4.1 Critical thinking: Investigating 'truth'

Investigating the mechanisms of trusting a source

In this continuation of exploring what we mean by 'truth', we explore news sources in more detail and what goes into trusting a source. Students are invited to analye 'The Trust Project' indicators in more detail and evaluate, more widely, what it means to trust a source. We also explore the notion of 'misinformation' and utilise ways to spot this in the media. This is a good opportunity for students to consider how they consume media and how they question what they see.

Theme, topic and sub-topic

As in the previous page  4.1 Critical thinking: Understanding 'Truth',  are paying particular attention to the Approaches to Learning areas of Thinking Skills and, particularly on this page, Research Skills. This page focuses in particular on analysing, synthesising and evaluating.

Investigating 'truth' further

In 4.1 Critical thinking: Understanding 'Truth', we explored The Trust Project's 8 Trust indicators for verifying whether a source can be trusted.
a) Look at 'The 8 Trust Indicators', discuss these indicators further as a pair/group/class.
b) Then find a variety of news sites that takes part in the Trust Project and explore how they fulfil the 8 Trust Indicators.
c) Consider some news outlets that do not officially take part in the Trust Project. Compare and contrast with your research so far.
Investigating Truth and Trust

Source: The 8 Trust Indicators from https://thetrustproject.org/#indicators

'We asked people what they look for in trusted media – and from their answers, we created ‘Trust Indicators’ for the press to build into news sites.'

Best Practices

  • Who funds the site? What is its mission?
  • What standards and ethics guide the process of gathering news?
  • What happens if a journalist has ties to the topic covered?  

Journalist Expertise

  • Who made this?
  • Are there details about the journalist, including contact information, areas of knowledge and other stories they’ve worked on?  

Type of Work

  • What is this?
  • Do you see story labels with clear definitions to distinguish opinion, analysis and advertiser (or sponsored) content from news reports?

Citations and References

  • What is the source?
  • Does the site tell you where it got its information?
  • For investigative, controversial or in-depth stories, are you given access to the original materials behind the facts and assertions? 

Methods

  • Why was it a priority?
  • For investigations, in-depth or controversial stories, why did they pursue the topic? 
  • How did they go about the process?

Locally Sourced

  • Do they know the community?
  • Was the reporting done on the scene?
  • Is there evidence of deep knowledge about the local situation or community?

Diverse Voices

  • What are the newsroom’s efforts and commitments to bring in diverse perspectives across social and demographic differences?
  • Are some communities or perspectives included only in stereotypical ways, or even completely missing?

Actionable Feedback

  • What does the site do to engage your help in setting coverage priorities, asking good questions and finding the answers, holding powerful people and institutions accountable and ensuring accuracy?
  • Can you provide feedback that might provoke, alter or expand a story?

Misinformation

How to spot online misinformation
The following activity is based upon an article www.theconversation.com/10-ways-to-spot-online-misinformation-132246. It encourages students to look at the news from a different perspective from the activities so far and take an independent stance on their research outcomes.

Discuss the following ten questions to ask of a news article or story to check for possible misinformation. 
Reflect: Why might these questions hint at misinformation?
10 ways to spot misinformation

1. Did a post spark anger, disgust or fear?
2. Did it make you feel good?
3. Is it hard to believe?
4. Did it confirm what you already thought?
5. Am it heard to reed?
6. Was the post a meme?
7. What's the source?
8. Who said it?
9. Is there a hidden agenda?
10. Have you checked the facts?

More structured questions

Ideas and questions to help you explore each question:
1. Did a post spark anger, disgust or fear?
If something causes intense feelings of outrage, is it intentionally trying to bypass your critical thinking skills?
2. Did it make you feel good?
Why might a news source which is well positioned to produce malicious content, also distribute feel good pieces too?
3. Is it hard to believe?
Might 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'?
4. Did it confirm what you already thought?
Are we more motivated to read content that aligns with our existing beliefs than consider other perspectives?
5. Am it heard to reed?
'If it is hard to read and not spell-checked, there is a chance it is not fact-checked either'. Discuss.
6. Was the post a meme?
Are all memes benign?
7. What's the source?
What methodology might you use or have you used to check the source of the article?
8. Who said it?
'Just because somebody definitely said something, it does not mean that sentence is the truth'. Discuss
9.  Is there a hidden agenda?
Why was the source written? Could there be more than one apparent reason?
10. Have you checked the facts?
How easy or difficult would it be to fact check every source you want to share, before you share it? What might be the effect of sharing a source without fact checking first?
 

Teacher notes: The questions are summarised from this article

Full article from www.theconversation.com/10-ways-to-spot-online-misinformation-132246

Propagandists are already working to sow disinformation and social discord in the run-up to the November elections.

Many of their efforts have focused on social media, where people’s limited attention spans push them to share items before even reading them – in part because people react emotionally, not logically, to information they come across. That’s especially true when the topic confirms what a person already believes.

It’s tempting to blame bots and trolls for these problems. But really it’s our own fault for sharing so widely. Research has confirmed that lies spread faster than truth – mainly because lies are not bound to the same rules as truth.

As a psychological scientist who studies propaganda, here is what I tell my friends, students and colleagues about what to watch out for. That way, they can protect themselves – and each other – from lies, half-truths and misleading spins on current events.

1. Did a post spark anger, disgust or fear?

If something you see online causes intense feelings – especially if that emotion is outrage – that should be a red flag not to share it, at least not right away. Chances are it was intended to short-circuit your critical thinking by playing on your emotions. Don’t fall for it.

Instead, take a breath.

The story will still be there after you verify it. If it turns out to be real, and you still want to share it, you may also want to consider the fire you may be contributing to. Do you need to fan the flames?

