One of the messages I took away from this week’s activities was to use critical thinking skills at all times and apply those skills to every piece of information we observe or take in. It’s easy to be persuaded by messages and even images within the media. Within my FELIX posting as well as my discussion with classmates, I referred to the sleeper effect theory Karen mentioned. I can see how information in general (and even the knowingly untrue information) gets embedded in our minds and has the ability to have subtle effects on our thoughts and opinions. I can still remember headings I’ve seen on the cover of the National Inquirer magazines while standing in line at the grocery store. I have a pretty good idea that the information I read (one in particular was a rumor about the president) was false, but I still remember it, and if I happen to discuss that heading or accusation with others, that rumor or misinformation is then on its way to being passed on to many more people who didn’t even see the story in the magazine. I can imagine how many more people saw that heading and passed it on. However, somewhere down the line, the illegitimate source was not reported and some may believe that story came from a credible source.
Checking out the credibility of information sources was another thing I took away from this week’s activities. The activity using the Martinlutherking.org website and the whois.com website that can be used to look up publishers of websites was very much helpful in teaching me to use critical thinking skills, questioning, and evaluation methods when deciding whether information I’m getting is accurate or whether the source providing the information is trustworthy. That example taught me that just because a website seems professional or has a URL that seems professional, that doesn’t mean they are giving us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Before this week, I thought all sites with the ending “.org” were from professionally established organizations and foundations. Thus far, I’ve only seen ‘.org’ used with state, federal, and health foundation based websites. I would have never thought a social organization such as that of racial supremacists would be granted that type of URL. Also, the placement of search result would have thrown me off. I was one of those people who did not look past the first page (or first 10 listings) of search results. I thought all of the best and most relevant information appeared at the top of the search results. I now know better. Out of thousands of results, it is possible that some of the best pages are embedded in the numbers. I have learned to not be a lazy researcher through this experience. However, after reading the MLK website I referred to, I started questioning whether there could have been an ounce of truth in their statements. In the same manner that all sources that seem to be credible are not perfect, I also think that just because the source/publisher is found to be of poor taste or character, that doesn’t mean everything they say is untrue or biased. There may be some facts listed in between the lies as well. .
Overall, learning about media biases caused me to take a critical look at information, find out who the publishers are, and to consider their motives before moving forward in taking in information from that source. I am now more likely to scan information before I dive into it or read in depth. During quick assessments of information I’ll be looking for clues related to possible influences, personal feelings or opinions about topics, evidence to support claims, whether references to other credible sources been made… are other sources making similar claims? … and if so, are those sources related to each other?
I also learned to skim information from top to bottom to try to answer the question … Are they selling something? Trying to sell a product does not always take away from the truthfulness of claims, but it is definitely a red flag to conduct further research before listening to what the publisher of that information has to say and before taking it all in as facts. In the example of the National Inquirer and their rumors about celebrities, their main focus is to sell the magazine whether the claims are true or not. Even pharmaceutical companies have paid researchers to make particular claims in order to get medication and supplements approved and sold. Even some of the professionals in the science and health world cannot be trusted due to biases, motives, and personal gains. In the world of information and mass communication the question of “Who can we trust?” is a big one. After realizing the issue of information source credibilitiy, biases, and motives, I will not be a passive learner or receiver of information. I will look for evidence based claims, and I will also closely examine the evidence and how much support there is for the evidence. I will look for multiple levels of checks and balances before I believe or pass on any information I didn’t observe with my own eyes… and if I happen to see it, I will still question if I saw what I think I saw. Especially with photo images… as Photoshop and other editing software can aid in deception. With modern technology and the ability for any and everyone to contribute to published information, it would be unwise to passively believe any type of information. Applied critical thinking skills and thorough examination of information, sources, and credibility is a must. A lot of people in general utilize sites such as Wikipedia, which allows anyone to edit or contribute to the information provided. These types of sources can be good starting points for certain types of research, but they should only be starting points that lead to other sources and verification of the information found. Some sources do offer ill information on purpose for personal gains, but in some cases, the providing sources may not have purposefully provided incorrect information. They may have been misinformed themselves. That’s another point I learned. Just because more than one person/source says it, that doesn’t mean it’s correct. They all could be wrong; and that is where truthful and carefully conducted scientific experimentation (from sources with nothing to gain from reporting one way or the other) comes into play.. and I’m not sure if that scenario exists in the world of research, history, or information in general. What can we believe and trust? Reports? Images? Claims? …. In many cases, No. … Science? Hopefully.
No comments:
Post a Comment