sarah brandt 01 reedit — Transcript
Full transcript
- 0:00hi my name is sarah brandt and i work at
- 0:02newsguard where i head up our news
- 0:04literacy programs
- 0:05disinformation is prolific online
- 0:09in all likelihood you join this teach
- 0:11out because you're aware of this fact
- 0:12and concerned about it but
- 0:14in case you need further convincing
- 0:16there has been plenty of research
- 0:17conducted
- 0:18studying this reality and just one
- 0:21example
- 0:22a 2019 study by the pew research center
- 0:25found that 9 out of 10 americans had
- 0:28come across made up news with some
- 0:30regularity there are many explanations
- 0:33for this fact for the fact that
- 0:35misinformation
- 0:36pervades so many topics and
- 0:40has spread so wide online one of the
- 0:43main ones
- 0:44is the fact that online anyone can be a
- 0:47source
- 0:47anyone can be a publisher it's quite
- 0:50simple to set up a twitter account and
- 0:52start tweeting or set up a facebook
- 0:53account and start posting
- 0:55and with so many different sources of
- 0:57news and information online
- 1:00it can be very difficult to determine
- 1:03which sources are generally trustworthy
- 1:05and which ones are generally unreliable
- 1:08let's think about two different websites
- 1:10cancer.net and cancer.news
- 1:14based solely on the names of those two
- 1:16websites
- 1:17can you tell who's behind each of them
- 1:19and
- 1:20whether they publish reliable
- 1:22information
- 1:24if you saw their articles in your
- 1:25facebook feed would you take the time
- 1:28to investigate each site and determine
- 1:30whether it's credible
- 1:32and even if you would do you think all
- 1:35of your facebook friends would
- 1:36the unfortunate reality is that many
- 1:38people don't consider the accuracy of a
- 1:40source before believing its content
- 1:42or sharing it with their friends and
- 1:45additionally many people lack the skills
- 1:47to effectively assess the reliability of
- 1:50information and sources
- 1:52or in other words they lack media
- 1:54literacy skills
- 1:55media literacy is defined as
- 1:58the ability to effectively evaluate and
- 2:02engage with
- 2:03media and information in all of its
- 2:05diverse forms
- 2:07be it a video on youtube an article in a
- 2:10print magazine
- 2:11a tweet or even a tick tock so
- 2:13recognizing these problems
- 2:15the proliferation of misinformation and
- 2:18the lack of media literacy skills among
- 2:20people of all ages
- 2:22two veteran journalists stephen brill
- 2:24and gordon krovitz got together
- 2:27and they started a company called
- 2:29newsguard
- 2:30so newsguard what we do is we help
- 2:31people avoid misinformation
- 2:33and build media literacy skills by
- 2:35giving them more context
- 2:36for who's behind the sources that they
- 2:38encounter online
- 2:39and whether those sources are generally
- 2:41trustworthy
- 2:43here's how we do it we have a team of
- 2:45trained journalists
- 2:46who rate and review the reliability of
- 2:49thousands of news and information
- 2:50websites
- 2:52unlike a fact-checking organization like
- 2:54snopes or politifact
- 2:56we don't write the accuracy of
- 2:57individual claims or articles
- 3:00but the general accuracy of websites as
- 3:02a whole we assess
- 3:04each website using nine basic apolitical
- 3:08criteria
- 3:09that evaluate the source's journalistic
- 3:10practices
- 3:12first we look at each site's credibility
- 3:15asking questions like
- 3:16does the site repeatedly publish false
- 3:18content does it use deceptive headlines
- 3:21then we look at its transparency does
- 3:24the website tell you who owns it and how
- 3:26it's financed
- 3:27does it name its authors and provide
- 3:29information about them
- 3:32based on how the site fares on each of
- 3:34those nine criteria
- 3:35it receives an overall grain rating
- 3:37indicating that it's generally reliable
- 3:40or red rating indicating that it's
- 3:42generally unreliable
- 3:45these ratings are designed to help
- 3:46people quickly understand
- 3:48whether news or advice from a source can
- 3:50be trusted
- 3:51but we also give people additional
- 3:53information in the form of
- 3:55what we call a nutrition label
- 3:58our nutrition labels are detailed
- 4:00reviews providing more background about
- 4:02each source and explaining exactly
- 4:05why we rated the site the way that we
- 4:07did
- 4:08remember cancer.news and cancer.net from
- 4:11earlier
- 4:13cancer.news as it turns out is part of a
- 4:17network of websites that promotes
- 4:18conspiracy theories
- 4:20including the repeatedly debugged claim
- 4:22that vaccines
- 4:23cause autism because of this practice
- 4:27it fails all but one of our nine
- 4:29criteria
- 4:30and receives a red rating overall
- 4:33cancer.net
- 4:34on the other hand is run by a nonprofit
- 4:37that represents oncologists
- 4:38and other medical professionals it
- 4:41receives a green rating overall
- 4:42because it meets most of our nine
- 4:44criteria
- 4:46let's return to the concept i mentioned
- 4:47earlier media literacy
- 4:50at newsguard we help people build media
- 4:52literacy skills in a few different ways
- 4:55first our green and red icons prompt
- 4:58people to
- 5:00start thinking about source reliability
- 5:03seeing a red icon prompts someone to
- 5:05pause and
- 5:06think before sharing or believing an
- 5:09article
- 5:10second our nine criteria can be used as
- 5:13a framework
- 5:14to help people understand which criteria
- 5:17are important
- 5:18to consider when evaluating whether a
- 5:20source is trustworthy
- 5:22and third our nutrition label reviews
- 5:25help
- 5:26people gain a richer and deeper
- 5:28understanding
- 5:29about who's behind all these sources of
- 5:31information i'm seeing online
- 5:34so through these methods and strategies
- 5:37we help people build media literacy
- 5:39skills so that
- 5:41they can effectively assess information
- 5:43online and spot misinformation
- 5:46even without the help of news garden
- 5:47even without access to our readings
About this transcript
This page contains the full transcript of sarah brandt 01 reedit by Michigan Online, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 844 words across 169 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.
What you can do with it
Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.
Free YouTube transcript tool
YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.