Thank you and again, for, as a reminder for anybody, if you would, like, credit for attending this session credit, either through signature program or credit for a particular course that you are attending, please put your name, your email address Your professor’s name, and the course in the chat so that we can make sure to get you credit for attending today If it’s for if you want to do your signature credit, you could just put your signature instead of your professor’s name and your course So, again, welcome everybody I’m Diana Sachs I am the librarian for health and Human Services and I’m joined here today by my colleagues Ed Eckel, who is the engineering and applied science and aviation librarian and Carrie Leatherman, who is our natural sciences librarian We’re today we’re here to talk about science news literacy and going to start out talking about different types of this sort of so called fake news and we’re going to move on from there. So I’m going to start sharing my screen So that you all can see now, hopefully you can all see my screen. Is that correct? Okay, so we’ll be talking about different types of fake news and how science is conducted and how science is in reported on by news organizations and others and how sometimes that news, those news organizations and others report on science news with varying degrees of accuracy We will talk about how that can impact the ways that we, as science news. Consumers can responsibly consume information and how we can use it to make good decisions And we will finish up with an activity where you can work on putting some of these principals into practice Oh, and before I go any further, I just realized I should turn on captioning Okay, so now you should see captioning appearing at the bottom of the screen as I speak There we go took me a 2nd to add the slides. So In 2016, the Washington Post ran a story reporting on a research study. This particular research study will happen to be a science research study. It was called, um, uh, studied by computer scientists at Columbia University and at the French National Institute And they found that 59% of the links that were shared on social media had never even been clicked on That means that almost 60% of stories that people were sharing on social media sites The people sharing them, never even read the story So does that number surprise you? Have you ever shared a link without actually clicking on it to see if and visiting the site to see if you actually would stand by that information? There are a lot of effects that sharing information without actually reading it can have, you could be sharing incorrect information or what we might call fake news It also means that stories with catchy headlines can often beat out more accurate and more substantial information I mean, there is a growing body of research that suggests that politics that even elections can be swayed by the sharing of misinformation Sometimes so called fake news can be fairly benign Like, in 2017 people were sharing this story linking to the headline Maya Angelou, poet, activist, and singular storyteller dies at 86 And there were attributes to Maya Angelou pouring in all over social media, with links to that story The problem was that Maya Angelou had actually died 3 years earlier It wasn’t that that news story was exactly wrong But it was dreadfully out of date So, in that example, it’s relatively benign, but they’re also more horrified in ways that so called fake news can share it can impact our society such as in 2016 when There was a story making the rounds and certain social media sites that came to be termed pizza gate. Some of you may remember pizza gate. V

Story that was being shared, was that Hillary Clinton as well as many other politically active people in her orbit were all engaged in pedophilia and in child sex trafficking out of the basement of a pizza parlor in Washington D. C This story became shared so many times that some people started to really believe it and to the point where 1, man, actually walked into this police, this pizza station with an automatic rifle, and started shooting The problem is not only were these politicians not running a child sex trafficking ring out of the basement of this pizza parlor. The pizza parlor didn’t even have a basement That is how many aspects of this story were wrong Where where they were just factually incorrect Now, when we think about fake news, it’s important to think about A number of different types of fake news, what are the different kinds of fake news? And that’s because when we are hoping to combat fake news to become more media illiterate ourselves, it’s important to distinguish between the different types. So that we can more adequately addressed that So, misinformation is Frankly, something that almost all of us have done at 1 time or another where we’ve Accidentally unintentionally shared false information Because we didn’t know better because we were confused, but that’s that unintentional spreading of false information No information on the other hand Is deliberate disinformation is what happens when for whatever reason somebody is intentionally sharing information that they know to be false. No, they know to be thick When that happens on a systematic level As opposed to just a single individual that becomes will be called propaganda So, again, propaganda is the intentional spreading of knowingly fake information Another term that we don’t hear too often, but which I think is actually kind of interesting is this idea of annihilation We see it, but we don’t hear of the term Tries to under cut Real news, or or real stories by denying that they even exist It’s in the denial of the reality or the existence of the phenomenon that’s being discussed