MANY VOICES, ONE CALL
MANY VOICES, ONE CALL
Many Voices - One Call: Season Two/Episode eight: Information Literacy is Power!
According to the Pew Research Center, more than 70% of Americans regularly use social media. Most of us rely on Google, Instagram, Facebook, Reddit or YouTube for information. But how do we know the information we get from these internet giants is reliable? What drives misinformation? What makes us susceptible to it? Are we too gullible? And how can educators make sure that all students have the information literacy to navigate an increasingly complex and often confusing media landscape?
Join podcast host and Professor of history Dr. Babette Faehmel and her guests, Professor or Arts and Media at SUNY Empire State College, Thomas Mackey; Professor of Communication at SUNY Schenectady Rae Doyle; and the SUNY Schenectady students Nate Friedman and Cody Lewis, for a discussion of how disinformation functions to keep power structures intact, how it works on our psyches, and why we need to close the digital divide to eliminate a key equity hazard.
This episode is brought to you by our generous friends at C2 Design Group a regionally and nationally recognized architecture firm located in Schenectady, New York. They are designers, architects, partners and guides working toward a shared purpose to create spaces that support their client’s goals. Visit c2-designgroup.com to learn more about their work.
Mixing and editing of this episode was made possible by SUNY Schenectady's Music students Aidan Farley and Aidan Bachorik.
For further reading:
Head, A. J., DeFrain, E., Fister, B., & MacMillan, M. (2019). Across the great divide: How today’s college students engage with news. First Monday, 24(8). https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10166.
Head, A. J., Fister, B., Geofrey, S. & MacMillan, M. (2022). The project information literacy retrospective: Insights from more than a decade of information literacy research, 2008-2022. Project Information Research Institute. https://projectinfolit.org/publications/retrospective.
Mackey, T. P. & Jacobson, T. E.'s Metaliteracy blog (https://metaliteracy.org/)
Mackey, T. P. & Jacobson, T. E. (2022) Metaliteracy in a connected world: Developing learners as producers. Neal-Schuman/ALA Editions.
Mackey, T. P. & Jacobson, T. E. Eds. (2019) Metaliterate learning for the post-truth world. Neal-Schuman/ALA Editions.
The views voiced on this episode reflect the lived experiences and uncensored opinions of the guests; they do not necessarily capture the full diversity of attitudes within a larger community, nor do they express an official view of SUNY Schenectady.
Babette Faehmel, Co-host: 00:00
Welcome to Season 2, episode 8 of SUNY Schenectady's Diversity, equity, inclusion and Social Justice podcast. Many Voices, one Call. This episode is brought to you by our generous friends at C2 Design Group, a regionally and nationally recognized architecture firm located in Schenectady, New York. They are designers, architects, partners and guides working towards a shared purpose to create spaces that support their clients' goals. Visit c2-designgroup.com to learn more about their work. I'm your host, Babette Faehmel, History professor and coordinator of the Student Mentoring Program. Not with us today is, unfortunately, my student co-host Amira Stevens-Salih, because she had a sudden childcare emergency. But I am joined by amazing guests. We have a special guest from SUNY Empire, Professor Thomas Mackey. Professor, what is your field of expertise at SUNY Empire?
Thomas Mackey, Guest: 01:00
Hi, and thanks so much for inviting me here today. I really appreciate that. I'm a professor of Arts in Media, so I teach in the Digital Arts as part of our Arts Program.
Babette Faehmel: 01:10
Okay, well, we will probably talk more about your field of expertise later. Also, with us in the studio are two of our students, Nate Friedman and Cody Lewis. Nate and Cody, what do you think our listeners need to know about you?
Nate Friedman, Guest: 01:27
I don't know if they need to know too much about me. I like to keep it a little secret.
Babette Faehmel: 01:30
And you are Nate.
Nate Friedman: 01:31
I'm Nate. Yes, thank you so much for having me. I'm a Communications major. I'm a habitual consumer of media, so I definitely have a lot of experience on the consumer side. So, that's where I'm at and happy to be here.
Babette Faehmel: 01:44
Awesome. Well, we're glad to have you, Cody. How about you?
Cody Lewis, Guest: 01:47
Hey, I'm Cody Lewis. I'm also a Communications major. This is my last semester here at SUNY Schenectady. I'm hoping to move to SUNY Empire to finish my degree.
Thomas Mackey: 01:57
Perfect.
Babette Faehmel: 01:58
In arts and media?
Cody Lewis: 02:00
Some kind of communication. They have a lot of options.
Babette Faehmel: 02:02
They do.
Thomas Mackey: 02:03
We do.
Cody Lewis: 02:04
I've been chronically online, I guess is the term, since I was like 15 years old. So, I think I've kept up to date with all the trends of media and how communication is disseminated or what messages are.
Babette Faehmel: 02:16
It's going to be very useful for this episode. And, last but definitely not least, we are joined by Professor Rae Doyle, who has actually been on this podcast before. Rae, would you remind our listeners what you do at SUNY Schenectady?
Rae Doyle, Guest: 02:32
Hi. Yes, I am a professor of Communication, so I created the Communication Concentration here at the College.
Babette Faehmel: 02:41
Fantastic. Okay, so we are here today to talk about information literacy and, in particular, about information literacy in the age of social media, which is a really big topic. So, I thought that to start us off that we would have a quick lightning round where each of you really says a few sentences about what worries you, or about what excites you, or makes you happy about social media, about news media today, about information as it's, like, going through the internet, the web 2.0, in general, and also to maybe rate yourself on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of your information savviness or your information literacy. Who wants to start?
Nate Friedman: 03:25
I guess I'll go first.
Babette Faehmel: 03:26
Nate. Fantastic.
Nate Friedman: 03:27
Yeah. So, when it comes to, like, what I worry about most, when it comes to consuming media, I think a lot of people value impartiality a lot and, like, a sort of an unbiased perspective on information, and there's like—. It's great to get sources of information that are unbiased, but what a lot of people consume is, like, biased media through a veil of, like, impartiality. So, those sort of hiding-your-bias is really a big concern of mine when it comes to media.
Babette Faehmel: 04:03
So, yeah, okay. And how would you rate your information savviness?
Nate Friedman: 04:08
You know, I never—. I have a very bad—. I probably—compared to the professor who writes about media literacy—I probably have a very unstructured way of consuming media. So, if I were to guess, I'd probably say somewhere about a four to a six.
Babette Faehmel: 04:25
Okay, okay. I probably should have clarified that scale of one to ten, with one being completely clueless and ten being completely informed. But okay, all right, that's good. And how about you, Cody?
Cody Lewis: 04:38
In terms of media literacy, I think probably a seven or eight. I try to keep up to date. It's one of my special interests, read a lot of books on it. I kind of like the way that media is done now, the way people communicate. A lot of it's done on things like TikTok or Reddit, which allows you to segment your information in, like, different niche communities, which is something you usually don't get a lot on news websites. But the thing that worries me about it is it does create a lot of echo chambers where they'll often put information that's heavily biased or sometimes just completely false, and people trust it because that's the community that they're in.
Babette Faehmel: 05:15
Yeah, okay, okay. Professor Doyle, you probably rate yourself very highly.
