But it is possible to correct misinformation yet

This preview shows page 16 - 18 out of 20 pages.

- BUT: it is possible to correct misinformation - YET: Study after study (including Porter and Wood) recently finds that even after correcting for that misinformation, people don’t change their beliefs and opinions - In other words: Misperceptions may be a consequence, not a cause, of attitudes - Once again: Predispositions matter (e.g., partisanship, racial resentment/hostility, etc.) - Summary Fact checks more effective than individual fact checks READINGS - Lerner - Does the public know the difference between news and opinion pages? - Historically, newspapers had a slant. That changed in the mid-19th century. - In most other countries today, audiences expect media organizations to have a point of view. - In America, though, audiences are accustomed to the norm of “objectivity,” which makes it confusing when they see news stories next to editorials next to op-eds/opinion pieces next to “news analysis” stories. - This can complicate or threaten media credibility with audiences, which is necessary from a business/commercial perspective. - Washington Post - Interviews revealed universal desire to have clearer social media policy - Editors are dependent on twitter and it creates pressure on reporters - Lowery - the mainstream has allowed what it considers objective truth to be decided almost exclusively by white reporters and their mostly white bosses. And those selective truths have been calibrated to avoid offending the sensibilities of white readers. - The views and inclinations of whiteness are accepted as the objective neutral. When black and brown reporters and editors challenge those conventions, it’s not
uncommon for them to be pushed out, reprimanded, or robbed of new opportunities. - neutral “objective journalism” is constructed atop a pyramid of subjective decision-making - Instead of focusing on “objectivity,” focus on fairness and truth: devote ourselves to accuracy, that we will diligently seek out the perspectives of those with whom we personally may be inclined to disagree and that we will be just as sure to ask hard questions of those with whom we’re inclined to agree. - Neutral objectivity insists we use clunky euphemisms like “officer-involved shooting.” Moral clarity, and faithful adherence to grammar and syntax, would demand we use words that most precisely mean the thing we’re trying to communicate: “the police shot someone. - Rosensteil response to Lowery: - The idea of objectivity was that journalists needed to employ objective, observable, repeatable methods of verification in their reporting--precisely because they could never be personally objective. Their methods of reporting had to be objective because they never could be - Objectivity is not neutrality or disinterestedness. ( Or at least it’s not supposed to be. ) Those notions invite unconscious bias - Journalism was always aimed at the truth--not mere accuracy - Far from denying personal background, this kind of inquiry recognizes that people’s background always enriches their journalism - But I fear a new misunderstanding is taking root in newsrooms today: the idea

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture