Schools should teach pupils how to spot 'fake news'

[Aggrophobic]

Schools should be doing this already. Where the heck do you live?

[Felya]

They already do in Sweden.

Though i'm not sure why, vast majority of swede kids go to gubmit daycare.

They're not going to rise against what's practically their parents.

Part of the issue, is "gubmit daycare" being defined with "fake news".

[Aggrophobic]

Pretty much. Apparently to have independent thought and use logic are no longer instructed to the youth today. I guess that explains the stupid hivemind mentality of the regressive left.

Also, if they want to cover shit like fake news, BuzzFeed should be their first stop, they are nothing but clickbait bullshitters anyway.

Did you actually think that through befor you posted it? Read it again, please.

[Halyon]

Critical thinking and exposure to multiple sources should have ALWAYS been the focus of secondary education.

Pretty much this.

[bison91]

You must understand that simple school isn't ment to teach people. That's why there are many kinds of schools like "personal" school or school for rich kids. its not equal. We are to enter to politics here if you want the reason or the goal and so on.

[Aitch]

Considering the amount of young people entering the workforce that don't know how to do their own taxes, negotiate a mortgage, plan for retirement, etc. I think there's plenty of more relevant things schools could be teaching our kids.

[Felya]

You must understand that simple school isn't ment to teach people. That's why there are many kinds of schools like "personal" school or school for rich kids. its not equal. We are to enter to politics here if you want the reason or the goal and so on.

Bullshit... you get what you put in. Which is why I support corporal punishment in schools. Think it's harsh all you want, but thinking that schools don't teach, because a lot of kids take it for granted, isn't the fault of the school. Parents don't care, until their kid is told they are a moron. Even then, the parents don't seem to focus on the child's unwillingness or even inability to learn. You end up with a school on training wheels... where it has to be entertaining and encouraging to a fault...

Youth is wasted on the young...

- - - Updated - - -

Considering the amount of young people entering the workforce that don't know how to do their own taxes, negotiate a mortgage, plan for retirement, etc. I think there's plenty of more relevant things schools could be teaching our kids.

This is meaningless... Social Security and versions there of, were specifically put in place due to the hardships involved in saving for retirement. This isn't a new thing at all... Simple stuff:

The best-laid plans of mice and men / Go oft awry

[ipaq]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39272841


MORE INFORMATION IN LINK

So is this a good thing or waste of school time?

With DeVos it will boil down to whatever Fox News says is true =D

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Dangerous to have state funded schools (in many cases) teaching kids how to identify fake news and what to essentially believe. I mean couldn't the state have a class on how to identify fake news and have its criteria based around leading the future generation to believe how the state will tailor its propaganda in the future?

All it boils down to is not putting yourself in a box and we all do it at times because we are human. We have a view or belief that makes us listen to something more than something else even if sometimes that something else is the truth. Anyone that says other wise will be letting you know they are firmly in a steel cage and not just a box. Some people are just able to look at things from different perspectives and then form an independent opinion. Some people never will. Just got to live with it and move on.

[Acidbaron]

Considering the amount of young people entering the workforce that don't know how to do their own taxes, negotiate a mortgage, plan for retirement, etc. I think there's plenty of more relevant things schools could be teaching our kids.

I don't get how this is a counter argument, shouldn't this be more a case of more relevant things being added in schools. I also find in general we went the wrong with with reducing the hours one has to go to school. Holidays are plentiful especially in Europe and school days are often decreased. I remember when i started out friday and thursday where 8 to 9 hours, they are 7 hours now and i know in my parents day and age wednessday wasn't only 4 hours long but a whole 8 also.

What is kinda nonsense when they start working you don't get to go to work half a day mid week either.

- - - Updated - - -

Dangerous to have state funded schools (in many cases) teaching kids how to identify fake news and what to essentially believe. I mean couldn't the state have a class on how to identify fake news and have its criteria based around leading the future generation to believe how the state will tailor its propaganda in the future?

All it boils down to is not putting yourself in a box and we all do it at times because we are human. We have a view or belief that makes us listen to something more than something else even if sometimes that something else is the truth. Anyone that says other wise will be letting you know they are firmly in a steel cage and not just a box. Some people are just able to look at things from different perspectives and then form an independent opinion. Some people never will. Just got to live with it and move on.

That's why in general you have those determining the plan to be an entity that is not connected to the financing of such a program directly. It becomes part of the educational package and so more money if any is made free for it on top of it.

Also generally the political influence in said programs is generally spread out or should be spread out enough that no party can ever dictate their will without there being an opposition present that will make it public if that's the case.

Might be a bigger issue in the US than over here due to our majority always existing out of multiple parties anything between 3 to 8 in power at any given time.

[Mormolyce]

You guys are talking about this like it's new. I remember in a primary school (English?) class when I was a kid in the 80s we had lessons on how to spot false "journalism".

It's always been a valuable critical thinking skill.