So, for example, in 2006, there was a shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school, which left 26 people dead most of them 6 and 7 year old children Conspiracy theorists started to promote the idea That not only that the shooting didn’t happen, but that those children never even existed That the parents made the entire story up that they weren’t even parents and all that. They were paid actors out for fate So, that is particularly insidious Now, the next term here is satire or entertainment As long as satire and entertainment is clearly labeled as a parody as not real It’s fun we should enjoy it get get our entertainment out of it And similarly opinion now, opinion has this star next to an asterisk next to it because as long as opinion is clearly identified, as opinion as somebody’s personal opinion, that’s not fake news That’s not false, but I’ve included it because It’s becoming more common for people to treat opinion as though it were fact And that can lead to the accidental spreading of misinformation. So, it’s important to be clear on what is opinion versus what is presented aspect The next thing I want to talk about our bias seats, and I don’t want to talk about the like, real broad based biases. I want to talk about internal cognitive biases Simply by being human, we all are subject to cognitive biases And it’s important to understand that these are natural. We all have them because it’s part of having a brain these

But in order to the reason why it’s important for us to understand our cognitive biases is so that we can ask ourselves questions to challenge those biases that are inherent part of us Cognitive biases are defined as mental errors Caused by our simplified information processing strategies So, a cognitive bias does not result from any emotional or intellectual predisposition Towards a certain judgment, or a certain way of thinking But these are sob conscious mental procedures that our brain uses to process information Their unconscious tendencies to process information in a way that is biased or irrational and basically they’re shortcuts shortcuts that our brain takes in order to help us make sense of information more efficiently because we can’t just start over from scratch Every time we get a new piece of information, we integrate that information into our existing set of knowledge and our brain tries to slot that information in the most efficient way possible even if the most efficient way may or may not be Absolutely correct and we all demonstrate these cognitive biases, regardless of political belief for education level or anything it’s just part of being human and once we’re aware of these biases, though, it becomes easier for us to avoid letting them make decisions for us So that we can impose our conscious onto that unconscious process 1 of the kinds of cognitive biases that we encounter very frequently is called confirmation bias And this is the tendency to process information that we’re looking at by either choosing information or interpreting information. That’s consistent with things that we already believe Our brains are naturally predisposed to look for that reinforcement that confirmation of things that we already believe Now, filter bubbles And echo chambers are ways in which we can Through our behavior and how we consume information, be more prone to these kinds of cognitive biases, especially confirmation bias. So we’ll talk about that very briefly Filter bubble is basically the idea that We filter out either by intentionally choosing our information sources, or by putting ourselves in a position where the only information sources that we get are ones that we have filtered out according to our preexisting beliefs I suppose you could have a filter where you’re filtering out information according to something else, but most of us do it according to our preexisting beliefs and 1 way in which that happens is through echo chambers Um, which is when members of a group who are very similar to each other Who have very similar beliefs who tend to, uh, who tend to value the same kinds of information That group as a whole can be easily fooled Because we tend to find comfort and safety with others who are similar to ourselves So, we’re reinforcing each other’s ideas, whether right or wrong Or somewhere in the middle, sometimes these things there’s no right or wrong. There’s just a position or a perspective, but it can mean that we look at the world around us We see people who are just like us And that means that we start to think that everybody in the world is like us Instead of where have we have an echo chamber where we’re only experiencing the points of view of people who are similar to us and we’ve cut out the points of view of people who are not like us Now, sometimes there’s comfort in that, but it means that we are not going to be as easily exposed to ideas that challenge our biases and that in turn can make our bias. You stronger That makes it even more important for us to actively seek out points of view that challenge our bodies So, next up, I’d like us

