A new misinformation quiz shows that, despite the stereotype, younger Americans have a harder time discerning fake headlines, compared with older generations

  • punkskunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think the intent is for us to judge what would be “reasonable” or “likely”, rather than having specific knowledge of the headline.

    “Tornado rearranges DC highway into giant peace sign” could happen, theoretically, but it’s very unlikely to.

    “Government appoints new head of some environmental division”? Sure, that happens all the time and is pretty mundane.

    • Mane25@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Tornado rearranges DC highway into giant peace sign” could happen, theoretically, but it’s very unlikely to.

      That would be an example where I can apply my existing knowledge, I know enough about tornados, highways, and peace signs to know that’s statistically improbable.

      Whereas “Government appoints new head of some environmental division” I don’t know, sounds perfectly reasonable and plausible, but I couldn’t possibly say. In real life I could reason that a newspaper would have no reason to make up something so mundane (that’s why context is important), but knowing this is a test with fake answers makes it random chance.

    • PabloDiscobar@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The tornado falls into the category of “the figure of Jesus in the crust of a pizza”. It’s 100% subjective and it’s not news anyway.

      What matters is who is talking to you. It’s the " about us" tab at the bottom of the website. Thaty why http://ground.news is useful.