Being Media Savvy

[Beardy McFuckface]

Decided to contribute something for once, apart from my usual antagonism.

As a media student, I am not shocked by the amount of misinformation online and on various other mediums such as the press, television etc. In fact this is quite typical, as facts can be easily misconstrued, bias can be added or even worse; stuff can be completely made up.

However, it irks me on how so many people buy into such misinformation, believe it to be true and continue to mediate the same nonsense to others by various mediums, thus continuing the cycle. Reading misinformation is one thing, but following it is an incredibly dangerous path. People died from snake-oil type "cures", others sell their house to make shelters to protect their families from whatever doomsday conspiracy theory they've read somewhere.

Most of this mess can easily be sorted out if one applied basic critical thinking skills, something that any person can do. See both sides of the story, check various sources to see if there's conflicting information and make your own conclusion on the matter. Don't instantly believe something, even if it is compatible with your viewpoints and causes a kneejerk reaction. After all, when it comes to media what you're reading/seeing/hearing is only a representation of the truth. Basically, being a sceptic and generally being "media savvy". However it seems that most people don't. Very unusual when you think of it, and personally I think it is the result of ignorance or other factors.

Of course, no one is perfect. Humans can be easily mislead if someone says what they want to hear. I personally myself have been mislead multiple times, same with other people.

For the people on i2, I have to ask you this: Do you consider yourself being media savvy?

[TheoK]

If they say anything in the media, I assume that it is false or twisted, until I have seen proof that it is not.

[Beardy McFuckface]

The media is not just the press, news corporations and such. It is also you, and everyone else. For example, you're mediating a message using the chosen medium (this forum).

[Bastet]

Nope.

[odeon]

I think I am reasonably media-savvy but in no way perfect. I've been fooled more than once.

[Adam]

I think I am reasonably media-savvy but in no way perfect. I've been fooled more than once.

same

I don't think anyone can be totally immune to bullshit, but I try not to get taken in by things

["couldbecousin"]

  I am easily fooled by cleverly  (or even poorly)  Photoshopped pictures. 

['Butterflies']

I'm somewhere in the middle. I'm a fairly cynical and sceptical person, but I'm also a very lazy person. I dont really trust the media to give me the full story, but unless I was interested in the topic, it's unlikely I would bother to search out alternative viewpoints.

[Beardy McFuckface]

I usually dismiss a lot of stuff the news brings out, unless it's about technology or other things that interest me. I have a rule that I instantly dismiss all conspiracy theories, because they're in no way factual and in fact just fancy speculation, cherry picking and linking completely unrelated parts together. Any "proof" of such conspiracy theories I've seen has been either completely made up, mistaken something else to be the "proof" or twisted beyond recognition. One example of this is Niribu, the so-called "planet" that apparently will crash into us at the end of this year. Any "evidence" of this has been obviously lens flare, or reflections of the moon. I know this because I experienced the same results during my photography. When showing them the proof and that it can be also easily replicated even with artificial light sources, I was accused of being a "sheep". Sigh. Anyways, let's get back on topic...

Things like politics, currents issues etc. are warped so much that no one knows what is really true or not. Take headlines in various newspapers for example. All could have the same headline, but one newspaper will exaggerate the statistics, another appeals to the lowest common denominator by using informal and crude text (The Sun, Daily Mail) and so on. There's also bias, use of semiotics etc. determined by the political views by that newspaper, an example being the notable "terrorist/freedom fighter". This would mean that the same story on each newspaper will be completely different to each other, making people form different opinions on the same subject and in general have a lot of people misguided if they don't apply basic critical thinking.

This also applies to all forms of media though, not just the press. For example, Social Media (a form of "New Media") is infamous for this, an example being Facebook's "like this if you want to save this child" nonsense, or more recently the blindly stupid notion that putting up some privacy notice will stop Facebook from snooping on you.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

I would say I'm reasonable at being media savvy, and becoming better at it in time. In fact knowing a bit of psychology, physics and sociology can help better understand media to a point where you'll notice subtle propaganda/misinformation easily.

One thing though, if you let the media topic become your obsession there's a severe risk (even if you're cynical) that such obsession can lead to believing in all sorts of crazy bullshit. This mainly applies to alternative media and conspiracy theories; but mainstream media can warp perceptions too and be as equally devastating. I had first hand experience of such obsession with alien conspiracy theories and looking back I'm embarrassed at how suckered I was.

