Teaching In A Post-Truth Society
The post-truth movement is a prevalent challenge in American society. Therefore, Chris Bacon of Boston College describes the issue and ways to combat it in his article “Appropriated Literacies: The Paradox of Critical Literacies, Policies, and Methodologies in a Post-truth Era” (2018). Due to the rise in literacy across the globe in the past several generations, the concept of post-truth has grown as an issue in and outside of the classroom. Now that there is a wide array of digital tools and ways to access media, including news through social media, it is allowing all people to create news that fits what they believe. Bacon refers to the rise of the post-truth era as a “backlash against this new reality” and argues that it “can be productively understood as criticality disconnected from larger discourses of power, domination, and liberation” (4). The thought that media, such as fake news, and the post-truth era could continue to grow as an issue is problematic for educators. This generates a call of action by Bacon, which is divided into three categories for readers to consider when approaching digital media.
The first is called “critical reading” for the purpose of asking individuals to truly think or analyze what they are reading by questioning the authority of the author, instead of taking the news at its word. For instance, even though educational textbooks are used in the classroom, it does not necessarily mean that they are completely authoritative; however, the authors should be researched to understand their backgrounds and beliefs (7). “Critical consumerism”, the second category in the call of action, is described as evaluating the validity and accuracy of the news or article being read. In terms of social media, Bacon (2018) explains to his audience that when a consumer is reading information and they do not fact-check it, then share the news with others who also have either not learned how to analyze information properly, or they simply do not take the time to fact-check the information. This issue leads to a great number of people believing fake news and creating their own truths (7). The third category is “critical empathy”, described as readers engaging with information that is contrary to what aligns with their belief system. Bacon is insisting that people should be looking at news sources and articles that correlate with various perspectives regarding the topics that are being studied or researched (8). Similarly, Yonty Friesem’s thoughts in “Teaching Truth, Lies, and Accuracy in the Digital Age: Media Literacy as Project-Based Learning” (2019) advocates for people to be critically literate when using digital media. One suggestion is to use allsides.com when researching current events to help students get a well-rounded idea of a topic. If society unites to look at all aspects of an issue, Bacon suggests that two things can occur- first, “post-truth narratives will lose their potency” and second, “some degree of middle ground can be reached” (9). Furthermore, when people continue to base their knowledge off what is stated as truth, they begin to form their own opinions on various topics based on the information and their environmental influences. This brings about the now common term, oppression. When there is a lack of critical literacy, those people start to relate to others through an issue and claim oppression from higher powers. Soon after, the environment alters from a specific people being oppressed to everyone being “oppressed” in their own way (Bacon, 6).
In comparison, Amanda Franco expresses the importance of teaching critical thinking in the post-truth era that the American society is attempting to survive. In the article “Educating for Critical Thinking in University: The Criticality of Critical Thinking in Education and Everyday Life” (2018), Franco explains that teachers are often given the tools in the curriculums to teach critical thinking, but do not always implement it, either because they do not feel they have time or they do not see it is pertinent compared to the specific concepts. However, students should also be receiving critical thinking education from other areas of learning so they can use critical thinking in every-day life. The problem of post-truth occurs when digital media becomes a part of a student’s education system. Educators are now coming to terms with a “take your pick” philosophy of understanding concepts or current events (Franco, 133).
In another comparable perspective, post-truth rhetoric has become a significant epidemic in society that has called into question the trustworthiness of even those whom it is believed should be above such practices. Paul Gibbs in his article, “Why Academics Should have a Duty of Truth-Telling in an Epoch of Post-Truth” (2019), seeks to explain why it is the responsibility of the institution and its educators to challenge the status quo of media and political rhetoric. He argues that today’s society has turned from a concern for truth, authenticity, and “trustworthiness” towards an increased interest in producing information riddled with “deceit, lies, and uncertainty” (508). Gibbs asserts that there has not been a university which has not been influenced by post-truth ideals in some way and that, although it should be the duty of universities to make trustworthy judgments, they have in fact been perpetuating the very thing an institution should stand against. When confronting the idea of post-truth in universities, Gibbs argues that educators “have an obligation to their students, to their colleagues and to society which transcends that of the institution of higher education” even when such opinions risk disapproval and conflict (501). By obligating that scholars be held to higher standards, universities uphold the idea of truth and trustworthiness rather than enforcing their own agenda of commercialism and compliance with media misinformation, which Friesem (2019) breaks down into seven types of “information disorders” (187).
