Recognizing fake news now a required subject in California schools

Are Republicans already unironically upset that the majority of examples of misinformation are from conservative sources?
- I honestly hope that isn't true, even if left wing sources are harder to find. This is a case where I believe showing 'both sides' is necessary. It's less likely that they will be duped by people on the left, but it is still possible and they need to be aware of that.
  
  I don't like the idea of having to provide an equal amount of examples from 'both sides' when that isn't matching reality, on an issue specifically affecting one political party more than the other (or maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine, I don't know). There are misinformation examples from probably every part of the political spectrum, but they should be exemplified proportionally. Showing the reality, which is that a majority of fake news is generated by conservative sources, is important.
  
  It doesn't answer your question completely, but apparently conservatives are more likley to belive fake news.
  Here is a quote from a study with a lot of links to related works.
  In particular, Grinberg, Joseph, Friedland, Swire-Thompson, and Lazer [[42], p. 374] found that “individuals most likely to engage with fake news sources were conservative leaning.” Indeed, political bias can be a more important predictor of fake news believability than conspiracy mentality [43] despite conspirational predispositions playing a key role in motivated reasoning [44]. Perhaps because of this, an important body of research has examined whether conservatism influences fake news believability [45,46]. Tellingly, Robertson, Mourão, and Thorson [47] found that in the US liberal news consumers were more aware and amenable to fact-checking sites, whereas conservatives saw them as less positive as well as less useful to them, which might be why conservative SM users are more likely to confuse bots with humans, while liberal SM users tend to confuse humans with bots [48]. In particular, those who may arguably belong to the loud, populist and extremist minority wherein “1% of individuals accounted for 80% of fake news source exposures, and 0.1% accounted for nearly 80% of fake news sources shared” ([42], p. 374).
  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378720622001537#bib0045
  
  Daily KOS has entered the chat
- Credibility works in mysterious ways

I don’t like the headline description of this because I really hate the term “fake news”, given who originated it (or at least who popularized it). Reading the article though, CA seems to refer to it as “media literacy”, which seems more apt, that or “critical thinking skills” would be so much better. Just anything other than the term “fake news”.
- Can we call the skills “media literacy” and “critical thinking”… and call fake news what it is: propaganda?
- the bits and pieces required to recognize 'fake news' should already be a part of a required curriculum at a public high school; and i do remember some exercises in one class in particular that compared tabloids to mainstream newspapers. this was in the 1980s, in a fairly progressive part of minnesota.
  
  Silly boy, education is the secondary purpose to school for conservatives. The primary purpose is to create obedient worker drones that do what they're told.
  Critical thinking skills are always antithetical to that.
  
  A lot of shit was fucked up by standardized testing and what not. Not bashing the concept just its current implementation. So this is probably one of the easier ways to do this.
- He didn’t originate that term. He claims that he did and he appropriated it, but it was in existence long before he started using it.
  
  it was in existence long before he started using it.
  Notably, in late 30s Germany by a pretty infamous man.
  
  You’re saying… Donald saying he created something…..
  ….
  ….
  ….
  Is….
  Fake news?
  (I’ll see myself out,)

I mean, we learned all about citing and sources in 8th grade social studies.
- Look at this guy, learning correctly!
  I'll have you know buddy, that I'm a moron and was constantly pushed up grades because I showed up enough and did half-ass work to earn a C and didn't learn anything.
  And most of us are like that! Because the American school system is fucked and rather not fail a kid and now we are in government and believe in Jewish space lasers and will fist fight people we disagree with!
- Yes, just like how we all learned about how important it is to pay off credit card debt and the benefits of long term investing while in school (aka compound interest...in math class). Yet far too many people act like this is something that needs to be added to the curriculum when it's already there.
  
  FWIW, I don't think we all learned that, they literally never taught that in my school. Like, they literally never explicitly mentioned "credit card debt" or "long-term investments" or any investments really in my classes, and I think they should have.
  Of course it's gonna be different from school to school, state to state, and country to country.

