Goals: To develop students’ 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 class exercise.

Process: 1. Re-cap from lesson 1 (basics of fact-checking) – 5 mins

Briefly discuss learnings from previous lesson.

2. Introduce techniques for fact-checking best practice – 35 mins

Data & Society Research Institute‘s tips for best practice in reporting

(https://datasociety.net/output/oxygen-of-amplification/):

Internalize the idea that social media does not constitute a “person on the street” scenario, nor is an embedded tweet or Facebook post akin to a pulled quote. 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’ tweets, reporters are directing readers to those citizens’ profiles, and opening them up to direct, targeted harassment.

Avoid pulling a handful of social media posts and then attributing that perspective, positive or negative, to “the internet.” Any conceivable perspective could be supported by that approach, and does not a critical mass make—although reporting on it as such could artificially create exactly that.

Reporters should talk to sources for digital culture stories at length, ideally face- to-face, whenever possible. According to The New York Times’ Farhad Manjoo, this approach yields greater insight into the totality of that person’s perspective, since a person’s online performative self may not accurately reflect that person’s true perspectives and motives, and/or may obscure details that would help shed light on the person’s digital footprint.

Laura Norkin, formerly of Refinery29, encourages reporters to “ask yourself why, and why now.” 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.

It’s not just that journalists play an important role in the amplification of information. What gets reported – and what doesn’t – 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. There is no escape for anyone.

Who should you ask when verifying information?

• Data sources – 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’ 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

• Experts – Depending on the topic – if the claim made is on medical matters, or require detailed knowledge of a major company’s accounts, or a fine point of law – 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

• The crowd – 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.

The importance of checking evidence

(from Africa Check, https://africacheck.org/how-to-fact-check/tips-and-advice/)
• Where is the evidence? – Whenever anyone in public life makes a claim, big or

small, the first question you should ask – once you have got past whether the claim

is plausible and worth investigating – is ‘Where’s the evidence?’
• 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

refuse to provide it is that their evidence is weak or partial or contradictory
• If no evidence is forthcoming you know there is, or may be, a problem with the

claim
• Is the evidence verifiable? – The next step, if evidence is provided, is to see

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

• It should be the same in public debate. When a public figure, in any field, makes a claim they want believed, they should be asked to provide verifiable evidence. If they can’t, can you take what they say on trust?
• Is the evidence sound?
• Ø If the evidence is based on an eye-witness account, could the person know what they claim to know? Were they there? Is it credible to believe they would have access to this sort of information? Is the information first- or second-hand, something they had heard and believed? Is it something that could be known?
• Ø If there is data, when was it gathered? It is a favoured trick of public figures to present information collected many years previously, as if it were from today, and make no mention of the dates. But data ages and, unlike most wines, this is not good. To understand the data, you need to know when it was gathered and what the picture looked like before and after
• Ø Was the sample large enough? Was it comprehensive? An opinion poll that samples the views of a few dozen – or even a few hundred – people is unlikely to be representative of the views of a population of millions. Most polling organisations suggest that a well-chosen sample of around 1,000 people is the minimum required to produce accurate results. But it is surprising how often surveys of a few hundred, or few dozen, people are quoted by public figures and reported in the media as representing wider views. And remember, even large scale surveys – that do not look in all the right places – can give an inaccurate picture
• Ø How was the data collected? Is the sample representative, e.g. of all relevant social groups/genders/ages? How was the study done? Similar surveys done door-to- door can produce different results from those done on the telephone because of how the interviewee responds to someone face-to-face and on the phone. And studies that rely on the respondents filling in forms tend to show more errors, particularly among respondents with low literacy skills, than person-to-person interviews
• Ø How is the data presented? Did the person tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Public figures from all walks of life like to select what they tell you, and what they don’t, cherry-picking the juiciest evidence, favourable to their side in an argument, and leaving the less tasty morsels in the bowl. When a politician says, for example, that he or she put “record sums” into the public health system, and does not mention inflation, the claim may be true, in itself, but misleading if inflation means “real terms” spending is falling. So make sure to look at other factors that make up the wider picture. And always remember to keep numbers in proportion. Spending $50million on a health project may sound like a lot, for a small community. But divide it among a population, and note that the programme is set to run over 10 years and it seems a lot less generous than it seemed at first

The post Fact-checking Best Practice appeared first on Media4Change.

Human-rights related: Freedom of expression, access to information.

Media: Print, online media.

Length: 1 hour

Tools: Multimedia, internet connection, smartphones with internet.

Preparation: Prepare slides based on information below, print handouts, identify 3-4 news article for use in exercise and print copies of them.

Process: 1. Tutor presents introduction and facilitates a class discussion on the topic (10 mins):

2. Tutor introduces the basic techniques for fact-checking and answers questions from students (20 mins):

3. Tutor facilitates Class Exercise

Exercise (20-25 mins)

Provide students with a short online news article from that day. Get them to (10-15 mins):

1. Identify the facts they think need checking
2. Think about how they would check each fact
3. See if any of the facts are verifiable via the internet using their laptops/smartphones. If not, what next step would they take to check them?

Share ideas/findings amongst the group (10 mins).

Who might have an influence on whether a story is false? (source: IJNet)

• ►  Senior colleagues: Did your editor or a senior editorial figure push this story? If so, why? What was their reason? Don’t presume that a story is legitimate just because it has been handed down to you to follow up.
• ►  News releases: Did the information come from a news release? If so, what is it that the publisher wants to promote or hide? Your job is to reflect all sides of the story.
• ►  Wires: Why did the news agency pick up on that particular point? What’s the reason for putting it out? Did they just regurgitate a press release? You need to uncover all relevant angles to the story.
• ►  General public: Did you get this information directly from a contact? Are they reliable? Are you sure that you are not being used? Could you be too close to them? Have you worked with this contact before? Did you deal with them with integrity? Could they be expecting favours? If so, what did you do to lead them to believe that you could be manipulated?
• ►  Yourself: Sometimes you, the journalist, can be the biggest obstacle to the delivery of reliable information. Be honest about your interests, weaknesses, favouritisms – you may think you are beyond reproach, but if you do have a vested interest it will show through to the audience.
• ►  Being manipulated and not realising it is the biggest danger to fact-checking.

Fact-checking: The basics

Poynter’s 5 top tips for fact-checking:

1. Find at least two sources to verify information. Use reliable sources and websites.
2. Ask the writer for source materials if necessary. Check the text against recordings, documents or notes.
3. Trust your gut. If something seems odd to you, check it. Don’t risk letting a mistake slip through.
4. Don’t assume. Don’t assume that what is written is correct. Don’t assume that something you think you know is correct. Don’t assume that writers and reporters did the math correctly (check all numbers and perform all calculations). Don’t assume that “facts” repeated from other media are accurate.
5. Keep an eye out. Once you find a mistake, you’re not done. There may be another one lurking right behind it. Look over the entire piece with your eagle eye so you are sure to spot all the errors.

Introduction: Why fact-checking is important

Journalists have a great power to influence public opinion and in turn, public policy. The public relies on the media to provide them with fair and transparent coverage of local, national and international affairs, and avoiding the spread of misinformation via scrupulous fact-checking is therefore an essential part of every journalist’s role.

“Your job is to deliver facts to your audience so they can make informed choices. If you deliver lies or distorted facts, you are adding to the confusion rather than clarifying issues. That is not journalism. Accuracy in our fact-checking is at the heart of all we do.” (IJNet)

The negative impacts of the spread of misinformation:

► It can impact democracy by not providing the public with the information they need to construct informed opinions and make informed voting decisions

► It can have a negative impact upon the reputation of the outlet for which you are writing, and upon that of the media industry as a whole, when (not if) the spread of misinformation is uncovered

► It can unfairly impact individuals, organisations and companies when they are misrepresented to the public

Example:
During the 2017 UK general election, the Conservative Party press office tweeted: “Jeremy Corbyn’s plan to pay for elderly care: increasing the basic rate of income tax to 25p for millions of working people #GE2017”

Full Fact, the UK’s independent fact-checking charity, checked this claim and found it to be false. In fact, the Labour Party’s 2017 manifesto states that:
“a Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year.”

This is a prime example of how the spread of misinformation can impact public opinion and voting decisions, and therefore democracy as a whole.

But where do I check the facts?

► Google search – the most obvious and straightforward way to check facts, but only using reliable websites

► Ask the writer – ask the writer where they got their information, e.g. ask them to share any recordings/documents/notes/etc., to check against the article

► Press releases/PR contacts – if the article is based upon a local incident, there is likely to be a press release from the local authorities confirming the details. If the article covers goings-on within the political or public sphere, for example regarding a certain politician or public figure, a PR contact might be able to confirm details

► Telephone – when possible and appropriate, try contacting the individuals/ organisations involved, or the local authorities. E.g. If an article details a burglary at a local hotel, try calling the local police in the area, or the hotel itself, for confirmation of details

The post The basics of fact-checking appeared first on Media4Change.