[Acidbaron]

You guys are talking about this like it's new. I remember in a primary school (English?) class when I was a kid in the 80s we had lessons on how to spot false "journalism".

It's always been a valuable critical thinking skill.

It is new in the sense that we are getting to the level where technology can make it harder to distinguish it. A written bogus article that was out of character makes you question it more then let's say a soundbyte of someone making such a statement, something we can already do.

[Independent voter]

The biggest "fake news" article in the election was "The Pope Endorses Trump." which was false.

But it sounds plausible, that it could happen so how do you spot it?

It's too good to be true. If you're a Trump supporter the Pope endorsing Trump is really good news but it's such good news that it's suspect. I think people are reluctant to challenge good news.

[Bakis]

Dont read/watch US media or social medias and ops 95% of the problem is gone.

[Felya]

Dont read/watch US media or social medias and ops 95% of the problem is gone.

I think people are misunderstanding what 'believe in your self' is supposed to mean.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5IbvtKnrAeY

[klogaroth]

Aspects of spotting this sort of thing were already touched upon in English and History as early as primary school when I was there. I can remember two lessons from primary relevant here, although not directly.

The first we were tasked with writing adverts for properties. To do this we had to learn how to spin things. Having some basic understanding of how this is done, how small becomes cosy, how situated on a busy road becomes good transport links, encourages you to look at text and question what the author is trying to hide within it. This encourages students to try and see though positive spin, but also sets them up to question whether this is being done with negative spin elsewhere.

The second was writing news articles from a press release. I can't remember the exact language used, but the gist of it was how to make stories more exciting, how to sex up relatively mundane events.

Early history was more about learning events that had happened, but as time went on we did more work on analysing sources to find bias within them, something that directly translates into looking at contemporary news.

I don't know if these are still a part of the syllabus, or if has changed over the years. They were taught in the UK when I was at school though.

[Deleted]

All that's required is a small section during one class about credible sources and all the teachers taking points off future papers for using a source that's not credible.
It worked at my school.

that's easy to say when it comes to academic subjects you usually find in schools,not hard to find a credible source for a science project or most school subjects. But even then nobody actually verifies the source, they just verify the publication, usually doesn't go futher then "if it's from a known paper, encyclopedia, etc, it's good"

But pray tell how do you find a credible source when it comes to say, the latest hospital or mosque bombing in the middle east? You can't, every source on that will be half-truths at best. You won't get more info then "country/faction X bombed Y and Z people died", you won't ever know the true reason/target, why it was done that way, if the casualty number is real or creative bookkeeping, very rarely you will know if i wasn't the intended target, etc. and ofc most bombings aren't reported at all.

The problem with demanding credible sources is that in most situations where it matters, there are no verifiable sources at all, and credibility is purely based on previous/other work of the publication or author, not the source.

[The Emperor]

The biggest "fake news" article in the election was "The Pope Endorses Trump." which was false.

But it sounds plausible, that it could happen so how do you spot it?

It's too good to be true. If you're a Trump supporter the Pope endorsing Trump is really good news but it's such good news that it's suspect. I think people are reluctant to challenge good news.

No..not by a long shot. I must be incredibly bored to post in yet another fake news thread, but here I go -
90% of things heavily reported by MSM about Trump was fake news.
1. His taxes and that there might be something criminal in them.
2. His claim to be rich(closely tied with previous ones)
3. His "racism" (wanting to deport illegal immigrants is no racism for a sane person)
4. The "golden shower" report (Seriously??)
5. Ties to Russia (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/u...rump.html?_r=0)
6. That he is sexist? (What I can't call a woman I don't like stupid bitch? I do so with guys so...equality, right??! And if I see a woman wouldn't object to me say grabbing her vagina just now(and yeah it's called attraction and you can see it in her eyes) that still doesnt make me sexist)

Okay that'd be enough for now. Everything MSM did was fake interpretation of events, which is by far worse than fake news.

[Miztickow]

that's easy to say when it comes to academic subjects you usually find in schools,not hard to find a credible source for a science project or most school subjects. But even then nobody actually verifies the source, they just verify the publication, usually doesn't go futher then "if it's from a known paper, encyclopedia, etc, it's good"

But pray tell how do you find a credible source when it comes to say, the latest hospital or mosque bombing in the middle east? You can't, every source on that will be half-truths at best. You won't get more info then "country/faction X bombed Y and Z people died", you won't ever know the true reason/target, why it was done that way, if the casualty number is real or creative bookkeeping, very rarely you will know if i wasn't the intended target, etc. and ofc most bombings aren't reported at all.

The problem with demanding credible sources is that in most situations where it matters, there are no verifiable sources at all, and credibility is purely based on previous/other work of the publication or author, not the source.

You have a good point and I didn't think about that, but it's a good start and some schools don't even teach about credible sources in the way I described. If you have that kind of knowledge, I think it's easier to take the next step to discerning fake news.

[Deleted]

If anything, they should teach spotting biases, manipulations and similar. Anything fake is easy to check, something manipulated not so much.