This course prompt was timely since only yesterday my daughter asked me if I knew about the 15 people who died from a Legionnaires outbreak at the London Drugs at Guildford Mall. She said, “Look Dad (pointing to her phone), it’s an actual, real story”. Even before I wanted to see her phone, I said “Let’s check other news organizations first, to see if its legitimate”. I checked CBC News and indeed, there was an outbreak, but at a Wal-Mart and no one died. Thankful for the learning moment we shared together; however, I still remain overly-sensitized as it relates to growing fallacies within digital news and its exposure upon kids and young adults who have yet to develop a critical-thinking mindset.
The email regarding the banana crisis was glaringly flawed from the start. Only affects monkeys? Nationwide panic, over bananas? An agency founded upon protecting citizens, yet unwilling to share the truth? If it was so secret, how did it get out? Manheim Research Institute? Any other agencies corroborating the information? The lesson serves its purpose as a reminder to verify the information against other sources and question anything that has to “boast” of its own legitimacy.
I enjoyed Michael Caufield’s guide and blog and found some good value utilizing his “Four Moves” as a means to verify and validate information and its sources. Although I applied his four moves towards two articles, it did not take very long to see through the claims. The “Lottery Winner and Manure” story was flawed from the start. Being a “numbers” guy, I instantly noticed the claim describing the 10,000 tons of manure dumped onto his now ex-bosses front lawn. 10,000 tons? Right. I quickly fact-checked how many tons a dump truck can hold and 10,000 tons of manure would take 370 full dump truck loads. Not exactly a realistic situation. To its credit, I found that the second story involving statistics and un-documented immigrants based its findings on an actual research report from a real think tank based in Washington D.C. The only glaring flaw with the headline above the graph was, that unlike the actual research report, it was claiming to be a fact, and not an estimate. “Un-documented immigrants”? How can the article sell something as a fact, if one of the most important “facts” remain un-documented?
Ultimately, Caufield’s four moves and guide gives us some needed ammo to fight against the unbridled crimes of fallacy and dis/mis-information upon our digital world; and I for one, will continue to take the time required to verify and validate all information worthy of belief.
Matt