Gibbs rationalizes his argument by placing an emphasis on post-truth awareness as an ethical conundrum in an emerging digital age. The shift to digitization has resulted in the recurred emergence of unreliable sources, which has caused a diversion and reduction of attitude and value toward thinking critically and openly declaring what is demoralizing in society. Such a change in thinking entails a lack of moral and ethical integrity in academia. Gibbs explains that this shift in ethics has resulted in a domino effect, changing the power dynamics between student and teacher where it has become the responsibility of the instructor to discern how to critically think rather than the student. He further explains how such thinking has resulted in a disintegration of integrity and an emergence of “self-deception”-a refusal of responsibility for one’s actions in a deliberate attempt to misread a situation-among academics (Gibbs 504). Although independent thinking may be promoted at a university level, a person who subscribes to self-deception cannot be deemed trustworthy and may therefore have unethical intentions. Gibbs argues that it is the duty of the university to prevent self-deception and promote truthfulness by prioritizing it as an implicit obligation rather than a right. By encouraging instructors to practice “truth seeking and truth telling” to counter post-truth rhetoric, universities instill a “’grammar of trust’” within students, where they feel obligated to be sincere, autonomous thinkers (Gibbs 507-508). These students would then more likely enter society upholding truth and obtaining social validity by being capable of arguing for they and their community believe to be truth.
David M. Sheridan, Jim Ridolfo, and Anthony J. Michel further the discussion of countering post-truth with their article, “The Available Means of Persuasion: Mapping a Theory and Pedagogy of Multimodal Public Rhetoric” (2012). In the article, Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel state that failure to utilize multimodal technology in classrooms is problematic in the university. They articulate that the failure to incorporate multimodal projects into the classroom mainly revolves around a general lack of how to confront text created by someone who is not only proficient in speaking and writing, but complex actions such as design and publication. As a reaction to this new type of rhetorer, the authors argue for a shift away from writing as the “privileged mode” of rhetoric in classrooms (805). They maintain that departing from the traditional belief of writing as the primary means of rhetoric allows instructors the freedom to explore multimodal rhetoric through a Post-Truth lens.
The authors propose a “map” for instructors to follow as they navigate teaching rhetoric that is embedded within “symbolic, cultural, and material” contexts in order for students to become participants in the “public sphere” and hear and be heard respectively (Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel 805). The map articulated by Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel involves re-examining the accessibility of media, the “tension between a deliberative rhetoric…and a confrontational or agonistic rhetoric,” and the limitations of teaching multimodal media rhetoric in a university (806). Creating a guide for professors to follow allows them to effectively see where emphasis is needed in order to guide students towards ethical consumption and creation of multimodal media. The authors explain that previously, multimodal projects have required the skills, knowledge, and resources of expert practitioners. The perception that multimodal rhetoric requires creation by a specialist has allowed for communication to be circulated from “the few to the many rather than from the many to the few” (Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel 807). Limited means of distribution has caused such skills to be highly valued created a corporate driven market. However, the authors indicate that developing technology has now made it possible for even the most novice academic to compose digital projects. The evolution from exclusivity to inclusiveness has resulted in a phenomenon where a multitude of anonymous and unspecialized authors are creating multimodal content that can be created and distributed for a fraction of the cost. The authors go on to argue for an interdisciplinary method that focuses on multimodal technology through the understanding of kairos. The term kairos in the article is used to entail the effectiveness and appropriateness of rhetoric to the circumstances in which it is created in relation to “modes, media, technologies, and other material considerations” as well as to media access and assessment of rhetoric within a public sphere (Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel 818). Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel contend that assessing technology through kairotic means prepares students for ethically producing discourse through multimodality by asking questions about the relation of multimodal technology with themselves.
