|
★ Sift Picks
Featured
Oprah Winfrey has received high praise for her interview of Meghan and Prince Harry, the Duchess and Duke of Sussex, which aired on March 7, and Tom Jones of Poynter provides a rundown of what worked particularly well. Jones, who called the conversation “a masterclass in interviewing,” highlighted Winfrey’s disclosure at the start that no topic was off-limits, that her questions were not revealed in advance and that the couple was not paid for the interview. Jones also described “Winfrey’s conversational and nonaggressive style” and noted that she asked follow-up questions at later points in the interview, leading Meghan and Harry to open up. Jones also said that Winfrey’s question about the gender of the child they are expecting allowed Harry to relax before she turned to more difficult subjects.
Related: Perspective: “Oprah proved she is greatest celebrity interviewer of all time. All journalists can learn from her.” (Margaret Sullivan, The Washington Post).
Idea: Watch the first five to ten minutes of Winfrey's interview with Meghan, then discuss news literacy takeaways.
Discuss: What standards of quality journalism were at play during this interview? How do Winfrey's disclosures at the beginning of the interview and Meghan’s confirmation affect the credibility and/or transparency of the conversation? What impact would it have if a journalist shared interview questions with a source in advance? Why is paying a source for an interview (or information) unethical at standards-based news organizations? How would you describe Winfrey's interview style?
While news reports have highlighted striking racial disparities among vaccine recipients and those affected by COVID-19, recent data from The Markup’s Citizen Browser project helps shed light on a different disparity: exposure to reliable information about the pandemic on social media. The Markup studied the newsfeeds of over 2,500 Facebook users and found that fewer Black people were shown official information about COVID-19 vaccines and safety. Only 3% of Black Facebook users were shown posts from public health agencies on COVID-19 safety or vaccination, compared with nearly 10% of Asian users and about 7% of Latino users and white users respectively, according to data from the project.
Discuss: What are some real-world consequences of The Markup’s findings? Why does misinformation thrive when credible information is scarce?
Related:
Quick Picks
- Note: This webinar breaks down a recent report by the Election Integrity Partnership and provides a closer look at its key findings, including models of narrative formation (starting at 34:00); “repeat spreaders” of disinformation (43:00); and the overwhelmingly domestic origins of 2020 election disinformation (49:50).
- Also note: A new study from researchers at New York University’s Cybersecurity for Democracy effort showed that posts on “politically extreme” Facebook pages generate more engagement (reactions, shares and comments) than posts from sources that are closer to the center of the political spectrum. The study also found that far-right pages got more engagement than other partisan pages — and those that repeatedly shared misinformation received significantly more engagement.
- Discuss: Why do you think YouTube played such a big role in the spread of 2020 election misinformation?
- Related:
- Discuss: Did BBC News handle the correction for this story properly? If not, what else should it do to hold itself accountable for this error and correct the record? How do mistakes like this affect a news organization’s credibility? Why might bad actors try to fool news organizations?
|