Length About 90 min.
Materials Large sheets of paper, markers, tables, chairs.

The post Five Pages in the Media appeared first on Media4Change.

Objectives Length Materials

To understand how prejudice can influence a conversation with a person. About 90 minutes.
Sheets of paper, pens.

The post Interview appeared first on Media4Change.

Length: About 90 minutes.

Materials: Two chairs, a vessel, pieces of paper, pens.

Process: You can do this exercise in order to deepen your knowledge on a certain topic. Also, to strengthen the team’s trust in each other. Nevertheless, it is important to make sure that everyone has a chance to share and have their thoughts

supplemented, instead of criticized. This is an environment for everyone to get involved and learn equally.
Choose topics, such as bullying, critical thinking, stereotypes and so on. Then write down those topics on the pieces of paper and put them into the vessel. Pick two volunteers, who will come and sit on the chairs. Then draw the first piece of paper with a topic and the volunteers start talking. The audience cannot say or comment anything, but can come, pat a speaker on the shoulder and then the speaker leaves the chair to sit among the audience, while the newcomer sits down on the chair and becomes the talker, developing the topic further. Someone from the audience may come, when they want to add something or express their disagreement with the information discussed. If the speakers have nothing much to say on the topic, they must continue their conversation, based on what they know. The audience can keep changing the speakers. A discussion on a single topic may take about 8 minutes.

Summary:

Summary questions after all discussions are done:
1. How were the discussions?
2. Were there any moments, when you wanted to interrupt, but didn’t dare to? 3. Did you notice cases of the speakers discussing the topics in a completely different way than you would, but completely agreed with them?
4. Could you learn some understanding on certain topics from other people?
5. Was it difficult to accept a different position?

We can often notice people talking on the same things, but engaging in conflicts nevertheless. Everyone has their own understanding of each topic, developed by certain experiences in their lives. And those people could see certain things completely differently than you, but it doesn’t mean that they’re wrong. Each person thinks different and you need to learn to listen to them and accept their opinion. Constructive answers may not only help people grow and improve in various areas of life, but also take the good example and continue to use it in life, such as adding to someone’s thoughts, instead of merely criticizing them.

The post Talk Show appeared first on Media4Change.

Length: About 60 min.

Materials: Sheets of paper, writing tools, means of internet access.

Process: Discuss that stereotypes do not come out of nowhere, that they are acquired, rather than innate. Give a task to investigate, where they come from and how. Divide the participants into several groups. Each group is given a different topic. For example, LGBT, Muslims, Roma, Jews, etc. Give 15 minutes to remember the formation of an opinion about a specific group. When the time is up, each group introduce their stories.

Summary:

Summary questions:
1. Was it difficult to find the source of the stereotypes?
2. Did the identification of the origin of the stereotypes change the opinion about that group of people? If yes/no, why?
3. Can education on the origins of these stereotypes help eliminate or reduce them? Support your opinion.

As we can see from this exercise, stereotypes don’t come out of nowhere. People are not born with them. All stereotypes are usually formed by listening to other people or, in very many cases – the media. We encounter them every day and can hardly avoid them. Thus, we should be very careful and constructive in assessing the information we receive from there, using an internal filter to avoid negative information from the environment.

The post The Origin of Stereotypes appeared first on Media4Change.

Length: About 15 minutes.

Materials: A large room.

Process: All participants stand in a group. One of them leaves the group and shares something that they like (It could be movies, books, theatre, some food or deeper things. It also could be certain fears, such as being afraid of spiders). Then everyone, who agrees, comes to that person. Then another person walks a few steps away and makes a statement. Everyone, who agrees, comes to that person. Some people may be left standing until they hear some statement that applies to them. Thus the group keeps walking until each of the participants has made 2-3 statements. The number of statements may change depending on the group size.

Summary

Summary questions:
1. How did you feel with many people standing around you?
2. How did you feel with only a few people standing around you?
3. How did you feel standing alone (if applicable)?
4. Have you found many similarities with others?
Life will be full of people, who are similar to you, sharing the same likes, hobbies, fears or values. People are related and united by many things. Finding the points of connection, i.e. being able to share your likes, thoughts and ideas, is the key. However different the other person may be, you can find at least something in common.

The post I’m Not Alone appeared first on Media4Change.

To understand the importance of secrets and find out what happens, when they become known to other people.

Length:

About 90 minutes.

Materials:

A4 sheets of paper. If possible, also envelopes.

Process:

Introduction: everyone has secrets. They often keep them to themselves and don’t share them with many people. And if they do, they hope that the secret would remain between them. Unfortunately, amounts of material, which compromises or diminishes some person, are increasingly more available on various types of media. Even secrets of other people made public. This violates personal privacy and dignity.

