Evidence

Loading...

En provenance du cours de The University of Hong Kong

Making Sense of the News: News Literacy Lessons for Digital Citizens

64 notes

The University of Hong Kong

Making Sense of the News: News Literacy Lessons for Digital Citizens

64 notes

Never before has the need for News Literacy been more urgent. As news consumers are bombarded with a constant stream of fake news, propaganda, hoaxes, rumors, satire, and advertising — that often masquerade as credible journalism — it is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish fact from fiction. While the public’s faith in the news media erodes, purveyors of misinformation have helped give rise to troubling cultural trends and alarming political movements. This six-week course will help learners develop their critical thinking skills to enable them to better identify reliable information in news reports and to become better informed about the world in which we live. The course will discuss the key elements of journalism from the viewpoint of the news audience. The language of instruction is English, but Chinese and Spanish subtitles will be available. Each week will tackle a challenge unique to the digital era: Week 1: The power of information is now in the hands of consumers. Week 2: What makes journalism different from other types of information? Week 3: Where can we find trustworthy information? Week 4: How to tell what’s fair and what’s biased. Week 5: How to apply news literacy concepts in real life. Week 6: Meeting the challenges of digital citizenship.

À partir de la leçon

Where can we find trustworthy information?

Why verification fails4:40

Rencontrer les enseignants

Masato Kajimoto
Assistant Professor
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
Howard Schneider
Dean
Stony Brook University School of Journalism
Anne Kruger
Lecturer
Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong
Steven Reiner
Associate Professor
Stony Brook University School of Journalism
Jonathan Anzalone
Lecturer and Assistant Director of the Center for News Literacy
Stony Brook University School of Journalism
Michael A. Spikes
Director, Digital Resources
Center for News Literacy, Stony Brook University School of Journalism
Richard Hornik
Lecturer
Stony Brook University School of Journalism

Let's talk about evidence in news reports.

Sometimes evidence is obvious to everyone.

If there's a massive street protest in Hong Kong, it's not hard at all for

the news reporters to include evidence.

There will be many photos and videos of the protesters.

The police would probably make a public statement.

So the news audience outside of Hong Kong, who can't witness the event in person,

can be very certain that the protest really took place.

You don't need to question that fact.

Images from hundreds of eyewitnesses and official police statements are what we

call direct evidence. Like fingerprints and DNA, certain evidence is clear cut.

But not all evidence is equal.

We say journalistic truth is provisional because it takes time to verify facts.

More often than not, what we have as evidence in the news comes on a spectrum.

For example, let's say there was a police shooting in your community.

You read a news report that says hundreds of eyewitness photos and videos have been

uploaded on the internet, and the web article includes some of those images.

That's a solid evidence to prove that the shooting actually took place.

That news report also quotes an anonymous police department clerk

who's overheard a rumor that the police office who fired the shot

has been suffering from severe depression.

That is very weak indirect evidence to talk about the officer's mental health.

If a reporter somehow manages to come by a medical record of the officer in question,

and it shows that he was,

in fact, not mentally stable, then that's stronger evidence.

Although invading someone's privacy like that is a whole

other discussion that journalists should have in the news room.

If an expert in criminology who specializes in police shootings

has also commented on the incident,

even though he's not directly involved in the investigation,

you need to evaluate him as a source, and then place him on the spectrum.

I would probably put him somewhere in the middle, towards the indirect side,

because he's an expert but doesn't have direct knowledge in this particular case.

Now, let's think about how evidence is used in news reports.

It's extremely rare that journalist have all the solid information they need to

give perfectly truthful accounts of news events.

Instead, when journalists construct stories, they make inferences.

In other words, when they put small pieces together,

they come up with some likely scenarios based on what they have.

They present those possible scenarios to the public.

Now, I want to add a few more facts into the mix in our example.

Let's say there's another source in this story,

a medical doctor who treated the officer in question until two months ago.

This doctor believes that the officer was perfectly capable of conducting his duty.

She doesn't think his mental health was a factor in the incident.

I would put her opinion here, because she's reliable and has direct knowledge.

The reporter also obtained a preliminary investigation report, and

it says a blood test suggested the officer was under some sort of medication

which could have affected his mental state at the time of shooting.

Another strong piece of evidence I would say, although,

it contradicts what the doctor said.

The last piece of the puzzle is the officer's Facebook.

He updated his status 3 hours prior to the shooting, and he said that the psychiatric

treatment worked and he no longer needs to rely on medication.

He feels great about it.

This is a tough one.

But let's say, I put it in the middle because

it's hard to know what to make of his comments just yet.

With all these facts at hand, if you were a reporter,

what sort of story would you tell to the public?

Was the officer under the influence of some medication?

The investigation report seems to suggest so and

this is scientifically verified information.

But, there are other sources and

some pieces of evidence that contradict the preliminary report.

If a reporter decides that the interim investigation report

is the most reliable fact, she would make this a news angle.

The story would probably mention at the beginning that the blood test results

show the officer in question had been under the influence of some medication

before the shooting and it could have influenced his judgement.

After that, the story would also include some other facts that contradict this

evidence such as his doctors comment and the Facebook posts I mentioned earlier.

In other words, this story would not say what happened.

It would start with the most likely scenario with the evidence the reporter

has, but it also lays out other possible explanations.

I hope you can see what I'm driving at.

Journalist could only infer what has likely happened with the information

they've gathered.

They weigh their evidence until stories based on them.

But the story might change completely on the following day with a new piece of

evidence.

So what should the news audience do?

We should know that as single news report almost never tells the whole truth,

because it takes time for the truth to come out.

It takes time to verify each piece of evidence.

We should know that news media inferences could break down.

A smart news consumer should evaluate each piece of evidence and

ask questions like is this direct evidence or at arm's length?

Where does this statistical figure in the story come from?

Is it reliable evidence in this context?

Can I find the original copy of the medical study this news report's citing?

Now, I know you don't have time to do all that for every single news story you

encounter, but one thing you can do is not jump to conclusions.

Before you take any action, you should look at all the evidence in the story and

say do I know enough to say one way or the other, or should I wait for

journalists to figure things out?

And in the meantime, keep monitoring how the story develops.

Explorer notre catalogue

Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.

Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde, en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.

© 2019 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.

Télécharger dans l'App Store

Disponible sur Google Play