essay media literacy

Common Sense Media

Movie & TV reviews for parents

• For Parents
• For Educators
• Our Work and Impact

Or browse by category:

• Get the app
• Movie Reviews
• Best Movie Lists
• Best Movies on Netflix, Disney+, and More

Common Sense Selections for Movies

50 Modern Movies All Kids Should Watch Before They're 12

• Best TV Lists
• Best TV Shows on Netflix, Disney+, and More
• Common Sense Selections for TV
• Video Reviews of TV Shows

Best Kids' Shows on Disney+

Best Kids' TV Shows on Netflix

• Book Reviews
• Best Book Lists
• Common Sense Selections for Books

8 Tips for Getting Kids Hooked on Books

50 Books All Kids Should Read Before They're 12

• Game Reviews
• Best Game Lists

Common Sense Selections for Games

• Video Reviews of Games

Nintendo Switch Games for Family Fun

• Podcast Reviews
• Best Podcast Lists

Common Sense Selections for Podcasts

Parents' Guide to Podcasts

• App Reviews
• Best App Lists

Social Networking for Teens

Gun-Free Action Game Apps

Reviews for AI Apps and Tools

• YouTube Channel Reviews
• YouTube Kids Channels by Topic

Parents' Ultimate Guide to YouTube Kids

YouTube Kids Channels for Gamers

• Preschoolers (2-4)
• Little Kids (5-7)
• Big Kids (8-9)
• Pre-Teens (10-12)
• Teens (13+)
• Screen Time
• Social Media
• Online Safety
• Identity and Community

How to Prepare Your Kids for School After a Summer of Screen Time

• Family Tech Planners
• Digital Skills
• All Articles
• Latino Culture
• Black Voices
• Asian Stories
• Native Narratives
• LGBTQ+ Pride
• Best of Diverse Representation List

Multicultural Books

YouTube Channels with Diverse Representations

Podcasts with Diverse Characters and Stories

What is media literacy, and why is it important?

The word "literacy" usually describes the ability to read and write. Reading literacy and media literacy have a lot in common. Reading starts with recognizing letters. Pretty soon, readers can identify words -- and, most importantly, understand what those words mean. Readers then become writers. With more experience, readers and writers develop strong literacy skills. ( Learn specifically about news literacy .)

Media literacy is the ability to identify different types of media and understand the messages they're sending. Kids take in a huge amount of information from a wide array of sources, far beyond the traditional media (TV, radio, newspapers, and magazines) of most parents' youth. There are text messages, memes, viral videos, social media, video games, advertising, and more. But all media shares one thing: Someone created it. And it was created for a reason. Understanding that reason is the basis of media literacy. ( Learn how to use movies and TV to teach media literacy. )

The digital age has made it easy for anyone to create media . We don't always know who created something, why they made it, and whether it's credible. This makes media literacy tricky to learn and teach. Nonetheless, media literacy is an essential skill in the digital age.

Specifically, it helps kids:

Learn to think critically. As kids evaluate media, they decide whether the messages make sense, why certain information was included, what wasn't included, and what the key ideas are. They learn to use examples to support their opinions. Then they can make up their own minds about the information based on knowledge they already have.

Become a smart consumer of products and information. Media literacy helps kids learn how to determine whether something is credible. It also helps them determine the "persuasive intent" of advertising and resist the techniques marketers use to sell products.

Recognize point of view. Every creator has a perspective. Identifying an author's point of view helps kids appreciate different perspectives. It also helps put information in the context of what they already know -- or think they know.

Create media responsibly. Recognizing your own point of view, saying what you want to say how you want to say it, and understanding that your messages have an impact is key to effective communication.

Identify the role of media in our culture. From celebrity gossip to magazine covers to memes, media is telling us something, shaping our understanding of the world, and even compelling us to act or think in certain ways.

Understand the author's goal. What does the author want you to take away from a piece of media? Is it purely informative, is it trying to change your mind, or is it introducing you to new ideas you've never heard of? When kids understand what type of influence something has, they can make informed choices.

When teaching your kids media literacy , it's not so important for parents to tell kids whether something is "right." In fact, the process is more of an exchange of ideas. You'll probably end up learning as much from your kids as they learn from you.

Media literacy includes asking specific questions and backing up your opinions with examples. Following media-literacy steps allows you to learn for yourself what a given piece of media is, why it was made, and what you want to think about it.

Teaching kids media literacy as a sit-down lesson is not very effective; it's better incorporated into everyday activities . For example:

• With little kids, you can discuss things they're familiar with but may not pay much attention to. Examples include cereal commercials, food wrappers, and toy packages.
• With older kids, you can talk through media they enjoy and interact with. These include such things as YouTube videos , viral memes from the internet, and ads for video games.

Here are the key questions to ask when teaching kids media literacy :

• Who created this? Was it a company? Was it an individual? (If so, who?) Was it a comedian? Was it an artist? Was it an anonymous source? Why do you think that?
• Why did they make it? Was it to inform you of something that happened in the world (for example, a news story)? Was it to change your mind or behavior (an opinion essay or a how-to)? Was it to make you laugh (a funny meme)? Was it to get you to buy something (an ad)? Why do you think that?
• Who is the message for? Is it for kids? Grown-ups? Girls? Boys? People who share a particular interest? Why do you think that?
• What techniques are being used to make this message credible or believable? Does it have statistics from a reputable source? Does it contain quotes from a subject expert? Does it have an authoritative-sounding voice-over? Is there direct evidence of the assertions its making? Why do you think that?
• What details were left out, and why? Is the information balanced with different views -- or does it present only one side? Do you need more information to fully understand the message? Why do you think that?
• How did the message make you feel? Do you think others might feel the same way? Would everyone feel the same, or would certain people disagree with you? Why do you think that?
• As kids become more aware of and exposed to news and current events , you can apply media-literacy steps to radio, TV, and online information.

Common Sense Media offers the largest, most trusted library of independent age-based ratings and reviews. Our timely parenting advice supports families as they navigate the challenges and possibilities of raising kids in the digital age.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Media Literacy in the Modern Age

How to understand the messages we observe all day every day

Morsa Images / Getty Images

How to Practice Media Literacy

Media literacy is the ability to apply critical thinking skills to the messages, signs, and symbols transmitted through mass media .

We live in a world that is saturated with media of all kinds, from newspapers to radio to television to the internet. Media literacy enables us to understand and evaluate all of the media messages we encounter on a daily basis, empowering us to make better choices about what we choose to read, watch, and listen to. It also helps us become smarter, more discerning members of society.

Media literacy is seen as an essential 21st-century skill by educators and scholars, including media psychologists . In fact, the mission statement of Division 46 of the American Psychological Association , the Society for Media Psychology and Technology , includes support for the development of media literacy.

Despite this, many people still dismiss media as harmless entertainment and claim they aren't influenced by its messages. However, research findings consistently demonstrate that people are impacted by the media messages they consume.

Media literacy interventions and education help children and adults recognize the influence media has and give them the knowledge and tools to mitigate its impact.

History of Media Literacy

The earliest attempts at media literacy education are often traced back to the British Film Institute's push in the late 1920s and early 1930s to teach analytical skills to media users. Around the same time in America, the Wisconsin Association for Better Broadcasters sought to teach citizens to be more critical consumers of media.

However, the goal of these initial media literacy efforts, which continued into the 1960s, was to protect students from media by warning them against its consumption. Despite this perspective, the dominance of media—and television in particular—continued to grow, even as interest in media literacy education waned.

More recently, the advent of the internet and portable technologies that enable us to consume media anywhere and anytime has led to a resurgence in the call for media literacy. Yet the goal is no longer to prevent people from using media, but to help them become more informed, thoughtful media consumers.

Although media literacy education has now become accepted and successful in English-speaking countries including Australia, Canada, and Britain, it has yet to become a standard part of the curriculum in the United States, where a lack of centralization has led to a scattershot approach to teaching practical media literacy skills.

Impact of Media Literacy

Despite America's lack of a standardized media literacy curriculum, study after study has shown the value of teaching people of all ages media literacy skills.

For example, a review of the research on media literacy education and reduction in racial and ethnic stereotypes found that children as young as 12 can be trained to recognize bias in media depictions of race and ethnicity and understand the harm it can cause.

Though the authors note that this topic is still understudied, they observe that the evidence suggests media literacy education can help adolescents become sensitive to prejudice and learn to appreciate diversity.

Meanwhile, multiple studies have shown that media literacy interventions reduce body dissatisfaction that can be the result of the consumption of media messages.

In one investigation, adolescent girls were shown an intervention video by the Dove Self-Esteem Fund before being shown images of ultra-thin models. While a control group reported lower body satisfaction and body esteem after viewing the images of the models, the group that viewed the intervention first didn't experience these negative effects.

Similarly, another study showed college women (who were at high risk for eating disorders ) reported less body dissatisfaction, a lower desire to be thin, and reduced internalization of societal beauty standards after participating in a media literacy intervention. The researchers concluded that media literacy training could help prevent eating disorders in high-risk individuals.

Moreover, studies have shown that media literacy education can help people better discern the truth of media claims, enabling them to detect "fake news" and make more informed decisions.

For instance, research into young adults' assessment of the accuracy of claims on controversial public issues was improved if the subjects had been exposed to media literacy education. In addition, another study showed that only people who underwent media literacy training engaged in critical social media posting practices that prevented them from posting false information about the COVID-19 pandemic.

The evidence for the benefits of media literacy suggests it is valuable for people of all ages to learn to be critical media consumers. Media scholar W. James Potter observes that all media messages include four dimensions:

• Cognitive : the information that is being conveyed
• Emotional : the underlying feelings that are being expressed
• Aesthetic: the overall precision and artistry of the message
• Moral : the values being conveyed through the message

Media psychologist Karen Dill-Shackleford suggests that we can use these four dimensions as a jumping off point to improve our media literacy skills. For example, let's say while streaming videos online we're exposed to an advertisement for a miracle weight loss drug. In order to better evaluate what the ad is really trying to tell us, we can break it down as follows:

• On the cognitive dimension we can assess what information the ad is conveying to us by asking some of the following questions: What does the ad promise the drug will do? Does it seem likely the drug can deliver on those promises? Who would need this kind of drug?
• On the emotional dimension, we can evaluate the feelings the creator of the ad wants us to feel: Do they want us to feel insecure about our weight? Do they want us to imagine the positive ways this drug could change our lives? Do they want us to envision the satisfaction we would feel after the drug delivers its quick fix?
• On the aesthetic dimension, we can determine how the ad employs messages and images to make us believe the product will deliver on its promises: Does the ad show "before" and "after" images of someone who supposedly took the drug? Does the "before" image look sad and the "after" image happy? Does the ad offer testimonials from people that are identified as experts?
• On the moral dimension, we can examine what the ad makers wanted to say: Are they equating thinness with happiness? Are they sending the message that it's a moral failing when someone is overweight? Are they saying that one has to be thin to be loved and respected?

This is one avenue for learning to practice media literacy in everyday life. Remember, the purpose of media literacy isn't to enjoy media less, it's to give people the tools to be active media consumers.

Not only will media literacy enable you to detect, analyze, and evaluate negative or false media messages, it will actually enable you to enjoy media more because it puts control over the media back into your hands. And research shows this is likely to increase your health and happiness.

About the Society for Media Psychology & Technology . Society for Media Psychology & Technology, Division 46 of the American Psychological Association. 2013.

Dill-Shackleford KE.  How Fantasy Becomes Reality . New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.

Arke ET. Media Literacy: History, Progress, and Future Hopes . In: Dill-Shackleford KE, ed.  The Oxford Handbook Of Media Psychology . 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398809.013.0006

Scharrer E, Ramasubramanian S. Intervening in the Media's Influence on Stereotypes of Race and Ethnicity: The Role of Media Literacy Education .  Journal of Social Issues . 2015;71(1):171-185. doi:10.1111/josi.12103

Halliwell E, Easun A, Harcourt D. Body dissatisfaction: Can a short media literacy message reduce negative media exposure effects amongst adolescent girls?  Br J Health Psychol . 2011;16(2):396-403. doi:10.1348/135910710x515714

Coughlin JW, Kalodner C. Media literacy as a prevention intervention for college women at low- or high-risk for eating disorders .  Body Image . 2006;3(1):35-43. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2006.01.001

Kahne J, Bowyer B. Educating for Democracy in a Partisan Age: Confronting the Challenges of Motivated Reasoning and Misinformation .  Am Educ Res J . 2016;54(1):3-34. doi:10.3102/0002831216679817

Melki J, Tamim H, Hadid D, Makki M, El Amine J, Hitti E. Mitigating infodemics: The relationship between news exposure and trust and belief in COVID-19 fake news and social media spreading .  PLoS One . 2021;16(6). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0252830

Potter WJ.  Media Literacy . 4th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2008.

By Cynthia Vinney, PhD Cynthia Vinney, PhD is an expert in media psychology and a published scholar whose work has been published in peer-reviewed psychology journals.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Erica Morrissette, Simon Pierpont, Riley Murray, Julie Nagel, and David Muite

Media literacy is a crucial skill all media consumers must have. There are many factors that can change how we interpret media, and how media affects us, and there are a few main skills that can aid consumers in being more media literate like willingness to try, and having an ability to distinguish reactions. Understanding the differences between mediated and non-mediated media and their implications is also important to media literacy.

Defining Media Literacy  

Media literacy is the method of dissecting media content in order to critically analyze it. To do this, it is essential to look at media content’s underlying messages, its ownership and regulation, as well as how it is presented. This is not an easy process, and has no stopping point. It is necessary to always question what is shown in mediated communications (Pavlik and McIntosh, 46). We often are passive in our roles in mass communications. We forget to question what our responsibilities are as consumers (Baran, 21). We look at violent televisions shows and criticize how they promote and romanticize violent behaviors, but we never miss an episode, telling producers we support the content. Culture is created through media (Baran, 21), and if we continue to tune in, we are allowing issues within our culture to persist. By being subject to passive consumption or Stanley Baran’s “third-person effect”, we release all control we have over culture.

Stanley Baran, in the Introduction to Mass Communication, speaks of a term he calls “third-person effect”. This encompasses the idea that as consumers we believe media affects others but not ourselves (24).  Being media literate allows us to see that this is untrue and media does in fact have underlying messages that affect us. By understanding those messages, we can change how it affects us.  Media literacy is so important to consumers because it can help us to control our actions in response to media, and allow it to have less control over our views (Pavlik and McIntosh, 46). By asking questions like, “Who paid for this?”, “What point are they trying to make”, or even things like “What are they getting out of this?” consumers are able to get a better picture of the subliminal messages, and their influence (Rosenwald, 97).

There are many factors that frame media content including political factors, social factors and economic factors (Pavlik and McIntosh, 47).  It’s important to become a critic when it comes to media forms; we must question all aspects of its production, and presentation to fully grasp its repercussions. By developing media literacy skills consumers can better assess the content they are receiving.

Media Literacy Skills 

Today, we are living in what is known as the Digital Age and the only constant is that it will continue to develop and expand for future generations. It is important for everyone to develop and expand along with the media, in order to properly understand what is being circulated. For this to happen, we need to develop media literacy skills. It’s crucial for this to be taught to school age children, especially now with more children being exposed to media at a younger age. Today, children are being introduced to media even before their formal educations (Hopkins, 24). Media literacy skills are crucial for, “developing knowledge about the social, political, and economic forces that influence media content” (Pavlik and McIntosh, 40). These skills will help in keeping the mind active when looking at different media platforms, instead of keeping a passive mind.

There are seven main media literacy skills (Baran, 24). The first is “the ability and willingness to make an effort to understand content, to pay attention and filter out noise” (Baran, 24). This means consumers should distinguish the points an article is trying to make and ignore factors that could influence their thinking. Thus, changing the way we consume media. An example could be when you are listening to the radio while driving. What is your main focus, the radio or driving? Hopefully driving, but this means you could misinterpret what’s on the radio. By realizing what factors affect your interpretation, you can be more mindful of when content you are absorbing.

Second is, “having an understanding of, and respect for, the power of media messages” (Baran, 24). There’s so much media content in circulation and it’s important to understand how many people the content is available for. It is imperative not dismiss that fact, because it can be very powerful. For example, some articles can convey stereotypes. If we dismiss that, it hurts the group being stereotyped and other marginalized groups. It is important that we recognize and stand up against it.

Third, the “ability to distinguish emotional from reasoned reactions when responding to content and act accordingly” (Baran, 24). Sometimes, we connect with certain media like songs and books because we can relate to them on an emotional level. But, it’s important to keep in mind that content like this may not always be true, despite our emotional ties with it.

Some media content may be trying to persuade you by keying into your emotional reactions; it’s essential to keep this in mind when analyzing media messages.

Fourth, is the “development of heightened expectations of media content” (Baran, 24). This is referring to viral videos or articles on the internet that are the “most viewed” or “top ten” that we settle on and give meaning to, when we are not searching for anything specific. Today, on the internet there is so much content to filter through that we tend to scroll through it mindlessly, not looking for underlying messages, or meaning. When on the internet if there is not a specific thing you’re looking for, it’s easy to give meaning to the random content you fall upon.

Next, is “the knowledge of genre conventions and the recognition of their mixing” (Baran, 24-25). This means to its necessary to understand different genres and how information is given by those sources. For example, we are more likely to believe a documentary about weight loss, then what’s in a magazine for weight loss. By being aware of that fact you can determine what is true and what is not, or if the source is reputable.

Sixth, is “the ability to think critically about media messages” (Baran, 25). This means not everything you read on the internet will be true, even if it comes from a credible source. For example, if Fox News presented an article it’s important to remember that they are being paid by people who believe the same things, so their media will be biased to whom they are getting paid from to support those views.

Seventh is “the knowledge of the internal language of various media and the ability to understand its effects” (Baran, 25). This comes down to understanding how media is produced; to pay attention to camera angles, lighting, text sizes, and location. Understanding this language will help you deceiver through media. As the media continues to grow, it continues to matter.

In today’s world the media is constantly around us. We are always interacting with mass media, so it’s essential to learn from our experiences with it. John Pavlik and Shawn McIntosh in their book  Converging Media: A New Introduction to Mass Communication  explain that we learn topics such as math and history in school, but not media literacy (45). They bring up the question; if we are interacting with the media so much, why are we not learning about it? Media literacy encourages thinking for ourselves, and questioning what is being told to us. Media literacy “emphasizes the skills and knowledge needed to be effective in the increasingly social media environment” (Hobbs and Jensen, 5). We are introduced to media at an increasingly younger age, so we should start learning about media and its underlying messages sooner.  Our society has a “culture that absorbs and responds to the explosion of new media….” (Hobbs and Jensen, 5); we thrive off of media, and because of this media literacy skills are so important.

Mediated and Non-Mediated Communication  

Communication connects the world and makes all things possible. To differentiate between mediated and non-mediated communication, as a whole, is simple but when it is looked at on a larger scale, the lines become blurred. The word mediated has multiple definitions one of which being to effect (a result) or convey (a message) (Pavlick and McIntosh, 47). Through this we land on the working definitions mediated and non-mediated communication.

Non-mediated communication is any communication that occurs directly between one party and another through face-to-face interaction. This means that a conversation had, between a professor and her student at her desk after class, is an example of non-mediated communication (Pavlick and McIntosh, 47). There is no program helping to make that conversation between the professor and her student possible.