News is supposed to tell you what happened not how to feel about it. When you notice an article is using a lot of emotionally charged language, that’s a good sign to check the facts (if there are any)
- You might as well only read news wires like Reuters and AP, then.
  Context matters, emotions matter, selective reporting is rampant, and all journalism writes to their audience. It's usually more accurate to read articles from both sides of an issue and assume that both are wrong, with the truth often somewhere in the middle. On a geopolitical scale, it's also good to assume rational actors (because, far more often than not, they are rational even if you don't have the context that rationalizes an action).
  
  Or read anything and register how the language affects you compared to the substance of the piece.
  
  with the truth often somewhere in the middle
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
- Realistically, any piece of information is reported from a point of view. It is published following an editorial line, tinted by an opinon or an alter motive. This is why you should always consider the source of the information and if you really need to know, crosscheck with multiple independant sources.
  
  It kind of sounds like you’re mistrusting of journalist in general. I don’t think journalists are the problem though, columnists maybe, and publishers definitely. There is the big difference between calling a LGBT bookreading a hellscape and calling a war zone a hellscape. Some news tells you what is; others chew it, digest it, and put sprinkles on the soft serve for you.
- If an article has any emotional charge at all it's automatically not factual
  
  I can’t tell if you’re trying to lampoon my take or really believe that.

I still remember a 2 day assignment we had of finding scientific articles, and classifying them as trustworthy or not. Ie, was it in a peer reviewed journal vs a study at a "clinic" that has bias in the outcome. I remember that to this day and feel like it was a major shift toward my ability to think critically

Internet shizzos will believe this is indoctrination and brainwashing
- They already think that about science class

I know adults who need to take that class.
- The mafia is poisoning kids through oranges with HIV!!1!11!
  
  This article is about fake news. The mafia is real though. 🤔

I can already hear Republicans writing up a ban on this type of class in Florida.
- Shortcut is to just include it under their definition of CRT
  ...a bit like how California classified bees as fish, except that was for conservation and this would just be evil lol
- you sure they wouldn't like to tell young people what to believe and what not?
  
  Critical thinking skills != Telling people what to think
  But then again, republicans won't see a difference, or they'll pretend not to see a difference
  
  You see a problem with making children smarter?
  
  Yeah, they would, but I guarantee the course wouldn't be about spotting fake news like this article is suggesting is what is going to happen.
- Not a Republican but see one risk and one flaw in teaching kids to rely 100% on science: there are strategic reasons to make some decisions which you miss if you rely solely on "science" sources. The biggest risk here is if kids are taught to trust anything called "science" but not how to differentiate between good studies and bad studies - there are journals that will publish anything, and it's easy to manipulate people if they cannot effectively differentiate between good and bad studies, which requires a deeper understanding of statistics and ability to think critically about the variables tested, controlled, and overlooked or ignored.
  
  It's still better than relying on literally anything else. Doesn't have to be perfect.
  
  I think you misunderstood. The article doesn't suggest that children are taught to rely on science, but instead suggests they use critical-thinking skills.
  
  The class is dedicated to developing critical thinking skills.

Is this real? I can't tell.
- Should move to California. I hear they're teaching about how to tell if something is real or not.
  
  Can't believe everything you hear I'm afraid

fully expect the entire right wing media aparatus to be demonizing this as something ridiculous as brainwashing kids against facts and truth, and "LIBERALS REQUIRE FORCED INDOCTRINATION TO MAKE KIDS ACCEPT THEIR LIES".
- Or worse, they have the same sort of class, but opposite- one that teaches kids how to recognize "liberal" prose and teaches them to reject it.
  
  And you know it will devolve into little more than literal nazi indoctrination, with hatred for trans, gays, jews, immigrants,etc.

Thinking critically about internet content
Random confession bear meme on the board
"Ok class. What are some things wrong with this meme? Samantha?"
"It's not actually confessing anything?"
"Correct!"

Something we need, not just in schools but outside as well.

Really bad news for the MAGAs.
- it'll be illegal in 3...2...

Nearly every act of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia and transphobia ever committed has been committed by conservatives.
We should be teaching our children why it is immoral to do business or keep relationships with conservatives.
- ...Progressive here. Blatantly untrue. First of all, all those words are a form of bigotry, for clarification. Second of all, everyone is capable of— and has participated in— bigotry at some point. It's just baked into culture and you pick it up through osmosis— whether you wanted to or not. Some of it you may never participate in, but others? It takes effort to fight the stuff that slips through the cracks.