Rae Doyle: 05:21
I hope that I'm a 10. I hope. So, I would—. Yeah, I would assume that I'm a 10, because I spend a lot of time trying to make sure that I'm analyzing the media that I'm using to make sure that it is the best possible. I think what excites me is the fact that we have so many possibilities for fact checking. But what concerns me is the fact that we have to do so much fact checking, and people don't take the time to do that.
Babette Faehmel: 05:50
Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. I would agree with that. I think I would probably rate myself as a, like, 7.5 to 8.
Rae Doyle: 05:54
(Disbelieving.) No...
Babette Faehmel: 05:55
No, no, no, but the problem is, I think, I've read too much of Professor Mackey's work. (Laughs.) So, it made me doubt myself. So, professor, what about you? How would you assess the state of information and news media and social media today? What are things that concern you or make you happy?
Thomas Mackey: 06:19
This is the perfect group to be talking about this with, because I think you've already identified what some of the key concerns are. So, in terms of consuming information, how can you do that? How can you find sources that are unbiased, impartial? I think that's a real challenge today, and I think also, this idea of the challenge of echo chambers, and also—. I mean, that's one of the terms that's been used to describe sort of what's going on today is that people are staying in like-minded communities. They're not crossing the divide. We're in a heavily partisan environment, both politically and online, and those worlds really come together in many ways. I think that there is a positive side to it and that people can get together on environments like TikTok, Instagram and connect with people, and that was the promise of these social media tools to begin with, but they've also been used as a major force for misinformation and disinformation today. So, I think that that's the biggest challenge that here we are just a few weeks away from a major election, and many people are going to be making decisions based on misinformation and disinformation that they're receiving from these very partisan environments.
Babette Faehmel: 07:42
Can I interject right here? You are talking about misinformation and disinformation. Where do you see the difference?
Thomas Mackey: 07:50
That's a great question. So, and I've recently talked about this with our students as well, is that disinformation? Again, this is sort of like a dictionary definition. I know you've done research in this too.
Babette Faehmel: 08:01
Yeah, but I'm not a guest.
Thomas Mackey: 08:03
You're an expert on this, because you're looking at disinformation throughout history, which I think is fascinating, so I'd love to hear about that. So, disinformation, the definition really is that it's intent to do harm. So, that's why we often hear about it, related to war propaganda, for instance that there's an intentional effort there to send out information to confuse people, to mislead them.
Misinformation doesn't so much have that intent. It doesn't mean it's still information that's unreliable, that's biased, but it's not necessarily something that was intended to do harm, because people do encounter information through all these sources not in a way that's intended to hurt people, but it's still bad information. So, it's misinformation. It's circulating, especially through these social environments. Some of it might actually be circulating information that started out as disinformation. So, there's definitely a relationship between the two. But this idea of intent to do harm is why disinformation is, I think, more dangerous. But there's definitely a relationship between the two.
Babette Faehmel: 09:15
Do you feel that there is a lot of misinformation and disinformation in the media that you are consuming? I'm asking the students and the professor—the other professor.
Nate Friedman: 09:27
I really don't think so. I don't know. A lot of the stuff I consume is other people watching other, like, pretty reliable news sources. So, I'm—. Like a curator, pundit sort of content creator is the sort of content I consume, and I think a lot of the stuff on there is pretty verifiable. They're looking at multiple sources when it comes to a certain topic, and I think—. I think generally that sort of stuff—. I think when you're checking a lot of different sources—like I'm not personally, I guess is what's going on—but I guess the content I consume is people checking multiple sources and very frequently, is how it goes. So, I think, personally, there's very little disinformation going on in the content I'm consuming.
Babette Faehmel: 10:18
That's interesting, Cody. How about you?
Cody Lewis: 10:20
I think there's a ton of misinformation and disinformation. I purposely will—. Like my feed on various social medias is different communities that I'm not a part of on purpose, and you can clearly—. Like, you can see the same article on two different communities, both with a different—it's being looked at through a different lens. And then oftentimes when you see something that's highly controversial and look it up, it just turns out both people are completely wrong, or they're like taking everything out of context. It's everywhere. Sometimes it's not on purpose—bad. It could be someone trying to spread a good message, but it's just not correct because it's not their field of study. Which is another problem with social media, I think, is everyone's a content creator now.
Babette Faehmel: 11:01
Okay.
Cody Lewis: 11:02
So, if you have expertise in a certain area, but you're talking about something else to, like, try and use your platform for activism, it does lead to problems.
Babette Faehmel: 11:10
Yeah, yeah, okay, good, good, I actually—I think I first realized my own biases, or my own echo chambers, when we were doing the episode on vaccination hesitancy. And I realized that there's certain information that I don't even want to verify because my emotional reaction is so strong and so inclined to disbelieve what I'm hearing. And I found that was a quite interesting revelation about myself, and I became a lot more humble, I think, when it came to my own literacy. Professor Doyle, Rae, how about you?
Rae Doyle: 11:53
As far as whether or not there's a lot of disinformation, misinformation—definitely. And I think that it becomes increasingly difficult to identify for people because it is presented as if it is fact versus not being fact, right? I talk in my classes about pundits and making sure that people recognize the difference between an actual journalist and a pundit. And so, I think that that's one of the big issues that people have with trying to figure out disinformation, misinformation. I also feel like with our current news, with how quickly they have to give us information, that misinformation just happens. So, think any school shooting, and they put out fast as possible as much information as they can, and they don't always get it right, and then they correct it, and then people think that they're getting disinformation versus misinformation. I think that that's a really big distinction because our news media just is quick, and they make mistakes, and we have to be able to recognize the difference.
Thomas Mackey: 12:54
It's a 24-hour news cycle.
Rae Doyle: 12:55
Right.
Thomas Mackey: 12:56
Especially with cable news. They're on all the time, so they're kind of reporting on it as it's happening. So, they're not necessarily waiting for those facts like they used to. They used to verify sources, at least have two or three sources before you'd even report on something. So, it's really very much in the moment. So, that really requires the individual then to be thinking about—thinking critically about the information they're receiving and to even be thinking about that context that it is a sort of 24-hour news cycle. So, question, sort of, what it is you're receiving.
Babette Faehmel: 13:26
I'm also glad that you differentiate between pundits and, like, journalists, because I oftentimes find that the words we are using to talk about news and information, they are not really—it's not enough. There's not enough nuance. So, as a historian, I always have to talk about source reliability—primary source reliability—and one of the things that I notice is that, like, my students tend to use bias very broadly and it's bad. Bias is bad. And so, once they realize, ‘oh, this source is biased,’—meaning it has a point of view—it's like, ‘what do I do with it?’ It's not the truth, the one truth and the only truth, and everything is biased. So, bias itself is not enough as a label or as a category of analysis. But also, talking about words, Professor Mackey, you have actually written a number of books about a concept called metaliteracy. So, I've been using information literacy or social media literacy before. But what is the meta in literacy referring to?
Thomas Mackey: 14:34
That's a great question and I've been developing this work with my colleague Trudy Jacobson from the University of Albany. So, we've had a great partnership developing this idea, probably since, probably 2010, when—. We first published the first article on it in 2011. So metaliteracy did emerge out of information literacy. Previously, we had been teaching information literacy, we had been researching it, writing about it, talking about faculty-librarian collaboration. We edited several books together where we were focusing on that collaborative aspect. So metaliteracy did emerge from that in part because at the time especially, information literacy was very skills-based, so the things that you should do to use a database or search the web. It was very much focused on the consumer part of the process that we had started talking about today.
15:28
But there's another aspect that is really key, and when both of the students mentioned content creation, this idea of learner as producer, this is something that's very much—it’s an idea that’s been around for a while, but we really made it a central focal point of metaliteracy. So, what are the responsibilities of someone who’s producing content in today’s social media world? That's really where the idea kind of started, and the reason we arrived at metaliteracy . . . a few different reasons. So, first of all, this idea that instead of having a new literacy type every time, you have a new technology we've actually heard of things like Google literacy. You know AI literacy, so instead of that, you know sort of what are the sort of overarching principles that unify our approach to literacy. So that was one of the ideas. So that meta is sort of like stepping back, looking in a comprehensive way at something. So, for instance, metadata is data about data. So, meta literacy is in some ways a kind of literacy about literacy, but with a central focus on the learner as producer. The meta is also in terms of how the idea developed is also focused on metacognition, and metacognition is thinking about your own thinking.
16:50
So, we've built that concept into the development of this idea so that learners are not just gaining skills, not just going online and doing different things. They're really thinking about who they are as a learner, and they're thinking about their own biases, and they're learning it as a kind of process as they develop as self-directed learners. So, that was another key part of it. So, meta is also the metacognition piece, and it's interesting too that, as we've done some research on this, there's Greek origins of the word, that it means change. So, you think of, you know, metamorphosis is really all about change. So, we're thinking about the changing learner, but it also means after and beyond. So, we've worked with that idea too, that metaliteracy is in many ways, sort of what you need to do, sort of after you've accomplished reading and writing, and then you've gained some skills with information literacy that this is really, then, the next step, where you're actually producing information. You're doing it as both an individual and you're doing it in social environments.
Babette Faehmel: 18:01
So, I actually wasn't aware of the change component of the meaning of meta, I thought about it as beyond going beyond. And I was wondering—. So, you're thinking about metaliteracy, about what we need to know to be meta-literate learners. Does that also help us explain why disinformation works so well?
Thomas Mackey: 18:24
I think so, and it's interesting because you had said something earlier in your own experience, because you talked about your emotional response to issues. I think a lot of that is what's happening today. So, if we're, you know, thinking about our own thinking, we're reflecting on who we are and how we respond to things. In that moment, you were really being a meta-literate learner, because you were very aware that you were having an emotional response to information. So, we've contextualized it within what we call the learning domains.
18:51
Metacognition is one of the learning domains, which is key to metaliteracy. The other domains are behavioral, which is pretty much what you do, the skills you gain and how you put those into practice. The cognitive, which is what you know, what you learn, how you think, but is also the effective. That's very much the emotional response to things, and it's not always a bad thing. Emotion isn't always a bad thing, because the effective can also be motivation, sort of. What really—what's that thing that really motivates you to learn or to do something? So, by foregrounding those four learning domains as part of this model and bringing it into the classroom, or bringing it online or any kind of learning activities, we've found that learners gain a new awareness about who they are as learners, sort of how their thinking process is working, because they're in on it. It's not just us sort of theorizing, they're really thinking about it. So, in that moment, when we're having maybe an emotional response to something, perhaps because it's a political belief that we feel strongly about, maybe there's a time to reflect through metacognition and rethink it. And of course, it would be great if everyone did this. We're not seeing that happen, but as a model, what we've found is that—at least in our learning activities—that this has brought new insights to the learning experience.
Babette Faehmel: 20:11
Yeah, I find that really fascinating. So, this Many Voices One Call is a diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice podcast. And when you're doing diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice work, there is oftentimes discomfort that comes as a response to the topics discussed. And I find that like this kind of, like—I don't want to call it a knee-jerk reaction to discomfort—because it's so humane. And I have experienced that so many times in my life that information comes at me, and it makes me so uncomfortable that I just do not want to believe. Does that sound familiar to anybody who frequents social media or social justice topics or political topics?
Nate Friedman: 21:03
I can't really think of the last time I've had like a knee-jerk reaction. I guess...
Babette Faehmel: 21:09
Or a discomfort, like, just where you feel, ‘I don't really want to get into this conversation. I want to return to my peer group, my affinity group.’
Nate Friedman: 21:24
I don't really think I've experienced that in a very recent—. I mean, the content I watch is on YouTube mostly, so I have very, you know it curates what I watch. It gives me topics that I enjoy consuming, those sort of stuff. So, it's been a minute since I've been recommended something and been like, ‘ooh, I don't know really if I'm comfortable with watching this,’ or, ‘ooh, this is really making me feel a way that I should turn it off,’ sort of thing. So, I don't think that I've experienced that in a minute.
Babette Faehmel: 21:54
No, okay, yeah, and you also said that what you like about social media is your ability to curate your own content right and your own...
Nate Friedman: 22:07
Well, I don't know, like it's not really a conscious me liking it. I mean, I've been. I've been on YouTube for a long time. I've been watching videos on that as a way to pass time for probably most of my life now. So, it's—. I don't really have a strong opinion about the curation one way or another. In one way, it's enjoyable. The other time, you know, there's some things that I'll find because I'm watching someone else's curated content. I'll be hanging out with a friend or something and I'll watch something they're watching, and I'm very interested in that. So, there's some parts of curation that have—I mean, I'm a little annoyed at how limited the information that I'm being shown is.
Babette Faehmel: 22:45
Hmm, okay. Do you try to diversify your content?
Nate Friedman: 22:50
It's—. No, I'm not that active in what I consume too much. So, it's not like I'm seeking out something. Unless—I mean there have been times when I have really wanted to learn something about a certain subject, and I'll do my best to find information about that. But a lot of the times when I do research on that, or like if I look up a topic on YouTube or something, I'll get shown something adjacent by someone I already watch, sort of thing. So, sometimes it can bring you back to what I'm already watching. So...
Babette Faehmel: 23:17
Okay. But...
Nate Friedman: 23:19
I do try.
Babette Faehmel: 23:21
Okay, Cody.
Cody Lewis: 23:23
I think one of the issues today, especially when talking about things like politics—is not for everyone, but for a lot of people—there's like a moral superiority kind-of-thing attached to it. And it's like a game you're supposed to win, not just a discussion you're having. So, a lot of times, by the time you find out that you've been wrong about something, you've already been kind of bragging about it and saying everyone else that disagrees with you must be dumb, or something like that. I've gotten better at it in the past few years, but I used to be like that. If anything went against what I had been just saying to everyone I knew loudly, I would just be like, nope, I'm not reading that. But now you do it a lot. Anytime I see something that makes me uncomfortable, that makes me think I should probably read this, just to be sure.
Babette Faehmel: 24:05
Uh-huh, yeah. I read in one of the articles that I read lately well, there are three assumptions that we make about, like, information—our opinions—that are making us uncomfortable. So, either it's the ignorance—it's the ignorant assumption. The idiocy assumption—that person's just stupid—or the worst one is probably the evil assumption, right? You assume that, ‘oh, you're just out to get me,’ and I have experienced myself having all three emotions when confronted with media that I don't like. I was Nate, I was in your boat totally until about 2017, maybe, where I noticed that the kind of information monosphere, and the general agreement on my Facebook feed is really concerning me, like myself. Even though all of this is what I like to hear and what I like to see more about, but it cannot be all. There needs to be more diversity in opinion out there. Okay, so, Professor Doyle, anything to add?
Rae Doyle: 25:17
I don't think so. I think everyone's said that. I know I have trouble watching, for example Fox News and that kind of thing. And I guess I could associate that with a lack of comfort, because I have trouble feeling like I'm being lied to or that it's so one-sided, that I have difficulty with that. And so, I find myself trying to avoid those things, which is not a good thing. I should try and consume some of that more just to get a fuller picture of what other people are hearing.
Babette Faehmel: 25:47
Okay, Professor Mackey, one of your contentions in your work is that we can teach metaliteracy, and I assume you would argue that it should be done across the curriculum and not just be left to, I don't know, librarians or communication professors. Are we doing a good job so far? Teaching literacy, teaching metaliteracy?
Thomas Mackey: 26:21
Wow, that's a really good question. First, I will say that, yes, I agree with your assertion that what we're thinking about in our work is really an across the board—. You know everyone wants to do this with their particular interests, but I do think that this idea of metaliteracy is really something that should be taught across the curriculum. And what's interesting, when we talk about this, we'll often hear from—. If we're presenting at a conference or something, we'll often hear from the participants that, you know, ‘I'm actually doing part of that,’ so some of it is probably being done. So, for example, the work that you're doing in your courses—communication courses, you know—that building that critical thinking into this process, having students critically evaluate the content that they're consuming is really a big part of it. So, I think that there are definitely elements out there where it's being done. Are we doing a good job? That's a big question. I think that everyone's doing the best that they can, and I think it's really a tough time in higher education right now in terms of, you know, limited resources, you know challenges to intellectual freedom because of some of these issues. So, I think everyone's trying to do the best that they can, but definitely there's room for improvement. And I think that that's why we're trying to get these ideas out there, and we're trying to build a collaborative community of educators and learners who are thinking about this experience and how to improve it.
27:49
For instance, I have embedded these concepts in my courses in the digital arts and it seems like kind of a natural thing to do. I'm very familiar with the concept, but it's very much about learner as producer. So, students in my digital storytelling course are producing two-to-three-minute personal narratives about their lives, for instance, on a theme like empowerment. You know who empowered them, or was there a moment in their life when they were empowered? Perhaps that decision to go back to school or to accomplish something major in their life like that? So, in a course like that, we're studying metaliteracy, and students are engaging with the idea. They're looking at these different learning domains, and so they're not just learning how to use a technology to create something. They're thinking about how this process as a knowledge producer informs their thinking. They also think about these different meta-literate learner roles, such as producer, publisher, translator, et cetera, and they're actually actively identifying with those roles as part of this process. So, absolutely, we're thinking across the curriculum.
28:59
I think everyone's doing the best that they can and clearly, we would love to see more of this throughout higher education and not limited. In some ways information literacy—although everyone buys into the idea and supports it—it has in many ways been relegated to librarians, who often have to do what's called these one-shot library sessions. So, they have, you know, a half hour with students, you know, the first year of school, where they teach them how to use the library databases. And they're doing an admirable job with this. There's just an entire journal, the College and Research Libraries Journal, that published an entire journal about one-shot sessions. So, people are trying to do this, but we're thinking beyond that. We don't want it to be limited in that way. We really are hoping that these ideas are embraced on a much larger scale.
Babette Faehmel: 29:51
Yeah. So, for me, one of the things that I have been thinking about a lot lately is if we are actually doing the right things to counter disinformation or misinformation. If we are addressing it in the right way. And I'm still grappling with that challenge because I mean—I teach modern American history, I teach the first half and the second half and some topics, courses—and it always comes up somehow and I don't know if my strategies sometimes have not been naïve. I was shocked to read that that it's actually probably naïve to think that just by presenting people with like counterfactual or with different set of facts or with factual information, it does not change their core beliefs, and that I find very daunting. Have you ever noticed that in your courses too, Professor Doyle?
Rae Doyle: 30:55
Um, the idea that even when given different information—? Yeah, I don't know, I feel like my students are pretty open, and so I don't—. I think I worry sometimes that the quieter ones have different viewpoints that they're not willing to express. (Babette agrees.) Right, right. And that's certainly problematic as far as courses are concerned, because you do want to reach those students as well. And see where their views are coming from and whether or not you've been able to reach them.
Babette Faehmel: 31:26
Yeah, do you encounter that, Cody and Nate, in your social circles, that you are trying to present facts and they are being fervently resisted?
Cody Lewis: 31:38
I'm currently trying to radicalize my coworker so I kind of use her like a litmus test for whatever is being said on Fox News. She's super into the Tucker Carlson type stuff and she often will say something that I've already seen online, and I've already looked up like the actual facts behind it. And then I'll show it to her and usually she doesn't get mad at me for it. She'll just change the subject to be like, ‘oh,’ and then just stop talking, but nothing changes.
Rae Doyle: 32:07
I think that's the hard part is when you do give people the alternate facts, or facts that are actually true—I hate the term alternate facts, that came out wrong—when you give them the actual facts, they are not willing to shift their viewpoints a lot of times.
Babette Faehmel: 32:22
How does that work psychologically? Does metaliteracy look at that?
Thomas Mackey: 32:27
Yeah, I think there's a few reasons why. The research out there has shown that a lot of it is confirmation bias, so that people do research to confirm their existing beliefs. So, they will just watch the channels that, you know, if it's a cable news channel, for instance, they'll just watch the channels that they're comfortable with. Or they'll go to the news sources that they're comfortable with. And again, think about how the environment has changed. A lot of those editorial filters that we had previously with more traditional journalistic sources, you know, newspapers, et cetera. You couldn't just have anything in a newspaper. It would have to be, you know, vetted through a process, you know: writer, journalist, writer, editor, you know, looking at what would be published. But now pretty much anyone can post and publish anything that they want, but what are the responsibilities of that? So, I think confirmation bias has a lot to do with it. I also think there was a study done last year that got a lot of traction because what it showed actually was that people are overconfident in their ability to assess their own ability to differentiate false information from real information. That's why your original question was so interesting, asking everyone to assess, you know, what number they were, because oftentimes, you know, this happens to everybody. But a majority of respondents in this one study showed that most people are overconfident in their ability to differentiate. In many ways that's even more dangerous because they think they're good consumers of information and they're the ones really that then spread this misinformation.
34:04
So, it just kind of makes the problem even worse. So, I think there are a number of factors, and it's interesting that metaliteracy is really focused on the learner as producer and as part of that we look at the ethical considerations, the responsibilities of an information producer, sort of—. So, that people are thinking about what they're producing, how they're sharing it, who they're working with, and not just getting anything out there. I think—. Everyone—when the web came out, the web was developed—it was this idea that, this is what was so exciting about it, that, ‘oh, anybody can produce information.’ But look what's happened? We don't have, you know, the necessary editorial filters to kind of filter this. In many ways, people have to learn how to do that themselves, and I think that that's where metaliteracy can come in. Where, if people are more reflective about sort of what they're doing online and what they're consuming and producing, I think that'll help. But it's a challenge.
Babette Faehmel: 35:02
It definitely is a challenge, and I have to say—well, self-critically—I can say I have not been teaching my students the proper amount of metaliteracy. History is not the most dynamic profession academic discipline. We are kind of old-fashioned and don't change readily. I have for years referred my students—or required my students—to only use peer-reviewed literature found on an academic database. And so, the effect, I think, is students then do it to please me or to pacify me for one class, for the duration of one class, and then they go back to their consumer information consumption habits. And also, it's limiting, I mean, knowledge is not just produced on academic databases. Knowledge is produced by not just the credited and credentialed experts. And so, I think we need to loosen up there, and free the minds of us all—of ourselves and our own minds and our students' minds—and to really teach the skills that it needs to assess literacy. The classes that you are taking—don't necessarily have to talk about Professor Doyle's class because you're in it and we're still in the middle of the semester—but do you find that professors are a little stuck in their ways sometimes when it comes to sources and material you are required to use?
Nate Friedman: 36:30
No, not really, no. I don’t...
Babette Faehmel: 36:34
Past professors, maybe?
Nate Friedman: 36:34
No, I think the kind of sources I've been allowed to use have been very broad. I've run into very few situations where a teacher's been like, ‘hey, that's not a usable source.’ If anything, they're like, ‘hey, you need more sources.’ That's pretty much all I've ever ran into. I've used YouTube videos as sources. I've used— I mean, yeah, that's pretty much.
Babette Faehmel: 36:58
I'm curious, how do you assess the credibility and reliability of your YouTube sources?
Nate Friedman: 37:06
Well, whenever I use a YouTube source, it's really not for information, it's more like ideological or someone's opinion in the YouTube video. If I'm going to get information from YouTube video, I'll go to their sources. Lots of people who are worth their salt will put a list of sources in the description. So, if I'm going to find information that I'm going to use, I'm not going to say, ‘this guy from this YouTube video said that this many people use their car to go to work and this many people use their bike.’ I’ll go to their source, get the transportation data. But that's usually a good way—. There's different uses for different sources, and I think—if I'm making an ideological case, I'll cite someone who I think has a good point but, otherwise, I'll probably try to find data from a reliable source.
Babette Faehmel: 37:51
Okay, okay. How about you, Cody?
Cody Lewis: 37:54
It can depend on the professor. For the most part here at this school, depending on the subject at least, there's certain things. You can't just use a news article to talk about, like, science and things. But usually as long as you use a credible newspaper or something—no blogs or try to stay away from, like, opinion-based videos and stuff—you can use it. So, it's—I think it's fair.
Babette Faehmel: 38:17
Because that's another thing that I really liked about the metaliteracy framework, that there is an acknowledgement that expertise can come from all kinds of sources, but that expertise does exist.
Thomas Mackey: 38:31
Yes.
Babette Faehmel: 38:32
Yeah. So, that depends on asserting and finding the right criteria for credibility and reliability and expertise.
Thomas Mackey: 38:42
Right, and that media is valuable. So, there are some really good sources out there. I've been incorporating TED Talks into my courses—they can be 20 minutes, half hour—from experts and I found them really valuable. I think students find them really engaging. But again, I'm vetting them. The TED Talk brand is a pretty good one. It's a reliable source. It's from experts, but it's not always academics. You have people who are telling stories that are really interesting and engaging and that add value to the class.
39:16
So, I think showing examples like that, where these media sources are reliable, it doesn't have to be something that's locked down in a scholarly database. In fact, there are a lot of journals now that are open access journals. So, I think introducing that concept is important too. Open educational resources, which you know, are materials that are developed by educators, but then they open them up so that anyone can sort of use them and adapt them. So, trying to build on really what's considered more of an open culture. You know, images on Creative Commons, for instance, or Wikimedia. So, if students are producing projects, if they're not developing something, their own original image, I would encourage them to use Creative Commons that are openly licensed materials.
40:08
So, this idea of media that's not always part of a proprietary social network is important. So, a lot of these sources — YouTube and Facebook and Instagram and, of course, Twitter—which we just heard about in the news within the last 24 hours, being taken over by the richest person in the world. I think there's an assumption that these are free and open, and I'll put up with some ads, but these are proprietary social media applications that people really should be thinking critically about as well. And I think that that's part of the metaliteracy framework too. That it's not just the information that we want to look at in a critical way or what we're producing, but it's ‘what is the environment for these resources?’ You know.
40:59
If I engage with a social media platform, what do I have to give up? Am I giving up my personal privacy, my data, when I click terms of service? What have I actually agreed to? So, there's a number of kind of complex issues related to this. I may have gone completely off track from your original question, but I kind of got into that one. (Laughs.)
Babette Faehmel: 41:21
Yeah, I'm glad that you mentioned the open educational resources. Part of the open educational resources are also—you put your curriculum fully available on the web and we will link to that in the show notes, and it includes a lot of YouTube videos, by the way. Which is also pretty amazing and very timely, because one of your other concerns, or your related concern, is metaliteracy for a post-truth world, right? Can you maybe, like, in a few sentences, explain what is post-truth?
Thomas Mackey: 42:04
A few sentences, oh my. So, the term post-truth had been around for a while and then it really reemerged in 2016 with a lot of the questions about the Brexit Movement, a lot of the misinformation and disinformation that had formed that. The 2016 presidential election, there was a lot of misinformation that circulated as part of that experience. So, the post-truth was actually—was the word of the year in 2016, because people hadn't been using it so much.
Babette Faehmel: 42:33
I forgot that.
Thomas Mackey: 42:34
Yeah, and it's really this idea that we live in an era where truth doesn't have the value that it did previously. And you can see so much evidence of that with, you know—because you had mentioned, you know—a lot of these media sources that are just, you know, really just lying to people and you know, spreading misinformation, spreading disinformation. So, I think it's a valuable name to use, or word to use, or phrase to use to explain—perhaps the world that we're in now—where these questions of truth are coming up on a daily basis. But it's interesting—just to give a kind of a counter argument to that—there have also been some researchers that have kind of rejected the word. And have said that—like Brendan Nyhan, who I really appreciate his research very much—and what he says is that the problem with a term like post-truth is that it makes the assumption that there was an era where we always had truth.
43:42
So as a historian, you can probably appreciate that. That there's really not anything new to that and that we have to be careful. So, what he says is that it's really not so much about naming something post-truth, you really want to get at the heart of what's going on. And he refers to it as misperceptions. That a lot of this misinformation is really about misperceptions and how people understand things. So, I think that's a really valuable insight. I will say, however, that I know that there's historical precedence for this, but I do think there's something about the current era we live in—because it's a social media age and information circulates so quickly and people aren't thinking necessarily about what they're consuming and sharing—that the term post-truth does have some value and maybe there is something different about sort of where we are. But I do think you know. That's why I'm so interested in your work of looking at the historical precedence for disinformation, because I think there's something to that as well.
