The problem with these five criteria (or any criteria) is that they themselves are already subject to our bias. We're much less likely to heavily scrutinize media that reaffirms what we want to believe then media that challenges it, which we put under the electron microscope.
Yeah, but you can't just remove bias completely. No one can. The best thing you can do is get information from multiple sources and to keep an open mind.
The best antidote to confirmation bias is awareness that you have it and that it never turns itself off. Media literacy is work, after all. A good rule of thumb is, if you're reading/watching something, and you think to yourself, "I knew it!", then you've succumbed to confirmation bias. Conversely, if the article/story is pissing you off to the point that you want to stop and get your mind off it by doing something pleasant, you have succumbed to it. It's really great at short circuiting your ability to critically analyse.
I think there's bias in the example Mr. Smooth gave. In this episode, he was said that the Washington Post and Alantic were good soruces of information. Yet, I think, that the WP and Alantic are sort of left wing, centrist newspapers. Why didn't Mr. Smooth say that the Wall Street Journal or The Economist were good soruces? The Green brothers are openly libreal and sometimes I do see that in these crash course videos.
It's not about bias. It's about credibility. They are credible sources for news because they have a long history of doing the necessary research, citing sources, and balancing perspectives. That you use "left wing" and "centrist" as if they're similar tells me that you read right-wing-biased sources (plus the fact that you're claiming liberal bias in the video for not providing known conservative media examples). You are doing it wrong. You'll find that open-mindedness and critical analysis tend to have "a liberal bias" because it's a natural consequence of expanding your perspective.
The steps to evaluate accuracy, (un)bias and reliability are only the very basic ones. In reality, I think one may never know if the information is actually accurate because the source information may come from wrong analysis that takes a lot of investigation to fix, and no one can investigate every piece of information. We often have to rely on others to investigate for us but again, we can never fully trust others' work. In the same way, it is also becoming increasingly difficult to know if one is really unbiased or reliable from just reading words and looking at references. Today's skills of deception in journalism is very advanced with all of the hidden messages, SEO strategies and bribes. This is why I think we should not look at any media products as absolutely right or wrong. There's not much can be deemed right or wrong besides natural laws, anyway. So, when we consume media, whatever opinions we have, we should try to sympathize and see from others' perspectives to find a common way to benefit us all and build the world. We celebrate differences but aim for unity rather than violent imposition of beliefs.
Lovely Video clip! Sorry for chiming in, I would appreciate your opinion. Have you tried - Dylantey Social Severable (probably on Google)? It is a good exclusive guide for learning how he makes six figures using this simple online traffic source minus the normal expense. Ive heard some decent things about it and my mate got astronomical results with it.
I sincerely hope Media Literacy becomes a required course (or series of courses) in the public education system. As you said, as the world becomes more and more heavily reliant on digital technologies, an understanding and practical knowledge of media and the tools to navigate it will be all the more important.
Let us not forget that our religious texts are also media, and that to swallow them whole uncritically is just as foolish as blindly believing that Facebook meme. We would do well do apply the same questions and critical thinking that Jay Smooth talks about to our reading of the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud, etc.
Hi there! I loved this video, and want to support it by leaving a comment. However, I'm aware that RUclips's comment system is heavily skewed towards promoting conflict, as well as violent and intolerant behaviour, and I am not willing to be a target. That's why I've created this "pre-recorded" comment to leave on videos I like! I do not leave "+" comments, because it is important to me to make known that this space is damaging. I strongly encourage others to do the same if they feel targeted by RUclips's media environment. Thank you for making work that is so positive and meaningful to me!
FYI the learner's permit example doesn't work everywhere outside the US. Where I live one is expected to start learning the theory before getting practical lessons, but the only requirement is to take a minimum number of practical lessons and to pass the theoretical test before you take the practical one, but it can be done in any order - e.g. you could start driving without knowing the meaning of a single road sign or marking. (But driving teachers themselves must have permits and special cars with extra gas and break pedals on the teacher's side, so the teacher can intervene in an emergency, I don't think that's a requirement in the US either. I spent my first lesson controlling nothing but the wheel, it was pretty fun).