[Beardy McFuckface]

That's what I'm trying to point out. Blindly believing in either is dangerous, as both sides use the same methods.

I have to point out that all media is "mainstream", since we all mediate. What is mainstream or not is the content of that mediation.

[TheoK]

Too bad so many people ignore chemistry and physics. I am a member of a Swedish community where some idiot claims that the 9/11 attacks were made with thermate, which he calls an "explosive". Thermate is not an explosive. It's a mixture similar to thermite but easier ignited, which I told him. In fact even in Sweden anyone can buy the chemicals needed to make it. It told the schuck this and linked to the Wikipedia article about it. What did he respond? "I was nano thermate". Doesn't matter. Though it was so obvious that he had no idea of basic chemistry and physics 

[Al Swearegen]

I usually dismiss a lot of stuff the news brings out, unless it's about technology or other things that interest me. I have a rule that I instantly dismiss all conspiracy theories, because they're in no way factual and in fact just fancy speculation, cherry picking and linking completely unrelated parts together. Any "proof" of such conspiracy theories I've seen has been either completely made up, mistaken something else to be the "proof" or twisted beyond recognition. One example of this is Niribu, the so-called "planet" that apparently will crash into us at the end of this year. Any "evidence" of this has been obviously lens flare, or reflections of the moon. I know this because I experienced the same results during my photography. When showing them the proof and that it can be also easily replicated even with artificial light sources, I was accused of being a "sheep". Sigh. Anyways, let's get back on topic...

Things like politics, currents issues etc. are warped so much that no one knows what is really true or not. Take headlines in various newspapers for example. All could have the same headline, but one newspaper will exaggerate the statistics, another appeals to the lowest common denominator by using informal and crude text (The Sun, Daily Mail) and so on. There's also bias, use of semiotics etc. determined by the political views by that newspaper, an example being the notable "terrorist/freedom fighter". This would mean that the same story on each newspaper will be completely different to each other, making people form different opinions on the same subject and in general have a lot of people misguided if they don't apply basic critical thinking.

This also applies to all forms of media though, not just the press. For example, Social Media (a form of "New Media") is infamous for this, an example being Facebook's "like this if you want to save this child" nonsense, or more recently the blindly stupid notion that putting up some privacy notice will stop Facebook from snooping on you.

I tend not to invest too much into media in a big way. In general if something seems to meet my needs in terms of sounds honest, seems to make sense, interests me, stands up well compared against alternate viewpoints and either fits with my values and/or understanding of the world I accept it completely or tentatively.

I rarely read magazines and never watch tv.

I try to be reasonable about things.

One thing that probably does bear mentioning is that regardless of how much you accept something in media, it is not to say that you are invested in it. For example, I may have heard commentaries from Romney and Obama on Youtube. I may say "Ombama seems alright and make sense" (I haven't in reality) and conversely "That Mitt Romney seems to talk complete bullshit". Now it may come to pass that Mitt was a very truthful and honest guy and Obama was full of shit. The thing is it doesn't affect anything regardless. I have no investment in the outcome. So in this aspect what would it matter?

[Beardy McFuckface]

Too bad so many people ignore chemistry and physics. I am a member of a Swedish community where some idiot claims that the 9/11 attacks were made with thermate, which he calls an "explosive". Thermate is not an explosive. It's a mixture similar to thermite but easier ignited, which I told him. In fact even in Sweden anyone can buy the chemicals needed to make it. It told the schuck this and linked to the Wikipedia article about it. What did he respond? "I was nano thermate". Doesn't matter. Though it was so obvious that he had no idea of basic chemistry and physics 

A lot of conspiracy theorists blindly believe in the bullshit without the proper knowledge in hand. His response is typical.

David Ike once said that the universe is made of sound. The universe is almost a complete vacuum, so how can everything be made of sound if sound can't be made in the vacuum of space? Also, sound travels much slower than light, revealing even more so that it's complete bullshit.

