Abigail Berman

Digital Media Literacy

  • Importance of Anti-SLAPP

    News outlets and reporters are entitled to the same freedoms in the First Amendment that the rest of us have. This means that we, the citizens, are able to consume media that is ethical, unbiased, and true, or at least to the best of their abilities.

    While the media may report some unsavory things about individuals, it’s important to remember that these people have, for the most part, willingly put themselves into the public eye. For most, they are in a position where others may publish things about them they won’t like. To a degree, we all face this kind of treatment, just on different levels. At work or school, we may hear “rumors,” “gossip,’ or true facts about our colleagues, and they may hear it about us as well. How does this differ from how media outlets report on politicians? They work for us. Their job is to pass laws, regulations, and bills that benefit their constituents. We have every right to know when they have committed fallacies or made unethical decisions. However, these freedoms do not mean that journalists and media outlets can publish whatever it is they want because it is “protected speech.”

    In the New York Times v. Sullivan case, the Supreme Court recognized that public officials are held to the higher standard of “actual malice” when it comes to defamation cases. Having an opinion and/or criticizing public officials is an important part of public discourse. The New York Times, or any other media outlet, should not face financial ruin from an oppositional party due to minor mistakes.

    Weaponized defamation lawsuits made against members of the media should be just as alarming for us as it is for them. If politicians or other public figures utilize their authority, power, and wealth in order to control what the media is saying about them, how are we supposed to trust what they’re reporting? However, we can see how someone who feels like they are being targeted by the media may want to go through with a defamation lawsuit. Not all of what is presented by the media is true, there are often falsehoods and mistakes made.

    In the Supreme Court case, Gertz v. Welch, they determined that private individuals deserve greater protections from the media for what they publish since we are more at risk than those who are already in the public eye. When a media outlet makes a mistake regarding information about an individual in the public eye, it can be fact checked from other sources. Whereas when false information is presented about a private individual, it may not be able to be easily corrected and could put undue harm to the individual and those they are close to. If these are continued to be published without ever being corrected and/or apologized, it’s easy to assume how someone may feel the need to take it further. However, this only proves the importance of honest and ethical media production. All parties involved need to be honest with the public. We cannot have media that purposefully presents false information to mislead or skew public opinion. Similarly, politicians and other public figures should be cautious of their actions and speech. While mistakes happen, it’s important to be best and ethical to the best of our ability.

    The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press explains why anti-SLAPP statutes are so important: they provide journalists and media professionals with the opportunity to avoid getting tangled in long and drawn out lawsuits that would drain them of their resources. These lawsuits could prevent media outlets from publishing important information that citizens should be aware of. Not only do they protect the livelihoods of media professionals, but they protect our ability to have ethical and just media sources. And as I mentioned before, these First Amendment rights do not give media outlets the ability to prevent falsified information. If they purposefully share false information to cause legitimate harm, then a defamation lawsuit is an appropriate consequence.

  • The Value of Free Expression

    When we consider the societal value of a concept such as free expression, there is no right or wrong answer. Whether it’s public or personal would depend on who you ask. And, since you’re here, I’ll tell you what I think.

    I believe that most of us would consider free expression a personal value, in that we all want and treasure the ability of expressing ourselves freely. However, I’d say the vast majority of us do not value free expression as a societal value. It can be hard to willingly listen to or try to understand someone else’s free expression when it directly counteracts what we believe in.

    Considering Foucault’s concept of parrhesia takes this idea to the next level. He describes it as a form of speaking when a person openly expresses what they believe without trying to hide it. Or, in other words, free expression is not just having the ability to speak, but the ability to express what we actually think, or that the speaker “says everything he has in his mind.”

    I think a really great example of this is LGBTQ+ rights. For those of us who identify as part of the community, it is very much a personal identity that is shared publicly. Who one loves or is attracted to is nobody’s business except for those involved, yet when we love someone we want to share that with the world. During Pride Month, we proudly, and publicly, express ourselves and what it means to be a part of this community. However, those who disagree are incredibly vocal. Even those in defiance may argue that they are allowed to share their opinions as a form of “free speech,” all the while penalizing those who they disagree with.

    However, Teresa Bejan makes a distinction between parrhesia and isegoria that makes this much more complicated. While parrhesia is the ability to speak freely and openly, isegoria is about equality of speech. How can free expression be truly free if some people have more power to make their voices heard louder than others? We see this often in those in power, especially politicians, whose opinions are held in higher regard than others. Oftentimes, these minority views win through the power and authority held by the speaker.