Mediated communication differs from non-mediated in that it requires some sort of outside influence in order to occur. When two girls are having a conversation with each other via tweets sent back and forth to one another on Twitter, it is a form of mediated communication. It is mediated because the two girls actively logged onto Twitter and typed their message using the program. Another example of mediated communication is when two parties interact with one another on Skype or Facetime. Both of these programs allow for video chatting which is a form of face-to-face communication but because the individuals are still using a video chatting program, it is a form of mediated communication (Pavlick and McIntosh, 48). By knowing the difference between these two forms consumers can realize that media literacy is important when dealing with mediated communications, and less with non-mediated. Using media literacy skills can aid consumers in better analyzing the messages that do come from mediated communications.

The use of technology has become more common in today’s age. Whether it’s in an office or in a classroom, the use of technological devices like computers play an important role in our lives. Studies have shown that computer mediated communication leads to several negative outcomes such as “depersonalization, impoliteness, information overload, and increased worker stress due to having to respond quickly” (Bob and Sooknanan, 47). When communication is face to face you are able to use your body language or other cues. Mediated communication does not allow you to use these cues but has created a different environment in communication, possibly altering what the media content is communicating.

To be media literate it is important to be able to interpret and analyze media information. If an individual is unable to decipher between what is true and untrue, mediated and non-mediated, then they will have a much more difficult time navigating media effectively. Being media literate is essential for the media consumer and it is important that everyone take notice of their media literacy.

Works Cited 

Baran, Stanley J. “Mass Communication, Culture and Media Literacy.”  Introduction to Mass Communication: Media Literacy and Culture , McGraw-Hill Education, 2015, pp. 4–26.

Bob, K. and Sooknanan, P. “The Impact of Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) on Productivity and Efficiency in Organizations: A Case Study of an Electrical Company in Trinidad and Tobago.”  Advances in Journalism and Communication , vol.2, no.2, pp. 46-51.

Hobbs, R & Jensen, A. (2009). “The Past, Present, and Future of Media Literacy Education”. Journal of Media Literacy Education 1, 1 – 11.

Hopkins, Liza, et al. “Books, Bytes and Brains: The Implications of New Knowledge for Children’s Early Literacy Learning.”  Australasian Journal of Early Childhood , vol. 38, no. 1, Mar. 2013.

Pavlik, John V., and Shawn McIntosh. “Media Literacy in the Digital Age.” Converging Media: A New Introduction to Mass Communication , Oxford University Press, 2018, pp. 44-68.

Rosenwald, Michael. “Making Media Literacy Great Again.”  Columbia Journalism Review , vol. 56, no. 2, 2017, pp. 94–99.

Introduction to Media Studies Copyright © by Erica Morrissette, Simon Pierpont, Riley Murray, Julie Nagel, and David Muite is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Media Literacy

What is media Literacy?

Media literacy is the ability to understand, analyse, and create media messages. It is an evolving skill set that teachers and students must frequently encounter in the classroom, as the environments in which we consume and create media constantly change and become more complex.

Becoming media literate and teaching media literacy to students involves understanding how media messages are constructed and the techniques used to convey information and ideas.

Most importantly, it includes evaluating the credibility and reliability of media sources, recognising bias and disinformation, and understanding the impact media can have on individuals and society.

We have never lived in an era where it has been so easy to create and consume media and share it with the world as it is today; as such, we should be more enlightened about the purpose and intent of the messages being presented. Becoming media literate has never been more important as the validity and credibility of news, facts and opinions are more challenging to determine.

Students who are media literate are better equipped to critically analyze the information they receive and make informed decisions about what they believe and how they engage with media.

As teachers, it is crucial to integrate media literacy into all curriculum areas so students understand media reaches and influences us in many ways.

What skills are required to become media literate?

Becoming media literate is a process of critical thinking , healthy scepticism and understanding the factors that drive and influence the media itself. For this to occur, we have broken down these broad skills into individual components that students and teachers need to understand more deeply.

• How to analyse media messages : This involves teaching students the techniques used to inform, entertain, and persuade an audience and helping them understand the messages being conveyed.
• How to evaluate a source: When students can determine the credibility and reliability of media sources, they will make far wiser evaluations of the message and purpose of the content they consume.
• Understanding the impact of the media: What influence does the media have upon individuals, groups, and society? Teaching students why we should embrace freedom of speech and the search for truth above all else is essential. Students who understand the chaos of controlled and corrupt media approach it with a healthy level of scepticism and respect.
• Understanding how media is produced: By understanding the complexity and simplicity of producing various forms of media and sharing them with an audience, students can better determine if the media message they are consuming has been created by an agenda-driven machine or an expert in the field on a given topic.
• Knowing the difference between fact and opinion: It may seem simplistic and obvious, but when students can quickly identify if a statement is an absolute verified fact that has weight and credibility versus an opinion, it completely changes how that message is received. If students cannot separate these two areas, we educators have significantly failed them.
• Recognizing media manipulation: As terrible as it may seem, there are tens of thousands of people devoting their lives to producing propaganda, advertising, or disinformation for profit, persuasion and power every single day. Make it clear to all students that not all media should be trusted and that constant disinformation will be presented to them throughout their lives.
• Identifying and Understanding Bias: When students understand that all media has a purpose for being created and may frequently contain some degree of bias, they will look beyond simply what they are being told and ask why this message is being shared.
• Digital Literacy Skills and Media Creation: Navigating the media requires a basic understanding of technology and digital media. Providing students with the skills to effectively use technology and digital media to access, analyze, and create media messages moves them from consumers to creators with a practical and ethical understanding of the impact that their media messages can have.

TEACHING STUDENTS TO NAVIGATE THE “DISINFORMATION ERA”

Never before has it been so easy for someone, anyone, to create a message and share it with hundreds of millions of people, and even more concerning is that it has never been easier for governments to control that flow of information within their borders so that they control the narrative on every news story, and to the bend and erase history at will. We see this in action today in countries such as North Korea, China and Russia.

Disinformation is the spread of false or misleading information, often intended to control public opinion or promote a specific agenda. This problem has become increasingly prevalent in recent years and has driven a sharp rise in wild conspiracy theories, scams, and radicalization. It is essential that students are taught to navigate this complex digital landscape and identify credible sources of information.

The information era of the early 2000s has doubled down on its capacity to share and consume information through digital technology and has taken an unfortunate turn in recent years to create an information superhighway leading to a complex system of facts, opinions, bias, hatred and outright lies that are becoming increasingly difficult to navigate, especially for those who have grown up knowing nothing else but consuming their news through YouTube, Social media and the weight of opinion from social influencers outranks that of experts and proven research.

How did we get here?

The answer to that question is complex, but three critical turning points have driven us to the point at which we find ourselves.

1: The ease of content creation: This point has been covered well enough, but when anyone with the literacy skills of a child can use tools such as artificial intelligence to write a flawless 2000-word article or create a 10-minute video explaining in the style of a professional news outlet and share it with millions of people via social media via paid promotion for well under $100 this marks a clear turning point in the way we consume and create media.

To create and deliver content at this level of quality and scale only a decade earlier would have cost thousands of dollars and required far more checks and balances.

2: Algorithms determining what we consume: In the same way in which Spotify and Netflix determine what shows and music we should listen to based upon what we like, and thumbs down and so on, social media drives our consumption of news and information in the same way.

The primary intent of social media is to keep users on the platform for as long as possible regardless of what we are doing: watching videos, liking photos, or sharing posts. It doesn’t matter as long as our eyeballs remain on their platform. This allows social media outlets such as Facebook, TikTok and Instagram to sell advertising and generate billions of dollars of revenue each month.

So just as you might prefer Beiber over Beethoven on your music playlists, computer-driven algorithms will increase music that has more in common with your tastes and then remove those that do not. Undeniably, these algorithms are practical and helpful in ensuring your wants and needs are often met.

But wait; what if those algorithms effectively removed some of the most fantastic music we have ever heard? Music that might provide insight into new cultural areas puts us in a completely different headspace or opens our eyes to how other generations of music shaped the music we listen to today. What a shallow pool of musical tastes we would quickly swim in as our playlists blend into the same 100 songs we listen to all the time. Sound familiar?

So if we transfer that process of algorithms feeding us our musical tastes into how social media feeds us news and events, it is not hard to see how our biases, likes and dislikes can be quickly targeted and capitalized upon in the same way.

The more significant problem here is that if you are interested in news articles revolving around science and technology, for example, not only will you find your news feed packed with these stories exclusively with news stories of this nature, but other news events will be removed.

3: Welcome to the Algorithmic “Rabbit Hole”

The third and final act explaining how we got here is the most interesting, and we can use it as a metaphor from the story Alice in Wonderland, where she enters the rabbit hole and is transported to a surreal state of being that is both disturbing and delightful.

The “YouTube” rabbit hole is a phenomenon that demonstrates this process most effectively; how we start innocently viewing videos on a specific topic, such as “NBA highlights from the 90s”, that within 10 – 12 videos will evolve into a new stream of “recommended content” exposing “NBA Scandals”, that then leads to “Celebrity Conspiracy theories” to videos focussed on (Insert topic here) full of foul language, wild opinions, conspiracies and flat out lies.

So what is happening here, and why?

If we remember that the sole focus is to keep you on the platform so that advertising can be sold, the algorithm also knows that you will quickly tire of the same content no matter what it is. As such, it needs to provide alternate content that is in a similar vein that might also be more contentious and packed full of user feedback and comments that will create a higher level of engagement.

Effectively the algorithm needs to keep upping the “sugar, or dosage”, leading creators to create more contentious and hyperbolic even radicalized content as the race for your attention span continues to evolve. All the while, that balanced understanding of any topic is pushed to the side and eventually completely removed in favour of your new and more extreme and niche areas of interest. And this is not a healthy place for anyone to exist, especially those who are blind to the process that led them here.

This leads creators to create more wild and contentious content to draw an audience, and the cycle is repeated.

Conscious and state-controlled disinformation

Until now, we have been referring to companies using technologies to keep users engaged and persuade them to consume particular information streams for financial gain. Still, it did not take long for authoritarian countries to use this same technology to generate propaganda, erase history and sway public opinion within their own borders and those of their ideological rivals.

The big difference here is we are moving at scale from a backyard operation of disinformation to an environment in which state-sponsored projects where money, time and resources are unlimited and the capacity to create chaos on a global scale dramatically increases. Effectively enabling the process of weaponising disinformation.

Why bother trying to invade your enemy when you can far more easily create chaos and revolution amongst their own citizens in relative obscurity?

Ironically, it is the countries that value free and open media that are at the most significant risk of falling victim to disinformation attacks as there is little capacity to filter, censor and control the flow of information within social media as opposed to autocratic nations have removed the technical pathways and human rights of free press and free speech within their own borders.

A Complete Teaching Unit on Fake News

Digital and social media have completely redefined the media landscape, making it difficult for students to identify FACTS AND OPINIONS covering:

Teach them to FIGHT FAKE NEWS with this COMPLETE 42 PAGE UNIT. No preparation is required,

Media Literacy Teaching Strategies

Media literacy has become essential in the digital age, enabling individuals to navigate the vast information landscape and critically analyze media messages. Educators must equip students with the tools and knowledge necessary to become media-literate citizens. This article will explore practical strategies for teaching media literacy in the classroom, providing teachers with practical approaches to empower students to decipher and engage with media content.

In this article, we will approach the principles of media literacy from five perspectives and provide three practical examples of media literacy lessons in the classroom.

1: Build a Foundation of Media Literacy Early On

Teaching media literacy from an early age is paramount for several reasons.

Firstly, starting early allows educators to develop  critical thinking skills in students . By introducing media literacy concepts and practices at a young age, students learn to question, analyze, and evaluate media content. They become more discerning consumers who can distinguish between reliable and unreliable information. Early exposure to media literacy enables students to understand the persuasive techniques, biases, and manipulative strategies employed in media, empowering them to make informed decisions about the information they encounter.

Secondly, with the pervasive presence of digital media in children’s lives, early media literacy education helps students navigate the digital landscape responsibly. Young children are increasingly exposed to online platforms, social media, and digital content. By teaching them media literacy skills, educators can guide students to critically evaluate the reliability of online information, identify potential risks and dangers, and understand the consequences of their digital actions.

Early exposure to media literacy aids in developing  digital citizenship  skills, enabling students to protect their privacy, engage in respectful online communication, and become critical consumers of digital content.

Moreover, early media literacy education is vital in countering misinformation and fake news. In the internet age, misinformation spreads rapidly, and young minds can be particularly vulnerable to its influence. By introducing students to fact-checking techniques, teaching them to identify credible sources, and instilling critical evaluation skills, educators empower students to actively debunk falsehoods and discern the authenticity of information.

Teaching students about media literacy from an early age is essential for fostering critical thinking skills, navigating the digital landscape responsibly, and countering misinformation. By equipping students with media literacy skills, educators empower them to become active and discerning participants in the media ecosystem.

Digital and social media have completely redefined the media landscape, making it difficult for students to identify  FACTS AND OPINIONS  covering:

• Radicalization
• Social Media, algorithms and technology
• Research Skills
• Fact-Checking beyond Google and Alexa

2: Promote Active Media Consumption

Encourage students to engage with media content rather than passively consume it actively. Teach them to question the sources, intentions, and biases behind the information they encounter. Encourage critical thinking by asking open-ended questions and facilitating discussions. Assign media analysis projects where students evaluate the credibility and reliability of different sources.

Let’s look at three strategies for promoting active media consumption in students.

Media Analysis and Discussion:  Engage students in media analysis activities that encourage critical thinking and discussion. Give them various media examples, such as news articles, advertisements, videos, or social media posts. Guide them to identify the main message, purpose, intended audience, and persuasive techniques employed in each media piece.

Encourage students to question the credibility of the sources, evaluate the evidence provided, and consider any biases or stereotypes present. Facilitate group discussions where students can share their insights, challenge each other’s perspectives, and develop their analytical skills.

Fact-Checking and Verification:  Teach students how to fact-check and verify the information they encounter in media. Introduce them to reliable fact-checking websites and tools, such as Snopes,  FactCheck.org , or  Google’s Fact Check Explorer.

Guide students through evaluating sources, cross-referencing information, and verifying claims made in media content. Encourage students to question the accuracy and reliability of information before accepting it as true. Provide real-world examples of  misinformation or fake news stories and engage students  in hands-on activities where they can fact-check and debunk false claims.

Media Creation and Critique:  Encourage students to become active creators of media content and engage in self-reflection and critique.

Assign projects where students create media artifacts, such as videos, podcasts, or blog posts, focusing on a specific topic or theme. During creation, emphasize the importance of ethical media production, accurate representation, and responsible storytelling. After students complete their creations, facilitate peer feedback sessions where they can provide constructive criticism, discuss the impact of their media choices, and reflect on how their biases and perspectives may have influenced their work.

By incorporating these three approaches into media literacy education, educators can foster active media consumption skills in students. Students will develop the ability to critically analyze media messages, fact-check information, and engage responsibly with the media they encounter.

3: Develop Digital Literacy Skills

Equipping students with digital literacy skills is essential in today’s digital landscape. Teach them to navigate online platforms responsibly, evaluate websites for credibility, and protect their privacy. Introduce them to fact-checking websites and tools that can help them verify information. Discuss the ethical considerations surrounding online content creation, including copyright and plagiarism.

Here are three strategies to enhance your student’s digital literacy skills.

Digital Research and Information Literacy:  Teach students how to conduct effective online research and evaluate the credibility and reliability of digital sources. Introduce them to various search strategies, such as using appropriate keywords and advanced search operators, to find relevant and trustworthy information. Guide students in critically evaluating websites, considering factors such as authorship, domain authority, date of publication, and potential biases. Provide them with practical exercises where they can analyze and compare different sources of information on a specific topic. Emphasize the importance of citing sources and avoiding plagiarism in their digital research.

Digital Communication and Collaboration:  Teach students effective digital communication and collaboration skills. Guide them in using appropriate language and etiquette in online communication, whether through email, discussion forums, or social media platforms. Discuss the importance of considering the audience and context when communicating online and the potential implications of their digital footprint.

Foster opportunities for collaborative digital projects, where students can learn to work together virtually, use digital collaboration tools, and engage in respectful and effective online teamwork. Emphasize the importance of clear and concise digital communication, active listening, and constructive feedback.

Educators can help students develop essential digital literacy skills by implementing these three strategies. Students will become adept at conducting effective online research, evaluating the credibility of digital sources, protecting their online privacy and security, and engaging in responsible digital communication and collaboration. These skills are vital for their success in the digital age and empower them to navigate the digital landscape with confidence and discernment.

4: Address Bias and Stereotypes in the Media

Guide students in identifying and challenging bias and stereotypes present in media. Teach them to recognize how media influences societal perceptions and impacts diverse communities. Provide examples of media representations that reinforce stereotypes and facilitate discussions on how these representations can perpetuate inequality and discrimination. Encourage  students to seek out alternative narratives  and diverse voices.

Here are three strategies for teaching this in the classroom.

Media Analysis and Deconstruction:  Engage students in critical media analysis and deconstruction activities to identify and challenge bias and stereotypes. Select media examples, such as advertisements, news articles, TV shows, or movies, that contain explicit or implicit biases or reinforce stereotypes.

Guide students to analyze the language, visuals, representations, and portrayals in the media content. Encourage them to question the underlying assumptions, stereotypes, and biases present. Facilitate discussions where students can express their observations, share alternative perspectives, and explore the potential consequences of these biases and stereotypes. Encourage them to critically reflect on how media influences societal perceptions and impacts diverse communities.

Undertake Media Representation Projects:  Assign projects that involve creating media representations that challenge bias and stereotypes. Ask students to create their own advertisements, news articles, videos, or other media artifacts that counter prevailing stereotypes and promote inclusive representations.

Provide guidelines and  prompts that encourage students  to think critically about the messages they want to convey and the impact they want to make. Emphasize the importance of accurately and respectfully representing different social, cultural, and ethnic groups. Encourage students to collaborate and share their creations, discussing the intentions and impact of their media representations.

Promote Diverse Media Consumption:  Encourage students to actively seek out and consume media content from diverse sources and perspectives. Introduce them to media outlets, books, films, and online platforms prioritising diverse voices and challenging stereotypes. Provide recommendations and resources that showcase alternative narratives and perspectives.

Guide students in critically evaluating the diversity of media they consume and discussing the representations they encounter. Encourage them to question the absence or underrepresentation of certain groups and to explore media that provides more balanced and inclusive portrayals. Facilitate discussions where students can share their findings, insights, and reflections on the importance of diverse media consumption.

By incorporating these strategies into media literacy education, educators can effectively address bias and stereotypes in media. Students will develop the skills to critically analyze and challenge biased representations, actively create media promoting inclusivity, and seek out diverse media content. This empowers students to become more discerning consumers, critical thinkers, and advocates for media representations that reflect the diversity and richness of our society.

5: Embed Media Literacy Across the Curriculum

Integrate a media literacy curriculum across various subjects beyond traditional media studies. Show students how media literacy skills relate to science, history, literature, and other disciplines. For example, in a history class, students can analyze primary sources or examine the portrayal of historical events in films. By connecting media literacy to different subjects, students understand its universal applicability.

Embed Media Analysis and Content Creation into all subject areas:  Integrate media analysis and creation activities across different subjects to enhance critical thinking and communication skills. For example, in English language arts, analyze media representations in literature or explore the persuasive techniques used in advertising.