Babette Faehmel: 44:41
Yeah, no, I would say that there's definitely a difference in the pace and the ease of information as it's circulating. I mean, I'm pretty sure we've all at one point in our life shared something that was untrue. And I mean, I read some statistics that about 14% of adults would admit that they have shared—like, knowingly shared an untruth. But I mean, I know of at least one occasion where I shared something very eagerly and I got like a little notification from Facebook telling me that this has been proven to be untrue. What are the students—? I'm interested in your perspective on what you think is the, or could be, causes and reasons for misinformation, disinformation, post-truth—all of this getting a little bigger right now. Would you blame social media, or would you blame consumer choices?
Nate Friedman: 45:46
I think there's a few reasons why misinformation might be spread. I think—. Well, because a lot of information is done through like a market where someone is being there—. So, someone is either getting information while also getting ads, and they're trying to be—. They're basically a product being sold to advertisers, so they're—. I think people may be willing to use a certain narrative to create a large base of viewers to maintain a business. So, I think that could be one of the incentives that drives misinformation. I think there's, like, ideological reasons why people might be spreading misinformation. If they believe that it'll bring about whatever they think an ideal world would be, then they might be wanting to do that. I think those are two large reasons that I think could be reasonable for why people would spread misinformation or disinformation.
Babette Faehmel: 46:44
Yeah, okay. Cody?
Cody Lewis: 46:47
I think one of the most scary things about online, especially with social media, is how easy it is to, like, work it how you want it to go. You see it a lot with politicians or companies trying to sell something. Bots are a huge problem. This is, like, verified. Like there was a—Russian bot farms, the U.S. had farms trying to go against a pro Middle East content. There's pro-Israel—that's anti-Muslim bot farms. Like, they've been in the news, it's not just like a lot of people are...like anyway. So, I think that's also part of the problem though, because on top of spreading misinformation, they've spread this idea that there is misinformation, so people don't trust a lot of the stuff they see and then that's —. Yeah, it's pretty scary.
Babette Faehmel: 47:35
Professor, do you think that by teaching students how to tell, for instance, digital stories—for teaching them these skills—that you are unwittingly creating more creator of disinformation? (Laughter.)
Thomas Mackey: 47:52
Well, I hope not. Because I think—I mean it's very possible, but based on what we're seeing in the courses, the students really produce really thoughtful projects. And they do it individually and they do it—. At the end of the class they actually work on a collaborative digital story. So, again, I feel like we're teaching them more than the skills of how to produce something. They're really engaged in all these kinds of conversations that we're having within this hour: that sort of, what are the origins of the information, you know, sort of how—what are openly licensed materials? How do I create something original? And then at the end of that class, they actually produce—based on their research—they produce a collaborative digital story about a social cause. So, it's been really interesting the kinds of projects that students have come up with based on their own research. And it's library-based research or it's credible online sources. We try to be as flexible as possible as long as they're credible sources. So, we've had students—some of the highlights—one student group, you know, during the pandemic, they did something about, you know, supporting artists during the pandemic, and they did a lot of research about how challenging it is, you know, to be an artist, especially during the pandemic, and what could be done. They produced original music. They produced original videos. They found openly licensed materials. They did research on what the issues are.
49:21
I've had a number of students develop projects on climate change—on the importance of climate change. And I have to say, it's always so inspiring, because that's one of those topics you hear debated all the time in the media, and it's become a very—one of those polarizing political topics. But it's so encouraging to see students really care about this topic and so many students always want to develop, again, a research-based project about that topic. We've had other students do topics such as, you know, being a vegan and the importance of that, and animal welfare. During the height of the controversies about critical race theory, for example, we had students—in a lot of school districts are being challenged inappropriately, because a lot of the negative forces are misrepresenting what critical race theory is. So, we had students develop a very thoughtful, collaborative story about what critical race theory is, what the origins of it are, and what some of the current controversies are related to that.
50:27
So, here it is: they take on this, you know—this is one of those topics that's having big impact and very polarized, unfortunately, and they really do it in a very thoughtful way. Another student group did something on, you know, attacks on Asian Americans during—because of COVID. And all the—because of that anti-Asian rhetoric that was used, that it's really caused all kinds of violence and how to fight that violence. So, again, these students are taking on incredibly important topics, doing research and then producing work, being co-creators of knowledge, right? So, they're not just creating it on their own, they're really teaching and learning from each other as part of that process.
Babette Faehmel: 51:13
I tend to agree. I think if we empower students to be producers of information and knowledge and creators, we are also creating more responsible creators.
Thomas Mackey: 51:22
Right.
Babette Faehmel: 51:23
Just because, I mean, they are the ones responsible for the content. Awesome. So, that would be one great assignment to use to teach metaliteracy. Can you share some others?
Thomas Mackey: 51:40
Oh, we have so many. I think a really good one—and if anyone's listening, if they go to metaliteracy dot org, they can actually see some of the things we're talking about here. There's a visual diagram that explains, kind of like what the model is. So, it has the learning domains, it has these characteristics, and it also has these learner roles, including producer, teacher, publisher. So, in the digital storytelling class, the very first assignment, we ask students to talk about and to identify with the role that resonates with them the most. So, they create what's called a selfie video and where it's really, it could just be them in front of their camera, you know, like two minutes kind of introducing themselves to the class but then talking about how they relate to one of these roles. And it's always so interesting because the collaborator role for instance, a student might talk about how they're collaborative at their work environment and they bring that into the classroom. Or the producer, they see themselves as a content creator.
52:42
They might have their own YouTube channel, and they explain what that's about. Or they identify with being a teacher, because they're a teacher—actually a teaching aid—at their school. So, it's really interesting. I think that's a really great way to start the conversation because then, again, it goes beyond just specific skills that we're trying to develop and it's really getting students to think about their identity within the context of these creator roles. And again, I think that's a good way to kind of start and they're using the technology and they're thinking about metaliteracy from the very start.
Babette Faehmel: 53:15
Okay, yeah, that's interesting. I like the digital storytelling assignment.
Thomas Mackey: 53:20
Oh, it’s such a fun class.
Babette Faehmel: 53:21
I'm going to try to use it, I'm always worried about my own lack of savviness when it comes to using the tools, but I think my students will probably teach me that fairly quickly. So, I want to talk about one last um overarching topic here, and that is that this podcast, Many Voices, One Call, is a diversity, equity, inclusion podcast. What would you see as the—everybody—see the connection between equity and inclusion, and also, social justice and information literacy?
Nate Friedman: 54:01
Well, I think that—. I think that a lot of things that have been holding society back from achieving equity and inclusion is a—like power structures that maintain their power, and they do this through many different means, which includes misinformation. So, I think, if you are able to discern the truth, I think you can definitely figure out a way to counter these power structures with—not, like, with action—but at least be able to understand in your mind where these sort of things come from, and why some ideas that we have reinforce the lack of equity. So, by being able to understand this, I think we can definitely move towards a better future—by being understanding of where information comes from and how power plays into that.