The article goes on to explain the difference in deliberative and confrontational rhetoric. The former being primarily concerned with discourse based in reason, discussion, cooperation, objectiveness, and critically analyzing other perspectives in order to create transparent dialogue. Deliberative rhetoric achieves its purpose, in part, through what the authors call “self-reflexivity” (Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel 822). The concept behind self-reflexivity is to force students to ponder how they create texts which impose and influence readers to construct certain meanings. Such awareness causes students to acknowledge the ethical implications of the text they produce and are exposed to. Confrontational multimodal rhetoric is discourse adopted commonly by activist groups or disgruntled communities to disrupt the status quo and requires understanding how multimodality can affect public consciousness. Thus, another objective would be to educate students in how they can represent their lives through multimodality.
The article concludes by the authors call to attention of the nature of technology and its individual disciplinary implementation in universities while emphasizing multimodal projects as products of a “learn-as-you-go” method (Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel 830). It is because of this limitation that the authors call for an implementation of “disciplinary contact zones” within institutions (Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel 831). These are instances where courses may overlap to provide students to opportunity to engage in “alternative learning spaces, multicourse portfolios, multidisciplinary teams, project-or problem-based learning, service learning, and residential and nonresidential learning communities (Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel 831).These spaces offer students the opportunity to participate in experimental and hands on projects that may impact their communities. Providing disciplinary contact zones in institutions curates multiliteracy in students and engages and prepares them for public media use and consumption. In advocating for multimodal media education and use in universities, Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel seek to encourage pedagogy which inspires students to use media in ways to motivate change in their communities.
Similarly, Friesem (2019) advocates for an ethical pedagogical approach to media literacy in post-truth society while arguing that simply possessing the ability to analyze and evaluate online media is not enough in a space where anonymity reigns. He contends that students must fully understand online discourse and how media may influence their lives using post-truth rhetoric. While Gibbs diverges from Friesem’s argument in that it does not offer a specific method or solution, both articles express the immediate need to educate students how to approach information, or “misinformation,” in a post-truth era (Friesem 187). Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel in effect goes one step beyond Gibbs to not only explain the need and importance for multimodal interaction in reaction to instilling a sense of ethics but contends for project-based learning as one solution.
Friesem recognizes the necessity to provide students with the “ethical and theoretical standards” necessary for survival in society (188). His contention for instilling standards within students speaks to Gibbs’ assertion that students must be made into “self-trusting” and “trustworthy people” in order make meaningful contributions to the world (Gibbs 507). Similarly, Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel argue for multimodal projects as a means to practice critical thinking and contributing to society. Despite differences between the two articles, both offer necessary insights into countering post-truth within the academy beginning with pedagogy. Gibbs’ focus pertaining mainly to curating ethical practices within students provides the necessary foundation for Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel’s argument for a shift towards multimodality, which in turn leads to Friesem’s argument for a move towards project-based learning. The three articles provide a step-by-step method for why and how multimodal projects should be used to combat post-truth rhetoric in our society.
Turning again to education, one would hope that grade schools would begin teaching media literacy concepts at an earlier age. According to J.M.Burkhardt, “In college, students are often psychologically ready for a fresh start or at least exhibit a willingness to consider new ideas” (30). College educators are in a unique position to influence and expand the minds of the nation’s youth as they are most likely the last line of defense before students graduate into the “real world”. This supports Franco and Gibb’s arguments on the importance of teaching both critical and independent thinking.