Each participant gets a sheet of paper. They are given a task of writing down a secret. Immediately inform that this is strictly for themselves and no one else. Give some time to complete the task. Then the sheet of paper is folded (and enveloped, if possible). Then everyone sits on their secret. Ask how they feel, when the secret is safe. Then ask to stand up and leave the envelopes, where they are. Then ask again how they feel, when their secret is a bit further away. Then ask to switch seats, leaving the sheets, where they are. Then ask again, how they feel about their secret on that sheet of paper. Then ask everyone to sit down on the envelopes closest to them. Ask how they feel again. Then ask to take the other person’s sheet of paper from under one’s bottom. Ask how they feel again. Then ask to return to their sheet of paper. You can suggest sharing their secrets with others. But this is not mandatory. Leave space for individual decisions.

Summary:

Summary questions:
1. How did you feel writing down your secret on a piece of paper?
2. Was it difficult to trust another person, holding your sheet of paper? 3. Did you feel tempted to read someone else’s secret?
4. How do you feel sharing your secret?
5. How do you feel upon hearing other secrets?

We often hear other people’s secrets, but cannot always appreciate them. We are not always aware of how difficult the other person finds it to share and how many barriers they have to cross to share it. If someone has entrusted you with their secret, save it and appreciate the trust shown to you. Having secrets does not always bring positive outcome. Sometimes sharing is much easier than carrying it with you, because it may weigh you down. Here the media is often detrimental, because we could notice other people’s intimate secrets being made public in order to humiliate them. That is particularly common on Facebook with photos or videos of other people, doing something that they wouldn’t want others to see.

It’s important for the group to understand that secrets, even the smallest, are a person’s private business. If they share them with others, they hope that these secrets will stay with them alone. Perhaps the group can share their own life experience on certain secrets going public and the negative outcome this had on certain people. Or you could look for such examples on the media.

The post Letter appeared first on Media4Change.

To understand what is bias and how it works;
To understand the connection between bias and manipulation opportunities;

Materials:

Pre-printed bias cards (20 per group), flip chart page, markers.

Process:

First of all, the peer educator must explain the basics of the cognitive psychology theory, which explains the relation between human thoughts, emotions and behaviour, also what is the influence of the above-mentioned actions on their decisions.

Divide the participants into smaller groups (up to 5 people in one group). Hand out the pre-printed cards and ask the participants to get to know their content. All of the 20 statements have a certain influence on the decision-making, understanding and cognition. If the number of the participants is smaller, you can discuss it as a single group. Ask the participants to discuss the following:

• In what situations/topics do these statements work? Make a list of topics and assign statements.
• What would help get rid of bias and make independent decisions?
• Is bias always negative? In what situations could it be positive and help?
• How can bias help manipulate our decisions, available information, attitudes?
• Think of situations, where bias could be used in a negative/positive way?

Bias effects:

1. Anchoring bias. People rely too much on the first information they receive and reject the information, received later. E.g. people at auctions tend to perceive the first person making a bid as the worthiest of winning the auction.
2. Availability heuristic. People tend to overvalue the importance of the information, presented to them. E.g. someone could keep arguing that smoking is not bad for you, because he/she knew somebody, who smoked and lived for a 100 years.
3. Bandwagon effect. A probability of forming an opinion based on the amount of people supporting it. The more people join a certain position, the easier it is to convince others. This is a very powerful form of group thinking, which is often the result of low productivity of larger gatherings.
4. Blind-spot effect. The inability or refusal to get to know one’s attitudes. People are inclined to notice and recognize others’ bias before their own.
5. Choice-supportive bias. Upon making a choice, you hope to feel comfortable and positive about your position. Even if the choice also has negative aspects. E.g. someone has a good opinion about their dog, even if the dog bites everyone.
6. Clustering illusion. A tendency to notice various models in different activities/events/cases and group them according to one’s experience. Thus we pick individual elements. E.g. if you’re playing a roulette and several of the previous results were red, you may be inclined to think that the next one will be red too.
7. Confirmation bias. We are inclined to listen to information, which supports our own opinion. That is why people find it very difficult to discuss with someone, who has an opposite opinion.
8. Conservatism bias. When people tend to prioritise the proof, received earlier than new. E.g. it took long for people to accept the idea that the Earth is, in fact, round, because they found it difficult to reject the previous prevailing opinion that it was flat.
9. Information bias. A tendency to search for information, when it has no influence. More information does not always mean better or higher quality. Sometimes less information helps people make more accurate conclusions or guesses.

