Now, This | Week 1 Reflection
Do I actually care about the credibility of information that much? It would be a lie to claim that I completely do. I work as a part-time reporter for a media outlet back home in Vietnam, and most of the time my work is paid on KPI (key performance indicator). Hence, my main focus has always been on viewing power and readers’ interaction. I wake up every day thinking how am I going to get 10,000 views on this article, or 500 shares on the fanpage for that article? “If I am a reader, would I actually give a damn about this piece of news that just broke out half an hour ago?” That’s the question, or more of the main issue that I deal with on a daily basis.
Because of the nature that my work forces me into, the authenticity of news, despite its importance, is not always the main priority. Sometimes I put myself in a position to consider a source to be fake, but still make a bit of living out it in a guilty manner. I guess that is our attitude to news in general these days. What is viral is not always the truth, but some of us pay attention to it anyway because everyone does.
That was just a bit of sharing from my own personal experience with news in general. Personally, I try not to be misled from piles of news by reading from the so-called reputable sources. But looking at the media in the USA for example, hardly anything is fair and square. Channels like FOX or CNN are always rational, and with every bit of news in the world, it is what the readers choose to believe in that matter most to them.
I want to broaden my experience with fake news, and engage closely to why it matters significantly. Words are like weapons, and everything has the power to mislead. It would be important for me as a reporter to understand the responsibility of credibility, and sometimes I miss it away. Fact checking is also a new field to me, and like a child finding a new playground, there are so many things to explore!
In class this week on Tuesday – the first session, apart from getting to know the course and each other and all that jazz, we got the privilege of a visit from a lady from RMIT ABC Fact Check. She gave two questions that really made me think about the point of fact checking. “Is this checkable?” “Does it matter?” It makes me realise that actually, not everything is checkable in the world of news. Many times information is just purely an opinion, and a lot of times information is not worth investigating because of its insignificant effect (unless it somehow goes viral).
The next class on Friday was the first time I got into a TV studio. I didn’t expect there to be a lot of safety procedures until we got through the induction. I can’t help myself to wonder what could really go wrong in a studio… Then we did a little exercise to get to know the different roles in the studio as well. I was the camera operator on one occasion, and operating a $60,000 (or something like that) camera is truly a bit stressful. Even though really nothing can go wrong on a wide shot, I was so afraid of putting my hand on it in case anything goes sour. Hopefully I will be more used to it by the end of the semester.
Now, This | Week 2 Reflection
The first reading of the course got me to truly appreciate the thin line between “making” and “misleading” in practicing journalism. It is said that fake news are “intentionally and verifiably false”, and most importantly “could mislead readers” (p. 138). I have always thought that for something to have the power to mislead, it comes with motifs, whatever purpose those motifs are for. Maybe for finance, for political gains, or even personal gains. The reading confirms my belief in categorising different types of fake news. Propaganda plus advertising and public relations are closely associated to my initial thoughts, while the other forms mentioned are simply broadening. Such as the part on “news satire”, which uses humour in reflecting current affairs (p. 141). I watch Last Week Tonight hosting by John Oliver a lot, and I have to admit, most of the time I don’t question whether what I am shown is truly real. Probably because the show does some bit of fact checking itself. It is clearly biased in some areas, especially against the Trump’s administration, and the reading makes me question whether the fact that I don’t question its authenticity means that my judgment and viewpoint has been strongly influenced. In fact, maybe. Strongly so. I have been in infected by fake news.
Other than that, this week in the studio, I got to do two different roles. The exercise (which we repeated quite a few times while switching roles on each occasion) was to come up with a brief talk show. I got to be a camera operator (I am more familiar and confident with the $60,000 camera now) and for the first time ever, the Director’s assistant. I have known of this role since the last studio, and the job of a DA on a film set then I feel is more like a floor manager in the TV set in this studio. The floor manager gets to check with all camera operators, as well as checking in and out with the talents or exchanging with them what the director and the DA wants. Being the DA has its own perks of watching a piece comes into place, and I felt that effective communication with the director and the floor manager is the most important aspect of the job for me. I would very much want to try being the floor manager next to see how chaotic it would be on set.
Reference
Tandoc Jr., EC, Lim, ZW & Ling, R 2018, ‘Defining “Fake News”’, Digital Journalism, vol. 6, no. 2, pp.137-153.
Now, This | Week 3 Reflection
About this week’s reading, there are two sentences that stand out for me. The first is a quote by a PolitiFact’s editor regarding the 2016 Presidential Campaign: “We don’t check absolutely everything a candidate says, but focuses on what catches our eye as significant, newsworthy or potentially influential” (p. 521). Coming from PolitiFact, this reminds me of the two questions that the lady from RMIT ABC Fact Check shows us on the nature of fact checking: “Is this checkable? Does it matter?” But I think that there should be a third question after seeing this sentence in the prior paragraph to the one I just quote: “depending on your opinion, you look at the facts in a different way”. Later on it is stated that a specific interpretation is required when checking “factual arguments” (p. 522). Considering the nature of fact checking is a lot to do with authenticity, is an interpretation really matter? Wouldn’t your ideology and political viewpoint affect your judgment? I get it that a far right person would view the matter of, say, socialism different from a communist, while it has a very specific definition of the means of production should be regulated by the community in a whole (Oxford Dictionaries, 2019). That is a bare fact. The viewpoint, I think, really affects how we approach a fact, and in my opinion, it shouldn’t be the way in fact checking. Hence, I find the reading rather confusing.
Apart from that, the recent event in Christchurch makes me question is fact checking a should-do thing in any sentimental events. And if so, to what extent? I have covered some tragic stories in the past, such as a plane that fell down, taking away the life of a soccer player and the pilot. When I was drawing up an article about his life, there is certain information where I question its authenticity. I found that in tragic events, sometimes questionable infos will be put up as a form of clickbaiting.
Considering the susceptible nature of such events, maybe fact checking is not a should-do. “Does it matter?” No.
Reference
Graves, L 2016, ‘Anatomy of a Fact Check: Objective Practice and the Contested Epistemology of Fact Checking’, Communication, Culture & Critique, pp. 518-537.
Oxford Dictionaries 2019, Socialism, Oxford Dictionaries, viewed 22 March 2019, <https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/socialism>.
Now, This | Fact Check Brief
My group has not come up with a specific topic yet as each of us are still focusing on different paths to choose the best topic that fits best with what we want to produce but will come up together with a final piece on the same page. Personally, I have looked and been focusing on “Does Australia have one of the ‘highest loss of species anywhere in the world?’” (RMIT ABC Fact Check, 2019).
Reading the whole Fact Check, I find that this is very sophisticated as it should be regarding the level of bodies surround the matter. There is the research on the biodiversity of Australia, which states various facts about the nature of species in Australia to emphasize the significance if any major loss in proved to be true. It mentions specifically on what is extinction and the amount of species that are extinct. The involvement of the government is also shown, proving that this is a state matter. A journal article is also visited to show that at least 11% of mammal species in Australia are extinct. The comparison to other regions of the world using the Red List is also convincing, showing that Australia is in the top 10 for endangered and threatened species. It also explains the potential reason behind the loss of species as well.
Considering the vast amount of materials provided, I find that this could be a great topic to conduct the project around. Because there are many great arguments and ideas surrounding it, I think that a talk show around this discussion would come in as the most suitable form. However, this is still my initial thoughts of the project and further discussion with other members of the group is needed. Nonetheless, this is still a great topic with a lot of potential.
Reference
RMIT ABC Fact Check 2019, Fact check: Does Australia have one of the ‘highest loss of species anywhere in the world’?, RMIT ABC Fact Check, viewed 22 March 2019, <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-19/fact-check-does-australia-have-one-of-the-highest-extinction/6691026>.
Now, This | Fact Check Cred
I just completed the Cred and as always, it is good to give some honest opinion on the thing itself and how I did, as well as what I gain from it (apart from the badge).
It is fair to say that the Cred is very straightforward. I find that it contains just the right amount of information on many different aspects, segmenting three different modules. The guides contain different forms of materials, from texts containing various debunking fake news strategies to videos, which makes the whole quick course interesting. The quizzes are quite simple in a good way and I got through on perfect record on the first go for most of them. The only down side I find is it would be better if there are more guides on fake videos and images, as I found them to be quite brief and at the end, I don’t find myself to be better when it comes to identifying the fake ones and the real ones.
And yes, on that end notes, I find that my weak side when debunking fake news is in media forms. Apart from the very obvious ones, it is uneasy to pick out from materials that look extraordinary familiar, such as the missiles picture in one of the quizzes. But I think this would be the case for many people, which again proves that fact checking is not as easy as and straightforward as it may seem. But now that I got my credit, I can proudly say that I am much better at fact checking than I was prior to going through the course. Hopefully, with more practice from now to the end of the semester, I will become an even better fact-checker.