this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
294 points (99.3% liked)

World News

39157 readers
2155 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Changes to the curriculum could mean schoolchildren analyse articles in English lessons to weed out fabricated stories, learn how to identify fake news in computer classes and analyse statistics in maths.

Bridget Phillipson said she is launching a review of the curriculum in both primary and secondary schools to embed critical thinking across multiple subjects and arm children against "putrid conspiracy theories".

It means schoolchildren may analyse articles in English lessons to help learn how to them weed out fabricated clickbait from accurate reporting.

Computer lessons could teach them how to spot fake news sites and maths lessons could include analysing statistics in context.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bahalex 20 points 3 months ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Thank you. This should be useful, but just in the first line I see three potential fallacies/biases:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono%3F

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

...maybe taken and weighed together their skewed contributions even out.

PS: each is an analytic tool that may apply to your particular problem or not, you don't have to use all of them.

[–] sandbox 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Personally, this would not help me at all. A 48-point series of questions to consider and it’s not in any way insightful.

I’d just write “Is the headline written to be emotional rather than factual? Does the article actually back up the claim in the headline with facts? Does it cite a source that you can check? Does checking the source tell the same story?”

[–] cynar 1 points 3 months ago

I've found a layered approach is the best bet. A lot of articles have little to no political subtext. These can be read in a relaxed manner. Those that appear to have some bias can then be subject to a deeper analysis.

It's not perfect, but it limits the cognitive load to something manageable, while allowing you to catch the worst articles easily.

The image posted makes a good 2nd or 3rd pass guide.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

And by the time you've been through all those, your grandparents have forwarded it to you on Facebook with a Minion picture on it and "Something needs to be done!!!! 😡😡😡" written under it.

But at least you'll be informed. Sadly the speed of the internet is much faster than the speed of thought.