It was once believed that literacy and education were the keys to societal progress. When the World Wide Web first appeared in the nineties, it was billed as the great equaliser, tearing down financial barriers to knowledge and giving the average person the means to inform themselves about virtually any subject. But not all information is created equal. As the internet gained in popularity, it quickly became clear that having more and easier access to information does not necessarily mean people will be better informed. The idea was that knowledge is power, and that by distributing knowledge to the people at a rate and scale never seen before, you gave the people power, and so strengthened democracy. That was the great dream and promise of the so-called Information Age. However, somewhere along the way, we forgot two things. First, the truism that with great power comes great responsibility. And second, the Platonic maxim that information does not equal knowledge unless it is true. In the modern era of social-media newsfeeds, viral memes and content-editing software, literacy on its own is not enough. We need to be able to evaluate the information we receive, to discriminate between what is reliable and what is not, to assess not just what is being said, but how, and why. In short, we need media literacy. I’m not here to teach you how to be media literate. That’s something that comes with practice and experience. What I will do, though, is explain why media literacy is becoming increasingly important, as well as point to some examples of it in action or inaction. More and more, we are keeping up to date with the world through digital media, in particular sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. This seems harmless enough until you learn the business model that underpins these companies. I’ll use Facebook as an example, but they all operate on the same principles. Facebook makes money from third parties who pay to advertise on their platform. Obviously, these advertisers want the most amount of airtime possible. Therefore, the longer Facebook can get you to stay on Facebook, the happier the advertisers are, and the more valuable Facebook’s advertising slots become. So how does Facebook get you to linger in your newsfeed for longer that you otherwise would? Well, it shows you engaging, or trending, content – stuff it knows you will probably react strongly to, because other people have. The problem is that we are human, and so what is most engaging tends to be what is most shocking, outrageous, subversive or extreme. Facebook’s algorithms are not programmed to promote reliable information over misinformation or to fact check. They are morally blind: all they know is to promote content that will attract the most attention, likes, comments and shares. Now, take this business model and put it in the hands of bad actors who want to manipulate it for their own financial or ideological gain, and the results can have serious real-world consequences. Last summer, when the Black Lives Matter protests were happening in Ireland, videos started surfacing online of black people committing all sorts of crimes: vandalising public and private property, assaulting white people, making death threats, and so on. A few of these videos depicted what their titles claimed they did, but many did not not. Most featured footage from different protests, in different countries, or were edited to remove context and cast black people in the worst possible light. The videos duly went viral, giving the impression that these events were taking place in Ireland, now, on a daily basis. The covertly and even overtly racist backlash was not long in arriving. The business models, algorithms and bad actors that have an incentive to spread disinformation are unlikely to be going anywhere any time soon. We need a weapon to defend ourselves, or at least a way to separate the viral from the true. This is where media literacy comes in, and as I near the end of this exposé, I want to leave you with an example of it in action. A few days ago, someone forwarded this meme to me on Facebook: Now, I’m not here to argue about whether or not the PCR test is an effective way of detecting Covid-19. I’m not a trained professional, and so I prefer to leave that debate to trained professionals. What I am here to do, though, is evaluate this meme as a source of information. The first thing we need to realise is that it is in fact a meme. It’s not a scientific paper, it’s not a professional news article, it’s not an unedited video in which Dr Mullis can be heard making these comments. It’s simply a quote attributed to him and placed next to a picture of his face, with no mention of where the quote has been taken from and no context. Speaking of the quote, do you notice anything strange about it? It has two ellipses. Immediately I’m wondering what these ellipses are hiding. What are they glossing over? It takes me all of about two minutes of online research to find out. Dr Mullis did say these words, or ones similar, during a panel discussion in 1993. However, in the video clip I am able to locate, it is clear he is speaking specifically about people with HIV and other retroviruses, and how PCR test results can be misinterpreted in cases involving these viruses. He says: If they could find this virus [HIV] in you at all, with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody. See, somebody that has HIV, generally, is going to have almost anything that you can test for. If you have it, there’s a good chance you’ve also got a lot of other ones [retroviruses]. So to test for that one [HIV] and say that it has any special meaning is what I think is the problem, not that PCR’s been misused. (If you want to check out the video clip for yourself, you can do so here.) In other words, Dr Mullis is not saying that anyone can test positive for any virus when the PCR test is used, or that a common cold molecule can trigger a false positive Covid test. Rather, he is saying that, because the PCR test works by “amplifying” molecules until they become “measurable”, the PCR test, when done well, can amplify just about any molecule until it is large enough to be detected. You see how suspicions led us to question the reliability of our source of information and how, with minimal research, we were able to uncover its machinations. Again, I’m not making any claims about the effectiveness of the PCR test myself. I’m merely demonstrating how the meme I was sent on Facebook has eliminated context and twisted words in an effort to persuade people that the PCR test is ineffective. It goes without saying that this meme has every chance of going viral, given its shocking and subversive nature. Anyway, these are the kinds of suspicions and skills involved in media literacy. You cannot simply acquire them overnight. You have to earn them slowly, through attentiveness and a constant effort. To begin with, fact-checker websites like fullfact.org and Duke University Reporter’s Lab will be your best friend, though you will need to watch out for fake fact-checker websites such as the Swedish Mediekollen.se. There is also the useful Irish website bemediasmart.ie. Additionally, I recommend the Crash Course Media Literacy series on Youtube, as well as the Your Undivided Attention podcast, which you can find online or on any streaming service. But that, my friends, is all I can give you. The rest you must do on your own. And yes, I would be very disappointed if you have not already thought about fact-checking this entire article.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |