Once I got past the irony of not having a text version of an audio recording in a course called Text Technologies I was able to make some connections between the content so eloquently delivered almost 20 years ago and our teched-out current day society.
One of the salient points made was that the prevalence of the Internet has led to self-publication in a way that was frankly not possible for past generations. No longer do I have to submit my opinions to a newspaper or magazine and hope that the editor judges it favourably for publication. Now I can reach audiences multitudes greater than those of yesteryear which, as is also pointed out, has benefits and detractions. With self-publication, comes self-censorship. We are coming to an age where any opinion can find followers, regardless of its scientific validity, political correctness, or cultural relevance. Without much effort, I can find articles to back up an assertion that vaccines are safe or that vaccines are dangerous. I can then post a professional looking video promoting the side of the argument I wish to support and have near instant followers (or detractors) commenting and adding their point of view to the validity of my original content.
The fact that so little effort is required or given with regard to fact-checking the world of self-publication leads us to the world of polarized opinions and vehement rants citing ‘fake news’ from the highest echelons of power. While this mode of communication has possibly increased the interactions between the people of the world, has it done enough to increase the knowledge of the same people? In another course I am taking, the initial discourse is focused on the meaning of knowledge and that ‘knowing’ something based on a false assumption cannot be called knowledge. Where does this fit in with our current state of media and politics south of the border? Is there a false assumption when I can find a ‘source’ to back up my own opinion?
The radio episode points out that Christianity relied on the printed word to get out its gospel. If we think back to a time when only learned people could read, and they held up this book called the bible and repeated its contents, they could say, “here it is written, and thus it is so”. We are in an age when both opinions and facts are written down, thereby giving credibility to both. (I will bow away from the argument here questioning how much fo the bible was fact and how much was an opinion in the interest of keeping my controversy to a minimum.) If I can read it, it must be true. If I can cite it, it must be real.
When do we begin the evolution from passive consumers of text to challengers of what is presented in the easiest form for us to read and digest? Propaganda, fake news, rumours and rhetoric have been around in many forms throughout history. What about human nature makes them so hard to resist?
References:
Engell, J. (Presenter) & O’Donnell, J. (Presenter). (1999). From Papyrus to Cyberspace [radio broadcast]. Retrieved from https://canvas.ubc.ca/courses/4290/files/609973/preview
NathanLott
May 24, 2018 — 6:36 pm
“When do we begin the evolution from passive consumers of text to challengers of what is presented in the easiest form for us to read and digest?” This point really hit home for me as a teacher because it resonates so much of what I see everyday among teachers as we attempt to decipher fact from opinion. It is fascinating with our new curriculum in BC how many of our teachers continue to follow textbooks such as Science Probe and Math Makes Sense. These books were packaged and created to deliver our curriculum in the most “organized” and “efficient” manner and have been used for years within our system. Yet now Pearsons, the huge company that creates these texts is no longer producing them. These texts, as I remember, were never challenged for their validity or educational value, they were taken as gospel on how we are to teach our students in the pre digital age.
Taking something like science 7 for example and looking at the compartmentalized chapter system that it was to be delivered in truely did not allow for much variation when teaching this course. Something like the socials 10 text was the same, even though glaring emissions like First Nations history was left to tiny portions that skimmed over their contributions and persecution in our countries historical development. Math Makes Sense relies heavily on word based problem solving and introduces rather confusing multiple solutions for simple number based and geometry problem solving. Our digital selection now is now endless, interactive and easily obtained with the click of a mouse. Allowing for teachers to find their own solutions for the lessons and custom develop content.
Yet just as the podcast stated I think taking a hybrid of the past and future, acting as intelligent consumers of our knowledge. Creating our own and drawing from what has already been created. I still use many of these older texts I mentioned and pull from their strengths while weaving that content into what I seek out and build. Regardless we live in interesting times where we can draw on the past and create our own futures with respect to the term “text”.
Cathy Miyagi
May 27, 2018 — 12:13 pm
Thank you for your post! Your point on self-publication resonates with the discussion that professional journalists are having today. I want to share some relevant stats from the RTDNA Canada’s conference I attended this past weekend (Radio, Television, & Digital News Association).
According to the 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer:
* 65% of the average person does not know how to tell good journalism from rumor or falsehoods.
* 58% say it is becoming harder to tell if a place of news was produced by a respected media organization.
Globally, we are less informed:
* 40% say they are less informed than they were ten years ago.
* 34% say they are reading or listening to the news less than they used to.
* 26% say they generally try to avoid following the news.
Again, I want to reference a powerful point made by scholar, Chris Kutarna in his book, “The Age of Discovery: Navigating the Risks & Rewards of Our New Renaissance”. He claims that out of the technological innovations made in past centuries, the invention of the computer is most distinct because of its ability to “discern” information. I believe he’s alluding to today’s artificial intelligence technology, machine learning, and the ability for technology to filter and even process information for us.
Technology has certainly changed the form of output and dissemination of information, but as a journalist, I challenge if technology itself can discern differences and tell the story – one that is “true enough” as I like to describe. Telling our audience that we are truth tellers and only report the facts is not enough anymore.
Techniques in conveying perspective and voice, interviewing subjects, fact-checking, researching, and data mining are what will continue to distinguish professional journalists from bloggers, “influencers and pro-ams”, or what Trump refers to as “professional protesters incited by the media.” (I should acknowledge here, as there may be Trump supporters in this class, that we respect all views for the purposes of academic discussion.)
david nelson
May 29, 2018 — 5:53 pm
“When do we begin the evolution from passive consumers of text to challengers of what is presented in the easiest form for us to read and digest? Propaganda, fake news, rumours, and rhetoric have been around in many forms throughout history. What about human nature makes them so hard to resist?”
The Trump vs. Clinton election was a fascinating one for myself and many of my students. Hearing students talk about politics and what they had heard, fact or fiction, was actually somewhat exciting. This was the first time in my short teaching career that I had heard such conversations going on. (As a fan of Stephen Colbert and John Oliver, I began learning more and more about the truths of the election from both the Clinton and Trump camp.) It was at this point that I started a unit that focused on “fake news,” rumours and challenging what students read and hear.
At first, I was shocked to see that many of my students believed anything that was published online. At that time, I was very alarmed with this fact; however, after deeper thought and reflection I came to the quick conclusion that many of my students felt this way because they were unfamiliar with what the internet is offering and who is offering it. My students come from families where technology is not universal, and many are lucky just to have a computer in the house, let alone internet access. I believe that lack of access and lack of understanding of self-publication has caused many of my students and their families to be influenced by much of what they see and hear online. In one sense, has the lack of experience caused them to become too trusting of this vast resource?
I then started to reflect on my relationship with the internet and the “fake news” problem that we are dealing with. Because I have grown up with steady access to the internet, am I not as susceptible because I have already taken my “bruises” from believing misinformation and have learned to challenge any information I read?