30 Creds - Productivity

Hi I’m John Green and this is Crash Course
Navigating Digital Information. So here at Crash Course, we work hard to bring
you entertaining and educational videos on everything from science to literature, but
how do you know that we’re like telling you the truth? And is our work invalidated by the fact we
sometimes make mistakes? I would say often. The thing is, unless you’re an expert in
every subject we make videos about, you don’t know. And that is precisely what makes it so easy
to be misled, both online and off. None of us has the time or the talent to become
an expert in everything. I made this helpful Venn Diagram of people
who could debunk myths about climate change, myths about victorian literature, and conspiracy
theories about the illuminati, and as you can see there is nobody who can do all three. So we have to trust information from outside
of ourselves. We have to find a way to accredit and trust
experts, even though they will be wrong some of the time. So today, we’re going to think about how
to do that especially online. INTRO
So whenever you open an app or a website, you see information and content that was made
somewhere by someone. With lateral reading — or, leaving a site
to find out what others say about it — you can learn who that someone or group of someones
is. But when we try to learn more about a person
or organization, what should we be looking for? Well, before putting your trust in a source,
you need to explore two more things: The authority of the person or organization
presenting the information And their perspective. When I say “authority” I mean one’s
recognized knowledge or expertise on a topic. Famed primatologist Jane Goodall is an authority
on chimpanzees. Dwayne The Rock Johnson is an authority when
it comes to lifting heavy objects repetitively, and also he is the greatest actor of his generation. Slight sidenote, I once met Dwayne The Rock
Johnson and I know he looks ripped in movies and stuff but in real life he is so ripped! What were we talking about? Right authority. If you want to tell if a source is an authority
on a topic you need to leave the source. Because nobody is going to be like, “I am
not an authority on this topic. Here. Listen to me bloviate.” Look you’re going to hear me say that a
lot during this series. You need to leave sites to understand them. I know that sounds counterintuitive, but it’s
always a good idea to leave a source to understand if it is a good source. Vertically reading a website or article only
gives you the information that the source wants you to see. As we talked about in our last episode, it’s
really easy to make a website or social media account look authoritative. While using lateral reading techniques to
investigate a source’s authority, you want to consider several factors:
The author or authors’ professional background The process they used to produce that information
And the systems that are in place to catch mistakes and correct them
An author’s professional or educational background can indicate whether they are actually
qualified to speak knowledgeably about a topic. Generally speaking, those who work professionally
in a field or have done lots of work within it, are better equipped than you know random
people off the street. That doesn’t mean that experts are always
right of course but they are more likely to be right than the random people off the street. So, a scientist who has published studies
on climate change in prominent journals is a much more reliable source on climate change
than a blogger with no formal science training. My neighbor who has been gardening for 40
years definitely knows more about growing plants than I do, as they like to remind me
every time they see me toiling in ignorance in my new vegetable garden. And an agriculturalist who has spent years
studying the growth of plants will know even more than my neighbor. I don’t want to go on a rant here. But failure to believe in and trust expertise
is a big problem on the internet. Also, probably off the Internet, but I live
here. Another good indicator of whether a source
is reputable is the process that source used to produce or gather information. If you’re reading an article on, like, my
favorite celebrity becoming the first pop star to sing on the moon and there are no
sources listed — yeah, no, that’s just fan fiction I’m writing. And also you can’t read it yet it’s not
done. Actually, you can read it, but it’s really
rough so just be gentle. ANYWAY, the process a source used to gather
information is often right there in their work. A reporter might attend a protest and talk
to some protesters, and then describe those conversations in a story. Or a professor might explain in their new
study that they asked 5,000 people whether they liked chocolate or vanilla best. An Instagrammer tagging the person they’ve
re-grammed is also citing their process. Some news organizations even publish their
journalistic ethics, philosophies and methodologies for the public. The New York Time, Wall Street Journal, and
Washington Post all have their lengthy handbooks on editorial standards, which are available
online. The system in place to catch mistakes is just