In social studies, analyze historical documentaries or discuss the portrayal of different cultures and societies in media. In science, examine the portrayal of scientific concepts in popular media or evaluate the accuracy of scientific claims in news articles.

Encourage students to create media artifacts demonstrating their understanding of the subject, such as videos, podcasts, infographics, or written articles. Students gain a deeper understanding of the subject matter by integrating media literacy into various subjects while developing critical media analysis and media creation skills.

Create Collaborative Media Projects:  Implement collaborative media projects that span multiple subjects, promoting interdisciplinary learning. Design projects that require students to research, analyze, and create media content related to a specific topic.

For example, students could collaborate on a digital storytelling project that combines historical research, creative writing, and digital media production. Students could create multimedia presentations or documentaries integrating scientific research, data analysis, and visual communication skills. By working together on these projects, students develop a comprehensive understanding of the topic, enhance their media literacy skills, and learn the value of collaboration and teamwork.

Promote the pursuit of Media Ethics and Digital Citizenship Discussions:  Incorporate discussions on media ethics and digital citizenship into various subjects to foster responsible media consumption and online behaviour. Dedicate class time to explore topics such as media bias, fake news, online privacy, cyberbullying, or the responsible use of social media. Engage students in critical conversations about the ethical considerations of media production and consumption.

Provide opportunities for students to share their perspectives, debate relevant issues, and develop strategies for responsible digital engagement. By addressing media ethics and digital citizenship in different subjects, students comprehensively understand their responsibilities as media consumers and producers.

Educators can seamlessly integrate media literacy across all curriculum areas by employing these strategies. Students will develop critical thinking, creativity, communication, and digital citizenship skills, enabling them to navigate and engage with media in various academic contexts effectively.

Bonus tip for teaching media literacy: Stay Updated and Adapt:

Media landscapes and technologies evolve rapidly, so educators need to stay updated and adapt their teaching strategies accordingly. Stay informed about emerging media trends, new platforms, and changing media consumption patterns. Continuously refine your teaching methods to align with the ever-changing media landscape.

Teaching media literacy is essential for equipping students with the critical thinking skills to navigate the complex media environment. By starting early, promoting active consumption, developing digital literacy, fostering collaboration, addressing bias and stereotypes, incorporating media literacy across subjects, and staying updated, educators can empower students to become discerning consumers and active media content creators.

By implementing these strategies, educators play a pivotal role in shaping informed and engaged citizens who can confidently navigate the media landscape.

As educators, let us seize the opportunity to cultivate media literacy skills in our students, enabling them to analyze, evaluate, and create media content responsibly and effectively.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Current Events

Teenagers and Misinformation: Some Starting Points for Teaching Media Literacy

Five ideas to help students understand the problem, learn basic skills, share their experiences and have a say in how media literacy is taught.

By Katherine Schulten

In a sense, every week is Media Literacy Week on a site like ours, which helps people teach and learn with the news. But Oct. 24-28 is the official week dedicated to “amplifying the importance of media literacy education across the United States.” We are delighted to help.

Here are some ways teachers and librarians can teach with the extensive reporting The New York Times has done recently on misinformation and disinformation, whether your students are just beginning to understand the problem, or whether they are ready for deeper inquiry.

1. Get the big picture: What is media literacy education? Why do we need it?

If you have time for just one activity, this one, based on the Times article “ When Teens Find Misinformation, These Teachers Are Ready ,” can provide a broad overview and help frame future work.

To start, share the statements in italics, all adapted from the article. You can do this as a “ Four Corners ” exercise in which you read each line aloud and ask students to position themselves in the room according to whether they strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree. Or, you can hand out the PDF version and have students mark each statement “true” or “false” based on their own experiences, then discuss their reactions — and the experiences that informed those reactions — in partners or small groups.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Niall McNulty

Importance of Media Literacy: Navigating the Digital Information Landscape

Media literacy  has become an essential skill in the  digital age , where the internet and various forms of media play a pivotal role in the daily lives of individuals. As an ability to critically understand and evaluate content across diverse media platforms, it ensures that individuals are not passive consumers but rather equipped to navigate the complex landscape of modern information. The abundance of sources and the speed at which information spreads online demand that one possesses the skills to distinguish between credible news and misleading or biased content.

With the evolving nature of media, media literacy is not just about understanding content but also involves a critical approach to assessing the purpose, message, and impact of what is consumed. It incorporates the capacity to recognise and evaluate the techniques used by media producers to convey their messages.  Developing media literacy skills  is crucial for individuals to interpret the reliability of different information sources, which fosters informed decision-making and encourages participation in democratic processes.

The future of media literacy lies in integrating these skills into educational curricula and everyday practices, enabling younger generations to adapt to the challenges posed by  emerging technologies . As the media landscape continues to broaden, the importance of fostering media literacy will only grow, ensuring individuals are prepared to confront the complexities of the media they interact with daily.

Defining Media Literacy

Media literacy encompasses an individual’s ability to engage with media in all its forms critically. This critical engagement implies an understanding of the nature of media content and the ability to analyse and respond to media messages effectively.

Key Components

Media literacy consists of several key components:

• Access : The ability to obtain and use media in various formats.
• Analysis : Deciphering and understanding the meanings behind media messages.
• Evaluation : Critically assessing media content for quality and credibility.
• Creation : The capability to produce media content responsibly.
• Action : Engaging with media in a productive and socially responsible manner.

These components empower individuals to navigate the complex landscape of modern communication with knowledge and confidence.

Historical Context

The concept of media literacy has evolved significantly over time. Initially concerned with the content produced by traditional mediums such as television, radio, newspapers, and magazines, the term has expanded to encompass digital media and the internet.

Historically, scholars have debated the scope and application of media literacy. The British Film Institute and Oxford University Press have contributed to this subject’s academic discourse. Throughout history, the rise of new media technologies has consistently prompted a reassessment of what constitutes literacy in a media context.

The Role of Media Literacy in Society

Media literacy is essential for fostering critical thinking and informed engagement with the content that shapes public opinion. It enables individuals to navigate the complexities of the modern information environment, discern truth from misinformation, and participate actively in democratic processes.

Critical Thinking and Democracy

Critical thinking, a cornerstone of democracy, is greatly enhanced by media literacy. It equips individuals to analyse and evaluate the credibility and intent of media messages. The National Association for Media Literacy Education underscores the importance of these competencies as they relate to active and informed citizenship within a democracy.

Human Rights and Access to Information

Media literacy also intersects with human rights, particularly the right to access information. UNESCO highlights the role of Media and Information Literacy (MIL) in promoting critical approaches to literacy, affirming that access to diverse and reliable information is crucial for the realisation of human rights globally.

Influence of Media on Public Opinion

The media exerts a significant influence on public opinion. Understanding media literacy empowers individuals to recognise and resist this influence when necessary. It helps identify biases and perspectives, ensuring that opinions are formed based on truthful information, not misrepresented or sensationalised. Misinformation, which can spread rapidly in the digital age, is one of the major challenges that media literacy actively combats.

Media Literacy in Education

Media literacy education equips students with the  critical skills  to engage with the ever-evolving media landscape. It highlights the role of educators in integrating these competencies within the curriculum while  utilising technology  to  enhance learning experiences  in the digital age.

Integration into Curriculum

Media literacy is an additional subject and an integral part of the holistic learning experience. Within the curriculum, media literacy is woven through various subjects, where students learn to  analyse  and  evaluate  information from different media sources. Lessons are designed to address various aspects of media, from understanding how mass media works to recognising bias and misinformation. This infusion across disciplines ensures that media literacy is a cornerstone of literacy education from early childhood.

Educators and Literacy Skills

Educators play a pivotal role in media literacy by modelling and teaching the necessary skills. They are tasked with not only possessing a robust set of media literacy skills themselves but also with continuous professional development to stay abreast of the latest media trends and technologies. The competencies include creating and analysing media content and fostering a critical approach towards media consumption among pupils. Therefore, training and resources for educators become fundamental to effective  media literacy education .

Digital Media in the Classroom

Incorporating digital media in the classroom transforms learning by providing real-world contexts for students to apply their media literacy skills. Technology-based tasks, such as creating  digital presentations  or analysing online content, prepare students for active participation in today’s media-rich society. By using technology thoughtfully, students practise these skills in an environment that closely mirrors their experiences outside of school. It’s not only about consumption; students also learn to become responsible digital content creators.

Analytical Tools and Techniques

In media literacy, individuals benefit from a robust toolkit for dissecting and understanding media content. The following section navigates through essential practices such as evaluating sources and identifying bias, which is critical to ascertaining the truth in news consumption and ensuring news literacy.

Evaluating Sources

When reading news, one must first consider the source’s credibility. Key questions to discern the trustworthiness of a source include examining the author’s qualifications, the publication’s reputation, and any potential affiliations that may impact the objectivity of the reporting. The reader should also:

• Look for cited evidence to support claims, such as  statistics  or expert opinions.
• Notice the date of the information to ensure relevance.

Identifying Bias and Fact-Checking

Recognising bias in news and media is paramount to clearly understand how facts are presented. The reader should:

• Analyse the language used for signs of emotive phrasing or unbalanced viewpoints.
• Cross-reference information with multiple sources to see if the reporting is consistent.

A systematic approach towards social media and other digital communications involves:

• Utilising third-party  fact-checking tools  to verify claims.
• Check the intentions behind social media posts—whether to inform or influence.

Through these methods, media literacy extends beyond basic reading and encourages a thorough evaluation of all media forms.

Developing Literacy Skills

Developing media literacy skills involves transitioning from merely consuming media to understanding and participating in media production. This process is essential for creating responsible content and engaging with various perspectives in today’s media-saturated environment.

From Consumption to Production

Through media literacy education, individuals learn to critically  analyse  media messages and the underlying  purposes  of different media  platforms . They move beyond passive consumption to active production, crafting messages with deliberate consideration of  language ,  images , and the  cognitive  and  emotional  impact on their audience.

Creating Responsible Content

Responsible content creation on  mass media  and  social media  platforms requires a clear understanding of the ethical implications of one’s  writing  and imagery. Content creators must take  accountability  for the accuracy of their information and the potential impact of their  point of view .

• Check Accuracy: Confirm all facts before publication.
• Consider Impact: Reflect on how the content can affect others emotionally and cognitively.
• Respect Privacy: Protect the personal information of individuals featured or discussed in content.

Engaging with Diverse Perspectives

Media literacy empowers individuals to seek out and  engage  with a wide range of  perspectives , which fosters a more  inclusive  understanding of society. This engagement enhances critical thinking and allows a more comprehensive understanding of global issues and cultural contexts.

• Exposure to Variety: Encourage reading and viewing content from various sources.
• Challenging Assumptions: Question underlying assumptions and biases in media messages.
• Respectful Discourse: Promote respectful exchange of ideas and viewpoints.

The Digital Landscape

The expansion of the Internet has catalysed a transformative digital age where effective navigation through vast amounts of online information is crucial.

Navigating Online Information

In the current digital landscape, the Internet is a vast and varied information repository where individuals encounter a spectrum of content.  Media and information literacy (MIL)  is vital for discerning the reliability and relevance of online resources. The skill to differentiate between fact and fiction is not just a personal asset but a critical societal function, encouraging informed citizenship and sustainable development.

New Forms of Communication

Social and digital media platforms have revolutionised communication, fostering new forms and forums where public discourse is instant and global. Policymakers, educators, and citizens must understand these tools to utilise digital literacy strategically, ensuring responsible participation in digital communities and effectively utilising these resources for personal and societal gains.

The Impact of Technology on Literacy

Technology has both broadened and complicated traditional concepts of literacy. The aptitude to process information from multifaceted digital media formats and evaluate the credibility of various digital content sources is integral to  MIL competency. Utilising tools like MIL CLICKS, which promotes critical thinking and informed decision-making regarding media consumption, has become fundamental in the digital age for fostering resilient and informed societies.

Protecting Against Misinformation

Media literacy is a crucial defence mechanism in an era where misinformation and disinformation can spread rapidly via mass media, including television and radio. By harnessing critical thinking skills, individuals shield themselves from harm and enhance their satisfaction in confidently navigating media.

Combating Fake News

Fake news, defined as deliberate misinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional or digital media, poses risks that necessitate a strategic approach to media consumption. To combat this,  critical thinking skills  serve as a primary tool. Individuals must:

• Evaluate sources critically , questioning the credibility and intentions behind the information.
• Cross-check facts  with multiple trusted sources before accepting information as true.
• Reflect  on biases that might influence one’s perception and acceptance of news.

Integrating these practices into daily media interaction protects them and contributes to an informed society.

Media Literacy as a Shield against Extremism

Media literacy equips individuals to discern and question extremist content that often preys on vulnerabilities and misinformation. It serves as a protective barrier by:

• Promoting understanding  of how media messages shape societal views and media’s potential in radicalisation.
• Encouraging engagement  in civil discourse, thus providing an alternative path to those at risk of radicalisation.
• Instilling resilience , enabling consumers to resist extremist narratives and reducing the potential harm caused by radical ideologies.

Media literacy empowers individuals to navigate the media landscape safely and fortifies society against the divisive impacts of extremism.

Media Literacy for Empowerment

Media literacy empowers individuals by furnishing them with essential competencies to navigate and influence the media-saturated world around them with purpose and control.

Promoting Civic Engagement

Civic engagement  is strengthened through proficiency in media literacy. Individuals who are media literate can discern the relevance and veracity of information, which is crucial for informed participation in democratic processes. Organisations like the National Association for Media Literacy Education outline that such competencies enable people to engage with current events critically, fostering active and responsible citizenship.

• Knowledge : Understanding the structures of media influence and its impact on society.
• Tools : Leveraging social media and other platforms to promote civic dialogue and social change.
• Respect : Acknowledging diverse perspectives and engaging with respect in public discourse.

Encouraging Healthy Media Habits

Healthy media habits are essential for mental and physical  health , and media literacy directly contributes to this. Being media literate means having the capacity to:

• Analyse  various genres of media, including video games and social media, recognising potential issues such as violence and cyberbullying.
• Control Consumption : Setting limits on media consumption to maintain a healthy balance in life, thus enhancing personal satisfaction.

Resources for Lifelong Media Literacy

The journey towards media literacy is ongoing, and numerous resources are available to support this educational pathway. Massive Open Online Courses ( MOOCs ) offer accessible learning in Media and Information Literacy ( MIL ), while organisations provide age-appropriate  tools  and  knowledge  bases for various aspects of media education.

• Social Media : Guides on navigating platforms with critical thought and care.
• Educational Tools : Strategies for parents and teachers to facilitate the development of MIL  competencies  in children.
• Engagement : Platforms encouraging the application of media literacy skills in real-world scenarios.

Frequently Asked Questions

This section addresses common inquiries regarding media literacy, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of its significance in contemporary society.

What constitutes media literacy, and why is it vital in today’s digital landscape?

Media literacy encompasses accessing, analysing, evaluating, and creating content across various platforms. In the digital era, it’s vital as it equips people with skills to navigate the vast swathes of information, separating fact from misinformation.

How does media literacy empower individuals to interpret news and information critically?

It empowers individuals by providing tools to question the authenticity and biases in news and media content. This is critical for informed decision-making and civic engagement.

In what ways can media literacy contribute to discerning the credibility of online content?

Media literacy aids in identifying credible sources by teaching how to look for signs of reliability, such as citations and cross-referencing with reputable outlets. This reduces the risk of consuming and sharing false information.

How does media literacy enhance responsible participation on social media platforms?

Responsibility on social media stems from understanding the impact of sharing and creating content. Media literacy helps individuals recognise the significance of their online actions and encourages ethical participation.

Can media literacy impact one’s understanding of advertising and its influence on consumer behaviour?

Yes, individuals with media literacy can deconstruct advertisements, understanding the strategies used to influence consumers and potentially counteract undesired persuasive effects.

How does media literacy education equip students to navigate the complexities of the modern information environment?

Through media literacy education, students learn to critically assess media messages and the diverse channels through which information is distributed, enabling them to function as informed citizens in a complex information landscape.

8 thoughts on “Importance of Media Literacy: Navigating the Digital Information Landscape”

• Pingback: Unit 5: Why Should We Increase Media Literacy? – Skyler's Blog!
• Pingback: Media Literacy – Massiel Chavez
• Pingback: Why is Media Creation Critical to Media Literacy? – Jacqui Delbert
• Pingback: Why is media creation critical to media literacy? – My blog
• Pingback: 5 WAYS TO BUILD CONSUMER RELATIONSHIPS USING MEDIA LITERACY – AUTHEN
• Pingback: The Art of Media Creation – Ellington Nichols
• Pingback: Top 10+ what is media literacy
• Pingback: Why is media creation a critical component of media literacy? – My blog

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

• About Media@LSE
• Policy briefs
• COVID 19 pandemic
• Public Service Media
• Internet Governance
• Children and the Media
• Media representation
• 20th Anniversary

Sonia Livingstone

October 25th, 2018, media literacy: what are the challenges and how can we move towards a solution.

1 comment | 86 shares

Estimated reading time: 10 minutes

Last time I wrote about media literacy, I was glad to observe that, as the media increasingly mediate everything in society, there is growing emphasis on the importance of ensuring that people have the media literacy not only to engage with the media but to engage with society through the media . But I was also frustrated at some of the superficial hand-waving from policy makers towards media literacy and media education, seemingly without understanding what is involved or what the challenges are.

Silver bullet solution?

In our ever-more complex media and information environment, media literacy is being hailed as a silver bullet solution – hopefully to be dealt with by one-shot awareness-raising campaigns delivered by brand-promoting CSR departments, or by issuing vaguely-phrased high-handed injunctions to the (apparently unhearing and otherwise preoccupied) Department of Education. The motivation is rarely pedagogic but, rather, more the policy of ‘last resort.’

So, in the face of multiple problems of hate speech, or cyberbullying, or hacked YouTube content, or fake news etc., we are witnessing urgent calls to manage the media environment better – especially, to regulate the internet. But in the face of clashes of positive and negative rights, regulatory difficulties, powerful global companies and short-termist political expediency, this call in turn quickly morphs into a call for the supposedly ‘softer’ solution of educating the internet-using public.

Let me be clear. I am 100% in favour of educating the public. I have devoted years to arguing for more and better media literacy. In this digital age, I believe media literacy’s time has come, and its advocates should grab the opportunity with both hands and advance the cause with all their energy.

But energy and enthusiasm are most effectively expended when the challenges to be met are properly recognised. So let me set these out, as I see them, lest our energies are wasted and the window of opportunity is lost.

First, three educational challenges

• Investment . Make no mistake: education is an expensive solution in terms of time, effort and infrastructure. It needs a pedagogy, teacher training, curriculum resources, mechanisms for audit and assessment. To manage schools, governments devote an entire ministry to achieve this – yet they are simultaneously heavily criticised for their failures, and yet constantly under siege to solve yet more of society’s pressing ills.
• Reaching adults not in education or training is an even larger challenge, rarely met in any area of demand. So who is responsible, and who are or should be the agents of change? The answers will vary by country, culture and purpose. But they should be identified so that the actions of civil society, public services such as libraries, industry and other private actors can be coordinated.
• Exacerbating inequalities . We like to think of education as a democratising mechanism, because everyone has the right to school and training. But research consistently shows that education affects life outcomes differentially, advantaging the already-advantaged and failing sufficiently to benefit the less-advantaged, especially the so-called “hard to reach.” What proportion of media literacy resources are provided equivalently to all (risking exacerbating inequality) and what proportion are targeted at those who most need them? (I don’t know the answer, but someone should know it).

Then there’s the challenges of the digital

• Mission creep . As more and more of our lives are mediated – work, education, information, civic participation, social relationships and more – the scope of media literacy grows commensurately. Just today, in my Twitter feed, I read exhortations to ensure that people:

– Understand how black-boxed automated systems make potentially discriminator decisions

– Distinguish the intent and credibility signalling behind mis- and dis-information to tackle “fake news”

– Identify when a potential abuser is using their smart home technology to spy on them

– Weigh the privacy implications when they use public services in smart cities

It is, therefore, vital to set some priorities.

• Legibility . As I’ve observed before: we cannot teach what is unlearnable, and people cannot learn to be literate in what is illegible. We cannot teach people data literacy without transparency, or what to trust without authoritative markers of authenticity and expertise. So people’s media literacy depends on how their digital environment has been designed and regulated.
• Postponing the positives . The rapid pace of socio-technological innovation means everyone is scrambling to keep up, and just battling with the new harms popping up unexpectedly is extremely demanding. The result is that attention to the “ hygiene factors ” in the digital environment dominates efforts – so that media literacy risks being limited to safety and security. Our bigger ambitions for mediated learning, creativity, collaboration and participation get endlessly postponed in the process, especially for children and young people.

For the media literacy community itself, there’s some very real challenges of expertise and sustainability.  These may be dull, or even invisible, to those calling for the silver bullet solution. But they matter.

• Capacity and sustainability . The media literacy world comprises many small, enthusiastic, even idealistic initiatives, often based on a few people with remarkably little by way of sustained funding or infrastructure. The media literacy world is a bit like a start-up culture without the venture capitalists. We can talk a good story, but there’s always a risk of losing what’s been gained and having to start over.
• Evidence and evaluation . When you look closely at the evidence cited in this field, it’s not as robust or precise as one would like. Even setting aside the now tiresome debate over definitions of media literacy, the difficulties of measurement remain. Perhaps for the lack of agreed measures, there’s more evidence of outputs than outcomes, of short term reach rather than long term improvements. There’s remarkably few independent evaluations of what works. Compare media literacy interventions to other kinds of educational interventions – where’s the randomised control trials, the systematic evidence reviews, the targeted attention to specific subgroups of the population, the costed assessments of benefit relative to investment?

Last but certainly not least, there’s the politics of media literacy

• “Responsibilising” the individual. In policy talk especially, the call for media literacy and education to solve the problems of digital platforms tends, however inadvertently, to task the individual with dealing with the explosion of complexities, problems and possibilities of our digital society. In a policy field where governments fear they lack the power to take on the big platforms, it is the individual who must wise up, becoming media-savvy, rise to the challenge. Since, of course, the individual can hardly succeed where governments cannot, the politics of media literacy risks not only burdening but also blaming the individual for the problems of the digital environment.

As Ioanna Noula recently put it , “by emphasising kindness and ethics, these approaches also undermine  the value of conflict and dissent  for the advancement of democracy” and they “decontextualize” citizenship such that “ the attentions of concerned adults and youth alike are turned away from the social conditions that make young people vulnerable.” So instead of empowered media-literate citizens exercising their communicative entitlements , the emphasis becomes one of dutiful citizens, as part of a moralising discourse.

How can we turn things around?

I’ll make three suggestions, to end on a positive:

Before advocating for media literacy as part of a solution to the latest socio-technological ill, let’s take a holistic approach. This means, let’s get really clear what the problem is, and identify what role media or digital technologies play in that problem – if any! We might even ask for a “ theory of change ” to clarify how the different components of a potential solution are expected to work together. And, getting ambitious now, what about a responsible organisation – whether local, national or international – tasked with coordinating all these actions and evaluating the outcomes?

Then let’s figure out all the other players, so that we can articulate which part of the solution media literacy may provide, and what others will contribute – regulators, policy makers, civil society organisations, the media themselves – thereby avoiding the insidious tendency for the whole problem to get dumped at the feet of media educators. We might further expect – demand – that the other players should embed media literacy expectations into their very DNA, so that all organisations shaping the digital environment share the task of explaining their operation to the public and providing user-friendly mechanisms of accountability.

Last, let’s take the questions of value, empowerment and politics seriously. What does good look like? Is it dutiful citizens being kind to each other online, behaving nicely in an orderly fashion? Or is it deliberating, debating, even conflicting citizens? Citizens who express themselves through digital media, organise through digital media, protest to the authorities and insist on being heard? I think it should be the latter, not least because our societies are increasingly divided, angry and dis-empowered. It’s time that people are heard, and it’s time for the digital environment to live up to its democratizing promise. But this requires change on behalf of the policy makers. We should not only ask whether people trust media, or trust the government. We should also ask whether the media trusts the people and treats them with respect. And whether governments and related authorities and civic bodies trust the people, treat them with respect, and hear what they say.

This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Media Policy Project nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.   

About the author

Sonia Livingstone OBE is Professor of Social Psychology in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE. Taking a comparative, critical and contextual approach, her research examines how the changing conditions of mediation are reshaping everyday practices and possibilities for action. She has published twenty books on media audiences, media literacy and media regulation, with a particular focus on the opportunities and risks of digital media use in the everyday lives of children and young people. Her most recent book is The class: living and learning in the digital age (2016, with Julian Sefton-Green). Sonia has advised the UK government, European Commission, European Parliament, Council of Europe and other national and international organisations on children’s rights, risks and safety in the digital age. She was awarded the title of Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in 2014 'for services to children and child internet safety.' Sonia Livingstone is a fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, the British Psychological Society, the Royal Society for the Arts and fellow and past President of the International Communication Association (ICA). She has been visiting professor at the Universities of Bergen, Copenhagen, Harvard, Illinois, Milan, Oslo, Paris II, Pennsylvania, and Stockholm, and is on the editorial board of several leading journals. She is on the Executive Board of the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, is a member of the Internet Watch Foundation’s Ethics Committee, is an Expert Advisor to the Council of Europe, and was recently Special Advisor to the House of Lords’ Select Committee on Communications, among other roles. Sonia has received many awards and honours, including honorary doctorates from the University of Montreal, Université Panthéon Assas, the Erasmus University of Rotterdam, the University of the Basque Country, and the University of Copenhagen. She is currently leading the project Global Kids Online (with UNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti and EU Kids Online), researching children’s understanding of digital privacy (funded by the Information Commissioner’s Office) and writing a book with Alicia Blum-Ross called ‘Parenting for a Digital Future (Oxford University Press), among other research, impact and writing projects. Sonia is chairing LSE’s Truth, Trust and Technology Commission in 2017-2018, and participates in the European Commission-funded research networks, DigiLitEY and MakEY. She runs a blog called www.parenting.digital and contributes to the LSE’s Media Policy Project blog. Follow her on Twitter @Livingstone_S

There’s a funny thing about media literacy, and that is that media have crept their way into everyone’s daily life. A young person knows who’s a friend and who’s not and media have a lot to do with that…. Isn’t media literacy also: discussing daily life and the latest news wit peers and teacher and trying to reach a common goal: making the world a better, more liveable place? PS I’m a schoollibrarian in Amsterdam, Holland and for me media literacy also means also informing teachers about books that tell about worldwide digital developments, like The raod to Unfreedom by Timoty Snyder, not exactly hopeful information, but it’s better to know than not to know.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Related Posts

Welcome to the LSE Media Policy Project

October 13th, 2010.

LSE experts on T3: Rodolfo Leyva

April 10th, 2018.

11 key readings on children’s data and privacy online

December 18th, 2018.

Why talking about ‘disinformation’ misses the point when considering radical right ‘alternative’ media

January 3rd, 2019.

Home — Essay Samples — Information Science and Technology — Digital Literacy — The Importance of Media Literacy: Navigating a Digital Society

The Importance of Media Literacy: Navigating a Digital Society

• Categories: Digital Literacy

About this sample

Words: 682 |

Published: Sep 1, 2023

Words: 682 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Information Science and Technology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1445 words

1 pages / 372 words

6 pages / 2847 words

1 pages / 666 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Digital Literacy

Liu, Ziming. 'Digital Reading.' Communications in Information Literacy, vol. 6, no. 2, 2012, pp. 204-217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2012.6.2.4

In today's rapidly evolving digital landscape, the importance of media and information literacy cannot be overstated. As we are inundated with an overwhelming amount of information from various sources, the ability to critically [...]

In our increasingly interconnected world, where technology is deeply woven into the fabric of our daily lives, the specter of computer threats looms large. From malware attacks to hacking and data breaches, the digital landscape [...]

Warschauer, M. (2018). Digital literacy and digital literacies: Policy, pedagogy and research considerations for education. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 13(1), 2-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411011066763

The study in ICT based library and Information Resources and services: a case study of Karnatak Arts, Science and Commerce College, Bidar. The present study demonstrates and elaborates the primary way to learn about ICTs, the [...]

In the year of 2019, we have seen a homegrown education company BYJU’s becoming the official sponsor of Indian Cricket Team with a record fee of 1079 INR crores, which its predecessor Oppo- a Chinese mobile maker thought was [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Media and Information Literacy

UNESCO supports the development of Media and Information Literacy and Digital Competencies for all to enable people’s ability to engage critically with information, navigate the online environment safely and responsibly and ensure there can be trust in our information ecosystem and in digital technologies. 

Media and Information Literacy provides a set of essential skills to address the challenges of the 21 st century including the proliferation of mis- and disinformation and hate speech, the decline of trust in media and digital innovations notably Artificial Intelligence.

The Global MIL Week

Commemorated annually, the Global MIL week is a major occasion for worldwide stakeholders to review and celebrate the progress achieved towards Media and Information Literacy for All.

Developing resources to empower citizens

Advocating for media and information literacy policies and strategies, mobilizing and connecting media and information literacy communities, promoting innovation and creativity in media and information literacy, facts and figures.

aged 15-24 around the world use the Internet, according to a 2023 UNESCO study

Global Media and Information Literacy Week 2021.

on media and information literacy.

equipped to counter disinformation and hate speech with media and information literacy.

Publications

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Media Literacy, Essay Example

Pages: 3

Words: 953

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Introduction

Media literacy is a complex issue that requires further investigation and evaluation in the modern era. It is important to identify the resources that are required to effectively adapt to a media-filled culture, whereby there are significant opportunities to achieve growth and change in the context of new ideas for growth and maturity for the average viewer/reader. It is known that “Interactivity as a core factor in multimedia is in some ways closely related to performance and can enable the viewer/reader/user to participate directly in the construction of meaning” (Daley 36). This quote is inspiring because it requires individuals to truly connect with the media on several levels that will have an instrumental impact on personal growth and the ability to be informative on many levels. The media saturates society through Facebook, Twitter, 24-hour news channels, and traditional forms such as magazines newspapers. Therefore, it is essential to identify a personal strategy that enables the reader/viewer to decipher through the hundreds if not thousands of messages that the media delivers on a daily basis so that individuals are better prepared to manage their own degree of literacy effectively.

For a website such as CNN.com, there appears to be a clash of sorts between that which is truly newsworthy and important to the lives of many people and that which might be deemed sensationalism to grab readers’ attention and an increased number of views, as well as ratings. This is a complex situation because the network and its accompanying website strive to remain competitive with the needs of its readers/viewers, while also requiring other factors to be considered that might improve their ability to decipher through the messages and to identify those which are most meaningful and appropriate within their lives. The homepage of the CNN website typically has an emerging or news-worthy story that is designed to grab the reader’s attention and to facilitate a response from the reader, perhaps a visceral reaction. This is part of the appeal of online news, as it attempts to draw viewers’ attention to what the website deems as newsworthy and of value to the reader. Although this is not always the case, the website achieves it key objective by attracting the reader enough to at least read the headlines and perhaps read some of the other stories that are listed on the homepage. Nonetheless, it is likely that many viewers will barely scratch the surface of an article because they lose interest or do not understand the backstory regarding the topic to keep reading. This is a key component of the high level of media illiteracy that exists in the modern era and that supports the development of new strategies to encourage readers to become less media illiterate and to improve their literacy regarding issues that generate much attention and focus from the masses.

There are critical factors associated with media literacy that require further consideration and evaluation, such as the tools that support the growth of individuals as they learn how to weave through the messages that they receive online, on television, and in print. Media literacy is more than merely reading stories, as it is about taking these stories in, forming opinions, developing a passion for a topic or an idea, and forming a bond with others who might share or contrast with these views (Media Literacy Project). In this context, it is important to identify the resources that are required to develop a strategy that supports media literacy on a much larger level that will impact society and its people as they develop a higher level of intelligence and/or acceptance of the ideas set forth within a given story or headline.

Overcoming media illiteracy requires the development of new strategies for individuals to take ideas that they read on a website such as CNN.com and to make them their own and perhaps apply them to their own lives in one or more ways. This is how media literacy works, as it enables individuals to transition from simply reading news stories online towards adapting them to their own lives in one way or another. This process engages readers and enables them to recognize the importance of improving their own level of literacy through these opportunities. It is imperative to recognize the value of media literacy as it applies to the human condition in the modern era, particularly as individuals have become increasingly dependent on the news as a part of their daily routines. This process supports and engages readers/viewers in the context of many different situations that enable them to cross over into a world where they have a better understanding of the media and how it impacts their lives in different ways.

Media literacy is a complex and ongoing phenomenon that has a unique impact on the lives of individuals. Many websites influence how people interpret the news, such as CNN.com, as they only tend to scratch the surface of news without any real opportunity to formulate opinions regarding the topics that are within. Therefore, it is important to identify some of the issues that are common in these stories and to recognize the importance of developing new approaches to stories that will have a positive impact on the response from readers/viewers. Media literacy is an ongoing process that requires the full attention and focus of individuals in order to accomplish the desired goals and objectives, while also considering the value of developing new perspectives that will encourage readers to take greater steps towards formulating their own opinions regarding stories and topics that may impact their own lives on many levels.

Works Cited

CNN.com. 11 May 2014: http://www.cnn.com/

Daley, Elizabeth. “Expanding the concept of literacy.” Educause, 11 May 2014: https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0322.pdf

Media Literacy Project. “What is media literacy?” 11 May 2014: http://medialiteracyproject.org/learn/media-literacy

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Compression of Morbidity, Essay Example

Analysis of the King Lear, Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

• For Parents
• For Educators
• Our Work and Impact
• About Digital Citizenship
• Digital Citizenship Curriculum
• Digital Citizenship (U.K.)
• Lesson Collections
• All Lesson Plans
• Digital Life Dilemmas
• SEL in Digital Life Resource Center
• Implementation Guide
• Toolkits by Topic
• Digital Citizenship Week
• Digital Connections (Grades 6–8)
• Digital Compass™ (Grades 6–8)
• Digital Passport™ (Grades 3–5)
• Social Media TestDrive (Grades 6–8)

AI Literacy for Grades 6–12

• All Apps and Websites
• Curated Lists
• Best in Class
• Common Sense Selections
• About the Privacy Program
• Privacy Evaluations
• Privacy Articles
• Privacy Direct (Free download)
• Free Back-to-School Templates
• 21 Activities to Start School
• AI Movies, Podcasts, & Books
• Learning Podcasts
• Books for Digital Citizenship
• ChatGPT and Beyond
• Should Your School Have Cell Phone Ban?
• Digital Well-Being Discussions
• Supporting LGBTQ+ Students
• Offline Digital Citizenship
• Teaching with Tech
• Movies in the Classroom
• Social & Emotional Learning
• Digital Citizenship
• Tech & Learning
• News and Media Literacy
• Common Sense Recognized Educators
• Common Sense Education Ambassadors
• Browse Events and Training
• AI Foundations for Educators
• Digital Citizenship Teacher Training
• Modeling Digital Habits Teacher Training
• Student Privacy Teacher Training

Training Course: AI Foundations for Educators

Earn your Common Sense Education badge today!

• Family Engagement Toolkit
• Digital Citizenship Resources for Families

Family Tech Planners

Family and community engagement program.

• Workshops for Families with Kids Age 0–8
• Workshops for Middle and High School Families
• Kids and Tech Video Series

• Get Our Newsletter

News & Media Literacy 101

Topics:   Digital Citizenship News & Media Literacy

Teach your students foundational news and media literacy skills with these free lesson plans.

News and Media Literacy begins with the foundational skills and strategies that students need to think critically about the news stories, images, and videos they see online. In our connected world, we encounter new information all the time, and there is no greater power than the ability to filter, discern, and wield that information. Thinking critically means knowing where news stories come from, what purpose they serve, and how credible they are. 

To help students build a strong foundation of news and media literacy, use these free, ready-to-teach lessons from our K-12 Digital Citizenship Curriculum. With each lesson, you'll help your students put the news in context, identify bias and misinformation, and apply the critical news and media literacy skills they'll need to become responsible consumers and creators of media.

Note: All of these lessons are free, but in order to get access, you'll need to register on our site or sign in.

Elementary News and Media Literacy Lessons

Let's Give Credit With so much information at their fingertips, help students learn what it means to "give credit" when using content they find online. Taking on the role of a detective, students will learn why it's important to give credit and the right ways to do it when they use words, images, or ideas that belong to others.

Is Seeing Believing? The web is full of photos, and even videos, that are digitally altered. And it's often hard to tell the difference between what's real and what's fake. Help your students ask critical questions about why someone might alter a photo or video in the first place.

A Creator's Rights and Responsibilities It's common for kids to use images they find online for school projects or just for fun. But kids don't often understand which images are OK to use and which ones aren't. Help your students learn about the rights and responsibilities they have when it comes to the images they create and use.

Reading News Online Kids find and read news in lots of different ways. But studies show they're not very good at interpreting what they see. How can we help them get better? Teaching your students about the structure of online news articles is an important place to start.

You Won't Believe This! The internet is full of catchy headlines and outrageous images, all to make us curious and get our attention. But kids don't usually realize: What you click on isn't always what you get. Show your students the best ways to avoid clickbait online.

Middle School News and Media Literacy Lessons

Finding Credible News The web is full of questionable stuff, from rumors and inaccurate information to outright lies and so-called fake news. So how do we help students weed out the bad and find what's credible? Help students dig into why and how false information ends up online in the first place, and then practice evaluating the credibility of what they're finding online.

The Four Factors of Fair Use Kids can be voracious consumers -- and creators -- of media, and it's easier than ever for them to find and share digital content online. But do middle schoolers know about concepts like fair use, copyright, and public domain? Give students a framework they can use to better understand how fair use works in the real world.

This Just In! With mobile phone alerts, social media updates, and 24/7 news cycles, it's hard to escape the daily flood of breaking news. But do kids really understand what they're seeing when stories first break? Help students analyze breaking news with a critical eye for false or incomplete information, and discuss the downsides of our "always-on" news media culture.

Artificial Intelligence: Is It Plagiarism?   (Suitable for middle school with adaptations) The number of artificial intelligence (AI) tools has grown significantly over the past few years. Some of the most popular tools are capable of creating seemingly original content, like images or text. Help students consider the ethical dilemmas of using AI to create content, and help them identify the appropriate use of these tools in a school setting.

High School News and Media Literacy Lessons

Hoaxes and Fakes We know not to believe everything we hear, but what about what we see? Advancements in computer-generated graphics, facial recognition, and video production have led to a world of viral videos that are often difficult to identify as fake. Help your students learn to read what they see on the web "laterally" by showing them how to get off the page, check credibility, and find corroboration.

Challenging Confirmation Bias Our brains are great at using past experiences to make quick decisions on the fly, but these shortcuts can also lead to bias. "Confirmation bias" is our brain's tendency to seek out information that confirms things we already think we know. Help your students learn to recognize this when they encounter news online, as a way to examine competing opinions and ideas and to avoid drawing questionable conclusions.

Clicks for Cash Well-crafted headlines benefit everyone. They help readers digest information and publishers sell news stories. But what if the headline is misleading? What if it's crafted just to get clicks, or even to spread disinformation? "Clickbait" headlines may benefit advertisers and publishers, but they don't benefit readers. Help students recognize and analyze clickbait when they see it.

Filter Bubble Trouble When we get news from our social media feeds, it often tells us only part of the story. Our friends -- and the website's algorithms -- tend to feed us perspectives we already agree with. Show students ways to escape the filter bubble and make sure their ideas about the world are being challenged.

Artificial Intelligence: Is It Plagiarism? The number of artificial intelligence (AI) tools has grown significantly over the past few years. Some of the most popular tools are capable of creating seemingly original content, like images or text. Help students consider the ethical dilemmas of using AI to create content, and help them identify the appropriate use of these tools in a school setting.

Image courtesy of Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for  American Education: Images of Teachers and Students in Action .

Daniel Vargas Campos is an Education Content Specialist at Common Sense Education. He develops research-backed educational resources that support young people to thrive in a digitally interconnected world. He has over 4 years of experience as a content creator in the education technology space. Prior to joining Common Sense Education, Daniel was a graduate instructor and researcher at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Education where he studied the impact of educational technologies in the lives of students from non-dominant backgrounds. He holds an MA in Social and Cultural Studies from UC Berkeley and a BA in Interdisciplinary Studies from Tufts University.

Related Content

Challenging Confirmation Bias

How can we challenge our own confirmation bias?

Filter Bubble Trouble

How can filter bubbles limit the information we're exposed to?

News Literacy Resources for Classrooms

A best-of-the-best collection of resources for teaching and learning about news literacy.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 14 August 2024

Media literacy tips promoting reliable news improve discernment and enhance trust in traditional media

• Sacha Altay   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2839-7375 1   na1 ,
• Andrea De Angelis   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6866-6683 1   na1 &
• Emma Hoes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8063-5430 1   na1  

Communications Psychology volume  2 , Article number:  74 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

9 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Communication
• Human behaviour

Media literacy tips typically encourage people to be skeptical of the news despite the small prevalence of false news in Western democracies. Would such tips be effective if they promoted trust in true news instead? A pre-registered experiment (N = 3919, US) showed that Skepticism-enhancing tips, Trust-inducing tips, and a mix of both tips, increased participants’ sharing and accuracy discernment. The Trust-inducing tips boosted true news sharing and acceptance, the Skepticism-enhancing tips hindered false news sharing and acceptance, while the Mixed tips did both. Yet, the effects of the tips were more alike than different, with very similar effect sizes across conditions for true and false news. We experimentally manipulated the proportion of true and false news participants were exposed to. The Trust and Skepticism tips were most effective when participants were exposed to equal proportions of true and false news, while the Mixed tips were most effective when exposed to 75% of true news - the most realistic proportion. Moreover, the Trust-inducing tips increased trust in traditional media. Overall, we show that to be most effective, media literacy tips should aim both to foster skepticism towards false news and to promote trust in true news.

Similar content being viewed by others

Prominent misinformation interventions reduce misperceptions but increase scepticism

Social corrections act as a double-edged sword by reducing the perceived accuracy of false and real news in the UK, Germany, and Italy

Hungarian, lazy, and biased: the role of analytic thinking and partisanship in fake news discernment on a Hungarian representative sample

Introduction.

In the digital age, discerning between misinformation and credible news is vital. Global concerns about the spread of misinformation have prompted policymakers to seek effective solutions. These strategies aim to diminish the public’s tendency to believe and disseminate misinformation and have evolved from broad regulatory approaches to more scalable individual-level interventions. However, there is a growing concern that while media literacy interventions are effective in safeguarding against misinformation, they may inadvertently escalate skepticism towards factual news 1 , 2 . This unintended consequence is particularly problematic in Western democracies for three main reasons.

First, the majority of online news stories people consume are genuine and originate from reliable sources 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 . Given the paucity of misinformation in people’s news diet, interventions that reduce the acceptance of misinformation are thus bound to have small effects 6 . Second, trust in the news is low worldwide and a growing number of people avoid the news, which—combined with low levels of political interest—leaves a substantial part of the population largely uninformed about political matters and current events 7 , 8 . Moreover, while people are good at spotting false news when prompted to do so, they show high levels of skepticism towards true news 1 , 9 . Third, disinterest in news and the small portion of misinformation in people’s online news diet suggest that many more hold misperceptions because they are not exposed to reliable information rather than because they consume and accept misinformation 3 . This suggests that while the fight against misinformation is necessary, it is by no means sufficient to reduce misperceptions and to improve the information ecosystem. To be most effective, the fight against misperceptions should go hand in hand with the promotion of reliable information.

Following the above, our study makes two primary contributions: first, we employ survey experiments in the United States ( N  = 3919) to assess the effectiveness of three distinct media literacy interventions—focusing on skepticism, trust, and a balanced approach—on the ability to discern misinformation. Second, we experimentally manipulated the proportion of false and true news rated by participants, addressing whether these variations can significantly influence the efficacy of media literacy interventions.

Broadly speaking, there are two types of interventions against misinformation: reactive interventions, including fact-checking and labeling, and proactive interventions, such as inoculation, accuracy prompts, and media literacy efforts. Proactive interventions are particularly praised for their role in enhancing individual autonomy and promoting political engagement while respecting the principles of free press 10 . Both reactive and proactive interventions aim to increase the accuracy of public beliefs and to enhance the overall quality of the information ecosystem.

Yet, misinformation is only one side of the equation: to make informed decisions, people must not only reject false and misleading information but also embrace accurate and reliable information 6 , 11 . For instance, people may refuse to get vaccinated because they believe misinformation, or simply because they do not trust reliable information about the vaccines. To improve the accuracy of people’s beliefs and the quality of the information ecosystem, it is thus necessary to both counter misinformation and foster reliable information. Before the 2016 US Presidential elections and the 2020 COVID pandemic, scholars examined media literacy interventions as a way of educating people more generally on journalistic practices 12 , or—more specifically—on spotting media violence 13 and biases in news reporting 14 . Yet,—with the exception of the accuracy prompt 15 —most current interventions aimed at reducing misperceptions and improving decision-making disproportionately focus on misinformation at the expense of reliable information 16 . This is the case despite the lack of evidence that the acceptance of misinformation is more damaging than the rejection of reliable information 6 , 11 . We show that most current interventions could benefit from more explicitly promoting reliable information, while additionally—but not solely—targeting misinformation.

The role of digital media platforms in countering misinformation has come under scrutiny. Soft measures like source labels, while minimally impacting free speech, also exhibit limited effectiveness 17 . Concerns about misinformation on social media have prompted public institutions, including the European Union, to heavily invest in media literacy initiatives like the European Union Media Literacy Agenda. These programs aim to foster long-term critical thinking 18 , 19 , 20 but prove less beneficial for digital platforms that require rapid and scalable interventions. Traditional media literacy programs, which focus on developing knowledge and skills to counter misinformation, may not effectively address emotional and impulsive online behaviors, which align more with immediate attitudinal reactions than with knowledge and skills 21 . Moreover, skill-based programs may struggle to keep pace with the fast-paced and continuous evolution of digital media environments 22 , which calls for more agile approaches to train citizens to discern news accurately 23 , 24 .

Media literacy tips embrace the view of agile interventions that directly engage with the acceptance and sharing of information. They often employ short-form advice 25 consisting of actionable behaviors—for example, encouraging verification of news sources—and responsible attitudes—such as inviting to be skeptical of nonprofessional news sources. Such media literacy tips typically raise awareness about misinformation 1 , 26 and promote mindfulness and skepticism on social media 16 . For instance, in 2017, Facebook employed media literacy tips at the top of users’ news feed in 14 countries to help them identify false news. The advice ranged from “Be skeptical of headlines” to “Some stories are intentionally false”. These tips were shown to reduce the perceived accuracy of false news headlines but also, to some extent, of mainstream news headlines 25 . Similarly, a recent study testing the effect of health media literacy tips raising awareness about manipulation techniques, such as “Biased, Overblown, Amateur, Sales-focused, Taken out of context”, increased skepticism in both accurate and inaccurate news headlines 27 . These findings are consistent with a growing body of research showing that, while well-intended, media literacy interventions targeting misinformation can inadvertently undermine acceptance of true and reliable information 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 . Many other interventions against misinformation were shown to increase skepticism in true news 1 , 2 , 31 or to decrease trust in typically reliable actors such as professional media and scientists 32 .

These concerns are not new. Two decades ago, long before the recent misinformation hype, scholars were concerned that media literacy interventions—even when not specifically targeted at misinformation—may fuel media cynicism 10 . Indeed, “[f]ostering skepticism toward news and information, while avoiding cynicism, is a longstanding goal and challenge of media literacy education” [ 10 , 33 , 34 , p. 151]. In recent years, a lot of progress has been made on this front. On the methodological side, it has now become clear that researchers should measure treatment effects on both misinformation (or information people should be skeptical of) and reliable information (or information people should accept 11 ). On the statistical side, more sophisticated measures of discrimination, that account for response bias (e.g., participants rating everything as false), are being proposed and popularized 31 .

Negative spillovers from media literacy interventions are a significant concern since false news represents only a minor portion of the total news content to which people are exposed in Western democracies 3 , 4 , 6 , 32 , 35 , 36 , 37 . However, the vast majority of interventions against misinformation test participants with equal proportions of true and false news 9 . The standard 50/50 split raises concerns for two reasons. First, in real-world settings, individuals typically encounter about 5% false news and 95% true news 6 —a stark contrast to the balanced 50/50 split commonly used in misinformation discernment studies. Second, this conventionally balanced pool of news could lead to overstating the effectiveness of interventions, inducing skepticism, and understating the benefits of those intended to foster trust. In one notable study 25 , scholars re-adjusted the effect of their media literacy treatment to reflect the real-world prevalence of false news. However, they kept the proportion of false news constant and adjusted the proportion of false news post hoc. To estimate the causal effect of the proportion of news on such treatment effects, one needs to experimentally manipulate the proportion of false news.

With these considerations in mind, we tested the effectiveness of three approaches to news media literacy interventions on a balanced sample in terms of gender and political orientation in the United States via Prolific ( N  = 3919). Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three media literacy conditions or a control group (with no tips). Participants were asked to either rate the accuracy of headlines or to report their willingness to share the headlines (between participants). We also measured several variables pre- and post-treatment such as trust in the news or interest in political news, to capture potential unintended treatment effects. The Skepticism Condition ( N  = 983) relies on the most common tips that aim to enhance skepticism (such as ”Be skeptical of headlines”). The Trust Condition ( N  = 973) relies on trust-enhancing tips emphasizing the prevalence of trustworthy (online) news (such as ”Be trusting of news”). Finally, the Mixed Condition ( N  = 967) relies on a mix of the above-mentioned skepticism- and trust-enhancing tips. Figure  1 provides a clear overview of what each intervention looked like.

Media literacy tips in the Trust Condition ( A ), the Mixed Condition ( B ), and the Skepticism Condition (C).

Unlike past research designs testing the effectiveness of interventions against misinformation without including true news items 11 or using unrealistic proportions of true and false news (50/50) 9 , we experimentally manipulated the proportion of true and false news participants were exposed to. Participants were either exposed to 75% of true news (and 25% of false news), 50% of true news, or 25% of true news. Given the interest of policymakers and platforms to implement these interventions, it is crucial to address this potential methodological problem and test these interventions on realistic proportions of true and false news.

We preregistered six hypotheses regarding the effects of media literacy strategies on the perceived accuracy of headlines and participants’ willingness to share them. First, we expected that all tips would be effective at improving discernment between true and false news (H1). Second, we predicted that the Skepticism-enhancing tips would lead to a more cautious assessment of news headlines, lowering the overall ratings of both true and false headlines (H2a). Conversely, we predicted that the Trust-inducing tips would result in more favorable evaluations across the news spectrum, increasing the overall ratings of both true and false headlines (H2b). Note that H1 and H2 are not incompatible. For instance, a treatment can increase discernment by increasing the sharing of both true and false news, as long as the effect on true news is significantly stronger. We also tested whether the proportion of false news participants were exposed to would influence the effectiveness of the tips. We predicted that the skepticism-enhancing tips would be most effective with a higher proportion of false news (75% compared to 25%; H3a), and that the trust-enhancing tips would be most effective with a lower proportion of false news (25% compared to 75%). Finally, we predicted that the skepticism-enhancing tips would decrease interest in the news (H4a), trust in the news (H5a), and trust in untrustworthy news outlets (H6a). Conversely, we predicted that the trust-enhancing tips would increase interest in the news (H4b), trust in the news (H5b), and trust in trustworthy news outlets (H6b).

Participants

Between the 22nd of August 2023 and the 31st of August 2023, we recruited 3919 participants in the US via Prolific and excluded five participants who failed the attention check (1944 women and 1970 men; 1330 Independents, 1278 Republicans, 1306 Democrats; M age  = 42.18, SD age  = 13.82). The sample was balanced in terms of gender and political orientation. Participants were paid $1.12 ($11.19/h) to complete the study (for a median completion time of 6 min).

Design and procedure

After the consent form, participants reported the extent to which they are interested in political news “How interested are you in political news?”(from “Not at all interested” [1] to “Extremely interested” [5]). Then, participants were asked “Generally speaking, to what extent do you trust news sites such as” (on a 7-point Likert scale from [1] Not at all to [7] Completely, with “Neither trust nor distrust” as the middle point [4], and “I don’t know any of them” as the last option) and reported the extent to which they trust four groups of news outlets: (i) CNN, The New York Times, MSNBC, (ii) Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, (iii) Occupy Democrats, Daily Kos, Palmer Report, (iv) Breitbart, The Gateway Pundit, The Daily Caller. We consider the first group as “mainstream left-leaning”, the second as “mainstream right-leaning”, the third as “generally untrustworthy left-leaning” and the fourth as “generally untrustworthy right-leaning”. Next, participants were asked, “To what extent do you trust the following institutions/groups?” (on a 7-point Likert scale from [1] Not at all to [7] Completely, with “Neither trust nor distrust” as the middle point [4]) and reported the extent to which they trust (i) traditional media, (ii) social media, (iii) journalists, and (iv) scientists.

Participants reported how much time they spend on social on a typical day (“On a typical day, how much time do you spend on social media (such as Facebook and Twitter; either on a mobile or a computer)?” from “Less than 30 min” [1] to “3+ hours” [5]). We measured self-reported media literacy (taken from 38 by measuring agreement with the following four statements on a 7-point Likert scale (from “Strongly disagree” [1] to “Strongly agree” [7], with “Neither agree nor disagree” as the middle point [4]): “I have the skills to interpret media messages”, “I understand how news is made in the U.S.”, “I am confident in my ability to judge the quality of news”, and “I’m often confused about the quality of news and information” (reverse coded). Participants completed an attention check requiring them to read instructions hidden in a paragraph and write “I pay attention”. All the questions, including the Qualtrics files necessary to replicate the survey, are publicly available on OSF: https://osf.io/73y6c/ . We also report the full survey questions in Supplementary Information  F .

Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: (i) the Trust Condition ( N  = 963), where they received media literacy tips aimed at enhancing trust, (ii) the Skepticism Condition ( N  = 983), where tips were designed to enhance skepticism, (iii) the Mixed Condition ( N  = 967), which involved a combination of trust- and skepticism-enhancing tips, and (iv) the Control Condition, where no tips were provided. Prior to the study, we pre-tested the tips to ensure they conveyed the intended properties effectively. Tips in the Trust Condition were rated as more positive and trust-enhancing than those in the Balanced Condition, which, in turn, were seen as more positive and trust-enhancing than those in the Skepticism Condition. All tips were evaluated as easy to read, informative, and moderately convincing.

We also manipulated the dependent variable, prompting half of the participants to rate the accuracy of the headlines (“To the best of your knowledge, how accurate is the claim in the above headline?” from “Certainly False” [1] to “Certainly True” [6]) while the other half reported how willing they would be to share the headlines (“If you were to see this post online, how likely would you be to share it online?” from “Extremely unlikely” [1] to “Extremely likely” [6]).

In addition, we manipulated the proportion of true-to-false news to which participants were exposed. One-third of participants assessed eight true and four false news (75% true news), another third evaluated six true and six false news (50% true news), and the final third ratied four true and eight false news (25% true news). Our experimental design encompassed four media literacy conditions, two response types (sharing or accuracy), and three proportions of news veracity (i.e., 4 × 2 × 3). All participants viewed 12 political headlines formatted as they would appear on Facebook—a headline with an image and a source. We selected these political news headlines from a pre-tested pool of 40, ensuring a balance of perceived accuracy, sharing intentions, and strength of partisanship across Democrats and Republicans. The true headlines were found on mainstream US news outlets, while false headlines were found on fact-checking websites such as PolitiFact and Snopes.

After rating the headlines, participants assessed their performance in the study relative to other Americans, ranging from “worse than 99% of people” [1] to “better than 99% of people” [100] 39 . We calculated overconfidence by subtracting participants’ actual performance from their estimated performance, with higher scores indicating greater overconfidence. Then, participants reported their interest in political news, trust in news, and trust in specific US news outlets again. Information about political orientation (self-identification as an Independent, Democrat, or Republican), gender, and age were retrieved via Prolific. At the end of the survey, participants were debriefed about the purpose of the study and warned about their exposure to false news. The study received ethical approval from the University of Zürich PhF Ethics Committee (ethics approval nr. 23.04.17).

Statistical analyses

We use an alpha threshold of 5% for statistical significance. To estimate treatment effects on accuracy and sharing ratings, we analyzed the data at the response level ( N observations = 46,992) using linear mixed-effects models with random effects for participants and news headlines. The effect on attitudes was analyzed at the participant level and tested with OLS linear regressions. In all models, we control for age, gender, and political orientation, as well as for the proportion of true news, the type of dependent variable (sharing or accuracy), and the experimental condition.

Data distribution was assumed to be normal but this was not formally tested. As a robustness check, we ran a poisson generalized linear mixed model (robust to violations of normality) to test H1 and replicated the results of the linear mixed-effects models (see Table  17 in Supplementary Information  E) . All variables measured with Likert scales were treated as continuous. Age and education were treated as continuous as well, whereas Condition, Veracity, and political orientation were treated as categorical.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the  Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

What is the effect of the media literacy interventions on discernment (H1)?

We investigate individuals’ capacity for discernment, defined as the difference between the ratings of true versus false news, across the Trust, Skepticism, and Mixed conditions compared to the Control group. Supporting H1, we found that general discernment, combining both accuracy and sharing metrics, was significantly higher in the Mixed Condition ( b  = 0.23[0.17, 0.29],  p  < 0.01), Trust Condition ( b  = 0.22[0.16, 0.29],  p  < 0.01) and Skepticism Condition ( b  = 0.19[0.13, 0.25],  p  < 0.001).

