I also hope to empower my students to create a world that is a better version of the one they currently live in - not because I am a huge cynic about this world, but because humans have always worked toward improvement and progress, but sadly, sometimes we take a step or two backward before we can go forward again, and that sums up how I felt about 2016, which brings me to my second reason for not blogging. I was disillusioned, disappointed, and just a bit hopeless about the discourse I witnessed throughout the election cycle. Separate of politics, I am disturbed by our apparent inability to agree about what qualifies as "fact" anymore, and that inability makes my job feel immensely difficult and even potentially pointless in the eyes of the public. If I am supposed to teach my kids to think critically, to find varied points of view, to evaluate the credibility of the arguments they find, and to use the information they assemble to support their own views, how do I confront that challenge when any source they find will be shot down by someone? No matter what sources I point them toward, will someone accuse me of pushing an agenda or promoting bias? If I question faulty sources that they choose, will students feel that I disrespect their views? If our traditional sources of information are suddenly seen as role-players in politics, where do we turn to stay informed?
With the new year, I've realized I can't dodge these questions, and answering them (or attempting to answer them with my students) doesn't make my job pointless; it makes it more vital than ever. Here are a few sources I've found to help me and my students parse the wide array of rhetoric we will encounter. Steve Inskeep of NPR offers this "Finder's Guide to Facts," which lists questions to ask when evaluating the credibility of a source. This article, which I've seen friends on both sides of the political spectrum share, explains the problems with corporate media and offers independent news sources. (Disclaimer: I haven't researched all of the sources mentioned, but some of them, such as Christian Science Monitor, Reuters, and The Nation were specifically mentioned at an AP conference, so I think the list is on the right track.) Finally, though this list exhausts me, it is a well-researched record of frequently-posted unreliable sites to avoid. We may need to look at some of these as a class to start recognizing the tell-tale signs of sites with an agenda.
I love working with kids. They want to make a better world. They want to find the truth. They want to discuss issues with civility and purpose. I am going to keep asking questions and looking for truth, and hopefully, I will help my students do the same.
Glad you guys are discussing this down there in the English department. Really important stuff.
ReplyDeleteSome really quick thoughts: even though the internet has been around for what feels like a really long time now, I think the journalism world (and the world at-large) is still trying to figure out how to maximize the internet's potential and minimize its harm. With every 12-year-old (or 35-year-old) in his/her mom's basement having the capability to post their every thought and make it look somewhat legitimate, it's been difficult.
I looked at the piece on corporate media and independent media. I thought the points it brought up were valid, and there are certainly legitimate concerns about corporately-owned media organizations. We shouldn't ignore those and should continue to hold them accountable to their responsibility of providing fair, balanced, all-encompassing news. That said...... I think the author's note at the end is really the most important part. She wrote:
"All these sources claim that they do not accept government, political or corporate funding and that their missions are to seek the truth and provide real news versus the entertainment mass media outlets spew to maintain viewer ratings. But this does not eliminate bias. At the end of the day it is human beings, with all their shortcomings, creating the final product.
So it is up to every reader/listener to question their news and its sources. Being aware that the mainstream media is mostly propaganda is a good starting point. The difficult part is finding the truth."
I don't want to speak as any sort of 'expert,' as I don't work in the journalism field, but I think the second part about saying 'the majority of mainstream media is propaganda' is a huge overstatement and borders on fear-mongering. But I have friends at The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The LA Times, The Oklahoman, The Tulsa World, ESPN, etc. All of them are hard-working, truth-seeking, respectable journalists that hold their profession in high regard. To a man (and woman) they would tell you they feel no pressure from their owners to write stories a certain way, omit any information or tweak their stories to benefit the corporation that owns them.
That's not to say it never happens. That's just my experience. And that's not to say that the majority of major news outlets certainly made some errors in covering this past election. Many have admitted they were out of touch with people in this country and have resolved to dig into where they made their errors. My only concern with people fearing the 'mainstream media' and flocking to independent sources is that is where 'fake news' got its start. The people who say you can't trust the mainstream media (i.e. professionally trained journalists who have dedicated their life to this) generally do NOT do any research on the independent sources they turn to instead, and end up flooding your Facebook news feed with stories from ConservativeDaily.com.
Anyway, just a thought. Anything that promotes research, critical thinking, etc. is a good thing (and that's why I'm glad you all are promoting it!). But if a student (or anyone, really) feels that is just too much work for them, I'd feel much more comfortable with them turning to their local newspaper than clicking on a link from their uncle's Facebook page.