I usually dismiss a lot of stuff the news brings out, unless it's about technology or other things that interest me. I have a rule that I instantly dismiss all conspiracy theories, because they're in no way factual and in fact just fancy speculation, cherry picking and linking completely unrelated parts together. Any "proof" of such conspiracy theories I've seen has been either completely made up, mistaken something else to be the "proof" or twisted beyond recognition. One example of this is Niribu, the so-called "planet" that apparently will crash into us at the end of this year. Any "evidence" of this has been obviously lens flare, or reflections of the moon. I know this because I experienced the same results during my photography. When showing them the proof and that it can be also easily replicated even with artificial light sources, I was accused of being a "sheep". Sigh. Anyways, let's get back on topic...

Things like politics, currents issues etc. are warped so much that no one knows what is really true or not. Take headlines in various newspapers for example. All could have the same headline, but one newspaper will exaggerate the statistics, another appeals to the lowest common denominator by using informal and crude text (The Sun, Daily Mail) and so on. There's also bias, use of semiotics etc. determined by the political views by that newspaper, an example being the notable "terrorist/freedom fighter". This would mean that the same story on each newspaper will be completely different to each other, making people form different opinions on the same subject and in general have a lot of people misguided if they don't apply basic critical thinking.

This also applies to all forms of media though, not just the press. For example, Social Media (a form of "New Media") is infamous for this, an example being Facebook's "like this if you want to save this child" nonsense, or more recently the blindly stupid notion that putting up some privacy notice will stop Facebook from snooping on you.

I tend not to invest too much into media in a big way. In general if something seems to meet my needs in terms of sounds honest, seems to make sense, interests me, stands up well compared against alternate viewpoints and either fits with my values and/or understanding of the world I accept it completely or tentatively.

I rarely read magazines and never watch tv.

I try to be reasonable about things.

One thing that probably does bear mentioning is that regardless of how much you accept something in media, it is not to say that you are invested in it. For example, I may have heard commentaries from Romney and Obama on Youtube. I may say "Ombama seems alright and make sense" (I haven't in reality) and conversely "That Mitt Romney seems to talk complete bullshit". Now it may come to pass that Mitt was a very truthful and honest guy and Obama was full of shit. The thing is it doesn't affect anything regardless. I have no investment in the outcome. So in this aspect what would it matter?

If it doesn't matter to you, then you're one of the rare few who does not be very fazed by people say etc. A lot of what is said by politicians etc. is pretty much "all talk, no action", anyway.

However it matters greatly when it comes to the majority of people, as they're growing up and not exercising even the basics of critical thinking. No one is stopping them from doing it either. You would think that the advent of the internet, social media etc. would have made them more wiser, but it sadly has not. A major example is that people think they have privacy online, when in reality you don't. Any guise of privacy can be revealed by hacking or other methods.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

Too bad so many people ignore chemistry and physics. I am a member of a Swedish community where some idiot claims that the 9/11 attacks were made with thermate, which he calls an "explosive". Thermate is not an explosive. It's a mixture similar to thermite but easier ignited, which I told him. In fact even in Sweden anyone can buy the chemicals needed to make it. It told the schuck this and linked to the Wikipedia article about it. What did he respond? "I was nano thermate". Doesn't matter. Though it was so obvious that he had no idea of basic chemistry and physics 

A lot of conspiracy theorists blindly believe in the bullshit without the proper knowledge in hand. His response is typical.

David Ike once said that the universe is made of sound. The universe is almost a complete vacuum, so how can everything be made of sound if sound can't be made in the vacuum of space? Also, sound travels much slower than light, revealing even more so that it's complete bullshit.

Conspiracy theorists are the champions of obfuscation, deflection and back-peddling.

"Oh I didn't mean that, I meant this by saying that"
"But that's because you're a sheep who fails to see this information for what it really is"
"When actually I sort of meant that, I was trying to make a example"

The antics are comparable to religious ideologies, in fact conspiracy theories always invoke a sense of absolute 'knowing' and superiority over the supposed 'ignorance' without collaborating facts to challenge them. It's just true because it supposedly makes sense and is self-evident. They brand the skeptics as 'sheep' because they get frustrated that others don't believe this 'truth' without question.

If it were challenged and proven wrong beyond any doubt, it can be a distraught feeling you wasted so much time believing it. It shatters the ego. So unfortunately people will cling onto it so desperately, they'll literally drive themselves insane before ever accepting defeat.

TL;DR: Conspiracy theories can be like religions. People like feeling special and feeding their ego.