Media Literacy: What is it?

VaughanJB

VaughanJB

Scrappy VIP
I know, I know. I bang this drum over and over, it must get tiresome. Yet here I am again.

I was doing some reading today and came across this web site which has lots of information about Media Literacy, and how we can all smarten up. It emphasizes the particular importance of children being educated in their early years as the world becomes virtual, and telling the truth from fiction can be very difficult.

This is a link to the site, and I thought people could investigate, or not, as suits. :)

"Media literacy refers to the skills needed to be able to critically access, analyse, evaluate and create media in various forms. Media literacy is an essential life skill, especially in an increasingly digital age. Evaluating the reliability of online media and news stories, and most recently, AI outputs, requires evermore complex skills, including critical, digital and information literacy."

SOURCE: What Is Media Literacy? | National Literacy Trust
 

Capt Lightning said:
My daughter, in her Phd studies 25 years ago visited several schools and spoke to pupils about the using the internet. She said that although they could easily find information, they often had difficulty in extracting relevant, reliant data. It looks like things haven't improved since then.
Click to expand...
It's great that us older people have our feet in both worlds and don't rely on the internet for everything.
 
Never has it been more important to be discerning. Yet so much on the internet is driven by knee-jerk reactions to dubious sources. I don't know what's more worrying - those that do no research, or those that say they do, but are really stuck in various silos. I see this all the time.
 
VaughanJB said:
I know, I know. I bang this drum over and over, it must get tiresome. Yet here I am again.

I was doing some reading today and came across this web site which has lots of information about Media Literacy, and how we can all smarten up. It emphasizes the particular importance of children being educated in their early years as the world becomes virtual, and telling the truth from fiction can be very difficult.

This is a link to the site, and I thought people could investigate, or not, as suits. :)

"Media literacy refers to the skills needed to be able to critically access, analyse, evaluate and create media in various forms. Media literacy is an essential life skill, especially in an increasingly digital age. Evaluating the reliability of online media and news stories, and most recently, AI outputs, requires evermore complex skills, including critical, digital and information literacy."

SOURCE: What Is Media Literacy? | National Literacy Trust
Click to expand...

VaughanJB said:
Never has it been more important to be discerning. Yet so much on the internet is driven by knee-jerk reactions to dubious sources. I don't know what's more worrying - those that do no research, or those that say they do, but are really stuck in various silos. I see this all the time.
Click to expand...
I would comment on this, but my comments would be deleted, so I won't bother.
 
RambleTamble said:
Don't rely on YouTube videos for facts. People make those videos to get likes and subscribers -- not to provide accurate information.
Click to expand...

Youtube is busy eating itself alive with videos generated via AI. They're going to have to do something about it eventually.

And here's a comment about "mainstream media". Mainstream Media comes in for a lot of abuse these days, with many claiming they have abandoned it entirely because it's biased and other sundry reasons.

Well, here's why the so called "Alternative Media" is no substitute, and it won't be until it becomes a copy of what Mainstream Media is.

Here's a couple points. Firstly, their really aren't too many sources for international, and even domestic news stories. In fact, there are only four main sources: Associated Press, Reuters, Agency France-Presse, and Bloomberg. It takes a lot of resources to set up their platforms, and they won't be supplanted any time soon. News you see on Mainstream Media will largely come from these sources.

So called Alternative Press might use the same sources, but more often they're pulling information from a third-party - ie. Newspapers, TV channels, etc. In other words, the source is really the same.

No channel is perfect, but here's the thing - Mainstream Media has skin in the game. They're for profit, they can be sued, that have a brand worth millions, and they are controlled by laws in every venue (country) they're shown. Alternative Media? Usually it's a one-horse racer or a small group of people feeding from the trough of the hard work work of Mainstream outlets. They don't have the same concerns are mainstream media when it comes to reputation, monetary value, and laws. What they're doing, mostly, is delivering OPINION.

What will eventually have to happen is that alternative media will have to be held to the same scrutiny as mainstream media, but that's a ways down the road. In the mean time, there is very little actual journalism going on. Instead they repeat other peoples hard work, putting their own bias on it, and regurgitating. And since people attention spans online are measured in seconds, they don't have to care too much about being proven wrong.

Instead, it's all about clicks and playing to the gallery. Mainstream Media plays to the piper of advertisers. Alternative Media plays to whims of their audience based on clicks and view times. Again, one is accountable, the other not so much.