Significant effects were observed for both accuracy ratings and sharing ratings. As shown in Fig.  2 , sharing discernment was greater in the Mixed Condition ( b  = 0.17[0.09, 0.24],  p  < 0.001), Trust Condition ( b  = 0.24[0.16, 0.32],  p  < 0.001) and Skepticism Condition ( b  = 0.17[0.09, 0.24],  p  < 0.001) compared to the Control Condition. Similarly, accuracy discernment was also significantly larger in the Mixed Condition ( b  = 0.22[0.14, 0.30],  p  < 0.001), Trust Condition ( b  = 0.12[0.04, 0.21],  p  < 0.001) and Skepticism Condition ( b  = 0.18[0.10, 0.26],  p  < 0.001).

Estimated differences in accuracy (blue triangles) and sharing (red circles) discernment in each experimental condition compared to the Control Condition. The error bars represent the 95% CIs. In the Control Accuracy N  = 477. In the Sharing Accuracy N  = 505. In the Mixed Accuracy N  = 494. In the Mixed Sharing N  = 472. In the Skepticism Accuracy N  = 487. In the Skepticism Sharing N  = 496. In the Trust Accuracy N  = 495. In the Trust Sharing N  = 478.

We observed no statistically significant differences between treatments regarding general discernment (see Tables  11 and 12 in Supplementary Information  E) . The only statistically significant difference observed between conditions is that the Trust Condition was less effective at increasing accuracy discernment compared to the Mixed Condition ( b  = −0.09[−0.17, −0.01],  p  = 0.025). Note that sharing discernment is slightly higher in the Trust Condition compared to the Mixed Condition ( b  = 0.07[−0.00, 0.15],  p  = 0.068) but this difference is not statistically significant.

What is the effect of the media literacy interventions on true and false news ratings (H2)?

We hypothesized distinct outcomes for the Skepticism and Trust Conditions. Specifically, we hypothesized that participants in the Skepticism Condition would be less likely to rate news stories as accurate and to share them, compared to those in the Control Condition (H2a). Conversely, we anticipated that participants in the Trust Condition would be more likely to perceive news as accurate and to share it, relative to the Control Condition (H2b).

Our results, displayed in Fig.  3 , provide partial support for H2. In the Trust Condition, we observed a significant increase in the ratings of true news ( b  = 0.12[0.04, 0.21],  p  = 0.004); however, the effect on false news was not significant ( b  = −0.04[−0.11, 0.03],  p  = 0.27). Similarly, the Skepticism Condition significantly reduced the ratings of false news ( b  = −0.10[−0.16, −0.027],  p  =0.006), but did not significantly affect true news ratings ( b  = 0.067[−0.02, 0.15],  p  = 0.11). Remarkably, the Mixed Condition achieved both objectives: it significantly increased the ratings for true news ( b  = 0.10[0.02, 0.19],  p  = 0.018) and reduced the ratings for false news ( b  = −0.07[−0.14, −0.01],  p  = 0.034). Furthermore, the results show that the efficacy of media literacy interventions is contingent upon their focus: the Trust Condition predominantly bolsters the rating of true news, the Skepticism mainly reduces the rating of false news, while the Mixed Condition does a bit of both.

Estimated difference in true (red circles) and false (blue triangles) news ratings in each experimental condition compared to the Control Condition. The error bars represent the 95% CIs. The number of participants are the same for true and false news. In the Control Condition N  = 982. In the Mixed Condition N  = 967. In the Skepticism Condition N  = 983. In the Skepticism Condition N  = 973.

Note however that while the treatments significantly differ from the control, exploratory post-hoc analyses show the effects of the treatments are not statistically different from one another (see Tables  8 – 11 in  Supplementary Information for all possible contrasts between conditions). For instance, the effect of the Trust Condition on true news is not statistically different from the effect of the Skepticism Condition on true news. Likewise, the effect of the Skepticism Condition on false news is not statistically different from the effect of the Trust Condition on false news.

Is the effect of the media literacy tips moderated by the proportion of true news (H3)?

We hypothesized that the Skepticism Condition would be most effective with a high proportion of false news (H3a), while the Trust Condition would be most effective with a low proportion of false news (H3b). To test H3, we ran a three-way interaction between the assigned condition, the news veracity, and the assigned proportion of true news, such that the effect of the condition is compared to baseline levels in the Control Condition.

In Fig.  4 , we can see that our findings contradict these expectations: in contrast with H3b, the Trust Condition and the Skepticism Condition were mostly effective at increasing discernment when participants were exposed to 50% of false news and 50% of true news—mostly because of an increase in true news ratings. The Mixed Condition was most effective when participants were exposed to 75% of true news and 25% of false news—mostly because of a reduction in false news ratings.

Estimated differences in true (red circles) and false (blue triangles) news ratings in each treatment condition compared to the control. The estimates are divided by the proportion of true and false news participants were exposed to. For instance, in the “75% False” participants were exposed to 75% of false news. The error bars represent the 95% CIs. In the Control 75% False N  = 318. In the Control 50/50 N  = 344. In the Control 75% True N  = 320. In the Mixed 75% False N  = 346. In the Mixed 50/50 N  = 295. In the Mixed 75% True N  = 326. In the Skepticism 75% False N  = 325. In the Skepticism 50/50 N  = 357. In the Skepticism 75% True N  = 301. In the Trust, 75% False N  = 311. In the Trust 50/50 N  = 310. In the Trust 75% True N  = 352.

The three-way interactions showed that (compared to the Control) the Trust Condition was most effective at increasing discernment when participants were exposed to 50% of true news compared to 75% of true news ( b  = 0.25[0.11, 0.40];  p  = 0.001). The Mixed Condition was most effective at increasing discernment when participants were exposed to 75% of true news compared to 25% of true news ( b  = 0.18[0.021, 0.34];  p  = 0.027). All the other contrasts are not statistically significant (see Table  4 in Supplementary Information  E) . Note, however, that we lack the statistical power to reliably detect small effects in such three-way interactions (despite our analysis of the data at the response level of 46,992 ratings).

What is the effect of the media literacy tips on interest and trust in the news? (H4–6)

We formulated several hypotheses regarding the effect of media literacy tips on interest in the news, trust in traditional media and journalists, and trust in specific news outlets. The data did not support our hypotheses. Compared to the Control Condition, the media literacy tips had no statistically significant effects on interest in the news, trust in traditional media and journalists, or trust in specific (right- or left-wing) news outlets (see Tables  4 – 6 in Supplementary Information  E) . The only statistically significant effect (partially supporting H5b) is that the Trust Condition increased trust in traditional media compared to the Control Condition ( b  = 0.08[0.02, 0.14];  p  = 0.008). This increase in trust in the Trust Condition is also significantly different when compared to the Skepticism Condition ( b  = 0.092[0.03, 0.15];  p  = 0.003) as well as the Mixed Condition ( b  = 0.076[0.02, 0.14];  p  = 0.014).

What is the effect of the media literacy tips on confidence and overconfidence? (preregistered exploratory analyses)

Here we investigate the effect of the media literacy tips and the proportion of false news on people’s confidence in their ability to discern true from false news. These analyses are restricted to accuracy ratings given that the confidence question is about ”recognizing news that is made up”.

We found that, compared to the Control Condition, the media literacy tips tended to increase participants’ confidence in their ability to discern true from false news while reducing overconfidence, but these effects were small and inconsistent across conditions. Second, the more false news participants were exposed to, the more confident they were in their ability to recognize made-up news, but this increase in confidence did not translate into more or less overconfidence—these effects were consistent across conditions (see Supplementary Information  A) .

Heterogeneous treatment effects (preregistered exploratory analyses)

We found that the Skepticism Condition was much more effective than the other conditions at increasing discernment among Independents compared to the Control Condition ( b  = 0.34[0.19, 0.48],  p  < 0.001). The Mixed Condition was more effective at increasing discernment among men than women ( b  = 0.15[0.03, 0.28],  p  = 0.014), while the Skepticism Condition was more effective among women than men ( b  = 0.13[0.01, 0.25],  p  = 0.042). We also found that the Mixed Condition and the Skepticism Condition were slightly less effective at increasing discernment among more frequent social media users ( b  = − 0.06[−0.11, −0.01],  p  = 0.02). Finally, we found no statistically significant heterogeneous treatment effects of media literacy (Trust: b  = 0.02 [−0.04, 0.09], p  = 0.46; Mixed: b  = 0.04 [−0.02, 0.10], p  = 0.22; Skepticism: b  = 0.02 [−0.04, 0.08], p  = 0.47), age (Trust: b  = −0.001 [−0.01, 0.001], p  = 0.58; Mixed: b  = −0.001 [−0.01, 0.001], p  = 0.23; Skepticism: b  = 0.001 [−0.01, 0.01], p  = 0.84), interest in news (pre-treatment) (Trust: b  = 0.001 [−0.06, 0.07], p  = 0.88; Mixed: b  = 0.001 [−0.06, 0.07], p  = 0.91; Skepticism: b  = −0.063 [−0.13, −0.001], p  = 0.050), trust in social media (pre-treatment) (Trust: b  = −0.02 [−0.06, 0.03], p  = 0.46; Mixed: b  = −0.001 [−0.05, 0.04], p  = 0.95; Skepticism: b  = 0.02 [−0.02, 0.07], p  = 0.29). In Supplementary Information  B , we offer a visual representation of statistically significant effects.

Determinants of discernment (exploratory analysis)

We ran an OLS regression to estimate the effect of socio-demographic variables while controlling for the effect of Conditions and the proportion of false news participants were exposed to. We found that interest in political news ( b  = 0.14[0.09, 0.19],  p  < 0.001), self-reported media literacy ( b  = 0.10[0.05, 0.15],  p  < 0.001), being older ( b  = 0.004[0.001, 0.007], p  = 0.031), being a woman ( b  = 0.10[0.01, 0.18],  p  = 0.032), and identifying as Democrat rather than Independent ( b  = 0.11[0.01, 0.22],  p  = 0.040) was associated with greater discernment. Identifying as Republican ( b  =− 0.07[−0.18, −0.04],  p  = 0.214), trust in the news ( b  = 0.016[−0.013, 0.045],  p  = 0.272), and social media use ( b  = − 0.03[−0.061, 0.009],  p  = 0.142), were not significantly associated with discernment (see Fig.  3 in Supplementary Information  C) .

Our pre-registered survey experiment shows that all the tips increased participants’ ability to discern between true and false news headlines, both in terms of sharing intentions and perceived accuracy. The Trust Condition significantly increased ratings of true news (but not false news), the Skepticism Condition significantly decreased ratings of false news (but not true news), while the Mixed Condition did both. Yet, the effects of the tips were much more alike than different, with very similar effect sizes across conditions for true and false news. The media literacy tips had null effects on interest in the news and trust in the news—the only exception being that the Trust Condition increased trust in traditional media.

These findings are insightful for social media platforms and other entities keen on enhancing the quality of the information ecosystem. While most existing media literacy tips resemble our Skepticism Condition and specifically target misinformation 25 , 40 , we show that improving discernment does not require focusing on misinformation. Discernment can also be improved by targeting reliable information (Trust Condition) or by emphasizing both skepticism toward misinformation and trust in reliable information (Mixed Condition). Future media literacy interventions should consider both sides of the equation. Yet, one should keep in mind that there is no quick fix, and the effectiveness of the tips should be seen as a complement to, not a substitute for, longer interventions and more ambitious systemic solutions.

The weight given to either combating misinformation or promoting reliable information should be context-dependent. For instance, in high-quality information environments, where misinformation is relatively rare but where trust in the news is sometimes low, it may be more fruitful to foster reliable information. In contrast, in lower-quality information environments where misinformation is rampant such as in some emerging democracies or autocracies, the emphasis should be on cultivating a healthy skepticism. More granular targeting is also possible. For instance, “Trust tips” could be featured as ads on trustworthy news websites or alongside their social media posts to boost acceptance of their content. Conversely, “Skepticism Tips” could be targeted at untrustworthy news websites or alongside their social media posts to encourage rejection of their content. Trust tips may be effective even if misinformation is not very prevalent and impactful, as long as there is some room to increase the acceptance of reliable information 9 , 16 . Yet, our experimental findings do not support the idea that trust tips are more effective in an environment with more true news, and vice versa. More testing is necessary to know what kind of tips may be more or less effective in different kinds of environments.

In Western democracies, the importance of promoting reliable information is all the more pressing in light of low levels of trust in the news, low levels of political interest, and the growing number of people who avoid the news and are left largely uninformed about political matters and current events 7 . Literacy efforts should adapt to this reality and reconsider the importance of promoting reliable information. Otherwise, these efforts risk fueling people’s cynicism toward the news even more 41 .

Given the discrepancy between the high prevalence of false news in experiments testing the effectiveness of interventions against misinformation 9 , and the low prevalence of false news outside of experimental settings 3 , 4 , 5 , we experimentally manipulated the proportion of true and false news participants were exposed to. We found that the proportion of true and false news matters—though not in the way we expected. The Trust and Skepticism Conditions were most effective when participants were exposed to equal proportions of true and false news, while the Mixed Condition was most effective when participants were exposed to 75% of true news—a proportion most reflective of the ecological base rates of true news in Western democracies. Yet, we lack the statistical power to detect very small effects. Thus, before implementing the tips in the wild, our findings should be replicated on a larger sample size and across more diverse populations.

In contrast with recent work 1 , our findings do not support the idea that media literacy tips, even when skepticism-enhancing, have unintended consequences on true news or on trust in the news. More work is needed to precisely estimate the robustness and size of these effects, both for media literacy tips and interventions against misinformation more broadly.

In line with past work showing that the 50/50 ratio does not influence news discernment 42 , our findings do not imply that studies relying on a 50/50 ratio are flawed or that the use of this ratio is wrong. Instead, future research should strive to find the optimal balance between statistical power and ecological validity, while concurrently avoiding survey fatigue and excessive exposure to headlines. A 50/50 ratio is the sweet spot to maximize statistical power, while 75% of true news and 25% of true news is more ecologically valid. We recommend that interventions intended for real-world application should be tested not just in conditions that maximize statistical power, but also in conditions that heighten ecological validity to accurately gauge the impact of these interventions outside of experimental settings. Given the predominant focus on practical implications in much of the literature on interventions against misinformation, future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in conditions that more closely mimic the real world (e.g., by using more realistic proportions of true news and false news, or by including non-news items, which represent the vast majority of people’s social media feeds).

Limitations

An important limitation of the present work is that we did not investigate the precise mechanisms through which the media literacy tips improved discernment. One possible explanation is that the tips primarily prompted participants to think about accuracy 15 . However, this account falls short in predicting the specificity of our treatment effects: the Trust-inducing tips selectively enhanced belief in true news, while Skepticism-centered tips uniquely reduced belief in false news. Another possible explanation is that participants genuinely learned from the tips and that this new knowledge helped them better discern true from false news. Given the short length of the tips and past research showing that the effects of such tips and one-shot interventions are ephemeral 25 , 43 , we are skeptical of this explanation. The most plausible explanation, in our view, is that the tips primed trust or skepticism. When told that there was a lot of false news and that they should be vigilant, participants temporarily adopted a more skeptical mindset, expected to be exposed to more false news, and looked for signs of deception. Whereas when told that most news is reliable and that they should be trusting, participants temporarily adopted a more trusting mindset, expected to be exposed to more true news, and looked for signs of reliability. This explanation accounts for the specificity of the treatment effects (such as the increase in news trust in the Trust Condition) and is in line with past work showing that skepticism-inducing interventions against misinformation reduce the acceptance of true news 1 , 2 , 31 . However, this explanation predicts that the trust-inducing tips should be more effective in the 75% true news environment, while the skepticism-inducing tips should work be more effective in the 25% true news environment, and this is not what we find. Future work should experimentally investigate the mechanisms that make such tips effective. One way to do so is to ‘unbundle’ tips and look at the causal effect of each specific tip in isolation. For instance 44 , found that broad tips (e.g., “Be skeptical of headlines”) are less effective than narrow tips (e.g., “Look closely at the website domain”), and that tips may only work “insofar as they provide specific information that is diagnostic of quality” (p. 15). They found that tips drawing people’s attention to the source of the posts were the most effective. In our case, all tips draw attention to the source, so it cannot explain the differences between treatments, but it is possible that the tips drew attention to other specific elements of the headlines that helped participants discern between true and false news.

In conclusion, our findings underline the value of media literacy tips in increasing citizens’ ability to discern truth from falsehoods. We also show that to increase discernment, such tips do not need to focus exclusively on inducing skepticism in misinformation but can also promote trust in reliable information. We encourage organizations and social media platforms that rely on such tips to stop using tips that exclusively induce skepticism—especially given the low prevalence of misinformation in Western democracies. Instead, they should aim at both inducing skepticism in misinformation and promoting trust in reliable information.

Data availability

The replication data, including all (stimulus) materials used in this study, is available at https://osf.io/73y6c/ .

Code availability

The replication code is available at https://osf.io/73y6c/ .

Hoes, E., Aitken, B., Zhang, J., Gackowski, T. & Wojcieszak, M. Prominent misinformation interventions reduce misperceptions but increase scepticism. Nat. Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01884-x (2024).

Hameleers, M. The (un) intended consequences of emphasizing the threats of mis-and disinformation. Media Commun. 11 , 5–14 (2023).

Article   Google Scholar  

Allen, J., Howland, B., Mobius, M., Rothschild, D. & Watts, D. Evaluating the fake news problem at the scale of the information ecosystem. Sci. Adv. 6 , eaay3539 (2020).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Guess, A., Nagler, J. & Tucker, J. Less than you think: prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Sci. Adv. 5 , eaau4586 (2019).

Altay, S., Nielsen, R. K. & Fletcher, R. Quantifying the “infodemic”: people turned to trustworthy news outlets during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. J. Quant. Descr. 2 , 1–29 (2022).

Acerbi, A., Altay, S. & Mercier, H. Research note: fighting misinformation or fighting for information? HKS Misinf. Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-87 (2022).

Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Eddy, K., Robertson, C. T. & Nielsen, R. K. Digit. News Rep. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2023 (2023).

Nielsen, R. K., Palmer, R. & Toff, B. Avoiding the News: Reluctant Audiences for Journalism (Columbia University Press, 2023).

Pfänder, J. & Altay, S. Spotting false news and doubting true news: a meta-analysis of news judgements. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://osf.io/n9h4y/ (2023).

Mihailidis, P. Beyond Cynicism: How Media Literacy Can Make Students More Engaged Citizens (University of Maryland, College Park, 2008).

Guay, B., Berinsky, A. J., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. How to think about whether misinformation interventions work. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7 , 1231–1233 (2023).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Vraga, E. K., Tully, M. & Rojas, H. Media literacy training reduces perception of bias. Newsp. Res. J. 30 , 68–81 (2009).

Byrne, S. Media literacy interventions: what makes them boom or boomerang? Commun. Educ. 58 , 1–14 (2009).

van der Meer, T. G. & Hameleers, M. Fighting biased news diets: using news media literacy interventions to stimulate online cross-cutting media exposure patterns. N. Media Soc. 23 , 3156–3178 (2021).

Pennycook, G. et al. Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature 592 , 590–595 (2021).

Altay, S. How effective are interventions against misinformation? PsyArXiv https://osf.io/sm3vk/ (2022).

Aslett, K., Guess, A., Bonneau, R., Nagler, J. & Tucker, J. A. News credibility labels have limited average effects on news diet quality and fail to reduce misperceptions. Sci. Adv. 8 , eabl3844 (2022).