This, frankly, is an incredible move. Hopefully us Europeans take notice and consider implementing something similar.
- We did this when I went to school 30 years ago
- hope we do not.
  Imagine the most fringe right Party in your country. Now imagine they come to power. Now imagine what they would do with such a class.
  
  For what its worth, my country has had a far right party in power for the last 13 years, and I still want this.
  
  ...Ban it? Or at least keep the name and ban the actual content. I mean, they clearly can't teach people to think critically. They'd be asking people to scrutinize what they're doing.

That's the news. That's an ad.

So what is this: Research, learning logical fallacies and critical thinking OR Trust the government, authority and sanctioned 'experts'? 🤔
- I'm guessing door number 3: ineffective curriculum, teachers who just try to get through it instead of make it interesting, and students end up not caring at all. It'll just be some box that needs to get ticked so some politician gets a pat on the back. I'm guessing they do it in the last quarter of the school year during senior year when nobody is paying attention anyway.
  I'm not expecting much here. California, please impress me, I'm setting the bar incredibly low here.

Nice! I had that when I grew up actually!
I'm 38.
It has been the one most useful thing I learned in any school honestly

Why are we allowing it to be called "fake news" rather than what we should be calling it, which is, just totally made up?
How is it not lying to the public, how is that not illegal?
It's not even at the level of positive/negative interpretation of news events so that it benefits a political viewpoint. It is simply straight up made up lies.

- Media literacy, did you read the article?
  
  Yes, did you?

This is what peak Communism looks like
- wtf i love communism now

Can’t wait to see them teach kids “anyone who disagrees with you is wrong”.
Looks like they aren’t teaching critical thinking only telling the kids what is “fake news”.
Remember when they told us there were WMDs in Iraq? Well if you questioned the narrative then you were called a liar, disloyal to your people or outright fake news.
Now we all know the official story was horse shit and wmds never existed.
So, again, what are they really teaching these kids?
- Looks like they aren’t teaching critical thinking only telling the kids what is “fake news”.
  Based on what? The article says nothing about the details of its actual implementation and one of the examples is a librarian teaching reverse imaging and to look for sources. What brought you to that conclusion?
  
  ... Read the reference materials and laws they provided. The article explicitly linked source materials. No where is there a team that aspires to neutrality in order to focus on science and progression instead of religion and corporate cock sucking.
  https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/librarystandards.pdf
  https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1054
  https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1251
  https://www.cde.ca.gov/Ci/cr/ml/index.asp
  'Media literacy' without critical thinking or philosophy courses is exceptionally contrary to the point of literacy.
- Wah wah wah cry harder dirtbag. Everyone else knows what the goal is, you clearly dont. It's about understandng bias, not indoctrination.
  
  Ah, so you completely miss the point of my comment and immediately go for personal insults instead of engaging with the realities that I noted.
  It's odd that so many people using lemmy lack effective critical thinking skills.
  It always has to be 'an attack' on you or your group instead of acknowledging serious flaws in both what was presented in the article and what is happening on the ground compared to what has happened in history.

If they believe 500 were killed in an Israeli strike on a hospital in Gaza they must fail the class immediately xD
- That depends on which of the several bombed hospitals you're talking about.
  
  I'm talking about the Al-Alhi hospital. Hamas terrorists claimed 500 people died around 10 minutes after the explosion took place in the parking lot. Meanwhile, Israel is still identifying bodies from the October 7th terror attacks.
- Who the fuck ends a comment like that with "xD"
- Yes, the same for claims that Israel didn't murder more than ten thousand civilians on a disproportionate response (like a certain world leader did before having to stick his feet into his mouth). Focusing on one instance of disinformation to create a smokescreen for war crimes is disingenuous at best.
- It's actually insane how you are getting downvoted when the Hamas' claim is already debunked as being in fact fake news.
  Isreal is doing a lot of bad shit, and has been for a long time. But this particular bombing never happened as described by Hamas.
  
  Perhaps it’s because an explosion at a hospital, no matter the cause, isn’t really something to “xD” about.
  
  You are refering to western media inventing that claim from a post actually talking about probably up to 500 casualties (dead or injured), aren't you?
  If not... here's your chance to not fail the class: show any actual source for that claim that isn't media themselves refering to "we haerd someone said".