I have a lot more to say about this, but won't. I consider the vast majority of "alternative media" to be far worse than what you can find in the mainstream. It's also more dangerous. Dangerous not because they expose the truth, but because they run rampant without any responsibility, ethics, or morality.

Does Mainstream Media make mistakes - sure. But in the grand scheme of things, consequences matter.
 
VaughanJB said:
In fact, there are only four main sources: Associated Press, Reuters, Agency France-Presse, and Bloomberg.
Click to expand...
I'd put The NY Times in that category for their investigative reporting. The Washington Post was up there for the same reason until Jeff Bezos destroyed their integrity. I rarely see the AP or Reuters doing any real in-depth reporting, but they are some of the main suppliers of news stories.

I pretty much just look at The NY Times and The Guardian for my news these days, although I do get sick of The Guardian's anti-Israel rhetoric. I also watch the first half of ABC's World News. The second half is all commercials and fluff stories. I stream segments of the PBS News Hour when there's something interesting like SCOTUS activity.
 
RambleTamble said:
I'd put The NY Times in that category for their investigative reporting. The Washington Post was up there for the same reason until Jeff Bezos destroyed their integrity. I rarely see the AP or Reuters doing any real in-depth reporting, but they are some of the main suppliers of news stories.

I pretty much just look at The NY Times and The Guardian for my news these days, although I do get sick of The Guardian's anti-Israel rhetoric. I also watch the first half of ABC's World News. The second half is all commercials and fluff stories. I stream segments of the PBS News Hour when there's something interesting like SCOTUS activity.
Click to expand...

As I've said before, I think it starts with deciding what you're going to allow into your brain, and what you're going to ignore. Speaking for myself, I don't need to know the goings on in every part of the world, or even every story that gives an example of something I feel strongly about. Enough is enough. Worse, so much is just part of feeding an emotional roller coaster.

Every minute you spend consuming, and thinking about, some news story, you could spend thinking of your partner, your kids, you're neighbors, your friends, your pets, and so on. We have finite bandwidths, and a lot of that is easily wasted.

But you're correct about AP and Reuters. They rarely do in-depth stories. Think of them as stems. They offer a topic, and it's up to journalists to expand upon that they contain as they see fit.

Also, don't discount editorial. Mainstream News uses a filter system as stories pour through the editorial system. It's all part of the consequences. Alternative Media? Usually some "name" picking up on a stem and blowing it up through exaggeration. Then another alternative media outlet will pick that up, and it arrives at what is commonly called a "circle j**k".
 
VaughanJB said:
As I've said before, I think it starts with deciding what you're going to allow into your brain, and what you're going to ignore. Speaking for myself, I don't need to know the goings on in every part of the world, or even every story that gives an example of something I feel strongly about. Enough is enough. Worse, so much is just part of feeding an emotional roller coaster.
Click to expand...
Yep, there's so much crap going on in the world that we can easily get overloaded with bad news that add nothing positive to our lives but only serve to bring us down. And that's because, unless you're one of the rich and powerful, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. So why bother to spend time reading about it?

Sure, we can vote for leaders who do have the power to effect change, so in that respect, it's good to stay informed. And we can debate people online, but that gets tiresome after hearing the same loathsome, propaganda-based arguments for -- not just years, but for decades!

The funny thing about today's media is, we can often find better in depth reporting -- not from news media, but from shows like Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. And we get it with a bit of humor. :)
 
A comment on the Sydney Sweeney case on a YouTube video:
"However much you hate the mainstream media, it's not enough".

I don't hate them. I just didn't consume them for decades.
 
Last edited:
RambleTamble said:
Sure, we can vote for leaders who do have the power to effect change, so in that respect, it's good to stay informed. And we can debate people online, but that gets tiresome after hearing the same loathsome, propaganda-based arguments for -- not just years, but for decades!
Click to expand...

You know what - have a good think about it. Politicians (on both sides) hit hot-button topics and may make changes, but at the end of the day, and your life in totality, they're doing less and less. I mean, what's really changing? It's all tinkering at the edges.
 
RambleTamble said:
Don't rely on YouTube videos for facts. People make those videos to get likes and subscribers -- not to provide accurate information.
Click to expand...
It’s all about $$$$$$$. The more subscribers they have and the more likes they have, the more money they make. People like Joe Rogan, Hassan Piker and other well-known podcasters have become millionaires by spouting their b.s. for the past several years.