10. Ostrich effect. The decision to ignore negative or dangerous information by ‘hiding one’s head in the sand’ like an ostrich.

11. Outcome bias. Underestimating the decision based on the results, without considering the decision-making procedure. 12. Overconfidence. Some people have too much confidence in

their abilities and this makes them take increasing risks every

day.
13. Placebo effect. Believing that simple faith, object, action or

person – any factor – will have the expected effect. E.g. in medicine a doctor prescribes simple vitamins instead of antibiotics and they make the patient feel better, because the patient expected that.

14. Pro-innovation bias. When advocates of innovation tend to overestimate the effect and reject the limitations of innovation.

15. Recency. A tendency to weigh the latest information more carefully than the previous one.

16. Salience. A tendency to focus on functions/characteristics that are the easiest to understand.

17. Selective perception. Allowing our expectations to influence our attitude to the world.

18. Stereotyping. Hoping that a group, a person or a certain factor will meet the picture that you have created earlier. This allows us to quickly identify unfamiliar things as friendly or hostile. Unfortunately, people tend to abuse this.

19. Survivorship bias. A mistake, caused by focusing only on examples of survival situations. This creates a mistaken picture of the situation. E.g. we may think that being a businessman is very easy, but we only think so, because we never hear stories of negative experiences or failure.

20. Zero-risk bias. Sociologists have found that people like to be reassured. This happens even, when we’re completely unproductive. Complete elimination of risk refers to safety and no damage.

Summary:

All people use their bias, created or acquired in advance. It is important to recognize, when the bias crosses certain boundaries, becoming an obstacle instead of helping. Manipulation of information or the goal of spreading propaganda often uses namely the experience already acquired by the consumers. That is why it is very important to recognise things that happen instead of immediately rejecting them. Try to answer the following questions together with the participants:

How should we fight each of the above-mentioned biases in order to avoid their negative outcome? (Write this part down on a large flip chart page and use it as recommendations)

The post Bias and Me appeared first on Media4Change.

To discuss the necessity to check information;
To understand that support depends on sharing and transparency; To get a personal experience of a situation, when participation and understanding can be limited by certain factors?

Materials:

Fork, knife, flip chart paper, paper, markers

Process:

1. The participants sit in a circle. The moderator says that the rules of the game will be told only once, which is why it’s important to

listen carefully. It is also very important to emphasize that the participants should focus on their feelings during the game.

The participants must send the fork and the knife either crossed or not (by saying and showing) to the participant, sitting nearby. As soon as the fork and the knife are given to another person by loudly saying if they are crossed, or not, then the facilitator says if the participant was right. It is important not to explain anything more (no matter if there are more questions or not). The facilitator begins the sending. The secret of the game is not the sending of the knife and the fork, but the position of the sender’s legs – if he/she is sitting with their legs crossed or not. Thus, the knife and the fork can be sent in any way. It is important to make sure that what the senders say matches their sitting position.

2. About 10 minutes later, stop the game. The majority of the players usually get the secret and experience various emotions.

3. Ask those, who did not understand the essence of the game, how they feel. Write down your answers on the flip chart page using one colour. Then ask those, who got the game, the same question. Write down their emotions on the same page using another colour. Also, ask one of those, who got the game, to explain it to the rest of the participants.

4. Ask the participants, what connections and differences they see between the experience and emotions of both of the groups, and the information, provided by the media (especially keeping in mind the questionable information).

5. Divide the participants into two or more groups (it’s best if the number of the groups is even). Each group should discuss the questions given to them.

Group A:

1. When I don’t understand something, I feel…
2. My reaction to those, who understand that I don’t is…
3. What usually makes it difficult to check the information is…
4. What would help me understand is…

Group B:

1. When I understand something, I feel…
2. My reaction to those, who don’t understand is…
3. What helps me check and understand the information is…
4. I could help others understand…

If there are more than two groups, then several groups could work on the same questions. Ask all participants to write down their ideas on a large sheet of paper and later introduce the results to the entire class.

Summary:

• Why haven’t you shared the essence of the game as soon as you got it (for those, who understood the secret of the game)?
• Why is it important to check information, instead of blindly believing it?
• What is the advantage of the people, who check information, versus those, who simply accept it? It is important to make sure that the participants understand the importance of checking, instead of accepting the received information. A part of the reflection could be focused on the importance of sharing information, facts and agreements, which help people to navigate through the flows of information and select the information that is true.

The post Fork and Knife appeared first on Media4Change.