    I’ll use another example, you may know from my previous work that I was employed by Starbucks and was the union representative of my store. Despite the thousands of workers who, for years, have tirelessly fought for better working conditions and pay, are so easily disregarded by the select few that work in Starbucks HQ. A corporate worker creates a flyer “about” unions that dissuades thousands of partners from contributing or fighting for their rights.

    We end up in a cycle. Take away the specifics of my examples and we see these trends repeatedly. When we choose to utilize our free expression, we will always be confronted by those who disagree with us or find fault in what we say, act, or believe. This garners attention, many times in the form of a vocal opponent who may argue that they are allowed to say whatever it is they disagree with. Or, they may take advantage of the power they hold in order to achieve whatever it is they want. When we see someone saying something we don’t believe in, we may feel the need to speak up against it, that it may be unfair or wrong for someone to share an opinion or belief that we wholeheartedly disagree with.

    Although, I also think it’s important to consider who actually gets heard. Gayatri Spivak’s article Can the Subaltern Speak? shows that having the ability to speak doesn’t necessarily mean their voice will be heard, recognized, or understood. Power can influence whose voices are represented and whose are not.

    At the end of the day, free expression is a personal value. We cannot value free expression as a society until we value one another and uplift the voices of those who struggle to be heard. Despite this, free expression is always worth protecting. Without it, we cannot vocalize, disagree, or agree with others. We cannot stand up for what we believe in or share what we love with others. Although we will not always agree, and our disagreements can easily evolve into something a bit more intense, it still remains an important aspect of how we communicate and interact with one another.

  • Misinformation Creation Activity – Logical Fallacies

    Misinformation spreads fast, and it’s hard to keep up with and correct it whenever we come across. And while we can’t stop the spread of misinformation, we can do our part in educate others in being able to spot any misinformation they come across.

    I wanted to use what I’ve learned and see how I could put it to work in my future. I’m not sure how often I said it on here before, but my goal when I’m done at ASU is to get my master’s to become a librarian. Ideally, I would like to be a children’s or young adult librarian.

    Therefore, my goal was to create a display for a young adult library that would educate them in noticing misinformation. I created four graphics that would be put together to make one large display/bulletin board. My focus was to educate them on logical fallacies and confirmation bias. Since my target audience is teenagers in a library, I still wanted it to be fun and unpolitical. Being that the intended audience would be in either a public or school library, that would mean I’m in the position of working for a local government or school. My goal was to teach them about logical fallacies being used in everyday use so they can put it to work when they encounter misinformation in the wild.

    The way I chose to address logical fallacies was through book reviews submitted by users on Good Reads. I focused on popular books that would be known by teenagers, and used one star reviews because they can be silly. There are questions to prompt discussions.

    My end goal was to have teenagers see these one star reviews and understand why their logical fallacies. I chose books where the stories may be well known by the teenagers. I want them to read the review, understand why it’s a logical fallacy and discuss with others. The goal is to have them think “I read that book and the review isn’t fair.” Or, if they haven’t read it, they may be more interested in finding out for themselves, which would be a way to fact-check the reviews. By giving them these tools, in this environment, it allows them to practice these skills in a safe environment, preparing them for misinformation they come across in the future.

  • Trusting Our Online Communities

    The internet is full of misinformation, and as participants, we should learn to fact-check what we see online. However, it can be difficult when anyone can post anything online. How are we supposed to know if something is trustworthy or not? Do we have to fact-check all claims that we come across?

    Who should be responsible for dealing with misinformation? The platform or its users? Ideally, social media platforms would simply not post or take down misinformation. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case, which is why we need to understand how misinformation works and how to spot it.

    That’s why it’s essential to know how different sites attempt to limit the spread of misinformation. By understanding how social media platforms combat misinformation, we, as users, can better identify any misinformation we may encounter. I decided to look into two very different sites: Facebook and Reddit.

    In 2016, Facebook introduced fact-checking to posts and partnered with five fact-checking organizations to “improve the quality of online media.” Facebook hired real people to go through identified articles individually, fact-check them, and explain why they are being flagged. However, the system wasn’t perfect; they didn’t address memes and paid content or see conspiracy theories or right-wing media sources. Yet this past January, Meta decided to end the program. In a video posted by Mark Zuckerberg, they ended the program because it was a complex system with many mistakes. On PBS News Hour, they identified the change in policy to be politically motivated, Zuckerburg noting the recent election in the announcement; even the President believes that it is caused by his “threats.”

