Online Media Literacy – wk 4

The way we consume information seems to becoming increasingly “lazy.” As loathe I am to call anything lazy, that just seems to be the way things are. Instead of getting the newspaper, flitting through to the section you actually care about, reading, and discussing what you read with family, neighbors, or friends, we stare at a screen absorb a video of horrific violence and scroll. Maybe the information will stick. Maybe it won’t. For years there has been consensus that not everything you see online can be trusted. But that doesn’t change the fact that a video can be really convincing, or a post can make a claim that seems like common sense, and it just wouldn’t be worth it to dig any deeper for something that seems pretty much correct. It is one thing to know that you should be double-checking what you see, and another thing completely to actually do it. Not only do we struggle with actually looking up claims we see, but we have also been prepared with media analysis skills that don’t hold up in today’s world. Not just among the AI slop of it all, but the everyday Instagram posts and TikTok’s.

From my own experience, I often end up dismissing the entirety of a claim if I find that a portion of it has been fabricated or exaggerated online, mostly because I often don’t care to parse through sloughs of information. The thing is, though, that dismisses all the stuff that may be true that’s stuffed in the middle of the post im reading like a really weird ravioli. If you find that an account is fabricating even a small portion of what they write about, obviously it may be smart to keep them out of your scrolling rotation (blocking is the easiest way to go about this), but that doesn’t mean there isn’t benefit to digging deeper into what you see. Sometimes all you need is a google search, and you’ll find an article by a credible source that you are familiar with and can trust. Other times it requires going a little farther than that.

Some websites can use “cheap signals” (Caulfield and Wineburg) to indicate they can be a trusted source of information, but cheap signals are easily accessible. Some of these include a .org designation or maybe the site is really well formatted and includes links to more well-known sources (ones the website creators know you won’t click). Both of these can create a sense of credibility that is not always earned. Dot-org designations don’t actually require any verification (Caulfield and Wineburg), which makes that one teacher from high school that required you to use only .org sites a little off base.

Not everything is as its presented, especially online. At least in the days of newspapers there were reporters, writers, editors, and the news boy between the process of information collection and you. Not every newspaper or news station has always been correct, but at least we can typically chalk it up to human error instead of intentional disinformation. Now all you have to do to spread “information” is post on a public account and see what happens. There is a lot of benefit to being a diligent internet participant. Fully dismissing claims doesn’t build your ability to parse through information and assuming everything you see is correct does no one any good either. It’s important to build these skills like any other. It may take time and will probably change as the internet does, but there is no con to being a well-informed citizen.