I recently made a new lesson to teach fake news. We started with this image and I asked students whether or not it provides strong evidence of the conditions near the Fukushima site.
We watched a TED talk about a European group that combats fake news in the wake of Russian propaganda in Ukraine (Russia spread fake stories about a pro Russian Ukrainian man and his family being crucified in Ukraine, but the place they said it happened doesn't even exist and the family is still alive).
We covered identifying fake news and how it appears online
We talked about conspiracy theories and satire being confused with reality. We also discussed identifying the difference between fact based reporting and opinion pieces.
They then had to look at a variety of headlines and memes and determine if they were real or fake:
Do your part. Do an initial smell test: Does it even seem real? Source it. Where's it from, who wrote it, what did they cite. Find something to collaborate it. Who else is reporting it and are they legitimate too?
(02-01-2020, 10:44 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I recently made a new lesson to teach fake news. We started with this image and I asked students whether or not it provides strong evidence of the conditions near the Fukushima site.
We watched a TED talk about a European group that combats fake news in the wake of Russian propaganda in Ukraine (Russia spread fake stories about a pro Russian Ukrainian man and his family being crucified in Ukraine, but the place they said it happened doesn't even exist and the family is still alive).
We covered identifying fake news and how it appears online
We talked about conspiracy theories and satire being confused with reality. We also discussed identifying the difference between fact based reporting and opinion pieces.
They then had to look at a variety of headlines and memes and determine if they were real or fake:
Do your part. Do an initial smell test: Does it even seem real? Source it. Where's it from, who wrote it, what did they cite. Find something to collaborate it. Who else is reporting it and are they legitimate too?
If it holds up: post it.
If only adults would do that.
I'm of the growing opinion the world would be a better place without social media. It's too easy for someone to get fooled, but that's especially true of the dumb or lazy.
(02-03-2020, 09:46 AM)Benton Wrote: If only adults would do that.
I'm of the growing opinion the world would be a better place without social media. It's too easy for someone to get fooled, but that's especially true of the dumb or lazy.
Absolutely we would be better off without it. The first issue is that people only read headlines. The second is that seeing something visually (meme, link, video, etc) makes them believe that it acts as authoritative evidence. The third issue, and this is not unique to social media, is the tendency to dismiss evidence that does not fit our worldview. Rather than adjusting our worldview to fit the facts, we find a way to write off the facts to maintain our worldview.
Social media exacerbates the problem and allows it to have an incredibly wide audience in an incredible short period of time. It's also completely inorganic, as we can see with what Russia did.
If it seems to good for whatever person/side or whatever you are behind, then it's probably not true. Especially if the first place you heard about is was on facebook.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(02-03-2020, 10:32 AM)michaelsean Wrote: If it seems to good for whatever person/side or whatever you are behind, then it's probably not true. Especially if the first place you heard about is was on facebook.
The first part isn't right. The second part has good chance to be true.
(02-03-2020, 09:46 AM)Benton Wrote: If only adults would do that.
I'm of the growing opinion the world would be a better place without social media. It's too easy for someone to get fooled, but that's especially true of the dumb or lazy.
(02-03-2020, 10:02 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Absolutely we would be better off without it. The first issue is that people only read headlines. The second is that seeing something visually (meme, link, video, etc) makes them believe that it acts as authoritative evidence. The third issue, and this is not unique to social media, is the tendency to dismiss evidence that does not fit our worldview. Rather than adjusting our worldview to fit the facts, we find a way to write off the facts to maintain our worldview.
Social media exacerbates the problem and allows it to have an incredibly wide audience in an incredible short period of time. It's also completely inorganic, as we can see with what Russia did.
Completely agree about the social media commentary. I used to have two accounts for both Instagram and Twitter. One account was more politics forward, and the other was about my fishing/outdoors excursions. I deleted the accounts that looked at political stuff and only really use the outdoors ones. I also post more personal stuff, like my dog and what not, but I've stopped following political news on social media and I will mute or unfollow people that post a lot of it, from either side.