    Putting this knowledge to work when using Facebook or any other Meta social media site is essential. There is nothing left to prevent the spread of misinformation except for the users, who now must trust thy neighbor. How much do you trust someone’s ability not to share false information? Their ability to fact-check? Their ability to identify misinformation? People are naturally biased, which makes them more likely to spread misinformation that aligns with their community, interests, and beliefs. Even if it’s shared by someone you trust and has all of the best intentions, you should always be on the lookout for misinformation.

    Very similarly, yet entirely different, is Reddit. The company does not provide fact-checking on claims and articles posted online. However, Reddit is home to a unique phenomenon where users actively fight against misinformation. Subreddits, or online communities, are known to collectively identify false information. Reddit employs a reputation score called karma that helps users identify whether or not someone may be reliable or trustworthy. Moderators volunteer their free time to make these online communities safe spaces for people to enjoy and connect. Furthermore, each subreddit is unique, with different members, ideals, and community guidelines that have a role in the spread of misinformation. A 2024 study showed that even communities such as r/conspiracy and r/skeptic take pride in not sharing misinformation, although it may not be on the same level as r/science. However, the level of community moderation reduces in quality as the theme of a subreddit becomes more vague, such as r/bestof or r/TooAfraidTooAsk.

    It’s interesting to look at how these two sites wrestle with misinformation. Although neither company removes or identifies false claims, the way users interact on the sites makes one more reliable than the other. However, everyone who uses the internet should always be careful of what claims they see online. Being able to trust your community does not mean you won’t come into contact with misinformation online, whether it’s intentional or not.

  • Addressing the Claims by the IMLS: Fact Checking our Resources

    It’s important to stop and think about the media we consume. Who’s sharing this information? What was their intention? How are you reacting to it?

    The Institute of Museum and Library Services, or IMLS, is a federal program that provides funding to, you guessed it, museums and libraries! On April 3, they posted a series of images onto Instagram explaining what taxpayer money is funding at the IMLS. Here’s what they had to say:

    $105,000 to address “systemic racism” in museums,

    $400,000 to research LGBTQ+ library users’ metadata,

    $1,500,000 for social justice programming,

    $6,700,000 to enhance equitable library programs,

    $4,000,000 for diverse staff development,

    $700,000 to research post-pandemic DEI practices,

    $140,000 to strengthen librarians’ understanding of LGBTQIA+ health, and

    $250,000 to erect LGBTQIA+ historical markers across Ohio.

    In total, that’s $13,795,000 worth of taxes that are being used to fund the IMLS. It’s a seemingly strange post. American citizens have the ability to look at what taxpayer money is funding, so this information isn’t groundbreaking. But we don’t see our towns posting on Facebook that they spent however much fixing potholes last year. So we ask, why are we given this information?

    Well, doing something as simple as googling “imls” shows us that somethings up. Funding has been pulled, people are losing their jobs, and states are threatening to sue… One thing all of these articles have in common is one thing: the IMLS is being targeted.

    On March 14, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that the IMLS along with many other government agencies that have been deemed “unnecessary” are to be “eliminated to the maximum extent.”

    But this is the IMLS Instagram page! Why would they brag about funding being pulled? Is it real? Did they get hacked? Who is sharing this information?

    Well, it’s complicated because all IMLS employees were put on administrative leave. So, we’re left to assume that it was the acting director, Keith Sonderling, the last remaining “employee.”

    But what about the content? What does $6.7 million to enhance equitable library programs mean? What does this do? It’s a lot of money! Is this really where taxpayer dollars are going?

    Well, this information is available to us on the IMLS government website. Under their additional resources tab, anyone can pull up the Fiscal Year 2025 Congressional Justification, a 48-page pdf detailing how much funding they’re looking for and how they plan on spending it. It may not be an exciting read, but it’s fairly easy to go through and notice that nothing in that post is representative of what is being said in the most recent Congressional Justification.

    So, what about the post is true? Well, the IMLS does provide grants specifically for African Americans, American Latinos, Native Americans, and Native Hawaiians. They also are actively providing equitable services across the country such as learning materials and internet access. They fund research into library user’s metadata, to better fill the needs of their patrons. And like many other professions, they ask their employees to continue their education.

    According to their annual public library survey, there are over 9,000 libraries that receive funding from the IMLS. $6.7 million to “enhance equitable library programs” across 9,000 libraries comes out to $744 per library, a seemingly insignificant amount.

    It’s important that we check where we get our information from. We need to stop and think about what the intent of the information was, who is sharing it, and whether or not I can be trusted. Through fact-checking a government post, we can see that were being told misinformation—a piece of propaganda against your local library. Although there may be truth behind the original post, it manipulates the reader into believing that one thing means something else.