Bulger, M. & Davison, P. The promises, challenges, and futures of media literacy. Data Soc. 10 , 1–21 (2018).

Wardle, C. & Derakhshan, H. Information disorder: toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Counc. Eur. Rep. 27 . https://edoc.coe.int/en/media/7495-information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-research-and-policy-making.html (2017).

Vraga, E., Tully, M., Maksl, A., Craft, S. & Ashley, S. Theorizing news literacy behaviors. Commun. Theory 31 , 1–21 (2021).

Martel, C., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Reliance on emotion promotes belief in fake news. Cogn. Res. 5 , 47 (2020).

Harsin, J. Post-truth and critical communication studies. Oxf. Res. Encycl. Commun. (2018).

Abramowitz, M. J. Stop the manipulation of democracy online. N. Y. 11 , 2017 (2017).

Google Scholar  

Qian, S., Shen, C. & Zhang, J. Fighting cheapfakes: using a digital media literacy intervention to motivate reverse search of out-of-context visual misinformation. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 28 , zmac024 (2023).

Guess, A. et al. A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117 , 15536–15545 (2020).

van der Meer, T. G., Hameleers, M. & Ohme, J. Can fighting misinformation have a negative spillover effect? How warnings for the threat of misinformation can decrease general news credibility. J. Stud. 24 , 803–823 (2023).

Lyons, B., King, A. J. & Kaphingst, K. A health media literacy intervention increases skepticism of both inaccurate and accurate cancer news among US adults. OSF Preprint https://osf.io/hm9ty/ (2024).

Van Duyn, E. & Collier, J. Priming and fake news: the effects of elite discourse on evaluations of news media. Mass Commun. Soc. 22 , 29–48 (2019).

Tandoc, E. C. et al. Audiences’ acts of authentication in the age of fake news: a conceptual framework. N. Media Soc. 20 , 2745–2763 (2018).

Vraga, E., Tully, M. & Bode, L. Assessing the relative merits of news literacy and corrections in responding to misinformation on Twitter. N. Media Soc. 24 , 2354–2371 (2022).

Modirrousta-Galian, A. & Higham, P. A. Gamified inoculation interventions do not improve discrimination between true and fake news: reanalyzing existing research with receiver operating characteristic analysis. J. Exp. Psychol. 152 , 2411–2437 (2023).

Hoes, E., Clemm von Hohenberg, B., Gessler, T., Wojcieszak, M. & Qian, S. Elusive effects of misinformation and the media’s attention to it: evidence from experimental and behavioral trace data. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/4m92p (2022).

Vraga, E. K. & Tully, M. News literacy, social media behaviors, and skepticism toward information on social media. Inf. Commun. Soc. 24 , 150–166 (2021).

Craft, S., Ashley, S. & Maksl, A. News media literacy and conspiracy theory endorsement. Commun. Public 2 , 388–401 (2017).

Grinberg, N., Joseph, K., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B. & Lazer, D. Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 us presidential election. Science 363 , 374–378 (2019).

Osmundsen, M., Bor, A., Vahlstrup, P. B., Bechmann, A. & Petersen, M. B. Partisan polarization is the primary psychological motivation behind political fake news sharing on twitter. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 115 , 999–1015 (2021).

Boberg, S., Quandt, T., Schatto-Eckrodt, T. & Frischlich, L. Pandemic populism: Facebook pages of alternative news media and the Corona crisis—a computational content analysis. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.02566 (2020).

Vraga, E., Tully, M., Kotcher, J. E., Smithson, A.-B. & Broeckelman-Post, M. A multi-dimensional approach to measuring news media literacy. J. Media Lit. Educ. 7 , 41–53 (2015).

Lyons, B. A., Montgomery, J. M., Guess, A. M., Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. Overconfidence in news judgments is associated with false news susceptibility. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci . 118 , e2019527118 (2021).

Clayton, K. et al. Real solutions for fake news? Measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact-check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media. Polit. Behav. 42 , 1073–1095 (2020).

Boyd, D. Did media literacy backfire? J. Appl. Youth Stud. 1 , 83–89 (2017).

Altay, S., Lyons, B. & Modirrousta-Galian, A. Exposure to higher rates of false news erodes media trust and fuels overconfidence. Mass Commun. Soc. (2024).

Maertens, R., Roozenbeek, J., Basol, M. & van der Linden, S. Long-term effectiveness of inoculation against misinformation: three longitudinal experiments. J. Exp. Psychol. 27 , 1 (2021).

Guess, A., McGregor, S., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. Unbundling digital media literacy tips: results from two experiments. OSF , https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/u34fp (2024).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Fabio Mellinger and Sophie van IJzendoorn for excellent research assistance. Funding : This project received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement nr. 883121) and the Swiss National Science Foundation under Grant (grant agreement nr PZ00P1 201817). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Research Council or the Swiss National Science Foundation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the paper.

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Sacha Altay, Andrea De Angelis, Emma Hoes.

Authors and Affiliations

University of Zurich, Department of Political Science, Zurich, Switzerland

Sacha Altay, Andrea De Angelis & Emma Hoes

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: S.A., A.A., and E.H. Analyses: S.A. and A.A. Investigation: S.A, A.A., E.H. Visualization: S.A., A.A. Writing—original draft: S.A., A.A., and E.H. Writing—review & editing: S.A., A.A., and E.H.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sacha Altay , Andrea De Angelis or Emma Hoes .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests. For transparency, we report that in 2021 E.H. received an unrelated, unrestricted research grant ($50k) from Meta. Meta did not contribute in any way to this study.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Communications Psychology thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Jennifer Bellingtier. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Peer review file, supplementary information, reporting summary, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Altay, S., De Angelis, A. & Hoes, E. Media literacy tips promoting reliable news improve discernment and enhance trust in traditional media. Commun Psychol 2 , 74 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00121-5

Download citation

Received : 14 March 2024

Accepted : 24 July 2024

Published : 14 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00121-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Peer Reviewed

Playing Gali Fakta inoculates Indonesian participants against false information

Article metrics.

CrossRef Citations

Altmetric Score

PDF Downloads

Although prebunking games have shown promise in Western and English-speaking contexts, there is a notable lack of research on such interventions in countries of the Global South. In response to this gap, we developed Gali Fakta, a new kind of media literacy game specifically tailored for an Indonesian audience. Our findings indicate that participants who engaged with Gali Fakta exhibited significantly greater skepticism toward false news headlines and expressed a reduced likelihood of sharing them. Importantly, playing Gali Fakta did not lead to increased skepticism or decreased sharing intent for factual headlines. These results suggest that Gali Fakta holds promise as a scalable media literacy intervention in Indonesia.

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Notre Dame, USA

Department of Psychology, UIN Sunan Kalijaga, Indonesia

Research Questions

• Can playing Gali Fakta improve participants’ accuracy in assessing false news headlines?
• Does playing Gali Fakta reduce the intent to share false news headlines?
• Does playing Gali Fakta lead to an increase in self-reported media literacy?

Research note summary

• We created a WhatsApp-inspired media literacy game tailored for Indonesian users.
• We conducted a randomized controlled trial involving N = 1,006 Indonesian participants to assess the impact of playing Gali Fakta. The study aimed to determine if the game could enhance participants’ ability to evaluate the accuracy of false news headlines, reduce their inclination to share false news headlines, and improve self-reported media literacy.
• Results showed that participants who engaged with Gali Fakta were significantly more inclined to perceive false headlines as less accurate and were less likely to share them. Notably, playing the game did not affect the accuracy or sharing intent regarding factual headlines. However, no improvement was observed in self-reported media literacy scores following gameplay.

Implications

Gali Fakta is a media literacy game inspired by WhatsApp, specifically designed for an Indonesian audience. Its name, “Gali Fakta,” translates to “dig up the facts,” and it was developed through a collaboration between technology experts at Moonshot and researchers at the University of Notre Dame (see Figure 1). The design of the game draws inspiration from the Learn to Discern Program by IREX.

The game is quick to play, taking only about five minutes, and it simulates a group chat with family and friends on a messaging app. Throughout the game, players are tasked with protecting their loved ones from falling for hoaxes. Players can select from three different content areas—health, news, or finance—which prompt people to message them and share various types of content. Each content area provides lessons on safeguarding oneself and others against four types of misinformation: fake social media accounts, confirmation bias, untrustworthy social media sources, and algorithmically-generated filter bubbles.

During gameplay, when players observe their fictional friends or family members sharing misinformation from the mentioned categories, they are presented with two response options. For instance, if a character messages the player about a favorite musical artist requesting money on social media, the player must decide whether the post is factual. In this example, the absence of a verification symbol indicates the post is false. If the player answers incorrectly, they receive a prompt explaining the correct response (see Figure 2). Throughout the game, players engage in conversations with fictitious family members, offering ten different responses and opportunities to learn about misinformation techniques. Before its release, the game script underwent review and revision by Indonesian subject matter experts.

Gali Fakta aims to create psychological inoculation by first providing a forewarning that the user’s friends and family may be spreading misinformation and then exposing the user to misinformation shared by fictitious friends and family members in the simulated WhatsApp environment along with lessons on how to detect such misinformation. We hypothesized that after playing Gali Fakta participants would become more conscious of their social media behavior and more discerning when encountering false information. The false information in our study was a variety of false headlines, some of which were politically charged and sensationalist. Others were simply factually inaccurate (see Appendix B for details). Our study revealed that playing Gali Fakta was associated with higher accuracy in evaluating false news headlines and a decreased self-reported intention to share false headlines.

Media literacy, prebunking, and Indonesia

Indonesia ranks as the world’s fourth-largest country, with a rapidly increasing number of citizens gaining digital access. Currently, around 77% of the population is online, and this figure is projected to reach 90% by 2025 (Kemp, 2023; Nurhayati-Wolff, 2023). This growing online presence also creates a vulnerability to online misinformation. Researchers have found that misinformation was evident during the 2019 Indonesian general election, particularly on social media platforms (Theisen et al., 2021). Besides political misinformation, misinformation related to health and finance also circulates widely in the Indonesian information ecosystem (McRae et al., 2022; Mujani & Kuipers 2020; Nasir & Nurmansyah, 2020). Research has also indicated that students in Indonesia face challenges in distinguishing between false and factual news (Syam & Nurrahmi, 2020). A 2020 report by GeoPoll found that over 40% of Indonesians admitted they only read the headline and “rarely” or “never” read the article before sharing it on social media (McDonnell & MacKinnon, 2020). More research is needed to determine the most effective media literacy tools for different countries as well as different types of misinformation. Notably, misinformation and disinformation disproportionately affect individuals with lower levels of media literacy (Jalli & Idris, 2019).

To combat this issue, prebunking games based on inoculation theory have shown promise in helping individuals discern fact from fiction and reducing their inclination to share misinformation (Basol et al., 2020). Inoculation theory involves building resistance to misinformation by exposing individuals to small doses of false or misleading information in a controlled setting (Compton et al., 2021). However, these prebunking games have limitations, such as potentially increasing skepticism towards both factual and false information (Modirrousta-Galian & Higham, 2022). Additionally, individuals may still share false information due to social or political motives, despite possessing higher levels of media literacy (Sirlin et al., 2021). Moreover, most prebunking games and media literacy interventions have been tailored to Western, English-speaking audiences and may not be culturally relevant to other populations. Iyengar, Gupta, & Priya (2022) found that participants from India increased their ability to detect misinformation after playing the Western-based media literacy intervention Bad News Game. However, the authors note that their English-speaking and highly educated sample was not representative of much of the population of India. Harjani and colleagues (2022) created a media literacy game that was designed for participants in India and tested its effectiveness with a sample of participants from north India. Unfortunately, they did not find that their game improved participants’ ability to evaluate misinformation or reduced willingness to share misinformation with others. The authors note that future work may benefit by partnering with local researchers and universities in order to better adapt interventions originally designed with a Western audience in mind. They also note the importance of considering the potential lack of digital literacy of a rural audience, which could limit the effectiveness of playing an online media literacy game.

Recognizing the popularity of WhatsApp in Indonesia and its susceptibility to misinformation due to the ease of forwarding messages without fact-checking, we designed Gali Fakta to mimic the WhatsApp interface (Banaji et al., 2019; de Freitas Melo et al., 2020; Neyazi et al., 2022; Yustitia & Asharianto, 2020). Political groups have also exploited WhatsApp during the 2019 Indonesian election to disseminate misleading or false information through political memes (Baulch et al., 2022). Our aim was to develop a game that aligns with the information environment of its players to enhance prebunking effectiveness. We partnered with Indonesian scholars and media experts during the development of the game to constantly improve the feel, aesthetics, and clarity of our lessons. For example, there are laws against spreading false information in Indonesia (Lamb & Teresia, 2022) and neighboring Malaysia (Sipalan, 2021). Therefore, we aimed to avoid any negative associations with learning about misinformation through a game that might unintentionally glorify misinformation spreading. Instead, Gali Fakta focuses on empowering users to protect their friends and family from hoaxes. We conducted an evaluation to assess whether playing Gali Fakta could enhance the ability of Indonesian participants to identify false headlines, reduce their likelihood of sharing false headlines, and improve their self-reported media literacy habits.

Finding 1: Playing Gali Fakta significantly increased participants’ skepticism for false news headlines but not for factual headlines.

We conducted a series of ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions to investigate whether playing Gali Fakta predicted participants’ tendency to rate false news headlines as more inaccurate, indicating increased skepticism. OLS regressions identify relationships between variables by minimizing the sum of squared errors.

Participants in the Gali Fakta condition significantly rated false news headlines as more inaccurate compared to those in the control condition while controlling for age, gender, education, media literacy, urban versus rural residence, religiosity, income, and political ideology ( p < .001). Notably, engaging with Gali Fakta did not lead to a significant increase in inaccuracy ratings of factual headlines ( p = .173). Thus, playing Gali Fakta effectively enhanced participants’ discernment of false headlines, but this heightened skepticism did not extend to factual headlines. Full regression tables, means, and effect sizes are provided in Appendix A.

Finding 2: Playing Gali Fakta significantly reduced participants’ intent to share false headlines but not factual headlines.

In the subsequent analysis, we conducted a series of OLS regressions to assess whether playing Gali Fakta was associated with a decreased intent to share false headlines. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the effects of playing Gali Fakta on evaluating both factual and false headlines.

Results revealed that engaging with Gali Fakta significantly predicted a reduced intent to share false headlines even when controlling for age, gender, education, media literacy, urban vs rural residence, religiosity, income, and political ideology ( p = .002). The regression coefficients for playing Gali Fakta were 0.192 for rating false headlines and 0.215 for sharing false headlines. This means that participants who played our brief media literacy game rated false headlines as more inaccurate by about 0.2 of a point on a 1–5 scale point and decreased their likelihood to share by about 0.2 on a 1–5 scale. Notably, playing Gali Fakta did not lead to a significant decrease in sharing intent for factual headlines ( p = .114). Once again, these findings underscore the effectiveness of our media literacy game in fostering skepticism and caution regarding misinformation, while not affecting the sharing intent for accurate information.

We also analyzed to what extent participants differentiated between factual and false headlines.  As a robustness check, we analyzed discernment (i.e., the difference in ratings between factual and false headlines) and still found that playing Gali Fakta significantly improved both headline accuracy discernment and sharing discernment (see Appendix A). While our results demonstrate that playing Gali Faktaimproves participants’ ability to discern factual headlines versus false news headlines, it is unclear if playing Gali Faktawould impact social media behavior or override social and political motives to share misinformation. We do find it encouraging that these positive effects hold while controlling for education, media literacy, and political ideology.

Finding 3: Playing Gali Fakta does not impact self-reported media literacy.

In addition to assessing headline ratings and sharing intention, we also examined whether playing Gali Fakta would lead to an increase in self-reported media literacy. Our analysis did not reveal a significant increase in participants’ self-reported media literacy following engagement with Gali Fakta ( p = .622). This null result may be attributed to limitations inherent in self-report media literacy scales, as they may not comprehensively measure individuals’ actual media literacy skills (Jones-Jang et al., 2021). Alternatively, it is possible that Gali Fakta may not prompt participants to reflect on the specific types of questions posed in the media literacy scale used.

Future studies could explore more targeted inquiries, such as assessing participants’ confidence in correcting misinformation shared by others online, which aligns more closely with the tasks undertaken in Gali Fakta. While playing Gali Fakta did not influence self-reported media literacy scores, we found that participants who played the game versus a control group were significantly better able to evaluate the accuracy of false news headlines and also reported a reduced likelihood of sharing false news headlines. Future work can also investigate the duration of this effect along with whether Gali Fakta can be successful in different country-level populations after translations. Finally, we measured the ability to evaluate false text-based headlines as our measure of misinformation. However, this is only one type of misinformation, and it does not capture the ability to evaluate more complex types of misinformation, such as hyperpartisan misinformation and misleading information from mainstream news that is not completely false. Future research could develop media literacy interventions that are specifically designed to teach individuals to identify these more complicated types of misinformation.

While our effect sizes are small, we believe these positive results are encouraging from playing a brief media literacy game. Gali Fakta is an extremely scalable intervention, and small effects could have more meaningful cumulative effects if the game is shared widely in public campaigns and in educational settings. Large social media accounts can simply share Gali Fakta with their audience and encourage their followers to play the game and share it with their friends and family. Additionally, Gali Fakta offers a fun and simple exercise to add to media literacy curriculums. Gali Fakta is freely available in both its original Bahasa Indonesian version 1 https://literata.id/game/ as well as the translated English version. 2 https://galifakta.com/

Participants

We recruited 1,006 Indonesian participants through Bilendi & Respondi’s survey platform, with 495 assigned to the Gali Fakta condition and 511 to the control condition (see Appendix A for power analysis).  Participants from Bilendi & Respondi’s database have enough digital literacy to sign up for an online survey platform, which may yield an important baseline of digital literacy that is required to understand and learn from our game. Data was collected in February of 2023. We excluded 191 participants who did not respond to the question about political ideology, aiming to control for politics given the political nature of some headlines. The average age of participants was 38.53 ( SD = 11.43), with 52.89% male and 81.51% residing in urban areas. On a religiosity scale ranging from 1 (not religious at all) to 5 (very religious), the average score was 3.80 ( SD = 0.81). The average level of conservatism, rated on a scale from 1 (very liberal) to 5 (very conservative), was 3.37 ( SD = 1.01). Regarding education, 74.85% completed tertiary school, and 99.7% completed secondary school. The average annual income was 133,401,566.79 Indonesian Rupiah or 8,357 USD ( SD = 544,834,772.12 for IDR and 34,133.90 for USD).

Participants were randomly assigned to play either Gali Fakta or Tetris (see Figure 5), a game chosen as an effective control condition due to its comparable time and cognitive demands (Roozenbeek & van der Linden, 2020). After playing the assigned game, participants evaluated seven factual and seven false headlines covering topics of climate change (two headlines), COVID-19 (three headlines), and non-political matters (two headlines), such as money-saving techniques (see Appendix B for headline list).

The topics were equal across both the factual and false headlines. Headlines were chosen from actual headlines circulating on Indonesian social media during February 2023 that provided a mix of political topics (climate change and COVID-19) as well as nonpolitical topics. In addition to being politically charged topics, false information about climate change and COVID-19 was spread by disinformation campaigns throughout Indonesia (Kurnia et al., 2024; Muzykant et al., 2021). Disinformation surrounding these topics also represents attempts to discredit scientific expertise. Participants rated the accuracy of each headline and their likelihood of sharing it on a 1–5 Likert scale. Additionally, participants completed an 11-item media literacy scale from Austin et al. (2021) counterbalanced with the headline questions. This scale assessed media literacy regarding news source credibility and critical evaluation of news content (see Appendix B). Finally, participants provided demographic information, including age, gender, education, geographic location, religiosity, income, and political ideology.