To watch a quick video So I’m going to actually do a little bit of screen manipulation here so that we can all watch this video where we’re going to talk about the importance of science in our society and how a good understanding of science can help us Make good decisions there by Helping us to avoid some of those cognitive bias traps All right is that video working? You have to share your screen too Yeah, it looks like I didn’t get that. Let me give me 1 moment How about now you see this, the screen How did America rise up from a backwards country to be 1 of the greatest nations? The world has ever known we pioneered industries and all this required the greatest innovations in science and technology in the world And so, science is a fundamental part of the country that we are, but in this, the 21st century When it comes time to make decisions about science, it seems to me, people have lost the ability To judge what is true and what is not what is reliable? What is not reliable what should you believe what you do not believe and When you have people who don’t know much about science Standing in denial of it and rising to power That is a recipe for the complete dismantling Of our informed democracy led demand that educators around America Teach evolution, not as fact, but as theory increasing number of parents showing skepticism about vaccinations voters have approved a ban on climate change, unproven science That’s not the country I remember growing up in Not that we didn’t have challenges with old enough to remember the sixties and seventies got a hot for in a cold war, civil rights movement. And all of this was going on But, I don’t remember any time where people were standing in denial of what science was 1 of the great things about science is that it is an entire exercise in finding What is true. Their hypothesis you test I get a result. Arrival of mine, double checks. It because they think I might be wrong They perform even better experiment than I did and they find out, hey, this experiment matches. Oh, my gosh. We’re onto something here And out of this rises new convergent truth. Does it better than anything else? We have ever come up with as human beings This is science. It’s not something to toy. It’s not something to say. I choose not to believe equals M. C. squared. You don’t have that option When you have an established scientific, emergent truth, it is true. Whether, or not, you believe in it and the sooner you understand that The faster we can get on with the political conversations about how to solve the problems that faces So, once you understand that humans are warming the planet, you can then have a political conversation about that. You can say, well, should we, are there carbon credits? Do we do this? Do we put a tariff on? Do we fund do we subsidize those? Have political answers? And every minute 1 is in denial, you are delaying The political solution that should have been established years ago As a vote As a citizen scientific issues will come before, you

And isn’t it worth it to say All right, let me at least become scientifically literate so that I can think about these issues and act intelligently upon recognize what science is and allow it to be what it can and should be in the service of civilization in our hands Can you guys hear me okay, I’m going to start sharing again and pass it off to Harry How are you just you want me to advance. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Diana. Wow. So, very powerful video with a very wise wise A person Tyson All right, so we’re going to be covering some of the different concepts, uh, uh, Dr Tyson covered. Um, we’re also going to be Covering some of the other ideas that Diana covered a few minutes ago, and kinda forge ahead into science literacy and not only that the idea of fake news before we I think it’s important that we cover a little bit of, um, terminology from science Oh, a lot of times science uses vocabulary that It’s different than how it’s used in every day terms. So I want to kind of cover some of our bases before we forge ahead. The 1st, 1 up on the list is theory So, in the context of science theory is a little bit different than how it’s used a little bit more differently than how it’s used in general every day conversation Perhaps the small video clip of our vice president pence talking about treating evolution as a theory. Not fact So theory in science theory It’s not something that’s perhaps open to interpretation vague or, you know, just something that’s kind of being formed. A theory is a tested and confirmed explanation for observations or phenomena Theory is used with the idea of gravitational theory. Evolutionary theory. These are scientific Givens they’re not well, maybe they’re true. They are very different usage. Um, a hypothesis is a suggestion explanation for an event Um, it’s something that you can test usually through scientific research data information That can be analyzed and used for the basis of a decision data is something that scientists gather when they do scientific research and they use that to figure out some kind of natural phenomenon figure out what it what’s going on what it means And draw conclusions from that um, the scientific method is an established multi step method That scientific researchers use to conduct experiments of You know, gather observations and then form some sort of conclusion. It always starts off with the hypothesis gathering data Going from there, it’s a very clear and to find set of steps that you go through to try to understand Some phenomena next slide please 3rd, I’m just going to fix something. Okay So, brief intermission here So, um, there we go. All right So there is our slide and next slide There you go. Okay, thank you. Thanks your patients. Everyone so a couple other terms, the idea of peer review, I think, that was something that Dr address Tyson had actually mentioned peer review, is the process in which, where a scientist, or or some sort of a scholar researcher when they try to publish their their research before it’s ever even accepted for publication by Journal Book publisher, what have you, it’s oftentimes peer reviewed and that means in the case of science, other scientists that have a level of expertise that would allow them to