Babette Faehmel: 54:57
Okay, okay, I like that. Cody?
Cody Lewis: 55:03
Do you mean equity as far as the information that's being put out or people's access to it?
Babette Faehmel: 55:08
Access, I think, is a very important aspect.
Cody Lewis: 55:13
Because that's something I know—especially with, like, people without homes—they just don't have the same access to things that a lot of other people do, because we can all scroll on our phones and see stuff or go buy a paper. They often, if they have a shelter to go to, they're just whatever's being on tv is what they get to see. I don't know how you would fix it, but that's one of those things where just a lot of people, depending on your socioeconomic class, that might determine exactly what you're going to get to see. A lot of people rely on things like radios, but if you're in an area that doesn't have a bunch of radio channels, you're just going to hear whatever's available.
Babette Faehmel: 55:51
Yeah, that's a very important point. Also, the digital divide and digital redlining.
Cody Lewis: 55:57
Okay, that's what it's called.
Babette Faehmel: 55:58
Yeah, absolutely, and you need to have the access to these tools in order to be a full participant in a 21st century society, politics, economy, everything, right? Absolutely, and also access. I think you need a certain degree of literacy, and cultural capital in literacy, in order to access good jobs in the knowledge economy and the information economy. All of these things that you learn at community college. Rae, how about you?
Rae Doyle: 56:35
I think it's really important that we consider the fact that the more literate people become, the easier it will be to see problems, like the critical race theory issue, right? That this narrative was created around it that had absolutely nothing to do with what it is. And I think one of the biggest things that stuck with me a couple summers ago was talking with a high school teacher who said, she's like, ‘they keep calling it critical race theory, but they just want us to stop teaching history.’ And it's a complete lack of understanding. And people's inability to look into it or research it and—or lack of desire. And I think that learning these tools can hopefully decrease that issue, because one of the big things that I see now too, is that people don't even believe when things change, right? So anytime there is new guidance with the coronavirus, people were like, ‘oh, they were lying to us. They don't know what they're talking about,’ right? And it's not that they were lying to us, it's that the more we learn about it, the more things change, right? It's kind of like women when they were pregnant early in the 60s and 70s there wasn't anything that they talked about as far as alcohol consumption, right? And then the more we learn, the more they've changed what they do, and it's been the same thing with...
Babette Faehmel: 58:01
It's the nature of science.
Rae Doyle: 58:02
Yeah, and now people don't believe anything. And so, then they don't believe anything when there's a change, and so that's problematic as well. So, I think that it's a really important step in trying to combat that disinformation and misinformation.
Babette Faehmel: 58:19
I think it also leads—I mean, this kind of confusion and disbelief in everything also leads to helplessness. When you're feeling helpless you feel disempowered. And when you feel disempowered, well then, you are just becoming a passive consumer of politics. Whatever they put out there, you will have to put up with, right? So yeah, absolutely. Professor Mackey?
Thomas Mackey: 58:42
I think these are all really excellent ones. I think the power dynamics, the digital divide issues, sort of access to the resources and the ideas—these are all embedded in sort of a metaliteracy approach. We focused a lot about technology, and I think that even with all the strides that have been made with technology, we do have a global issue with the digital divide. We still have people who don't have access, and I think everyone should have access to be engaged in this so that we have more voices in these spaces. But we've also been trying to shift the focus away from just technology to thinking about metaliteracy in all of our communities—all of our communities of practice, classroom-based instruction. It doesn't have to be online or even blended or in these social media spaces, many of which that are proprietary. There's a whole . . . makerspace communities, for instance, that have been emerging, where people are creating objects and they're doing it collaboratively.
59:47
So, it's that same sort of metaliterate idea that we're co-creators of knowledge and what does that mean? Because we learn not only as individuals and by reflecting on our thinking, but we also—learning is very much a social process, and there's decades of research on that, which is really important. So, another part of metaliteracy is this idea that we have a kind of a civic responsibility. So, what is it to be civic-minded, and where does that happen? So, it might be happening in local communities that are not necessarily sort of wired or Wi-Fi or what have you, but that are making—. We have a group of people who are making purposeful connections and learning from each other. But, having said that, I do think it's important that we make more progress with the digital divide, because this is the world we're in, and I think that the more people we have at the table, the better.
Babette Faehmel: 01:00:43
Absolutely, absolutely. So, I'm going to give the two students one more opportunity to just fire away any kind of question, any kind of thoughts that come to your mind before we close this conversation.
Nate Friedman: 01:00:58
Yeah, so.
Babette Faehmel: 01:00:59
Wonderful.
Nate Friedman: 01:01:00
I have a question. Could you give me a hypothetical of how you could see someone consuming what might be, like, disinformation and how they might reflect and, like—. What is that process like for someone consuming disinformation?
Thomas Mackey: 01:01:16
I think we're doing it every day. I think that we're trying to discern what is accurate information, because we're getting all kinds of information from a variety of sources. And I do think, by the way, that there's danger in just questioning everything, because that's part of what happens is that people then challenge some of the traditional institutions and come up with these alternatives. So, for instance, saying, well, the New York Times, they're always biased, so I'm not going to listen to them, I'll listen to some other source on the web. So, I think that we're all dealing with and engaging with disinformation and misinformation on a daily basis. I will say that—I mean, I've had students in my courses, even courses about misinformation, where I had a sense, or it was clear that they were kind of spreading misinformation based on their own political bias. So—and what's interesting is that I've even had some students say that students who have a conservative perspective are often the ones who are challenged in their courses. So, I think, as educators, we have to be really careful. I think if we see misinformation being spread in our classes, I think we have to challenge it, but we have to do it in a way that's fair and balanced and doesn't put someone on the spot to the point where it looks like they're the target because of their political perspective. So, I think we always have to be understanding, because I think it's very possible that a student who watches Fox News or some of these other sources, they're going to be in our classes and maybe they're quiet because they're afraid to express themselves. But if they're quiet and they don't participate, then we're never going to know and we're not going to be able to help them. And you know, you have the other side of it too, whether they're maybe extreme, whatever, left or whatever, and maybe they're quiet too because they don't want to express a certain perspective. So, I think that what we're trying to do with the metaliteracy idea is create collaborative communities where people feel safe to express their ideas and work together. But there have to be some ground rules where people are willing to work together and not attack each other for their differences in belief.
01:03:35
I think that students always need to feel safe in a classroom to be who they are, because learners are always changing and to me it's not changing them to a particular political perspective. I just want them to think critically about what it is they're consuming and what they're producing, because what they're producing, then, is contributing to the world. So my outcome, I think, in answer to your question, is what I would see as ideal, is that a student coming into my classroom or online course feels comfortable and feels safe to be who they are, but who is open enough to engage with the ideas while participating in a research process that is research-based. So there are some rules that go along with that in terms of the kinds of sources you look up and things like that, and that at the end of the course, they feel like they've been challenged but not targeted—but that they feel challenged and that they're looking, hopefully, at the world through a new lens. Maybe that's being overly optimistic, I don't know. I have two other educators, and we have two students here. I don't know how realistic that is. What do you think?