During these unprecedented times we have to be careful about not contributing to emotional contagions. Ultimately, you are not in charge of alerting the public to breaking news, and you’re not in any race to share things before other people do.

2. Did it make you feel good?

A new tactic being adopted by misinformation warriors is to post feel-good stories that people will want to share. Those pieces may be true or may have as much truth as urban legends. But if lots of people share those posts, it lends legitimacy and credibility to the fake source accounts that originally post the items. Then those accounts are well positioned to share more malicious messages when they judge the time is right.

These same agents use other feel-good ploys as well, including attempts to play on your vanity or inflated self-image. You’ve probably seen posts saying “Only 1% of people are brave enough to share this” or “take this test to see if you are a genius.” Those aren’t benign clickbait – they’re often helping a fraudulent source get shares, build an audience, or in the case of those “personality quizzes” or “intelligence tests” they are trying to get access to your social media profile.

If you encounter a piece like this, if you can’t avoid clicking then just enjoy the good feeling it gives you and move on. Share your own stories rather than those of others.

3. Is it hard to believe?

What you read may make some extraordinary claim – like the pope endorsing a U.S. presidential candidate when he has never endorsed a candidate before. Astronomer and author Carl Sagan advocated for the response you should have to such claims: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” which is a longstanding philosophical premise. Consider whether the claim you’re seeing was supported by any evidence at all – and then check that the quality of that evidence out.

Also, remember that a quirk of human psychology means that people only need to hear something three times before the brain starts to think it’s true – even if it’s false.

4. Did it confirm what you already thought?

If you’re reading something that matches so well with what you had already thought, you might be inclined to say “Yep, that’s true” and share it widely.

Meanwhile, differing perspectives get ignored.

We are strongly motivated to confirm what we already believe and avoid unpleasant feelings associated with challenges to our beliefs – especially strongly held beliefs.

It is important to identify and acknowledge your biases, and take care to be extra critical of articles you agree with. Try seeking to prove them false rather than looking for confirmation they’re true. Be on the lookout because the algorithms are still set up to show you things they think you will like. Don’t be easy prey. Check out other perspectives.

5. Am it heard too reed?

Posts that are riddled with spelling and grammatical errors are prime suspects for inaccuracies. If the person who wrote it couldn’t be bothered to spell-check it, they likely didn’t fact-check it either. In fact, they may be using those errors to get your attention.

Similarly, a post using multiple fonts could unintentionally reveal that it had material added to the original – or be trying to deliberately catch your eye. (Yes, the errors in the heading for this tip were intentional.)

6. Was the post a meme?

Memes are usually one or more images or short videos, often with text overlaid, that quickly convey a single idea.

While we may all enjoy a good laugh with a new “Ermahgerd” meme, memes – particularly those sowing political discord – have actually been identified as one of the emerging mediums for propaganda. In recent years, the practice of using memes to incite divisiveness has rapidly escalated, and extremist groups are using them with increasing effectiveness.

For example, white supremacist groups have commandeered the “Pepe the frog” meme, a cartoonish image that may attract younger audiences.

Their origins as benign, humorous images about grumpy cats, cats who want cheeseburgers or calls to “keep calm and carry on” have led our brains to classify memes as enjoyable or, at worse, harmless. Our guards are down. Plus their short nature further subverts critical thinking. Stay alert.

7. What’s the source?

Was the post from an unreliable media outlet? The Media Bias/Fact Check website is one place to look to find out whether a particular news source has a partisan bias. You can also assess the source yourself. Use research-based criteria to judge the quality and balance of the evidence presented. For instance, if an article expresses an opinion, it may present facts slanted in a way favorable to that opinion, rather than fairly presenting all the evidence and drawing a conclusion.

If you find that you’re looking at a suspect site, but the specific article seems accurate, my strong suggestion is to find another credible source for the same information, and share that link instead. When you share something, social media and search-engine algorithms count your sharing as a vote for the overall site’s credibility. So don’t help misinformation sites take advantage of your reputation as a cautious and careful sharer of reliable information.

8. Who said it?

It may be surprising, but politicians and other public figures don’t always tell the truth. It may be accurate that a particular person said a particular sentence, but that doesn’t mean the sentence is correct. You can double-check the alleged fact, of course, but you can also see how truthful particular people are.

If you’re hearing information from a friend, of course, there’s no website. You’ll have to rely on old-fashioned critical thinking to evaluate what she says. Is she credible? Does she even have sources? If so, how reliable are those sources? If evaluating the message is too much work, maybe just stick with the “like” button and skip the “share.”

9. Is there a hidden agenda?

If you find something that seems compelling and true, check out what nonpartisan sources say on the subject. For a view of media outlets’ perspectives, take a look at the Media Bias Chart.

Finding no mention of the topic in nonpartisan media may suggest the statement or anecdote is just a talking point for one side or the other. At minimum, ask yourself why the source chose to write or share that piece. Was it an effort to report and explain things as they were happening, or an attempt to influence your thinking or actions – or your vote?

10. Have you checked the facts?

There are a lot of reputable fact-checking organizations, like Snopes and FactCheck. There is even a dedicated meme-checking site. It doesn’t take long to click over to one of those sites and take a look.

But it can take a very long time to undo the harm of sharing misinformation, which can reduce people’s ability to trust evidence and their fellow humans.

To protect yourself – and those in your social and professional networks – be vigilant. Don’t share anything unless you’re sure it’s true. Misinformation warriors are trying to divide American society. Don’t help them. Share wisely.

All materials on this website are for the exclusive use of teachers and students at subscribing schools for the period of their subscription. Any unauthorised copying or posting of materials on other websites is an infringement of our copyright and could result in your account being blocked and legal action being taken against you.