as important as the process a source uses to collect information. As I’ve mentioned in previous videos, news
publications often employ fact checkers and professional journalists and editors also
take part in fact-checking efforts during the process of writing articles. And sometimes another force steps in to help
point out mistakes: the public. They might write a letter to the editor or
leave a comment. They’ll definitely tell you when you’re
wrong. But you already know that, you’re on YouTube. Hello commenters! It’s me John Green. I’d like to thank all 3.7 million of you
who’ve pointed out the Nile River flows North in that Crash Course World History video. We know! That’s why we published the correction in
the annotations, which I guess you didn’t read! But actually, seriously, thank you for pointing
out that mistake. In response, we issued a correction. We work hard not to make mistakes or spread
inaccuracies, but we don’t always succeed, and corrections are a way for trustworthy
institutions to acknowledge their failures. Now they aren’t perfect, because of course
by the time the correction has been posted the misinformation has already spread, but
what are you going to do? We’re human. When very serious corrections are made, sometimes
a publication’s editor in chief, public editor, or ombudsman will step in to explain
what went wrong. Here at Crash Course when those situations
arise, we sometimes make separate videos devoted to the mistake or mistakes and how they came
to happen. Let’s head to the Thought Bubble for some
news gathering and corrections. In 2018 the Drudge Report,
a right-wing news aggregation site with a lot of followers, tweeted, “REPORT: OBAMA PLEADS WITH JAY-Z
TO PREVENT OTHER HIP HOP ARTISTS MEETING WITH TRUMP”
The tweet linked to InfoWars, a website known for spreading conspiracy theories that has been banned from social media sites[1]
for using hate speech. And the InfoWars story was based on one Twitter
user’s tweet, which claimed sources said that Obama and
Jay Z were discussing this. But that user is not a journalist, and though they said the story was “developing,” they never provided any other evidence for
this claim. But regardless, InfoWars wrote an article
about it and Drudge Tweeted it. But the report did nothing to explain how
or if InfoWars had confirmed the story. In fact, the only evidence they gave was that
Donald Trump Jr. had liked the tweet in question. What I’ve just described is not a reliable
or responsible news gathering process. Nonetheless, At the time we filmed this video the article was still up on InfoWars with
no corrections issued. For comparison, consider this ProPublica report. ProPublica is a respected nonprofit newsroom
that focuses on investigative journalism. They published a story in 2017 that said CIA
officer Gina Haspel oversaw the secret base where a suspected Al-Qaeda leader was subject
to waterboarding. That was wrong. When the publication discovered this mistake,
they issued a correction. In nearly 1,000 words, they explained the
error, how it was made, and how they got their initial information. That was added to the top of the incorrect
story, ensuring that anyone who found that page would see it. Thanks, Thought Bubble. So obviously ProPublica made a big mistake
with that article and that mistake did lead to lots of people being misinformed, some
of whom will unfortunately never see the correction. That’s why it is so important to only try
to share verified information. But the issuing of the correction, and the
exploration of how the mistake came to be made, does allow readers not only to understand
that the reporting was wrong, but also how it came to happen and what changes are being
made internally to decrease the likelihood of such mistakes. So in addition to varying backgrounds and
processes for gathering information, every source also has its own perspective or point
of view. You’ll notice I am not using the word “bias”. These days we tend to associate bias with
anyone we disagree with. Like if a sports writer named Steph Curry
the best NBA player instead of LeBron James, a fan might say “She’s so biased against
LeBron because he’s so popular.” But bias means favoring something in a way
that’s unfair. I don’t think everyone unfairly preferences
some things over others. But everyone does wake up each morning with
a particular perspective on the world due to their lived experiences. Rather than dismiss a source because their
background might make them supposedly biased, use the knowledge you learn about them to
understand their perspective. Consider their reason for sharing that information. How might their perspective influence what
they’re sharing, and how they do it? Basically, I am proposing a radical idea for
the Internet called empathy. Like take for instance the American Enterprise
Institute and the Center for American Progress. They’re think tanks, or groups of experts
that provide analysis and research on various topics and policies. Slight sidenote, the term think tank does
come from actual tanks. It originates from military jargon used in
WWII to denote a safe place to talk about strategy. But right, the American Enterprise Institute
is a conservative think tank. Many of its leaders are well known conservative