This leads to the question: how do teachers teach students about disinformation, articularly, to college students? Burkhardt states, “Students today have never lived in a world without computers and cellphones” (29) and “They have a preference for visual rather than written material. They skim the surface of the information they receive, rather than doing a deep dive to thoroughly research a topic” (29). Burkhardt goes on to emphasize that workshops, tutorials, Youtube videos and games are favored by students. Sonnet Ireland agrees with this idea in “Fake News Alerts: Teaching News Literacy Skills in A Meme World” (2018) when she states that, “…information crosses the realm into entertainment” (122) and “...the visual element assists in that aspect by making the information easier to digest for the viewer” (123). We have noticed this in our own teaching. When we pick up the textbook, we hear a collective sigh, but when we engage our students in activities and games, the participation increases as well as quality of work produced. Friesem also agrees that teaching through different forms of media is the way to go, but she takes it one step further, advocating for project-based learning. According to Friesem’s paper:
Students in Gutsche and Salkin’s sample displayed a lack of media literacy and often relinquished their control over how the content they produced was posted online, how advertising was placed, and who owned their servers. Having journalism students unaware of how media news operates in “real life” can be addressed by a reciprocal process with various stakeholders (Gutsche, Jacobson, Pinto, & Michel, 2017).
This is why it is important to add a project-based learning (PBL) activity to produce media as an engaged journalism process, while also analyzing and evaluating narratives that enhance journalism skills such as writing and listening well, constructing a story, and adapting narratives to various situations.
Not only do we want to utilize different modes of media while teaching, a project-based learning approach goes further and allows students to see for themselves how the media messages they are constantly exposed to are created and disseminated. This will help students when they get out of college and enter the real world. Similarly to Franco’s statement on having critical thinking outside the classroom, Burkhardt agrees that, “It is critical to tie information literacy to the world outside academia and beyond college” (30). In our own classes, we continually remind students why they are learning the concepts and skills they are studying. When students can see for themselves how their studies relate to the real world, they experience a sense of immediateness about their work that they do not have otherwise.
So how do we begin to teach about misinformation? The first place to begin is helping students understand what fake news is and what it is not. Some include bias, satire, or parody, opinion pieces, and pieces riddled with logical fallacies as fake news. Ireland claims they are not and if you include these pieces, it “...opens the doors to accusing everything of being fake news” (123). She goes on to identify what fake news actually is. According to her, “Fake news should apply to pieces that ignore, twist/misrepresent, or invent facts” (123). In order to better distinguish the different types of fake news, Friesem prefers the term, “information disorder” because it “…seems to capture more accurately the range of issues that are at stake” (187). She lists seven types: fabricated content, imposter content, misleading content, satire or parody, false context, and manipulated content. Ireland mentions that these seven types can be found on a visual aid made by First Draft, which can better illustrate how they are different from one another (187).
Teaching students their own biases and how to uncover other people’s biases is one of the most important skills to help students understand media misinformation. Bias is so pervasive and difficult to pin down. According to Burkhardt, “…students should be encouraged to think about bias” and “Knowing the point of view of the author will help students to identify bias” (31). Biases are tricky. It’s not just about the facts, but how they are presented. Ireland says, “...a source can be factual while also showing signs of bias” (124). In order to understand other people’s biases, you must first understand your own. Friesem had her students use The Implicit Association Test (IAT). She explains, “Reflection on one’s own perspective and media consumption habits is essential to reveal personal bias when decoding information” (194). When we did these tests ourselves, it was eye-opening.
Another concept that is critical for students to learn is triangulation. As explained by Ireland, triangulation can be used “...to determine if a specific story is legitimate or not. Triangulation requires the user to verify a story by finding two other reliable sources that also report the same story” (124). This teaches students to utilize multiple sources in order to get a clearer picture of the facts. Often, individual sources cannot be trusted to get the facts right. Only when we double check the reporting, can we come closer to deciphering what is true. Friesem used AllSides.com to teach her students this process. “Use of the site helps to foster the practice of triangulating sources and aiding students in looking at various perspectives in which information was delivered online. The website allowed students to value other opinions and see that the opposition political reports can also be accurate” (194). When we showed the site to our students, they were as astonished as we were to see how differently the same story can be reported.
By using the strategies described throughout this project, teachers will have the capability to create a learning environment that is full of critical thinking and ethical journalism for any discipline. Because colleges and universities require students to study multiple disciplines, teaching students how to analyze information will allow them to conduct thorough research and create projects, multimodal or essay format, that weed out misinformation for honest and trustworthy products.