Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

If, as you say, the primary rift is between the educated and the uneducated, I foresee a problem. From what I've seen, the uneducated are proud of that, and work very hard to remain that way. Teaching them anything beyond how to blindly follow their favorite talking heads will be a challenge.

Of course, it's not one side is educated and logical and the other side are stupid knuckle draggers as so many on one side like to portray their enemies.

There's a lot of dunner kruger effect among the so called "educated". They think they are immune to blindly following the talking heads...while blindly following the talking heads.

Go read 1984, amazing how many people practice textbook "double think".

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by danstanford

A few years ago not too long after Trump was showing his true stripes....

When exactly did he hide his true colors?

You can hate his policies, you can hate the man, you can say he's crazy. In some aspects, I would even agree with you...but unlike your typical politician who will happily lie to your face (see coumo), he has always been straight forward about his actions.

I think that's half the reason he drew so much hatred in the political arena (often from his own party), they simply didn't know how to deal with someone who will say what he's really thinking. He makes no attempt at deception.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I've seen some of this genre of research. It's fascinating, but the effect can be measured on both the political right as well as the left. It seems to be dependent on issues which have become core clan issues.

As I recall, research has measured the effect on the right for issues like climate change. But on the left you can see the same effect emerge around issues like nuclear power and even vaccinations.

The takeaway seems to be that once an issue becomes sacralized (core to your clan's beliefs), then better educated people just become better at rationalizing their beliefs and biases.

Scary stuff... and should make all of us question our own views on contentious issues.

Agreed but also, much of this depends on definitions (and goals) used by the researchers. In the study quoted:

Most educated would agree that climate changes. That's fairly straightforward to prove.

But when you move into how much is human causes and then even more so in terms of how much impact we can have countering it...the data is far less clear cut. But the study presumes anyone who doesn't stick to the climate change dogma are going against their education and implies they should be stigmatized.

Of course, they lump it all together in the summary, in what appears to be a clear attempt to imply that they don't believe in any form of climate change.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Teaching people to discern the truth... Yes. That would be the best.

The challenge is teaching to discern the truth vs indoctrinating with the dogmatic "truth".

Most kids just want a good grade and most aren't stupid. If the teacher is an adherent of a particular dogma, they quickly pick it up and learn to repeat it back to the teacher because that makes the teacher happy and results in a better grade. Repeat it often enough and many start to believe it.

While teachers deserve respect, there seems to have developed a cult to teachers and it's considered unacceptable to challenge them or call them out when they are wrong. I think this has moved the profession away from teaching "how to learn" towards rote memorization and that feeds into dogma.

[DMF Sailing]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I can agree with that and shock factor seems to be the way the big media giants are going.

Of course, it's not really new. "If it bleeds, it leads" is not a new idea. Anyone remember stories of "reefer madness"?

The ultimate problem with the media is limiting freedom of the press from sensationalization, misleading and harmful content without allowing it to be a means of censoring free speech for those in power. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone has a good answer.

Don't forget the race to be "first with the story" or match whoever's "first with the story."

If you were a journalist from the mid-2000s or so on, knowing that you had to balance speed of "reporting breaking news" with confirming the facts of it—this was your biggest headache.

It's also, in my experience, the main cause for erroneous or misleading reporting, despite the popular (and growing) perception that "the media gets things wrong because it deliberately lies/is fulfilling some agenda/acts like a mindless herd, etc/etc." No one who has spent a workday in a newsroom thinks that news reporters [for mainstream outlets] set out to lie or act like any kind of herd, unless it's cats.

This doesn't make it any better. In fact, it makes it worse: People who want to do their job properly by confirming the facts of a story are shooting themselves in the foot and eroding their own credibility to be the first with still-unconfirmed information to keep up with Twitter (and the real charlatans, who post whatever unconfirmed BS they feel like tweeting, not naming names.)

And this is not a right-wing/left-wing problem. I have friends at Fox and the Daily Caller, the WSJ, the NYT, the WAP; the NY Post:, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, what have you: If they were on the news side, not the editorial/commenter/op-ed side, they had the same problem striking that balance between accuracy and editors telling them to get something up on the site before their rivals. Same goes for pretty much anyone else from the 43 other countries I've worked in, seems like.