When stuff is going on I will search out some folks or tags and see what is being said, but I don't follow it all because of how toxic it is. I make it so I have to actively look for it instead of just passively absorbing it all.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(02-03-2020, 03:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is about to get much worse.
Advances in AI will allow computers to create videos of people doing and/or saying anything anyone wants.
As someone who has ample video of me doing and saying awful things out there I can't wait for this to happen so I can claim it was all artificially generated.
(02-01-2020, 10:44 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I recently made a new lesson to teach fake news. We started with this image and I asked students whether or not it provides strong evidence of the conditions near the Fukushima site.
The facebook ads really resonated with them.
Do your part. Do an initial smell test: Does it even seem real? Source it. Where's it from, who wrote it, what did they cite. Find something to collaborate it. Who else is reporting it and are they legitimate too?
If it holds up: post it.
Good job. I think that there should be a required course nowadays for propaganda and fake news--an updated course, because the stuff I learned in HS is outdated now.
I have over the last few years read a number of articles and results-of-studies showing how difficult it is to change people's minds, even that people become more entrenched in their views when they encounter counter-evidence. What I don't like about these studies so far (without denying the usefulness and accuracy of their data), is that they present rejection of impartial reasoning as psychological/biological constant. In fact we see considerable historical variation in peoples willingness or unwillingness to deal with counter evidence, and this points to variation in background: upbringing, training, role models, standards and values.
I think susceptibility to fake news today is in part because hoaxers can craft such convincing online presentation, yet there are people who consistently don't fall for them and people who consistently do. And this difference is not spread equally among demographic groups. There may be some percentage of every population with inherently unstable judgment, but I think that percentage falls far below 39-41%.
It is a problem in contemporary US politics because there are large numbers of people who 1) are not good at vetting sources in general, not just online, and 2) they have actually been educated or "trained" to vet poorly, in part by their choice of news media and in part by other authority figures/role models in their lives. E.g., many have been conditioned to immediately construe all political arguments/evidence as "partisan"; so their first goal is to figure out whether a source is Republican or Democratic, not whether it is logical valid or true. If they can't do that they feel unsure of themselves. Introduce an element of (learned) magical thinking, and the "smell test" doesn't help them any more as Trump lies leave no scent, while everything Hillary says stinks of untruth.
Vetting--or critical thinking--itself is not a simple process easily taught in a few rules, since it relies both on understanding logic and a sense of how context can be manipulated, which in turn requires a level of background knowledge. (Just thinking of Ken Starr's Trump defense, delivered today, along with Philbin and Seculow's, which turn the obstructed effort to leverage evidence and witnesses from the White House into "absence of proof" and from there into a shameful, disrespectful attempted coup on the presidency--on "freedom" itself--accompanied by seeming endless defense of the principle of executive privilege, which itself was never in question.)
Anyway, glad to see that you are teaching this in your class. Is there any way this could be made into a semester long course, or at least a 5-6 week segment of an existing course? What do other teachers or the administration think?
(02-03-2020, 05:48 PM)Dill Wrote: Anyway, glad to see that you are teaching this in your class. Is there any way this could be made into a semester long course, or at least a 5-6 week segment of an existing course? What do other teachers or the administration think?
That’s something that the county would have to made a decision on. It’s unlikely that they’d make a whole course out of it. At this point it’s something we try to work in with teaching historical thinking skills when we have the room.
(02-01-2020, 10:44 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I recently made a new lesson to teach fake news.
LMAO. Wow. Please tell me you teach at community college. You're smart enough to know why this was complete garbage, so I won't waste my time explaining why.
Unless the lesson was that a photo is indeterminate. But I suspect not. I mean, wow.
(02-13-2020, 05:55 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LMAO. Wow. Please tell me you teach at community college. You're smart enough to know why this was complete garbage, so I won't waste my time explaining why.
Unless the lesson was that a photo is indeterminate. But I suspect not. I mean, wow.
Yep, teaching teens to source and corroborate information that they come across is complete garbage.
Who better to tell me that than a guy who makes baseless claims and then refuses to respond when someone uses evidence to disprove his claims?
(02-13-2020, 05:55 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LMAO. Wow. Please tell me you teach at community college. You're smart enough to know why this was complete garbage, so I won't waste my time explaining why.
Unless the lesson was that a photo is indeterminate. But I suspect not. I mean, wow.
(02-13-2020, 05:55 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LMAO. Wow. Please tell me you teach at community college. You're smart enough to know why this was complete garbage, so I won't waste my time explaining why.
Unless the lesson was that a photo is indeterminate. But I suspect not. I mean, wow.
Welcome back JustWin.
We have missed your signature snap denigration of others' judgment coupled with refusal to support or explain your own.
Especially ironic in this case as your target is someone who DOES take care to support/explain.
LOL trying to imagine you teaching a course on critical thinking--the climate change denier who thought the office of presidency would change Trump.
(02-13-2020, 01:46 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Don’t forget that career staffers like Yavonovitch would dictate foreign policy to Trump instead of vice versa.
LOL yeah, I remember. TDS to think otherwise.
TDS and liberal butthurt to think Trump would trash foreign policy.
(02-13-2020, 10:20 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yep, teaching teens to source and corroborate information that they come across is complete garbage.
Who better to tell me that than a guy who makes baseless claims and then refuses to respond when someone uses evidence to disprove his claims?
What is your designated subjects to be teaching? The reason I ask, is it seems that what you are trying to accomplish is an application of skills that should be learned through a variety of subjects learned in a well rounded education. This such as logic and reasoning, typically associated with Mathematics and Science, critical reading skills that I generally associate with HS English curriculum, as well as some Government and Political stuff that I would associate with History and American Government classes.
I'm sure that the landscape of HS educational curriculum has changed as vastly as the world itself has, since I finished HS in '87. So, I was just wondering.
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
(02-14-2020, 02:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What is your designated subjects to be teaching? The reason I ask, is it seems that what you are trying to accomplish is an application of skills that should be learned through a variety of subjects learned in a well rounded education. This such as logic and reasoning, typically associated with Mathematics and Science, critical reading skills that I generally associate with HS English curriculum, as well as some Government and Political stuff that I would associate with History and American Government classes.
I'm sure that the landscape of HS educational curriculum has changed as vastly as the world itself has, since I finished HS in '87. So, I was just wondering.
The course is American Government, part of the Social Studies department.
We practice a lot of these historical thinking skills (which, you're 100% correct, you see reinforced across the various content areas):
Social studies is always an odd man out content area, but we're focusing a lot more on literacy skills you see in the other areas in addition to teaching history/civics.
(02-13-2020, 01:05 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL trying to imagine you teaching a course on critical thinking--the climate change denier who thought the office of presidency would change Trump.
Any time you want to debate climate science, you're welcome to try. Every one of those arguments ends the same way they began "but but but you can't prove the earth isn't warming". Sounds a lot like the programmed response of idiots. I can't teach you how to model, but I did show you why the climate modeling is garbage in, garbage out. Don't lecture me on critical thinking when you're incapable of it.
But I know you don't actually have a degree in math....or statistics....or science....or climate.....Because if you did you'd debate with actual science, as opposed to ad-hominem attacks. Actually, if you had those degrees you'd wouldn't even be arguing because you'd agree with me. But to be fair, AOC has a degree in economics so maybe I'm being naive.
edit: I'm not a "denier". Anyone who calls me that is ignorant. If you don't even know what an R-sq is then shut the **** up.
![[Image: media%2Ffd1%2Ffd15e9b1-986a-482a-b755-49...tUqt8e.png]](https://media.cheggcdn.com/media%2Ffd1%2Ffd15e9b1-986a-482a-b755-494fff132b7e%2FphptUqt8e.png)
![[Image: sub-buzz-1989-1479330678-1.png]](https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2016-11/16/16/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane01/sub-buzz-1989-1479330678-1.png)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
