Helen Womack put it: “International news agencies are on the ground in all sorts of places where other media cannot be, and they help to give us the bigger picture.”

    In some countries, local news agencies are controlled by the government or focus almost exclusively on that nation’s interests. They do not have the footprint of the big, international agencies.

    Said another News Decoder correspondent, Maggie Fox: “News agency-style coverage is just what’s called for in this age of mistrust and distrust of news — calm, dispassionate, just-the-facts reporting.”

     

    Three questions to consider: 

    1. What is a “newswire”?
    2. Why must newswires report news without bias?
    3. If you were a news reporter why might it be difficult for you to report without bias? 

     

    Source link

  • Is freedom of speech the same as freedom to lie?

    Is freedom of speech the same as freedom to lie?

    Meta will stop checking falsehoods. Does that mean more free speech or a free-for-all?

    “First, we’re going to get rid of fact-checkers,” Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Meta, said in a video statement early this January. “Second, we’re going to simplify our content policies and get rid of a bunch of restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are just out of touch with mainstream discourse.”

    This statement marks another turn in the company’s policies in handling disinformation and hate speech on their widely used platforms Facebook, Instagram and Threads. 

    Meta built up its moderation capabilities and started its fact-checking program after Russia’s attempts to use Facebook to influence American voters in 2016 and after it was partially blamed by various human rights groups like Amnesty International for allowing the spread of hate speech leading to genocide in Myanmar. 

    Until now, according to Meta, about 15 thousand people review content on the platform in 70 languages to see if it is in line with the company’s community standards.

    Adding information, not deleting

    For other content, the company involves professional fact-checking organizations with journalists around the world. They independently identify and research viral posts that might contain false information. 

    Fact-checkers, like any other journalists, publish their findings in articles. They compare what is claimed in the post with statistics, research findings and expert commentary or they analyze if the media in the post are manipulated or AI generated. 

    But fact-checkers have a privilege that other journalists don’t – they can add information to the posts they find false or out of context on Meta platforms. It appears in the form of a warning label. The user can then read the full article by fact-checkers to see the reasons or close the warning and interact with the post.

    Fact-checkers can’t take any further action like removing or demoting content or accounts, according to Meta. That is up to the company. 

    However, Meta now likens the fact-checking program to censorship. Zuckerberg also argued for the end of the program saying that the fact-checkers “have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created.”

    Can untrained people regulate the Web?

    For now, the fact-checking program will be discontinued in the United States. Meta plans to rely instead on regular users to evaluate content under a new program it calls “Community Notes.” The company promises to improve it over the course of the year before expanding it to other countries.

    In a way, Meta walking back on their commitments to fight disinformation wasn’t a surprise, said Carlos Hernández- Echevarría, the associate director of the Spanish fact-checking outlet Maldita and a deputy member of the governance body that assesses and approves European fact-checking organizations before they can work with Meta called the European Fact-Checking Standards Network. 

    Zuckerberg had previously said that the company was unfairly blamed for societal ills and that he was done apologizing. But fact-checking partners weren’t warned ahead of the announcement of the plans to scrap the program, Hernández- Echevarría said.

    It bothers him that Meta connects fact-checking to censorship.

    “It’s actually very frustrating to see the Meta CEO talking about censorship when fact-checkers never had the ability and never wanted the ability to remove any content,” Hernández-Echevarría said. He argues that instead, fact-checkers contribute to speech by adding more information. 

    Are fact-checkers biased?

    Hernández-Echevarría also pushes back against the accusation that fact-checkers are biased. He said that mistakes do occur, but the organizations and people doing the work get carefully vetted and the criteria can be seen in the networks’ Code of Standards. 

    For example, fact-checkers must publish their methodology for choosing and evaluating information. Fact-checkers also can’t endorse any political parties or have any agreements with them. They also have to provide proof of who they are owned by as well as publicly disclose information about their employees and funding.

    Meta’s own data about Facebook, which they disclose to EU institutions, also shows that erroneous decisions to demote posts based on fact-checking labels occur much less often than when posts are demoted for other reasons — nudity, bullying, hate speech and violence, for example. 

    In the period from April to September last year, Meta received 172,550 complaints about the demotion of posts with fact-checking labels and, after having another look, reversed it for 5,440 posts — a little over 3%. 

    However, in all other categories combined, the demotion had to be reversed for 87% of those posts.

    The sharing of unverified information

    Research shows that the perception of the unequal treatment of different political groups might form because people on the political right publish more unreliable information.

    A paper published in the scientific magazine Nature says that conservative users indeed face penalties more often, but they also share more low-quality news. Researchers therefore argued that even if the policies contain no bias, there can be an asymmetry in how they are enforced on platforms.

    Meta is also making other changes. On 7 January, the company published a revised version of its hateful conduct policies. The platform now allows comparing women to household objects and “insulting language in the context of discussing political or religious topics, such as when discussing transgender rights, immigration, or homosexuality”. The revised policies also now permit “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation”.

    LGBTQ+ advocacy group GLAAD called these changes alarming and extreme and said they will result in platforms becoming “unsafe landscapes filled with dangerous hate speech, violence, harassment, and misinformation”. 

    Journalists also report that the changes divided the employees of the company. The New York Times reported that as some upset employees posted on the internal message board, human resources workers quickly removed the posts saying they broke the rules of a company policy on community engagement.

    Political pressure

    In a statement published on her social media channels. Angie Drobnic Holan, the director of the International Fact-Checking Network, which represents fact-checkers in the United States, linked Meta’s decision to political pressure.

    “It’s unfortunate that this decision comes in the wake of extreme political pressure from a new administration and its supporters,” Holan said. “Fact-checkers have not been biased in their work. That attack line comes from those who feel they should be able to exaggerate and lie without rebuttal or contradiction.”

    In his book “Save America” published in August 2024, Donald Trump whose term as U.S. President begins today, accused Zuckerberg of plotting against him. “We are watching him closely, and if he does anything illegal this time he will spend the rest of his life in prison,” he wrote. 

    Now, with the changes Zuckerberg announced, Trump is praising Meta and said they’ve come a long way. When asked during a press conference 7 January if he thought Zuckerberg was responding to Trump’s threats, Trump replied, “Probably.”

    After Meta’s announcement, the science magazine Nature published a review of research with comments from experts on the effectiveness of fact-checking. For example, a study in 2019 analyzing 30 research papers covering 20 thousand participants found an influence on beliefs but the effects were weakened by participants’ preexisting beliefs, ideology and knowledge. 

    Sander van der Linden, a social psychologist at the University of Cambridge told Nature that ideally, people wouldn’t form misperceptions in the first place but “if we have to work with the fact that people are already exposed, then reducing it is almost as good as it as it’s going to get”. 

    Hernández-Echevarría said that although the loss of Meta’s funding will be a hard hit to some organizations in the fact-checking community, it won’t end the movement. He said, “They are going to be here, fighting disinformation. No matter what, they will find a way to do it. They will find support. They will do it because their central mission is to fight disinformation.”

    Questions to consider:

    • What is now allowed under Meta’s new rules for posts that wasn’t previously?

    • How is fact-checking not the same as censorship?

    • When you read social media posts, do you care if the poster is telling the truth?

     

    Source link