Checking sources is good, but sometimes check the sources of the sources. There's been a couple of times when I've checked sources and found a circle of articles that all source each other, and are all found on internet-only "news" sites.
It's interesting that this video, just out today, specifically name drops the New York Attorney General. He resigned last night in disgrace. I wonder if they would have used the same article as an example if they knew what was going to happen.
Zaman Siddiqui he's still a reliable source on abuse, but also an abusers. For example, if President Trump says we should not grab people by their genitals without consent, he would be correct, but also a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is an over-rated vice.
less a name drop and more about the position. the guy with the problems is no longer the new york attorney general, but the point stands that that position has credibility. thus why that dude is no longer the new york attorney general
I see the end coming and all I can say is JAAAAAAAAY SMOOOOOOTH DOOONNNN'T GO. KEEP MAKING CRASH COURSES. PLEASE, YOU ARE THE CRASHCOURSE GOAT. WE NEED YOU.
I love these rules. I can't claim to use them all perfectly all the time, but it's definitely possible. Don't let moral/media relativism win just because it's overwhelming, folks. That's intellectual laziness. The Washington Post isn't a credible source because it conforms to certain arbitrary standards; it's a credible source because it has built up a tradition, environment, and reputation for heavily researched, clear-headed, and accurate analysis. They get it wrong sometimes, but when they fail, they don't fail like Fox News or Buzzfeed, and not nearly as often. If you just threw together an article from social media posts in a cool hour-and-a-half, you don't fail in the same way as the guy who went through several days of research, phone calls, conferences, and several drafts of editing. The end product might look superficially similar, but it's not the same. Not by a country mile.
This episode reminds me of the girl who sent in landscape photos from Red Dead Redemption to a local news station in Oregon and they ran the photos as part of their "Out and About" segment as local scenery.
I want to point out that both WaPo and The Atlantic are left-of-center publications. They have biases, including in the area of Net Neutrality (where they both strongly benefit from ISPs offering their content on an equal platform to their competitors). Just because a source is biased does not mean that it is trading in outright lies or that it's not worth reading, but pretending like there isn't an overwhelming consensus view at these publications is a form of lying to yourself.
I've been frustrated by my inability to rely on the news for as long as I've read the news. Fox News has a conservative bias. MSNBC has a liberal bias. Bias detracts from reliability: If the publisher is pushing its own agenda, how can I rely on the news it reports? I'm disappointed because the presenter didn't spend enough time on this. Journalism awards go to publications that meet the criteria of the people giving the awards. Similarly, an author who writes for more than one publication means only that those publishers found his writing acceptable. Neither of these situations speak to the reliability of the news reported. Maybe we should focus on separating facts from truth. I hear about "post-truth" and debates about what is true and what is a lie, but truth is in the eye of the beholder. Facts are verifiable. For example, we might agree that "net neutrality is good" is true, but we should recognize that as a value judgement. We look at the results and decide, "This is good." On the other hand, "net neutrality prevents ISPs from charging customers more" is a fact. We can look at how ISPs charge customers now, compare that to the restrictions net neutrality imposes, and conclude whether this statement is correct or not.
Everyone has a bias. You call MSNBC liberal, I would call them neoliberal corporatists, slightly to the right of actual center. The only possible approach is to get news from as many, varied sources as possible and try to keep an open mind, while keeping in mind that some sources are extremely biased and they will all try to promote their own agenda. I follow news from 11 different countries and the differences in the way the same events are reported are enlightening.
James Rose But what sources are you using to see how much ISPs charge and what net neutrality does? How are those sources any less biased than journalists? The ISPs themselves have been caught manipulating their internet speeds during consumer tests. And the definition of “true” is literally “in accordance with fact or reality.”
DaGuyUDontNo I believe (generally speaking) primary sources are more reliable than news services that interpret those sources. For example, we can read the net neutrality law for ourselves and we can read ISPs' terms of service, too. As per your example, we can also verify whether ISPs provide their services as stated, or not. The trouble with the definition of truth is the phrase, "in accordance with". Who decides which facts are in accordance with the truth and which aren't? Putin supporters say he's a democratically-elected president. I say he's a dictator. Which of us is being truthful?