Look over the, uh, a person’s scientific findings and evaluate them evaluate whether it’s good science. If they used a good experiment methodology. If the conclusions they’ve drawn from their data are reasonable Um, it prevents people from publishing shoddy research And people that may want to be drawing wildly Inappropriate conclusions from the data they’ve gathered from be able to publish those kind of scientific articles. Um, it’s really important. Peer review is kind of a, a kind of puts the breaks on people that might just be Publishing fly by night kind of science All of this takes place within the, the idea of scholar communication scholar communication is a process in which researchers share Their findings either by publishing them, you know, presenting at a conference And letting them be up for evaluation by other scholars, other researchers in turn that in other scholars and researchers can Think about some of the findings of researchers and build their own research upon that So, it becomes a conversation, almost it’s, it’s a way that’s a scholarship is communicated within science. Um And is slowly built, so eventually within scholar communication, you have Findings you have ideas, you have, um, trends, and we gradually build up this body of information That can be taken as a given, or a fact as Dr. grass Tyson was pointing out. This also means though, that Oftentimes scientists can Just, you know, have disputes with each other, you know, there may be findings that can contradict each other and that sort of thing is worked out within scholarly communication There may be various, uh, publications, various, um, research studies, addressing a finding that came up within the scholarly literature and these different sorts of disputes are eventually hashed out And again, eventually we come to some kind of consensus and we better understand the, um The world around us through this sort of scholarly communication next slide please Another part of this idea of Scholarly finding scientific research, um, involves the idea of trying to tease out If something causes something else This idea of correlation and causation It’s a tricky concept within science, and a lot of times it it seems very kind of seems like a gray area for people Um, oftentimes in science journalism, you’ll see claims being made that, for example, um, caffeine and coffee causes poor health Totally random example But a lot of the research that finds that may, or may not be finding a correlation where, if people who drink coffee, wind up having poor health, or have for health They exist together versus well, we definitely know from this study that caffeine and coffee causes people to be in poor health that could be causation It gets tricky though, trying to tease that out in a a scientific research study and oftentimes, as we’ll see later on, um, studies that find say a correlation Don’t necessarily mean that the results of that study can be widely applied that it may only be happening in that specific example Um, sometimes when research studies find a correlation, there might not necessarily be a causation coffee drinking may not cause the poor health. There may be some other reason that those 2 are found together in people But it’s a tricky concept. I want it to at least have a Mention it, because it’ll, it’ll it’s an important thing to realize when we talk about how journalism reports on sciences and scientific research Okay, next slide Okay all right so, I, this is 1 of my favorite slides. This is a cartoon getting into the idea of how science in journalism intersect. How journalist Report on scientific findings I just love this slide. It’s charming But it’s actually really quite profound, too. Um, let me just kind of quickly go through what’s happening in the slide and, and kind of give you a little overview on why that’s important for our talk today

So, the science news cycle, this slide talks about how up at the top, where you see start here, this little fellow, this researcher bent over his laptop Is a researcher that has found some sort of, um He’s he’s reached some sort of conclusion from his scientific study, and he has found that a is correlated with B, you know, fill in the blank with a and B, he has found that, you know, is correlated with B, um, given C assuming D, and, um, you know, under E, conditions, so, uh, really specific situations come up here. He’s done perhaps. Um A study on how tapping intake from coffee correlates with, um, high blood pressure in Ah, you know, men over 65 in, uh, the United States Very specific circumstances How what happens that is, this finding is covered by journalists, it’s covered by the news, oftentimes a university or some research organizations Pr, department will make a press release, announcing these findings But what happens then as this These research findings make their way through this cycle, say the next phase, you know, a news wire organization picks it up and they publish it in newspapers all of a sudden, then the Internet gets a hold of it people are publishing it or posting these sorts of findings and what they mean on their websites, cable news, local news, but as this Research is reported as it moves through this cycle. It’s kind of like playing telephone. Do you ever play that game where 1 person starts out? They, they whisper to another person a sentence and this can go through several people You know, maybe 10 people later the sentence, that each person whispered to the next person. All of a sudden kind of gets muddled and by the end, it’s like a completely indecipherable sentence That has nothing to do with what you 1st started with Sprint to each other. And not to say that all science journalism is bad, but Generalizations can start popping up, you know, maybe people who are posting about this reporting on this start leading off the C. D and E, part of this and start making this broad generalization that a causes B Not that they are correlated with each other, but 1 causes the other and It’s not really accurate. It’s not really reporting on what the scientific Study concluded, but it sounds pretty good. It can be pretty splash and people start generalizing about the scientific Research when it’s not really warranted, so you wind up at the end of the cycle, kind of on the upper left corner where this researcher’s grandmother is wearing a tinfoil hat and she’s saying, you know, I’m wearing this tool avoid a whatever hey, is that obviously has nothing to do with what this poor researcher 1st published on their findings So again Science news and science journalism isn’t necessarily bad, but it can It can over generalize sometimes and kind of weaken the message of what the research findings were Alright, um, so let me give you an example of this next slide please, um, kind of an interesting topic that’s been going on or mentioned in science and in the general news for several years Now, is this idea idea of bees of of B’s? Actually being in decline. There’s there’s a lot of threats to them. The population overall is declining There’s been a lot of research and discussion about what’s going on see on this slide There’s a couple of scientific articles, and their titles here 1 says seed codings with insecticide is affecting wild bees climate change, contributes to widespread spread decline among bumblebees high pesticide risk to honey bees is causing problems with a cross pollination So these are scientific research articles, and you’ll notice that in a lot of these cases, they’re reporting on different ideas, you know, wild bees and insecticides are affecting them Bumblebees and climate change, how it’s affecting them, other pesticides and honey bees. So these are talking about different groups of B’s and they’re Talking about different substances, or or events that are affecting populations

But what happens that often times when these kind of scientific articles are reported in the news next slide please You’ll find that news reports start generalizing in different sorts of ways. The art of the news report on the left is for Wired magazine Um, and it says you’re worrying about the wrong B’s and it goes on to talk about how, um All this buzz, so to speak didn’t even do that on purpose 11 years off You know, talks about how all all the bees are dying. Well, no, not necessarily. This article is talking about, um, how wild these are affected by various Influences that are causing their populations to decline You know, and again, that’s it’s actually a pretty well done news article, but we’ll talk about why that might be an issue in a minute. The article on the right for example Is actually kind of interesting the be apocalypse was never real. Here’s why So this is a news article that’s responding to all this press, um, about the population declining But it’s perhaps less than authoritative and a little inaccurate in many ways. It’s actually, um Put up on the new website of an organization called American Council for science and health, and it looks very official, like, but it’s actually a group that’s heavily funded by industry It has been widely criticized by scientists and especially environmentalists for Not interpreting science results Well, and actually, for a lot of reasons, just they don’t do a very good job of interpreting. So they’re sort of like dot assign a pointed out there might be a lot of cognitive bias is going on here and they’re They’re not necessarily very accurate. So, what does this have to do with the science news cycle? Um Well, again, you see a lot of science articles that have very specific parameters being Address and interpreted in in journalism press in various ways, that may be generalizing about those scientific findings. So You know, this idea of fake news, you know, and all the different types of fake news. Some of them may be Perhaps interpreting things poorly. Some of them for various reasons may be interpreting science, uh, findings in ways that Serve other agendas that educating people about science So, that’s that’s 1 example to kind of keep in mind and kind of have a skeptic little. I, when I’m looking at science findings, being reported in the news All right, so having said that I’m going to turn this over to Diana, and we’re going to talk about how to spot bad science coverage, taken away Diana Thanks Gary. So, yes, Carrie spent a while there talking with us about the process by which scientific research gets disseminated through the new cycle And how you pointed out that game of telephone that often happens 1 person 1 person reports on this story Then another then another, then another, and by the time you’ve gotten to a certain point, the science news journalism It may not actually have ever referred back to the original information and may, or may not be correct so we have this A rough guide to spotting bad science and the very beginning of this presentation we had this link to the library resource guide for media literacy, and specifically for science media literacy and I will come back and post this link again in a little while So, you guys can all refer back to it, but this guide contains a number of resources that we are recommending to you to become more media literate, and especially more science media, illiterate So, I will jump through a few of the I’ll go quickly through this, these factors that we can use to spot bad science So, Carrie talked about sensationalized headlines and misinterpreting results Things so things to watch out for, does that headline that you’re seeing seem very click. baity does it make you feel very strongly 1 way or the other? Does it seem to be more objective in its presentation? Another thing you want to look at are conflicts of interest again Carrie mentioned the website that talked about that there is no actual decline of B’s and that that particular web site has a conflict of interest in that it has a history of

