Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
Me? I thought the class was dumb because it was super obvious. But I’m inherently skeptical, and I do think its important to have for most people who don’t think critically.
I can’t remember the details, but I suspect it was things like who wrote it? Are the claims cited? Who are they citing? Is it peer reviewed? What is the author trying to convey? What type of language is being used? Who is the target audience? Etc
Still better than nothing. Although most of those seem to be training people that “who said it” is how truthfulness of a statement should be judged which is exactly backwards.
The point is to understand the concept of credibility. Who said it matters. Some people have a demonstrated history if credibility. Some people have a demonstrated history of incredibly.
The value of “who said it” is to help you recognize their motivation. Anyone trying to convince you of something has a vested interest in their position. Understanding the speaker is critical in understanding their position.
ugh I guess we will just learn to operate under total uncertainty. online media literacy classes for kids have become an urgent need.
It’s been urgent since the beginning of the rise of electronic mass media a hundred years ago. I’m sure we’ll get to it some day.
I had a detecting propaganda workshop when i was a kid in a school in the US. Its not mandatory everywhere, but we do teach these things
should be mandatory everywhere and repeated every couple years throughout education because it evolves very fast
And I don’t mean this in any mean way, but how much propaganda did you learn to detect? Like understanding that the american dream is a propaganda?
Me? I thought the class was dumb because it was super obvious. But I’m inherently skeptical, and I do think its important to have for most people who don’t think critically.
I can’t remember the details, but I suspect it was things like who wrote it? Are the claims cited? Who are they citing? Is it peer reviewed? What is the author trying to convey? What type of language is being used? Who is the target audience? Etc
Still better than nothing. Although most of those seem to be training people that “who said it” is how truthfulness of a statement should be judged which is exactly backwards.
The point is to understand the concept of credibility. Who said it matters. Some people have a demonstrated history if credibility. Some people have a demonstrated history of incredibly.
The value of “who said it” is to help you recognize their motivation. Anyone trying to convince you of something has a vested interest in their position. Understanding the speaker is critical in understanding their position.