Press release reveals journalists believe everything they see on the Internet

  • Thread starter Thread starter Synetos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Internet Release
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the perceived gullibility of students regarding information found on the Internet, particularly in relation to a study suggesting that they readily believe in fictional entities like the Pacific Northwest tree octopus. Participants explore the implications of this phenomenon for critical thinking and the reliability of information sources, including the role of journalists.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern about the trustworthiness of information on the Internet and its impact on students' beliefs.
  • Others highlight the historical context of information untrustworthiness, suggesting that it predates the Internet and is not unique to it.
  • One participant mentions the importance of teaching critical thinking skills to younger generations when navigating online information.
  • There is a suggestion that the credibility of information is often tied to the respectability of the source, regardless of the medium.
  • Some participants question the relevance of journalists in the context of the discussion, indicating confusion about the connection between the study and journalistic practices.
  • One participant references a specific instance involving a journalist quoting a dubious source, which raises further questions about journalistic integrity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the relationship between students' gullibility and the role of journalists. There are competing views on the nature of information reliability and the historical context of trustworthiness in information sources.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the discussion may be limited by assumptions about the nature of information and the varying definitions of trustworthiness across different contexts.

Synetos
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
Quite interesting and very true, I wish that internet info would be more trustworthy. =/
The Internet is buzzing with the story of a new study that today's students are so gullible they will believe anything they see on the Internet, and are even willing to believe in the existence of an elusive tree octopus when shown the website for this "endangered species." (The website states it is linked to the "Kelvinic University branch of the Wild Haggis Conservation Society.")

The Pacific Northwest tree octopus (Octopus paxarbolis) is a mythical creature invented in 1998 by Lyle Zapato, but the story circulating on the Internet this week often mistakenly has it that Professor Donald J. Leu, director of the New Literacies Research Laboratory at the University of Connecticut, invented the tree octopus and designed its website to test the gullibility of today’s “digital native” students, who are known for their online savviness.
Keep reading: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-reveals-journalists-internet.html
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Synetos said:
Quite interesting and very true, I wish that internet info would be more trustworthy. =/

In fact it reveals "students believe everything...".
 
This is one of the reasons I surf the net with my son when he's visiting. If I succeed in teaching him that the Internet is as full of crap as it is information, then I'll have succeeded in teaching him a valuable lesson in critical thinking.
 
mugaliens said:
This is one of the reasons I surf the net with my son when he's visiting. If I succeed in teaching him that the Internet is as full of crap as it is information, then I'll have succeeded in teaching him a valuable lesson in critical thinking.

Hurray!
 
Yah I don't understand what this has to do with journalists...
 
Synetos said:
I wish that internet info would be more trustworthy. =/

You are aware that information untrustworthiness existed long before the internet, right? Why should the internet be any different? It's up to you to not be gullible.
 
Pengwuino said:
Yah I don't understand what this has to do with journalists...

Have you seen this? I don't think Maddow really counts as a journalist, but she quotes a story off christwire.org, which is pretty much equivilent to the onion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwK35y4kr_E"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
caffenta said:
You are aware that information untrustworthiness existed long before the internet, right? Why should the internet be any different? It's up to you to not be gullible.

It was even worse before the internet. Teachers and college professors could slip in some interesting bit of trivia that they'd heard somewhere and then students were sure to believe it. Or a doctor or a lawyer - information reliability was pretty much equated with however much respect people had for the person saying it - completely forgetting that teachers, doctors, lawyers are human and pretty much as gullible as anyone else.

But, the interesting trivia tossed out during a lecture was often more interesting than whatever subject a teacher was teaching and the trivia would be remembered far longer.

At least with the internet, you can actually sort out which information is true, might be true, or is pure myth if you try.