supporting industry and the needs and the desires of industry, regardless of whether it is scientifically factual Other things that you want to look at again, Carrie mentioned the difference between correlation 2 things that happen to happen at the same time and causation where 1 thing actually causes the other thing to happen We also talk about unsupported conclusions you want to look out for as you read material, or listen to a podcast or whatever you’re using to get your information Speculation can be useful, but make sure that it’s clearly understood when you’re talking about speculation. And when you’re saying this is the conclusion we’ve reached for this Because of this evidence, you also want to think about some study methodology questions and I’m not going to get deep into this. Right now. This is the sort of thing that you will probably encounter in other courses in the future If you haven’t already, but things like, have enough subjects, been included in the research study. And do those subjects represent the whole group? I did the researchers compare the subjects who were in the study with others who are not in the study did the researchers use what’s called blind testing as a technique to avoid letting their own unconscious bias, influence their results When it comes back to the way that information is presented in news media, you want to look for things like, does the article or the organization as a whole cherry pick their data do they report on isolated studies that can’t necessarily be easily replicatable easily repeated? Do they report on research that hasn’t gone through that peer review process where it’s been vetted by people who are experts in the field So these are all things to keep in mind that rough guide, despotic, bad science. Those are some techniques that you can keep in mind questions. You would ask yourself as you’re evaluating News that you may find about science. There are also a couple of fact checking web sites that we are suggesting as potential tools side check And Snoops many of you probably heard of Snoops, which focuses on all different kinds of fact, checking. But side check is a fact checker That’s part of backtrack dot org, which has, um, is a organization that we have found to be very useful for a fact checking And they side check, part of fact, check is devoted just to science news So those are other resources that you could use in as you’re evaluating information Now, we still have about 15 minutes left of this presentation, but before we move on to questions and answers, we’d like to ask you all to do a little bit of participation. We would like you to Take this opportunity to Try to evaluate some science news and to see what else you can find and apply your evaluation to that So I’m going to ask Ed to copy the oh, I see. He already has, in fact, he’s copied these 2 links into the chat So, the 1st link is to science news, the science news activity and that’s actually an article from Tennessee in, which is a major newspapers just based in Nashville, Tennessee, similar to the Detroit Free press But for Nashville, not for Detroit And this article talks about is presenting on scientific research about the volcanic activity happening at Yellowstone, national park I’d like you to very, very quickly. Don’t even read the article. Just see if you can find with some quick web searching Any other new sources that are reporting on this same phenomenon Bonus points if you can find other articles that are actually referring back to the same original research study And then I’d like you to go to the worksheet The science news worksheet link And answer some questions about Another study that you can find so I’m going to click on that so you can all See it so this is the Tennessee article. Yellowstone Super volcano may blow sooner than thought could wipe out life on planet

So that’s the original article and I want you to see if you can find any other news organization that’s reporting on the same news And then go to the worksheet and I’m pulling up the worksheet right now. So you can see And fill in this Fill in the information put in the headline, the web address where you found that other article, and then rate how sensationalized or not sensationalized you consider the reporting to be In your opinion, does it seem like the author of the article, or the website actually consulted the original research study and then rate how reliably the article that you find represents the scientific research in question So we’ll give you about 7 or 8 minutes to do that And then we will come back for a quick debrief And try to find something again that focuses on this idea of volcanic activity and Yellowstone, national park There we go And if anyone’s having trouble feel free to unmute yourself and ask or just pop a question in the chat I have an article, but it won’t let me type on the document and said, okay, if I just send it in the chat Yeah, yes, that’s absolutely fine. Eva And I’m just adjusting the font, so it’s not at 92.5 All right looks like you guys are finding some really interesting article