• / Media Literacy

Cite this Essay

Facciani, M. J., Apriliawati, D., & Weninger, T. (2024). Playing Gali Fakta inoculates Indonesian participants against false information. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review . https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-152

• / Appendix B

Bibliography

Austin, E. W., Austin, B. W., Willoughby, J. F., Amram, O., & Domgaard, S. (2021). How media literacy and science media literacy predicted the adoption of protective behaviors amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Health Communication , 26 (4), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2021.1899345

Banaji, S., Bhat, R., Agarwal, A., Passanha, N., & Sadhana Pravin, M. (2019). WhatsApp vigilantes: An exploration of citizen reception and circulation of WhatsApp misinformation linked to mob violence in India. London School of Economics and Political Science. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/104316

Basol, M., Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2020). Good news about bad news: Gamified inoculation boosts confidence and cognitive immunity against fake news. Journal of Cognition , 3 (1). https://doi.org/10.5334%2Fjoc.91

Baulch, E., Matamoros-Fernández, A., & Suwana, F. (2022). Memetic persuasion and WhatsAppification in Indonesia’s 2019 presidential election. New Media & Society, 26 (5), 2473–2491. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221088274

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.

Compton, J., van der Linden, S., Cook, J., & Basol, M. (2021). Inoculation theory in the post‐truth era: Extant findings and new frontiers for contested science, misinformation, and conspiracy theories. Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 15 (6), e12602. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12602

de Freitas Melo, P., Vieira, C. C., Garimella, K., de Melo, P. O. V., & Benevenuto, F. (2020). Can WhatsApp counter misinformation by limiting message forwarding? In H. Chefifi, S. Gaito, J. F. Mendes, E. Moro, & L. M. Rocha (Eds.), Complex networks and their applications VIII: Volume 1 proceedings of the eighth international conference on complex networks and their applications COMPLEX NETWORKS 2019 (pp. 372–384). Springer International Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36687-2_31

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods , 41 , 1149–1160.   https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

Harjani, T., Basol, M. S., Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2023). Gamified inoculation against misinformation in India: A randomized control trial.  Journal of Trial and Error ,  3 (1), 14–56,   https://doi.org/10.36850/e12

Iyengar, A., Gupta, P., & Priya, N. (2023). Inoculation against conspiracy theories: A consumer side approach to India’s fake news problem.  Applied Cognitive Psychology ,  37 (2), 290–303. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3995

Jalli, N., & Idris, I. (2019). Fake news and elections in two Southeast Asian nations: A comparative study of Malaysia general election 2018 and Indonesia presidential election 2019. In A. Hamid, Y. P. Setianto, Riswanda, A. Fuad, & M.D. Hikmawan (Eds.), International conference on democratisation in Southeast Asia (ICDeSA 2019) (pp. 138–148). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/icdesa-19.2019.30

Jones-Jang, S. M., Mortensen, T., & Liu, J. (2021). Does media literacy help identification of fake news? Information literacy helps, but other literacies don’t. American Behavioral Scientist , 65 (2), 371–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219869406

Kemp, S. (2023, February 9). Digital 2023 Indonesia . Datareportal. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2023-indonesia

Kurnia, N., Putri, T., Kusumaningtyas, A., Abisono, F., Putrawidjoyo, A., Sasmita Jati-Karim, M., & Socarana, B. (2024).  Tackling climate crisis misinformation in Indonesia .   https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/tackling-climate-crisis-misinformation-in-indonesia

Lamb, K. & Teresia, A. (2022, December 9 ). Indonesia’s new laws a threat to privacy, press and human rights, says UN. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/indonesias-new-laws-threat-privacy-press-human-rights-says-un-2022-12-09/

McRae, D., del Mar Quiroga, M., Russo-Batterham, D., Doyle, K., & Platform, A. (2022). A pro-government disinformation campaign on Indonesian Papua. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 3 (5). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-108

McDonnell, I., & MacKinnon, T. (2020). Case study: Misinformation in Indonesia . GeoPoll. https://www.geopoll.com/misinformation-indonesia/

Modirrousta-Galian, A., & Higham, P. A. (2023). Gamified inoculation interventions do not improve discrimination between true and fake news: Reanalyzing existing research with receiver operating characteristic analysis.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152 (9), 2411–2437.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001395

Mujani, S., & Kuipers, N. (2020). Who believed misinformation during the 2019 Indonesian election? Asian Survey , 60 (6), 1029–1043,   https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2020.60.6.1029

Muzykant, V. L., Muqsith, M. A., Pratomo, R. R., & Barabash, V. (2021). Fake news on COVID-19 in Indonesia. In D. M. Berube (Ed.), Pandemic communication and resilience (pp. 363-378). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77344-1_10

Nasir, N. M., & Nurmansyah, M. I. (2020). Misinformation related to COVID-19 in Indonesia. Institutional Repository UIN Syarif Hidayatullah. https://repository.uinjkt.ac.id/dspace/handle/123456789/63519

Neyazi, T. A., Yi Kai Ng, A., Kuru, O., & Muhtadi, B. (2022). Who gets exposed to political misinformation in a hybrid media environment? The case of the 2019 Indonesian election. Social Media + Society, 8 (3). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221122792

Nurhayati-Wolff, H.  (2023). Number of internet users in Indonesia 2017 – 2028 . Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/254456/number-of-internet-users-in-indonesia/

Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2020). Breaking Harmony Square: A game that “inoculates” against political misinformation. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 1 (8). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-47

Sipalan, P. (2021, March 12). Malaysia defends coronavirus fake news law amid outcry . Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/malaysia-defends-coronavirus-fake-news-law-amid-outcry-2021-03-12/

Sirlin, N., Epstein, Z., Arechar, A. A., & Rand, D. G. (2021). Digital literacy is associated with more discerning accuracy judgments but not sharing intentions. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 2 (6). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-83

Syam, H. M., & Nurrahmi, F. (2020). “I don’t know if it is fake or real news”: How little Indonesian University students understand social media literacy. Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication, 36 (2), 92–105. https://doi.org/10.17576/JKMJC-2020-3602-06

Theisen, W., Brogan, J., Thomas, P. B., Moreira, D., Phoa, P., Weninger, T., & Scheirer, W. (2021). Automatic discovery of political meme genres with diverse appearances. In C. Budak, M. Cha, D. Quercia, & L. Xie (Eds.), Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 15 (1), 714–726). https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v15i1.18097

Yustitia, S., & Asharianto, P. D. (2020). Misinformation and disinformation of COVID-19 on social media in Indonesia. Proceeding of LPPM UPN “Veteran” Yogyakarta Conference Series 2020 – Engineering and Sciences (ESS), 1 (1), 51–65. https://proceeding.researchsynergypress.com/index.php/pss/article/view/180

Portions of this work were supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Cooperative Agreement Number 7200AA18CA00059.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Data collection methods were evaluated and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of The University of Notre Dame. All subjects verbally consented to participation in this survey and to receive follow-up SMS messages to their mobile phone.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original author and source are properly credited.

Data Availability

All materials needed to replicate this study are available via the Harvard Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/BKXRNQ

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank USAID, Moonshot, Brave Factor, and IREX for their help during this project.

Attacks on Walz’s Military Record

By Robert Farley , D'Angelo Gore and Eugene Kiely

Posted on August 8, 2024 | Updated on August 12, 2024 | Corrected on August 9, 2024

Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino .

In introducing her pick for vice presidential running mate, Kamala Harris has prominently touted Tim Walz’s 24 years of service in the Army National Guard. Now, however, GOP vice presidential nominee JD Vance and the Trump campaign are attacking Walz on his military record, accusing the Minnesota governor of “stolen valor.”

We’ll sort through the facts surrounding the three main attacks on Walz’s military record and let readers decide their merit. The claims include:

• Vance claimed that Walz “dropped out” of the National Guard when he learned his battalion was slated to be deployed to Iraq. Walz retired to focus on a run for Congress two months before his unit got official word of impending deployment, though the possibility had been rumored for months.
• Vance also accused Walz of having once claimed to have served in combat, when he did not. While advocating a ban on assault-style weapons, Walz said, “We can make sure that those weapons of war that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at.” Update, Aug. 12: The Harris campaign says that Walz “misspoke.”
• The Republican National Committee has criticized Walz for misrepresenting his military rank in campaign materials. The Harris campaign website salutes Walz for “rising to the rank of Command Sergeant Major.” Walz did rise to that rank, but he retired as a master sergeant because he had not completed the requirements of a command sergeant major.

A native of West Point, Nebraska, Walz joined the Nebraska Army National Guard in April 1981, two days after his 17th birthday. When Walz and his wife moved to Minnesota in 1996, he transferred to the Minnesota National Guard, where he served in 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery.

“While serving in Minnesota, his military occupational specialties were 13B – a cannon crewmember who operates and maintains cannons and 13Z -field artillery senior sergeant,” according to a statement released by Army Lt. Col. Kristen Augé, the Minnesota National Guard’s state public affairs officer.

According to MPR News , Walz suffered some hearing impairment related to exposure to cannon booms during training over the years, and he underwent some corrective surgery to address it.

On Aug. 3, 2003, “Walz mobilized with the Minnesota National Guard’s 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery … to support Operation Enduring Freedom. The battalion supported security missions at various locations in Europe and Turkey. Governor Walz was stationed at Vicenza, Italy, during his deployment,” Augé stated. The deployment lasted about eight months.

“For 24 years I proudly wore the uniform of this nation,” Walz said at a rally in Philadelphia where he was announced as Harris’ running mate on Aug. 6. “The National Guard gave me purpose. It gave me the strength of a shared commitment to something greater than ourselves.”

Walz’s Retirement from the National Guard

In recent years, however, several of his fellow guard members have taken issue with the timing of Walz’s retirement from the National Guard in May 2005, claiming he left to avoid a deployment to Iraq.

Vance, who served a four-year active duty enlistment in the Marine Corps as a combat correspondent, serving in Iraq for six months in 2005, advanced that argument at a campaign event on Aug. 7.

“When the United States of America asked me to go to Iraq to serve my country, I did it,” Vance said. “When Tim Walz was asked by his country to go to Iraq, you know what he did? He dropped out of the Army and allowed his unit to go without him, a fact that he’s been criticized for aggressively by a lot of the people that he served with. I think it’s shameful to prepare your unit to go to Iraq, to make a promise that you’re going to follow through and then to drop out right before you actually have to go.”

In early 2005, Walz, then a high school geography teacher and football coach at Mankato West High School, decided to run for public office. In a 2009 interview Walz provided as part of the Library of Congress’ veterans oral history project, Walz said he made the decision to retire from the National Guard to “focus full time” on a run for the U.S. House of Representatives for Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District (which he ultimately won in 2006). Walz said he was “really concerned” about trying to seek public office and serve in the National Guard at the same time without running afoul of the Hatch Act , which limits political speech by federal employees, including members of the National Guard.

Federal Election Commission records show that Walz filed to run for Congress on Feb. 10, 2005.

On March 20, 2005, Walz’s campaign put out a press release titled “Walz Still Planning to Run for Congress Despite Possible Call to Duty in Iraq.”

Three days prior, the release said, “the National Guard Public Affairs Office announced a possible partial mobilization of roughly 2,000 troops from the Minnesota National Guard. … The announcement from the National Guard PAO specified that all or a portion of Walz’s battalion could be mobilized to serve in Iraq within the next two years.”

According to the release, “When asked about his possible deployment to Iraq Walz said, ‘I do not yet know if my artillery unit will be part of this mobilization and I am unable to comment further on specifics of the deployment.’ Although his tour of duty in Iraq might coincide with his campaign for Minnesota’s 1st Congressional seat, Walz is determined to stay in the race. ‘As Command Sergeant Major I have a responsibility not only to ready my battalion for Iraq, but also to serve if called on. I am dedicated to serving my country to the best of my ability, whether that is in Washington DC or in Iraq.'”

On March 23, 2005, the Pipestone County Star reported, “Detachments of the Minnesota National Guard have been ‘alerted’ of possible deployment to Iraq in mid-to-late 2006.”

“Major Kevin Olson of the Minnesota National Guard said a brigade-sized contingent of soldiers could be expected to be called to Iraq, but he was not, at this time, aware of which batteries would be called,” the story said. “All soldiers in the First Brigade combat team of the 34th Division, Minnesota National Guard, could be eligible for call-up. ‘We don’t know yet what the force is like’ he said. ‘It’s too early to speculate, if the (soldiers) do go.’

“He added: ‘We will have a major announcement if and when the alert order moves ahead.’”

ABC News spoke to Joseph Eustice, a retired command sergeant major who served with Walz, and he told the news organization this week that “he remembers Walz struggling with the timing of wanting to serve as a lawmaker but also avoiding asking for a deferment so he could do so.”

“He had a window of time,” Eustice told ABC News. “He had to decide. And in his deciding, we were not on notice to be deployed. There were rumors. There were lots of rumors, and we didn’t know where we were going until it was later that, early summer, I believe.”

Al Bonnifield, who served under Walz, also recalled Walz agonizing over the decision.

“It was a very long conversation behind closed doors,” Bonnifield told the Washington Post this week. “He was trying to decide where he could do better for soldiers, for veterans, for the country. He weighed that for a long time.”

In 2018, Bonnifield told MPR News that Walz worried in early 2005, “Would the soldier look down on him because he didn’t go with us? Would the common soldier say, ‘Hey, he didn’t go with us, he’s trying to skip out on a deployment?’ And he wasn’t. He talked with us for quite a while on that subject. He weighed that decision to run for Congress very heavy. He loved the military, he loved the guard, he loved the soldiers he worked with.”

But not all of Walz’s fellow Guard members felt that way.

In a paid letter to the West Central Tribune in Minnesota in November 2018, Thomas Behrends and Paul Herr — both retired command sergeants major in the Minnesota National Guard — wrote, “On May 16th, 2005 he [Walz] quit, leaving the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion and its Soldiers hanging; without its senior Non-Commissioned Officer, as the battalion prepared for war. His excuse to other leaders was that he needed to retire in order to run for congress. Which is false, according to a Department of Defense Directive, he could have run and requested permission from the Secretary of Defense before entering active duty; as many reservists have.”

“For Tim Walz to abandon his fellow soldiers and quit when they needed experienced leadership most is disheartening,” they wrote. “When the nation called, he quit.”

Walz retired on May 16, 2005. Walz’s brigade received alert orders for mobilization on July 14, 2005, according to the National Guard and MPR News . The official mobilization report came the following month, and the unit mobilized and trained through the fall. It was finally deployed to Iraq in the spring of 2006.

The unit was originally scheduled to return in February 2007, but its tour was extended four months as part of President George W. Bush’s “surge” strategy , the National Guard reported. In all, the soldiers were mobilized for 22 months.

Responding to Vance’s claim that Walz retired to avoid deploying to Iraq, the Harris-Walz campaign released a statement saying, “After 24 years of military service, Governor Walz retired in 2005 and ran for Congress, where he was a tireless advocate for our men and women in uniform – and as Vice President of the United States he will continue to be a relentless champion for our veterans and military families.”

Walz on Carrying a Weapon ‘in War’

Vance also called Walz “dishonest” for a claim that Walz made in 2018 while speaking to a group about gun control.

“He made this interesting comment that the Kamala Harris campaign put out there,” Vance said, referring to a video of Walz that the Harris campaign posted to X on Aug. 6. “He said, ‘We shouldn’t allow weapons that I used in war to be on America’s streets.’ Well, I wonder, Tim Walz, when were you ever in war? What was this weapon that you carried into war given that you abandoned your unit right before they went to Iraq and he has not spent a day in a combat zone.”

In the video , Walz, who was campaigning for governor at the time, talked about pushing back on the National Rifle Association and said: “I spent 25 years in the Army and I hunt. … I’ve been voting for common sense legislation that protects the Second Amendment, but we can do background checks. We can do [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] research. We can make sure we don’t have reciprocal carry among states. And we can make sure that those weapons of war that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at.”

But, as Vance indicated, there is no evidence that Walz carried a weapon “in war.”

Update, Aug. 12: In an Aug. 10 statement to CNN, the Harris campaign told CNN that Walz “misspoke.”

“In making the case for why weapons of war should never be on our streets or in our classrooms, the Governor misspoke,” campaign spokesperson Lauren Hitt said in the statement. “He did handle weapons of war and believes strongly that only military members trained to carry those deadly weapons should have access to them.”

As we said, Augé, in her statement, said Walz’s battalion deployed “to support Operation Enduring Freedom” on Aug. 3, 2003, and “supported security missions at various locations in Europe and Turkey.” During his deployment, Walz was stationed in Vicenza, Italy, and he returned to Minnesota in April 2004, Augé said. There was no mention of Walz serving in Afghanistan, Iraq or another combat zone.

In the 2009 interview for the veterans history project, Walz said he and members of his battalion initially thought they would “shoot artillery in Afghanistan,” as they had trained to do. That didn’t happen, he said, explaining that his group ended up helping with security and training while stationed at an Army base in Vicenza.

“I think in the beginning, many of my troops were disappointed,” Walz said in the interview. “I think they felt a little guilty, many of them, that they weren’t in the fight up front as this was happening.”

In an Aug. 8 statement addressing his claim about carrying weapons “in war,” the Harris campaign noted that Walz, whose military occupational specialties included field artillery senior sergeant, “fired and trained others to use weapons of war innumerable times” in his 24 years of service.

Walz’s National Guard Rank

The Republican National Committee has criticized Walz for saying “in campaign materials that he is a former ‘Command Sergeant Major’ in the Army National Guard despite not completing the requirements to hold the rank into retirement.”

Walz’s biography on the Harris campaign website correctly says that the governor “served for 24 years” in the National Guard, “rising to the rank of Command Sergeant Major.” 

Walz’s official biography on the Minnesota state website goes further, referring to the governor as “Command Sergeant Major Walz.”

“After 24 years in the Army National Guard, Command Sergeant Major Walz retired from the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion in 2005,” the state website says. 

Walz did serve as command sergeant major , but Walz did not complete the requirements to retire with the rank of command sergeant, Augé told us in an email. 

“He held multiple positions within field artillery such as firing battery chief, operations sergeant, first sergeant, and culminated his career serving as the command sergeant major for the battalion,” Augé said. “He retired as a master sergeant in 2005 for benefit purposes because he did not complete additional coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy.”

This isn’t the first time that Walz’s National Guard rank has come up in a campaign. 

In their 2018 paid letter to the West Central Tribune, when Walz was running for governor, the two Minnesota National Guard retired command sergeants major who criticized Walz for retiring before the Iraq deployment also wrote: “Yes, he served at that rank, but was never qualified at that rank, and will receive retirement benefits at one rank below. You be the judge.”

Correction, Aug. 9: We mistakenly said a 2007 “surge” strategy in Iraq occurred under President Barack Obama. It was President George W. Bush.

Editor’s note: In the interest of full disclosure, Harris campaign spokesperson Lauren Hitt was an undergraduate intern at FactCheck.org from 2010 to 2011.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through  our “Donate” page . If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104.