Category: Digital literacy

Skill in locating, evaluating, and applying information obtained from the Internet.

Annotation as a solution to fake news

I have generated multiple posts focused on the potential of layering – adding elements of information on top of existing web pages or video authored by others (use the tag layer to view). The most common type of layered elements involves highlights and annotations. My focus has been on the educational potential of layering, but others see the potential in other ways.

Jon Udell suggests that annotation offers a way of contesting fake news. As you might expect, this opportunity has raised concerns and direct commenting on articles labeled as fake news will generate similar reactions. I admit to having less sympathy for news organizations than I might for individuals.

BTW – this Udell link gets a little geeky and explains how annotation works. The post specifically mentions Hypothes.is one of the tools I have described in an educational context.

Loading

Degree of bias vs falsehoods

Some months ago I began cross-posting some of the things I write elsewhere to Facebook. I was interested in exploring the potential of social media as an opportunity for argumentation. I suppose this word (argumentation) might be foreign to many, but you might want to translate it as debate. This is essentially the notion that discussions can explore issues through processes that involve assertions, supporting assertions with facts/data, and taking on the assertions made by others through the same processes of counter-assertations and facts/data. I have long been a promoter of social media as a way to involve the public in important issues and thought rather than write for the audience I have I should take a more open approach.
 
I must say I have not been particularly impressed with what I have observed in Facebook. Few participants actually participate. There is mostly the linking of things folks have found online with little personal reflection or commentary. There tends to be little interaction and far less commentary at a deep level. I am not certain how to change this. I understanding that actually writing takes a good deal of effort, but without some effort I think little is accomplished.
 
Another issue I have noticed is the type of content people are willing to post. Again, I come from a tradition of argumentation based on sources (mostly in the scientific literature). I understand that many political issues are not based on formal sources, but so much of the content I see comes from sources of such poor reputation. It seems that some seek extreme examples and about the only way to do this is to promote content from extreme and sketchy sources.
 
My wife and I have discussed this issue often because of our common background in educational technology. She recommended that I recommend a site for evaluating the credibility of sources. Try this site (and read about their approach if you are concerned). There is a textbox at the top of the page that returns an evaluation of news sources – both bias and factual accuracy.
 
Bias and factual focus can be different things. Bias for some might be described as spin – how one tries to explain facts. Factual focus is really whether facts are even the basis for the content. I would interpret the notion of fake news as news that is not factually based. The site I recommend will indicate if a “news” source has promoted positions that are known be false.
 
Try sites you know and assume promote a spin – CNN, MSNBC, NPR (use National Public Radio), Wall Street Journal. You will note that these sites are all “centrist” with a bias (left, right). All are typically fact based. If you can, try some of the sources for the Facebook posts that seem extreme (if you can identify the source). My experience has been that such content is described as biased to a far greater degree than the sources I list above, but also rated as far more likely to promote false narratives. This is the type of information Facebook should add to any “sourced” content.
 
Facebook talks a good game about the promotion of false narratives but seems to be overly careful about taking practical actions that would allow authors and readers to acknowledge the credibility of their sources. You can do this for yourself.
 

Loading

Media and/or personal bias

As I now remember the focus of Pariser’s “Filter bubble”, the author was concerned that by search services learning our priorities, the content appearing at the top of the hits returned to response to a search would tell us what we wanted to hear or feed our biases. Two individuals with different beliefs could conduct the same search and be told different things.

I admit that I tried various ways to demonstrate this potential bias and was unable to come up with a demonstration that worked. Pariser describes having two individuals he knew who had different political leanings conduct the same search and observing that the results were different. I attempted to conduct anonymous and self-identified searches (logged into my Google account) for the word “apple” assuming that by revealing who I was to the search service my results would be biased toward technology and the anonymous searches toward the fruit. Not luck.

Researchers using Facebook data have approached the “filter bubble” issue in a different way. They have identified users along a conservative/liberal continuum and then examined the links included in posts from these groups. In the aftermath of the election, they are providing related data graphically through what they describe as the blue feed/red feed. Assuming both sources of media bias a real, the arguments would be that we receive different slants on the facts through the history of who we are and who we friend. It seems possible these two forms of bias interact to compound the effect.

Loading