Babette Faehmel: 01:04:40
I think it's definitely needed. I've been toying with the idea of debate-centered instruction for a while, because that would ask students to really argue both sides of a proposition, but fairly.
Thomas Mackey: 01:04:59
Fairly right.
Babette Faehmel: 01:05:00
And also, with a lot of—yeah, like, really, research. What is at the core of each assumption, even if they don't necessarily agree with it? I think, as educators we are—. It behooves us to have some humility about what we don't know, or how our emotions get in the way of open-mindedness for all of us. So, that would be my take. How about you, Rae Doyle?
Rae Doyle: 01:05:31
I think we have to learn to listen and really hear both sides in order to figure out where people are coming from and making sure that they don't feel like they can't talk, because we need to find out where different views are coming from, right? And isn't that part of figuring out where they're getting their information from and whether or not they've been self-critical and really analyze the information? Like, we really definitely have to be open. And I think that's probably one of my weaknesses is trying to make sure that I'm open but...
Babette Faehmel: 01:06:06
See? There is the humility. Very nice.
Nate Friedman: 01:06:07
I think with, like—when it comes to being open. I think, especially for, like, when it comes to the narrative that, like, right wing media spreads about how they are perceived by the broad society. I think, like, there is a large emphasis on that, like, ‘you're not going to be accepted, they're going to cancel culture you,’ and all that. So, I think, like—. I haven't experienced this. I mean, we—me and Professor Doyle—we had a class with some interesting voices and some interesting opinions and, you know...
Rae Doyle: 01:06:38
I was thinking about that too. (Laughs.)
Nate Friedman: 01:06:41
But I think earlier on he was—. I think he was open to spreading his opinions. I think at some point he did sort of shut off at some point and was not as comfortable spreading his opinions because there was some pushback. But I don't think it was terribly—. There was no disrespectful pushback happening, I don’t think.
Rae Doyle: 01:06:58
No, I think people were really good about it.
Nate Friedman: 01:07:00
But I do think there is, like, some sort of priming to, like, ‘you're not going to be accepted for your values,’ and I think there's something dangerous to that or, like, it's going to limit them in how they feel, like, expressing themselves.
Babette Faehmel: 01:07:13
It also limits us. It limits us because if we don't engage in these discussions, there's also a lot of viewpoints that we are just, like, closing ourselves off to. And it is—. I think it's, like, statistics clearly show that there is—. The number of—percentage-wise—conservatives are a minority in academia: amongst the student body and among the professor body. So, you're absolutely right. I think it's important to give that—. To make all these viewpoints—make it possible for these viewpoints to be expressed.
Rae Doyle: 01:07:50
Yeah, interestingly enough about this situation too, is that it created conversation after the class too. Like, Nate and another student would discuss different things that had gone on in the classroom on that particular day. So—. And I think that's a good thing, like talking about where the ideas may have come from. And I know, thinking about this conversation, that there was one particular situation that I definitely did not handle well. Rather than saying that is not true, I should have said, ‘let's talk about the source you chose to give that piece of information,’ right? But it was so—. It was that knee-jerk reaction, right? I just was like, ‘that's not true,’ and so, I should have definitely handled that better.
Babette Faehmel: 01:08:30
Yeah, it requires a lot. It's a big teaching challenge.
Rae Doyle: 01:08:32
Yeah, yeah.
Thomas Mackey: 01:08:33
It's interesting because I think there is comfort in the research process and the scientific method, even though those are, in many ways, what's being challenged. And I think we have to stand up for that. I think that we have to stand up for—whatever your political perspective is—this is a research process that has to be supported. It's not just expressing an opinion. And again. I want people to feel comfortable.
Babette Faehmel: 01:09:01
It's a method.
Thomas Mackey: 01:09:02
But there's a method. There's an approach to it where you're supporting what you're saying, and that's why we're talking about reliable sources. There are a lot of sources out there that are not reliable. A lot of people say they're doing research because they're looking up websites and blogs that are not reliable—that are just putting forward a perspective—and I want everyone to really look at that critically. So, I want people to feel comfortable, but also, we do have to support that research process. That's what we're doing. (Babette enthusiastically agrees.) That's why we're here in academia and I think it's being challenged, and it's being considered elitist, and I don't think critical thinking is elitist. I think it's something we should all be engaging in. (Babette agrees.) It's a tough balance,
Babette Faehmel: 01:09:45
Cody. I don't want to forget about you, because we wanted to end with students having the floor and an opportunity to ask any question.
Cody Lewis: 01:09:58
Okay. So as much as I like learning for the sake of learning, my end question is always like what can I do with this information? So, say, I take a class, and I know how to look up all the verifiable information, I know how to create, like, ethical content, and then I want to perform my civic duty and put the content out to combat misinformation. If you're not like in the know with how algorithms work and things and you put out like a TikTok video or a blog and it only gets eight views, like does your class go over how to actually do that in a successful way?
Thomas Mackey: 01:10:36
I think that—. We didn't really talk about this. I think algorithms is definitely something that is a key part of it. (Babette agrees.) I think that we may not get into it necessarily, but I think that it's—part of the metaliteracy is being able to adapt to changing technologies and understand the environment. So, I don't think it always comes up, but I think it should come up more than it does. There's an interesting study—the algorithm study by Project Information Literacy actually, you should look that one up, it's really good—and the students surveyed in that said that they really learned about algorithms from their friends and family and not so much in their courses. So that—I think you're right on about that, that it should be built into the classes. I hope that students are looking critically at it. It does come up in some of the discussions, but I think we could probably be doing even more with it, because that's part of the issue with these proprietary social media platforms. They're driven by algorithms, and the point you had made earlier about sort of that frustration of not being able to get outside of your comfort zone on YouTube is for that very reason. They're continuously sending you things based on the algorithm of what you liked already. So, we definitely have to—. You're absolutely right. We absolutely have to be aware of that and build that into our teaching as well.
Babette Faehmel: 01:11:55
Algorithm literacy, just another one.
Thomas Mackey: 01:11:57
You did a whole thing on algorithms.
Babette Faehmel:
Absolutely.
Nate Friedman: 01:12:00
Here we go.
Babette Faehmel: 01:12:02
Well, not today, unfortunately, because we have reached our limit here, our time limit. I just want to thank everybody once again. Our guests Professor Mackey; Rae Doyle, Professor of Communication; Cody Lewis; and Nate Friedman. Thank you so much for coming and for sharing your time and your thoughts with us.
(Crosstalk thanks)
Thomas Mackey: 01:12:24
Thank you. Really appreciate it. Really enjoyed it.
Babette Faehmel: 01:12:23
Many Voices, Won't Call wouldn't be possible without support from the School of Music and use of its recording studio. Special thanks go to Sten Isaacson for making possible the recording and editing of the podcast, to Heather Meaney and Karen Tanski for help in promoting it, and to Jessica McHugh-Green for creating and maintaining the website. Further thanks go to the SUNY Schenectady Foundation for financial support, the REACH Initiative leadership team, the Student Mentoring Program, the Student Government Association, and the Student Activities Advisor.