[Flame away, media critics, but before you do, tell me how much time you have spent in a newsroom, and "I don't need to have done that to know" just does not cut it; I've heard that 10,000 times]

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

...But when you move into how much is human causes and then even more so in terms of how much impact we can have countering it...the data is far less clear cut. But the study presumes anyone who doesn't stick to the climate change dogma are going against their education and implies they should be stigmatized.

The studies I'm referring to measure the tendency for all of us to justify our own perspectives. And when the issue become tribal dogma, better educated people just become better at finding ways to support their own team's biases.

You're illustrating the findings perfectly .

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The challenge is teaching to discern the truth vs indoctrinating with the dogmatic "truth".

Most kids just want a good grade and most aren't stupid. If the teacher is an adherent of a particular dogma, they quickly pick it up and learn to repeat it back to the teacher because that makes the teacher happy and results in a better grade. Repeat it often enough and many start to believe it.

While teachers deserve respect, there seems to have developed a cult to teachers and it's considered unacceptable to challenge them or call them out when they are wrong. I think this has moved the profession away from teaching "how to learn" towards rote memorization and that feeds into dogma.

I just listened to a Professor of Psychology from a US University talking about the environment they are dealing with these days. A colleague of his took the contrarian view of a feminist issue in a classroom debate and a few days later had to explain to his senior managers why he and the school had a major reputational issue which threatened his employment. One of the students in the class had posted the professors postulations in the debate as his true beliefs and gathered much support for his dismissal on line. He also pointed out that in all the washrooms in his institution (posted by the school in response to a student union demand) were forms and instructions on how to lodge an anonymous complaint against anyone in the faculty. One can understand the chill on teachers pointing out alternative viewpoints in this environment.

[DMF Sailing]

Originally Posted by danstanford

I just listened to a Professor of Psychology from a US University talking about the environment they are dealing with these days. A colleague of his took the contrarian view of a feminist issue in a classroom debate and a few days later had to explain to his senior managers why he and the school had a major reputational issue which threatened his employment. One of the students in the class had posted the professors postulations in the debate as his true beliefs and gathered much support for his dismissal on line. He also pointed out that in all the washrooms in his institution (posted by the school in response to a student union demand) were forms and instructions on how to lodge an anonymous complaint against anyone in the faculty. One can understand the chill on teachers pointing out alternative viewpoints in this environment.

Dan, I think your signature tagline sums up the world, sadly.

EDIT: This line, I mean Never attribute to malice what can be explained away by stupidity.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The studies I'm referring to measure the tendency for all of us to justify our own perspectives. And when the issue become tribal dogma, better educated people just become better at finding ways to support their own team's biases.

You're illustrating the findings perfectly .

I understand that but the studies themselves are often flawed with major presumptions supporting the tribal dogma.

It's similar to the old hack journalist question, "have you stopped beating your wife?" Polls only allow for "yes" or "no", so you can't answer without implying you have beat your wife at some point.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by DMF Sailing

Don't forget the race to be "first with the story" or match whoever's "first with the story."

If you were a journalist from the mid-2000s or so on, knowing that you had to balance speed of "reporting breaking news" with confirming the facts of it—this was your biggest headache.

It's also, in my experience, the main cause for erroneous or misleading reporting, despite the popular (and growing) perception that "the media gets things wrong because it deliberately lies/is fulfilling some agenda/acts like a mindless herd, etc/etc." No one who has spent a workday in a newsroom thinks that news reporters [for mainstream outlets] set out to lie or act like any kind of herd, unless it's cats.

Nicely explained DMF. Journalists are not out there overtly lying or distorting the truth. Everyone, including journalists, approach life through a personal lens which results in bias. However, unlike most people and professions, journalists actually work to recognize and push back against their own biases.

Of course they're not always successful, but I'd trust a good journalist, from any credible media source (including Fox, CNN, Al Jazeera, BBC or any of the other major outlets), over some hack on twitter.

