<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Goals<\/strong>: To develop students\u2019 knowledge of best practice when it comes to fact-checking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Human-rights related<\/strong>: Protecting access to information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Media<\/strong>: Print, online media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Length<\/strong>: 1 hour<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tools<\/strong>: Computer and projector to present slideshow; handouts for class exercise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Preparation<\/strong>: Prepare slides based on information below; choose news article and print copies for students to use in class exercise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Process<\/strong>: 1. Re-cap from lesson 1 (basics of fact-checking) \u2013 5 mins<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Briefly discuss learnings from previous lesson.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. Introduce techniques for fact-checking best practice \u2013 35 mins<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Data & Society Research Institute\u2018s tips for best practice in reporting<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n (https:\/\/datasociety.net\/output\/oxygen-of-amplification\/):<\/p>\n\n\n\n Internalize the idea that social media does not constitute a \u201cperson on the street\u201d scenario, nor is an embedded tweet or Facebook post akin to a pulled quote. <\/strong>Not only is this information unreliable (the profile might be a bot, the person might be joking in ways inscrutable to the reporter, etc), but by collating average citizens\u2019 tweets, reporters are directing readers to those citizens\u2019 profiles, and opening them up to direct, targeted harassment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Avoid pulling a handful of social media posts and then attributing that perspective, positive or negative, to \u201cthe internet.\u201d <\/strong>Any conceivable perspective could be supported by that approach, and does not a critical mass make\u2014although reporting on it as such could artificially create exactly that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reporters should talk to sources for digital culture stories at length, ideally face- to-face, whenever possible<\/strong>. According to The New York Times\u2019 Farhad Manjoo, this approach yields greater insight into the totality of that person\u2019s perspective, since a person\u2019s online performative self may not accurately reflect that person\u2019s true perspectives and motives, and\/or may obscure details that would help shed light on the person\u2019s digital footprint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Laura Norkin, formerly of Refinery29, encourages reporters to \u201cask yourself why, and why now.\u201d <\/strong>What is the point of having this conversation today? As with all good reporting, but particularly when the topic butts up against networked manipulation campaigns, if there is any doubt about the relevance of the story, or the ethics of covering it, reporters and their editors should ask someone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s not just that journalists play an important role in the amplification of information. What gets reported \u2013 and what doesn\u2019t \u2013 becomes part of broader cultural narratives, and those broader cultural narratives directly impact the lives of countless citizens. For this reason, reporters, editors, and publishers alike should prefigure every professional decision with the recognition that individual journalists are an integral part of the news being reported. <\/strong>There is no escape for anyone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Who should you ask when verifying information?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Data sources <\/strong>\u2013 Depending on the sort of claim you are checking, you may seek information from government papers and official statistics, company records, scientific studies and health research databanks, through to school records, development charity accounts, religious orders\u2019 papers and others besides. As with all sources of information, it is important to know all you can about the organisation that gathered and holds the data before you use it<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 Experts <\/strong>\u2013 Depending on the topic \u2013 if the claim made is on medical matters, or require detailed knowledge of a major company\u2019s accounts, or a fine point of law \u2013 it may be more suitable to check a claim by talking to a number of recognised experts. When doing this, the most important thing is to know and declare any interest the expert may have in the matter that may cause, or be seen to cause, a bias in their analysis<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2022 The crowd <\/strong>\u2013 Again depending on the topic, the best source for information might be the knowledge to be found in the wider community; crowdsourcing as it is known. If an official claims on election morning that all polling stations received their ballot papers on time, or an environmental group claims a factory is polluting a neighbourhood, the best placed people to confirm or undermine what they say may be people in the wider community. You need to know who your sources are and whether the information they supply is reliable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The importance of checking evidence<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n (from Africa Check, https:\/\/africacheck.org\/how-to-fact-check\/tips-and-advice\/) small, the first question you should ask \u2013 once you have got past whether the claim<\/p>\n\n\n\n is plausible and worth investigating \u2013 is \u2018Where\u2019s the evidence?\u2019 refuse to provide it is that their evidence is weak or partial or contradictory claim whether it can be verified. One of the key tests made before the results of any new trial are accepted by the scientific community is to see whether the trial can be repeated by other researchers with the same or similar findings<\/p>\n\n\n\n Goals: To develop students\u2019 knowledge of best practice when it comes to fact-checking. Human-rights related: Protecting access to information. Media: Print, online media. Length: 1 hour Tools: Computer and projector to present slideshow; handouts for class exercise. Preparation: Prepare slides based on information below; choose news article and print copies for students to use in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","methodology-program":[227],"methodology-length":[260],"methodology-difficulty":[244],"methodology-themes":[],"class_list":["post-13153","methodologies","type-methodologies","status-publish","hentry","methodology-program-man-sake-lt","methodology-length-60-min","methodology-difficulty-4-lt"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
\u2022 <\/strong>Where is the evidence? <\/strong>\u2013 Whenever anyone in public life makes a claim, big or<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2022 There is often a good reason for an official to refuse to reveal the evidence behind a claim they make. They may need, as journalists do, to protect their source. But if sources need protection, we still need evidence. And often the reason officials<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2022 If no evidence is forthcoming you know there is, or may be, a problem with the<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2022 <\/strong>Is the evidence verifiable? <\/strong>\u2013 The next step, if evidence is provided, is to see<\/p>\n\n\n\n