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not as long as people click on “LIKE’ and hit the “Subscribe” button. These people are evil and have caused a lot of division in this country.
 
Been There said:
It’s all about $$$$$$$. The more subscribers they have and the more likes they have, the more money they make. People like Joe Rogan, Hassan Piker and other well-known podcasters have become millionaires by spouting their b.s. for the past several years.

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not as long as people click on “LIKE’ and hit the “Subscribe” button. These people are evil and have caused a lot of division in this country.
Click to expand...
True, I no longer subscribe, like or comment on anything in Youtube.
 
Been There said:
It’s all about $$$$$$$. The more subscribers they have and the more likes they have, the more money they make. People like Joe Rogan, Hassan Piker and other well-known podcasters have become millionaires by spouting their b.s. for the past several years.

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not as long as people click on “LIKE’ and hit the “Subscribe” button. These people are evil and have caused a lot of division in this country.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting problem (at least to me). You're spot on, but it extends farther than that. It's actually built into the algorithms used by Google, and on Social Media platforms. They're all based on "give the user more of what they liked". But it's not done in an intelligent way, it's pretty simple stuff. This create silo's where people are led to believe they're in agreement with everyone else, when in reality it's just a curated group - even if you're not doing the curating.

But the secondary issue is.... people are easily led. Millions of... shall we call them shallow thinkers?... are being swept up into thinking they're part of a movement of some kind.

Take, for example, a hot topic - illegal immigration. What real debate about the issue takes place? Very little. Instead we experience polarized sides shouting and insulting each other. That is due, in part, to the tendency of these algorithms to push increasingly more extreme content. It polarizes people, and yes, radicalizes them.

Actual debate? Well, there's none really............
 
VaughanJB said:
It's an interesting problem (at least to me). You're spot on, but it extends farther than that. It's actually built into the algorithms used by Google, and on Social Media platforms. They're all based on "give the user more of what they liked". But it's not done in an intelligent way, it's pretty simple stuff. This create silo's where people are led to believe they're in agreement with everyone else, when in reality it's just a curated group - even if you're not doing the curating.

But the secondary issue is.... people are easily led. Millions of... shall we call them shallow thinkers?... are being swept up into thinking they're part of a movement of some kind.

Take, for example, a hot topic - illegal immigration. What real debate about the issue takes place? Very little. Instead we experience polarized sides shouting and insulting each other. That is due, in part, to the tendency of these algorithms to push increasingly more extreme content. It polarizes people, and yes, radicalizes them.

Actual debate? Well, there's none really............
Click to expand...
Cross-checking various news sources can be time-consuming, but it's not very labor-intensive because just about everything newsworthy has been recorded by someone, and the original recordings are searchable.

I think most people can discern pundits of opinion from news reporters and journalists, but, if not, a quick online search will clarify that. And I think people tune in to opinion presenters, not for the latest news, but to validate their own opinions, and I agree that has the potential to be radicalizing.

I assume ^all that^ is what Media Literacy is about. (but I'll google it :geek: )
 
Murrmurr said:
Cross-checking various news sources can be time-consuming, but it's not very labor-intensive because just about everything newsworthy has been recorded by someone, and the original recordings are searchable.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Sort of. But when you're locked into the algorythm, your "cross reference" sites can also easily be curated without your knowing. Not to mention, I'm not sure how many people even bother. :D
 
I watched a video today. It was a hit piece on EBT recipients. The "host" or rather video maker, looked to be, perhaps 18. He was suitably outraged, angry, and opinionated. That, at his age, he can't possibly understand the topic, goes without saying.

He also had a bad haircut.

Just saying.
 
VaughanJB said:
I watched a video today. It was a hit piece on EBT recipients. The "host" or rather video maker, looked to be, perhaps 18. He was suitably outraged, angry, and opinionated. That, at his age, he can't possibly understand the topic, goes without saying.

He also had a bad haircut.

Just saying.
Click to expand...
Yea but he also has an audience that watches and listens to him. They think they understand each other. So is that good literary technique if the goal is to communicate clearly?
 
Paco Dennis said:
Yea but he also has an audience that watches and listens to him. They think they understand each other. So is that good literary technique if the goal is to communicate clearly?
Click to expand...

Depends what you're looking for. If it's truth, well reasoned argument, and balance, then it terrible. If you hunt popularity, clicks, and rage baiting, it's a win.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top