James Rose Primary sources are also, generally speaking, rare. You weren’t there when Putin was elected. You didn’t count the votes. What do you mean, “who decides which facts are in accordance with the truth”? Something is true if it is in accordance with fact. You’re the one that said facts were verifiable.
This reminds me of the time I looked up information on a common household pest and of the 8 web pages I read through, 5 of them were identical to the Wikipedia article word for word -_-" It was very frustrating.
people also don't have internet in places because it isn't offered. I can't have it at our cottage because there is no way to get internet out there. Its not just a money issue
An important step that was not mentioned here. When an individual or organization is quoted (such as the data scientist in the WP article), look them up if you are not familiar with them! It is not uncommon for organizations to have reputable-sounding names that are really just fronts for one person or a very small group. Individuals may not be well-known to you, but may be very well-known among their peers for having opinions which are heavily biased on some issues.
عن ابي هريرة رضي الله عنه قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم:((كلمتان خفيفتان على اللسان ، ثقيلتان في الميزان حبيبتان الى الرحمن :سبحان الله و بحمده سبحان الله العظيم)) ⚘⚘💜
That last section where he asked whether we should let artificial intelligence choose what media we see and whether we should have smart home devices everywhere made me think of the Google I/O keynote yesterday. They talked about machine learning in connection to everything they announced.
"As long as you know how to access what you want, what to trust, and who you can rely on for it..." I'll tell you how to thrive in the "fast-paced media environment": trust no one! Everyone is biased, no one can be completely relied on. We ALL have biases. The only people I trust are the ones who are upfront about their biases. Tell me what your biases are, then I can account for them as I listen to what you have to say. If you try to tell me you are unbiased somehow, you are a liar. We all have cultural, national, gender, sexual, and racial biases. So be upfront about it, don't try to pretend you don't have them. For example, Jay is clearly biased towards The Titanic. ;) If you don't believe me, go take the Harvard test...
Laws on driving and drivers tests change ( per country too). Also had one question saying to do illegal 'u turn after going down wrong way' as an answer. Some things are not so black and white fallacy easy. What really is that easy?
I'm glad to see this discussion being had, especially with the intention of education the public masses. I take for granted that I studied journalism, and these tenets have been second nature to me for decades. I've pondered the issue and worried about its effects with greater concern in recent years. SHARED.
It means CrashCourse has its own agenda, sponsors, interests and no company (especially the ones pursuing “education” as their main purpose) is non bias.
The problem with these five criteria (or any criteria) is that they themselves are already subject to our bias. We're much less likely to heavily scrutinize media that reaffirms what we want to believe then media that challenges it, which we put under the electron microscope.
Yeah, but you can't just remove bias completely. No one can. The best thing you can do is get information from multiple sources and to keep an open mind.
Blabla130 za
The best antidote to confirmation bias is awareness that you have it and that it never turns itself off. Media literacy is work, after all. A good rule of thumb is, if you're reading/watching something, and you think to yourself, "I knew it!", then you've succumbed to confirmation bias. Conversely, if the article/story is pissing you off to the point that you want to stop and get your mind off it by doing something pleasant, you have succumbed to it. It's really great at short circuiting your ability to critically analyse.
I think there's bias in the example Mr. Smooth gave. In this episode, he was said that the Washington Post and Alantic were good soruces of information. Yet, I think, that the WP and Alantic are sort of left wing, centrist newspapers. Why didn't Mr. Smooth say that the Wall Street Journal or The Economist were good soruces?
The Green brothers are openly libreal and sometimes I do see that in these crash course videos.
It's not about bias. It's about credibility. They are credible sources for news because they have a long history of doing the necessary research, citing sources, and balancing perspectives.
That you use "left wing" and "centrist" as if they're similar tells me that you read right-wing-biased sources (plus the fact that you're claiming liberal bias in the video for not providing known conservative media examples). You are doing it wrong. You'll find that open-mindedness and critical analysis tend to have "a liberal bias" because it's a natural consequence of expanding your perspective.
The steps to evaluate accuracy, (un)bias and reliability are only the very basic ones. In reality, I think one may never know if the information is actually accurate because the source information may come from wrong analysis that takes a lot of investigation to fix, and no one can investigate every piece of information. We often have to rely on others to investigate for us but again, we can never fully trust others' work. In the same way, it is also becoming increasingly difficult to know if one is really unbiased or reliable from just reading words and looking at references. Today's skills of deception in journalism is very advanced with all of the hidden messages, SEO strategies and bribes. This is why I think we should not look at any media products as absolutely right or wrong. There's not much can be deemed right or wrong besides natural laws, anyway. So, when we consume media, whatever opinions we have, we should try to sympathize and see from others' perspectives to find a common way to benefit us all and build the world. We celebrate differences but aim for unity rather than violent imposition of beliefs.
Something tells me Jay Smooth really loves the Titanic movie
Yea
Agreed
Lovely Video clip! Sorry for chiming in, I would appreciate your opinion. Have you tried - Dylantey Social Severable (probably on Google)? It is a good exclusive guide for learning how he makes six figures using this simple online traffic source minus the normal expense. Ive heard some decent things about it and my mate got astronomical results with it.
I sincerely hope Media Literacy becomes a required course (or series of courses) in the public education system. As you said, as the world becomes more and more heavily reliant on digital technologies, an understanding and practical knowledge of media and the tools to navigate it will be all the more important.
Let us not forget that our religious texts are also media, and that to swallow them whole uncritically is just as foolish as blindly believing that Facebook meme. We would do well do apply the same questions and critical thinking that Jay Smooth talks about to our reading of the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud, etc.
So have you done extensive research about the quran? What do you find?
I don’t think so
so true
Hi there! I loved this video, and want to support it by leaving a comment. However, I'm aware that RUclips's comment system is heavily skewed towards promoting conflict, as well as violent and intolerant behaviour, and I am not willing to be a target. That's why I've created this "pre-recorded" comment to leave on videos I like! I do not leave "+" comments, because it is important to me to make known that this space is damaging. I strongly encourage others to do the same if they feel targeted by RUclips's media environment. Thank you for making work that is so positive and meaningful to me!
KarateExplodo I want to argue though.
KarateExplodo I don't uderstand your "+" comment.
KarateExplodo if it's so meaningful, then how come you didn't take the effort to write an original comment.
Ross Parlette watch vlogbrothers from about a year ago they explain it.
Suddenly I want to offend you so much…
This series is so consistently informative and enjoyable everyone should be watching this given how incredibly relevant this is. I love it.
More people need to watch this series. This is so helpful for the chaos we live in
Jay smooth is so smooth..
FYI the learner's permit example doesn't work everywhere outside the US. Where I live one is expected to start learning the theory before getting practical lessons, but the only requirement is to take a minimum number of practical lessons and to pass the theoretical test before you take the practical one, but it can be done in any order - e.g. you could start driving without knowing the meaning of a single road sign or marking. (But driving teachers themselves must have permits and special cars with extra gas and break pedals on the teacher's side, so the teacher can intervene in an emergency, I don't think that's a requirement in the US either. I spent my first lesson controlling nothing but the wheel, it was pretty fun).
That sounds like learning how to drive in Germany...
Checking sources is good, but sometimes check the sources of the sources. There's been a couple of times when I've checked sources and found a circle of articles that all source each other, and are all found on internet-only "news" sites.
Just finished watching the last videos and thought caught up with this series but then you uploaded this. Great!
This is important information. That's why I'm commenting, liking and subscribing.
It's interesting that this video, just out today, specifically name drops the New York Attorney General. He resigned last night in disgrace. I wonder if they would have used the same article as an example if they knew what was going to happen.
stanj85 Well, he is still a credible source to the FCC story. He just isn't that reliable for anything on abuse.
Zaman Siddiqui he's still a reliable source on abuse, but also an abusers.
For example, if President Trump says we should not grab people by their genitals without consent, he would be correct, but also a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is an over-rated vice.
less a name drop and more about the position. the guy with the problems is no longer the new york attorney general, but the point stands that that position has credibility. thus why that dude is no longer the new york attorney general
I love it when we really get behind the wheel!
I see the end coming and all I can say is JAAAAAAAAY SMOOOOOOTH DOOONNNN'T GO. KEEP MAKING CRASH COURSES. PLEASE, YOU ARE THE CRASHCOURSE GOAT. WE NEED YOU.
Jay Smooth is such a great presenter.
Thanks. Solid presentation
I love these rules. I can't claim to use them all perfectly all the time, but it's definitely possible. Don't let moral/media relativism win just because it's overwhelming, folks. That's intellectual laziness. The Washington Post isn't a credible source because it conforms to certain arbitrary standards; it's a credible source because it has built up a tradition, environment, and reputation for heavily researched, clear-headed, and accurate analysis. They get it wrong sometimes, but when they fail, they don't fail like Fox News or Buzzfeed, and not nearly as often. If you just threw together an article from social media posts in a cool hour-and-a-half, you don't fail in the same way as the guy who went through several days of research, phone calls, conferences, and several drafts of editing. The end product might look superficially similar, but it's not the same. Not by a country mile.
Thanks for the great content c: I'm from Russia, and it's relevant af here
"It could mean deleting Twitter from your phone after realizing you're addicted to social media."
I feel personally attacked
This episode reminds me of the girl who sent in landscape photos from Red Dead Redemption to a local news station in Oregon and they ran the photos as part of their "Out and About" segment as local scenery.
I shall act upon the media I have just consumed.
Great video! Structure is perfect.
I want to point out that both WaPo and The Atlantic are left-of-center publications. They have biases, including in the area of Net Neutrality (where they both strongly benefit from ISPs offering their content on an equal platform to their competitors). Just because a source is biased does not mean that it is trading in outright lies or that it's not worth reading, but pretending like there isn't an overwhelming consensus view at these publications is a form of lying to yourself.
Did you even watch?
mad skillz
"Charming and educating youtube videos" Oh, like crash course film theory? That host has his fair share of charisma.
Awesome sir, you finally did a great great job.
Coooooooooooooool.
I really enjoy your videos.
Hey Crash Course, you should make a media literacy course specifically for kids
For some strange reason, I am craving Mongol Pizza.
I've been frustrated by my inability to rely on the news for as long as I've read the news. Fox News has a conservative bias. MSNBC has a liberal bias. Bias detracts from reliability: If the publisher is pushing its own agenda, how can I rely on the news it reports?
I'm disappointed because the presenter didn't spend enough time on this. Journalism awards go to publications that meet the criteria of the people giving the awards. Similarly, an author who writes for more than one publication means only that those publishers found his writing acceptable. Neither of these situations speak to the reliability of the news reported.
Maybe we should focus on separating facts from truth. I hear about "post-truth" and debates about what is true and what is a lie, but truth is in the eye of the beholder. Facts are verifiable.
For example, we might agree that "net neutrality is good" is true, but we should recognize that as a value judgement. We look at the results and decide, "This is good." On the other hand, "net neutrality prevents ISPs from charging customers more" is a fact. We can look at how ISPs charge customers now, compare that to the restrictions net neutrality imposes, and conclude whether this statement is correct or not.
Everyone has a bias. You call MSNBC liberal, I would call them neoliberal corporatists, slightly to the right of actual center. The only possible approach is to get news from as many, varied sources as possible and try to keep an open mind, while keeping in mind that some sources are extremely biased and they will all try to promote their own agenda. I follow news from 11 different countries and the differences in the way the same events are reported are enlightening.
James Rose But what sources are you using to see how much ISPs charge and what net neutrality does? How are those sources any less biased than journalists? The ISPs themselves have been caught manipulating their internet speeds during consumer tests.
And the definition of “true” is literally “in accordance with fact or reality.”
dave freier Your approach sounds intriguing. Would you mind giving a small example? Thank you.
DaGuyUDontNo I believe (generally speaking) primary sources are more reliable than news services that interpret those sources. For example, we can read the net neutrality law for ourselves and we can read ISPs' terms of service, too. As per your example, we can also verify whether ISPs provide their services as stated, or not.
The trouble with the definition of truth is the phrase, "in accordance with". Who decides which facts are in accordance with the truth and which aren't? Putin supporters say he's a democratically-elected president. I say he's a dictator. Which of us is being truthful?
James Rose Primary sources are also, generally speaking, rare. You weren’t there when Putin was elected. You didn’t count the votes.
What do you mean, “who decides which facts are in accordance with the truth”? Something is true if it is in accordance with fact. You’re the one that said facts were verifiable.
