By: Yildiz Subuk, Staff Writer and Sofia Chassomeris, Opinions Editor
Media literacy is a person’s ability to critically analyze the media they consume. Media is a form of communication, and what constitutes media varies; books, films, music, and especially the news are common forms of communication. We engage with media on a daily basis, but to critically think about the content we consume is different from passive consumption. As the media is often rife with misinformation and disinformation, it becomes crucial to question the framing of the content we are shown and consider why the creator has done so.
Viewpoints about issues labeled as “politically controversial” can fall into the trap of bothsiderism (also known as a false balance), which occurs when two sides of an issue are presented as equal even though they are not. Also an instance of disinformation, which is when information is presented in a way intended to mislead, a clear example of bothsiderism can be found in the array of media coverage on climate skepticism. In a report published by Nature, the journal highlights a significant gap in climate communication between experts and the public. Many mainstream media outlets do not provide in-depth scientific evidence on climate change, but do tend to platform sceptics who express their concerns for how climate change may actually cause personal economic harm, or how climate goals are unattainable. Skeptical views often downplay the effects of climate change and the urgency needed to combat the issue.
In former BBC journalist Emily Maitlis’ lecture at the Edinburgh Television Festival, she criticizes the BBC and their journalistic approach, claiming that “journalists have failed to keep up” when reporting on political issues. She gives accounts of journalists providing unnecessary details that can lead to misinterpretation. In a news article published by the LA Times regarding the recent wildfire disaster that happened in Los Angeles, the reporter provides quotes from two parties. While the first experts (a research team) weighs in on how human-caused climate change contributes to the fires starting, the second party claims climate change “may be juicing it” and that its effects are not quantifiable.
“Critically analyzing media is a skill that should be honed throughout schooling, integrated into a dynamic and continuous approach to education that doesn’t just stop after graduation.”
This is an example of misinformation, when an opinion is presented incorrectly as fact without any factual basis. There is no evidence to back up his claim, aside from a level of uncertainty with the other, whereas the first party states that dried up plants are more likely to burn because of human-made conditions. Both opinions are provided, but only one offers actual evidence. There shouldn’t be a debate; climate skepticism completely omits scientifically-backed evidence to rely on conspiracy. However, when media consistently presents the empirical value of “both sides” which are not equally deduced, often relying on fringe deniers to back up their claims, it creates the illusion of controversy and debate between two valid arguments.
As journalists fall into the trap of platforming two opposing but imbalanced sides, it is important for consumers to analyze the language used, and most importantly, to verify the general consensus of experts within the field before forming an opinion on a “controversial” matter. As of now, nearly 97% of environmental experts agree that climate change is a pressing matter, which means there shouldn’t be debates on whether or not we need to take it seriously. Media literacy is one of the most crucial tools when it comes to understanding how political decisions and policy have major implications. When we vote for political parties, we generally vote based on the information we receive about issues we think are important. Policies and how they are advertised by politicians have a direct impact on us, and when consumers have difficulties critically analyzing their sources, it is easy to fall into traps of confirmation bias or become severely misinformed.
Critically analyzing media is a skill that should be honed throughout schooling, integrated into a dynamic and continuous approach to education that doesn’t just stop after graduation. This way people can learn how to identify biases within the news, science, and also economics through the changing contexts of their lives. Realistically, what needs to be taught is that most media is not objective or value-neutral; those who publicize have something to say, and before you listen, it’s a good idea to think about why they’re saying it in the first place.