figures. The Center for American progress on the other
hand is a liberal think tank. Its similarly tied to well-known liberal figures. They both clearly have different political
perspectives. But that doesn’t mean we should immediately
reject any report or research they release. We just have to take the perspectives into
account when we receive their information, and consider how it might influence the content
they produce. Perspective extends to other sources too,
like news organizations. Opinion pieces are typically written with
a specific perspective by people outside a news organization. And when reading an opinion, we should carefully
consider that author’s perspective while examining their arguments. But one can’t confuse the opinion pages
of a newspaper with its reporting, even though that is really difficult online, because there
are no physical “sections” of a newspaper. But if a piece is marked “Opinion, or “Analysis,”
or “Perspective,” or “Viewpoint,” it is meant to be persuasive, not just informative. When the New York Times or the Wall Street
Journal publishes an opinion piece that is not their reporting, it’s an opinion. News articles don’t have that same explicit
perspective, but some news websites do have varying political orientations. If we’re familiar with an organization’s
political tendencies, we can take those into account when thinking about their work. For example, take a look at The Daily Kos
and the Daily Wire. The Daily Kos is a hyper-partisan left-leaning
website. How do we know? If we head to the Masthead page, which lists
their staffers, you’ll find they call themselves a progressive community site. Also, their founder has written a book explicitly
about “fighting” President Trump. Plus, their coverage often asks readers to
take action via signing a petition or protesting against particular causes, usually in favor
of liberal policies. This tells us their perspective is strong,
and it will almost certainly influence how they present the news. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the
Daily Wire, is a hyper-partisan right-leaning site. It describes itself as an “irreverent news
and commentary site for a new generation of conservatives.” On his YouTube channel, founder Ben Shapiro
calls himself a conservative political pundit and his podcast is described as “savagely
irreverent conservative.” They may not ask their audience to take direct
action as frequently, but they’re very clear on their political bent. This tells us that their perspective is also
strong, and and it will also almost certainly influence how they present news. When reading articles from either website,
we must take their views into account and remember they may be presenting information
in a way that aligns with their political beliefs. And if you think about it, considering other
people’s perspectives should not feel like revolutionary because you do it all the time
in real life. When a new Mountain Goats album comes out
and I call my brother to tell him that the most important piece of music in human history
has just been released, he knows I am speaking to him from a particular perspective… a
correct one. He’s not going to dismiss my enthusiasm
for the mountain goats’ brilliant lyrics or artful musical storytelling, but he will
dial it back to what a normal person might think–and maybe even check to see what reviewers
thought of the album. As if Pitchfork knows anything about the Mountain
Goats. I am the world’s leading Mountain Goats
expert… is a good example of how not to act. That’s what this is all about. There’s so much information online, both
good and bad, that in order to sort through it all we need to stop, think, and look around. We read laterally to find out who is behind
information. And then, we seek out specific information
about those sources, their authority, and their perspective. And each bit of information we get about a
source is like a piece of stained glass. Once it’s all put together, it becomes a
lens through which we view their claims and arguments. That makes us better at understanding what
information is reliable and what information in turn we should pass on. Not only to the people who are here now, but
to the people who will come after us. It’s also makes your life more colorful. We’re going to be diving into a very colorful
place next time on Crash Course Navigating Digital Information… well figuratively colorful… literally it’s quite black and white — Wikipedia. I’ll see you then. For this series, Crash Course has teamed up
with MediaWise, a project out of the Poynter Institute that was created with support from
Google. The Poynter Institute is a non-profit journalism
school. The goal of MediaWise is to teach students
how to assess the accuracy of information they encounter online. The MediaWise curriculum was developed by
the Stanford History Education Group based on civic online reasoning research that they
began in 2015. If you’re interested in learning more about
MediaWise and fact-checking, you can visit @mediawise on Instagram. ________________
[1]https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/aug/07/why-infowars-alex-jones-was-banned-apple-facebook-/

2 Steps

• Watch Video
• Answer Question