I love so much this channel. Thanks for another video
This reminds me of the time I looked up information on a common household pest and of the 8 web pages I read through, 5 of them were identical to the Wikipedia article word for word -_-"
It was very frustrating.
Another great video. I really like crash course series.
One of the best crash course series!
people also don't have internet in places because it isn't offered. I can't have it at our cottage because there is no way to get internet out there. Its not just a money issue
An important step that was not mentioned here. When an individual or organization is quoted (such as the data scientist in the WP article), look them up if you are not familiar with them! It is not uncommon for organizations to have reputable-sounding names that are really just fronts for one person or a very small group. Individuals may not be well-known to you, but may be very well-known among their peers for having opinions which are heavily biased on some issues.
عن ابي هريرة رضي الله عنه قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم:((كلمتان خفيفتان على اللسان ، ثقيلتان في الميزان حبيبتان الى الرحمن :سبحان الله و بحمده سبحان الله العظيم)) ⚘⚘💜
ما علاقة هذا التعليق بالفيديو؟
Thank you :) I should to be skeptical as well takes time to master this skill :) :)
amazing, love it!
M most Internet Access is My Local Community College at 3 hour limit per day.
i like this guy
I learned something! Thanks a bunch
great vid and you sound like Christopher Walken
Educational!
That last section where he asked whether we should let artificial intelligence choose what media we see and whether we should have smart home devices everywhere made me think of the Google I/O keynote yesterday. They talked about machine learning in connection to everything they announced.
"As long as you know how to access what you want, what to trust, and who you can rely on for it..." I'll tell you how to thrive in the "fast-paced media environment": trust no one! Everyone is biased, no one can be completely relied on. We ALL have biases. The only people I trust are the ones who are upfront about their biases. Tell me what your biases are, then I can account for them as I listen to what you have to say. If you try to tell me you are unbiased somehow, you are a liar. We all have cultural, national, gender, sexual, and racial biases. So be upfront about it, don't try to pretend you don't have them. For example, Jay is clearly biased towards The Titanic. ;)
If you don't believe me, go take the Harvard test...
I would eat that DFTBA burger if it is offered at McDonalds.
my rule: if it's flashy (!!!) it's probably not good
OMG JAY SMOOTH WUT
nice video
How is the internet a basic human right? It's a luxury we take for granted.
Laws on driving and drivers tests change ( per country too). Also had one question saying to do illegal 'u turn after going down wrong way' as an answer. Some things are not so black and white fallacy easy. What really is that easy?
Early
I deleted Facebook I am awesome
hi
First!
Hay I have two videos on my page that if you want to try to help save net neutrality you should watch
Why does Jay Smooth seem obessed with the film "Titanic"?
I'm glad to see this discussion being had, especially with the intention of education the public masses. I take for granted that I studied journalism, and these tenets have been second nature to me for decades. I've pondered the issue and worried about its effects with greater concern in recent years. SHARED.
How do I continue to make it free by paying on patreon?
Cvyyyyy
I thought the PewDiePie slander came from the Washington Post... Very reliable indeed
Kolonel Sanders that was the wall Street journal
oh wow. this video had 6 views when i clicked on it
3rd YAYY
nice
j
Why is there no Crash Course on geography? Or did Miriam the Super-Racist torpedo that idea for good?
You guys better cover Fake News properly at some point
MultiSciGeek They won't. George Soros is a prime donor of the channel.
Kolonel Sanders What is that supposed to mean?
It means CrashCourse has its own agenda, sponsors, interests and no company (especially the ones pursuing “education” as their main purpose) is non bias.
That's true but that doesn't explain why they shouldn't 't cover fake news.
pingas
"The Washington Post is well known for a history of quality journalism" annnnnnd I'm out
Amazing course, really really bad intro music of "Complex" when on headphones, Man it's so annoying that I had to write a comment about it
my weed guy is a propaganist.
GO VEGAN PEOPLE
Lucio Fernandes no
The Washington post is biased in its reporting format. Bad example.
Hahaha, WashPo is owned by Amazon and Jeff Bezos. SarcasmFont/ I'm sure there's never any biased reporting going on there. /font Lmao
Get to the point😒