The race to be first has always plagued our work, but I think () the crisis of speed over accuracy really began with the advent of 24-hr news. The fact is, there is rarely 24 hours of news, but that great maw (as one of my old radio producers used to call it) has to be filled. So when you get a sniff of a story, there is great pressure to get it on the air fast.

This pressure is enhanced with the rapid new cycles reporters now exist in. The same 24 news drive means stories come and go very fast. If you don't jump on the item quickly, someone else will, and then you're already behind the cycle. So everything happens fast -- too fast.

But the biggest blow to journalism has been the near-collapse of the wall that once separated opinion from news. In the no-so-distant past editorial was clearly delineated from news. It had its own section in the paper, or in the broadcast. These days the lines are nearly completely blurred.

Some outlets are worse than others, but they all do it now. And for the uncritical reader or viewer (which can be all of us at different times), it's not hard to mistake the babblers for the actual news reporters.

[DMF Sailing]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Nicely explained DMF.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

But the biggest blow to journalism has been the near-collapse of the wall that once separated opinion from news. In the no-so-distant past editorial was clearly delineated from news. It had its own section in the paper, or in the broadcast. These days the lines are nearly completely blurred.

Some outlets are worse than others, but they all do it now. And for the uncritical reader or viewer (which can be all of us at different times), it's not hard to mistake the babblers for the actual news reporters.

Right on. This has been my biggest woe, and the hardest change to explain when I've been brought on TV and radio to explain it

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I understand that but the studies themselves are often flawed with major presumptions supporting the tribal dogma.

It's similar to the old hack journalist question, "have you stopped beating your wife?" Polls only allow for "yes" or "no", so you can't answer without implying you have beat your wife at some point.

You clearly have not read the research. The data they use is nothing like "have you stopped beating your wife?" Straw man argument (again).

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

You clearly have not read the research. The data they use is nothing like "have you stopped beating your wife?" Straw man argument (again).

It's exactly like it. I get that you like the term "straw man" but it's not the answer every time you don't have an answer.

Do you believe humans caused climate change?

If your real answer is probably some but to a very small degree...and likely out of our control to manage in any effective manner.
- If you answer the poll with no, you are portrayed as a troglodyte who doesn't deserve respect.
- If you answer the poll with yes, you are portrayed as supporting the dogma

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

It's exactly like it. I get that you like the term "straw man" but it's not the answer every time you don't have an answer.

Do you believe humans caused climate change?

If your real answer is probably some but to a very small degree...and likely out of our control to manage in any effective manner.
- If you answer the poll with no, you are portrayed as a troglodyte who doesn't deserve respect.
- If you answer the poll with yes, you are portrayed as supporting the dogma

This is not a climate change discussion, but the actual answer from real climate science is that human civilization is a significant driver. It's not a "very small degree." It's a significant degree. And no, it's not out of our control. That's biased dogma you're spouting.

Read the actual climate science.

But again, none of this has anything to do with the behavioural research I was referencing.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by danstanford

I just listened to a Professor of Psychology from a US University talking about the environment they are dealing with these days. A colleague of his took the contrarian view of a feminist issue in a classroom debate and a few days later had to explain to his senior managers why he and the school had a major reputational issue which threatened his employment. One of the students in the class had posted the professors postulations in the debate as his true beliefs and gathered much support for his dismissal on line. He also pointed out that in all the washrooms in his institution (posted by the school in response to a student union demand) were forms and instructions on how to lodge an anonymous complaint against anyone in the faculty. One can understand the chill on teachers pointing out alternative viewpoints in this environment.

I think the phrase is "eating their own".

The fact is conservatives have been driven out of the educational system (or at a minimum they must hide their conservativism). The powers have built their power on attacking those who disagree...when big disagreements are gone, they move on to little disagreements.

This does bring up an interesting thought. Will all the home schooling with covid weaken this power structure. There are now some online public schools that parents can choose (outside of their local public school). If parents are given the choice to get their kids out of the monoculture, will the traditional public schools finally have some pressure to balance their political leanings? Of course, this comes with the danger of creating a parallel monoculture with conservative schools.