All kind of on the same idea What I’m seeing from the patterns that are emerging here is a range that some articles are some of these scientific news organizations, or or other organizations are Really sensationalizing this particular story and others are Are not sensationalizing as much likewise some are referring back to the original study and are taking pains to try to accurately report on what the original study said While others not so much on just show you very quick. Um, I saw somebody had found the, um This article from National Geographic And if we compare the headline from the 1st article from the Tennessee and yellow student, Super volcano may blow sooner than thought and could wipe out life on the planet Compared with this headline, Yellowstone, Super volcano may rumble to life faster than a thought The idea of a volcano rumbling to life faster than thought can still be a little scary, but at least it’s not sensationalized as and could wipe out all life on the planet Another 1 that somebody else found was a surprise from the Super volcano under Yellowstone that 1 came from the New York Times Now, compare that with the original research study Decade transition from to Super eruption petrol mgic Petra logic investigation of the llama creek. Tough. Yellowstone. Caldera Wyoming That’s not very sensationalized at all that’s the original research study and we’re not going to take time right now to actually compare the original research study with all of those individual news articles But 1 thing that I actually found when looking at this particular example, was this website from the lead author of that research study And she wrote this seeing Yellowstone in the news, a lot today worried it’s going to blow no. Need for panic. Here are some things to keep in mind And she’s basically says here in number 3, our publication covered in the New York Times, and all those other articles that you all found investigated that the eruption, the events that led to the last eruption over 600000 years ago And most importantly, this does not equate to a prediction of a future eruption She also links to the dot com article in that was published in response to these headlines and snows includes interviews with this lead author Hannah and her Co, author, who was the head of the research lab that conducted this study. So this is why we’re emphasizing the importance of Finding multiple ways, multiple stories and multiple approaches to uncover

The what’s really going on with a particular with a particular scientific news story and whenever possible Refer back to the original people who did the research themselves So, now I’m going to come back to Our next slide here And try to turn it back to Carrie. Okay, thank you. Diana. So So, talking about new sources, science news, that sensationalized, you know, what? What do you do? What, what are some more reliable science journalism sources? Um, we’ve listed here 5 sites Um, the 1st, 2 are scholarly journals, the journal science, the journal nature that are, um That have a new section on their website. So these are very, um, these are more reliable. These are specialized journalists that are You know, really bone up on science in general, and can report on the science findings in a more even handed sort of way. And not in any sort of way Science news is a magazine that specializes in reporting science findings. It reports them in Rather accessible language without making them too sensationalized and again, very high quality reporting. They they really state try to stay true to the science findings and not overinflating them. Um, a lot of the larger newspapers, like New York Times Washington Post are also, they have a very reliable approach to science. Um, they try to be very Even handed about how they were poor on it not trying to sensationalize too much. I do want to make a distinction, though, you know, some newspapers, um, more popular, uh, magazines. They, they aren’t their goal is to Tell the news, but also, you know, they have a lot of pressure to sell subscriptions. Um, so there’s, there’s a different emphasis in these types of publications. All of them treat the new science findings Pretty well, they’re pretty accurate without being overblown, but they are reporting with different goals in mind So, you know, check these out the next time, you’re trying to get some information on the latest science finding, um, and just see what you think, and I see we’re running short on time. So I’m going to turn this back over to Diana You might want to skip the next slide and we’ll just dive right into the end Well, the last is actually our Q and a portion we do have a link to a survey. We would love to get your feedback. If you would be willing to fill out that very short survey. It is anonymous Um, and then I also again put the link to the resource guide so if you’d like to refer back to any of the information we talked about today, and a whole lot more, please check out the resource guide for media literacy, and specifically science media literacy So, I’ll open up for any questions You can either unmute yourself or you could post questions in the chat So, I have a question about Escape the slide about reliable sources, because I see 1 of them Formally is described as unreliable, so I’m not sure whether when it is listed under the reliable size general, journalism sources, it is recommended or not recommended Could you tell us which 1 you are seeing as a recommended in 1 place and not elsewhere? American counsel all signs in house it’s the next night. Oh, yes. So this, this slide is maybe Carrie. You can tell it talk a little bit about how this is comparing Yeah, this this is something I came across from doing some research for this presentation. The slide on the left is put out by the American Council on science and health Which I honestly, I do find it to be a rather biased, um, organization and I, I’m not alone in that A lot of other people do the slide on the left talks about the best, and were science news sites as ranked by this organization. This When this list came out, it was 2017 It was very highly criticized by a lot of, um, scientists and and the, the science, um, community overall there was an article over on the right hand side within the journal nature

