About: The Facts about Fact Checking: Crash Course Navigating Digital Information #2
PLASTIC SELLER. I THINK MOST Of THE KIDS OF TODAY ARE SUPER STUPID. THANKS/ TEACHERS THATAREH+ BANG ING STUDENTS. teachers, are the new priest. celebrities are worthless. why is the world so phucked up. is it the end. or has it been the end, fact check that.
Am I the only one that is bothered by him saying United Manchester FC?
I did a fack-check on Obama's speech in Belgium and it was is fake, in reality, is not because the same speech you find it under Obama White house!
Crash Course is a perfect proof of internet value! And I'm NOT sucking up.
I really enjoy fact checking. It feels like a puzzle. And i dont bother sharing my finds, people will believe what they want. Which brings me to the hardest part of fact checking, asking yourself if youre being bias in your fact checking. Its difficult to understand something properly if your interpretations are off.
Kind of disagree with finding trusted news sources, every news source has a bias and some are just better funded to get more stories than others. It important to keep that bias in your mind when reviewing them
There is one big problem, Google itself now filters search results, it is proven that it has ideological bias in what information gets in the search results, so it's one HUGE Red Flag that invalidates a lot in the video since you use Google to research validity of other information.
Happy birthday!! It's the 24th, Green!
Wait did he just say that fact checkers work with the news That's oxymoronic that's like a jumbo shrimp a Homeland security
There should be more than 150,000 views for this.
If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed
Very well done video. It is my hope that most people that deal with information(internet or not) would take this content to heart.
Who's fact checking the factchecker ???
My little brother is named Steve
Overall, nicely done. However, fact checkers, especially those working for a mainstream media outlet, often show bias in their responses or they narrow the initial question that they are checking to fit the answer they want to give. So be careful with those.
Also, keep at least spot checking those sources that you have come to trust. They can change over time. That change may be slow, and you may not realize that the information you are now getting isn't as factual as it used to be.
Watch out for adjectives and adverbs. They will often give you a clue as to whether or not the information is slanted. A fact could be involved, but the adjective or adverb is trying to tell you how to think about that fact.
Good video.. a couple of extra criteria:
Even reputable news organizations are subject to subjectivity. If you are truly interested in accurate news, there are a few things you can do.
1) read multiple sources that have known different leanings and compare the FACTS in the stories vs. the conclusions. Too many stories present extra conclusions that may not be supported or are thinly supported by the facts. So the only way you can tell what is really going on is to look for multiple news stories and try to see all the facts rather than just those thought to be important by the specific journalist. I skim headlines for interest, and for something I'm interested in, I use google to look for stories from other news sources.
2) understand political hot button issues will create a huge noise factor that you must fight through. I'm learned to be very suspect of any information found online about things like Climate Change, Trump, Obama, Vaxxing, Gluten, dietary supplements, etc., etc., etc. This doesn't mean the truth doesn't exist, but it does mean there are a lot of people that are very motivated to make their points absent real proof. So using google to figure out facts first can really help discriminate between those that are making good arguments, vs. conspiracy type sources that use theories only to support their arguments.
3) understand your own assumptions and theories. If you are truly being fair, you have to understand what you don't know, what you don't understand, and where your thinking is based on theories rather than facts. Most of these theories probably came from something you read, but I've found some people make up their own theories that fit how they think. This will keep you from accepting sources that agree with you, but aren't supported by real facts. You've probably heard the term 'confirmation bias'... what I'm talking about is what leads to that. If you don't know what in your thinking is based on real facts vs. just theories, then you don't really know if your conclusions are accurate. We must all every day use these types of assumptions just to get through life.. but at the same time they are blind spots that can lead to further error. Whenever I'm reading any story where I'm unsure of the truth, I try to start with what I know to be facts, and then verify the stuff I might tend to agree with, but should be supported by real evidence.
The basic premise that websites and various online purveyors of information won't outright LIE TO YOU, is categorically false. ALL websites these days are excruciatingly political with well demonstrated bias. There is no question Google and their ilk are the modern day Gestapo, fiercely policing anyone or anything that contradicts their world view.
Are fact checkers immune to their own ideological biases? Nothing in this episode about how to evaluate fact checkers themselves and the tricks they use to selectively pick facts and spin them.
There is so much that can be done to frame and to omit information that goes beyond mere presentation of facts.
How about using logic and logical fallacies rather than making stuff up about Alex Jones