1 of literally the, the, the most prominent science scholarly journals that there is. It’s very highly regarded, and there was an editorial in the nature. Um Uh, uh, uh, site saying that Specifically this list that AC, and put out, not not not good They, they took, um, factors into consideration about basically how compelling it is criticizing, though that a lot of the sites they were talking about, didn’t treat science in a very Even handed sort of way they made a lot of assumptions and conclusions about the science that really were inaccurate. These are 2 articles that I think in a lot of ways really summed up a lot of what we’re talking about here today You have to kind of consider who’s publishing what what their goal is of the organization on the left. Very industry heavy favors industry They’ve got an agenda, the organization on the right nature. They’re publishing science. Now Granted, all all people organizations have those inherent biases, but I really think that the organization nature on the right is much much Has a much clearer idea of science and how to interpret and report on it. So there you go. No excellent question That was actually a great question, because since we over that slide, at the very end of the interest of time, what we do is when we post these slides up on the resource guide, we will make sure to include Our talking points what we have set out loud to you in the notes portion So, when you refer back, you can see that these 2 images are meant to compare 1, proposing a set of best and worst science, new sites And the other thing, actually, that approach is fundamentally flawed Well, include the links to both of those articles, so you can read them for yourselves. They’re quite short but I think again they really kind of sum up Pretty much everything we’ve been talking about this presentation, and I do see another question in the chat. How should we go about fake news when we see it? And should we report it My personal approach is number 1. if you see fake news, don’t share it. That’s actually 1 of the biggest things. And if you’re not sure if something is fake news Check it out before you share it, but as far as reporting, it is concerned. Um A lot of it depends on the format in which you received it, some social media platforms do allow for reporting the fake news And certainly, if you have, if you have evidence that something is truly misinformation by mistake or disinformation on purpose, there’s certainly no harm in using the tools of the social media platforms to report that Or in if you’re talking about an article or a podcast or whatever, you could, of course, comment and say why you think something is fake news, or is misinformation or just information I would encourage you However, if you’re going to just comment to provide your citations take that opportunity to stop the spread of fake news, by saying, why, you have reason to believe that that article or that story is misinformation or information is representing scientific conclusions incorrectly but provide some of that context not only does it make your claim that it is so called fake news more believable to other people who read your comment? You might actually help people see that they shouldn’t share it And you might help to stop the spread of fake news So any other questions Yeah, so I think what we are talking about today is it’s doing a basic level. I’m wondering if I want to have a like a deeper study, immediately the receipt or like a Evaluating scientifically news what can I refer to So, we do have a few links on the resource guide, which I would recommend for Techniques for evette 4

Evaluating what we would call science news or science journalism information, that is not necessarily the original researchers sharing the information, but information that has subsequently been filtered through a report on somebody else’s research If you’re interested in going 1 step further, and actually evaluating the original scientific research, there are some additional resources that we do have up on that guide for, um How to evaluate the quality of the Research process that is underpinning a particular scientists experiment. Does that answer your question? Okay, any other questions Well, I think we’ll wrap it up for now. If you do think of other questions in the future, please feel free to reach out to any of us again. I’m Diana. We’ve got Carrie. We’ve got Ed You can reach out to any 1 of us if you’ve got questions in the future, or if you’d like to know more about this or any other topic related to information. And again, we love to get your feedback on the science new survey So, if you haven’t already filled it out, we would appreciate your thoughts. Thank you very much. Everybody I have 1 more question actually. I’m sorry. Oh, I’m hearing it I saw that we’re recording this. Is this going to be available for it to us to re, watch Yes, it will be we will post the recording when it is available up on that same resource guide. Probably sometime tomorrow Okay, thank you so much for everyone. Oh, thank you. I’ll put a pitch in there too. We’ll actually include this video up on Western Michigan University, or W. M. U. libraries, YouTube channel Um, we’ve been trying to include a lot of the talks too, so far this series on that channel so you should build access it that way too So well, thank you all so much. Um And again, you know, how now, you know, how to find us if you’ve got more questions, we’re happy to see so many people interested in science news literacy Hi, everyone, you We able to stop recording. Oh, good. Haven’t Thank you. Yes. To be a very long recording