YouTube2Text

sarah brandt 01 reedit — Transcript

by Michigan Online · 844 words · 169 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Full transcript

  1. 0:00hi my name is sarah brandt and i work at
  2. 0:02newsguard where i head up our news
  3. 0:04literacy programs
  4. 0:05disinformation is prolific online
  5. 0:09in all likelihood you join this teach
  6. 0:11out because you're aware of this fact
  7. 0:12and concerned about it but
  8. 0:14in case you need further convincing
  9. 0:16there has been plenty of research
  10. 0:17conducted
  11. 0:18studying this reality and just one
  12. 0:21example
  13. 0:22a 2019 study by the pew research center
  14. 0:25found that 9 out of 10 americans had
  15. 0:28come across made up news with some
  16. 0:30regularity there are many explanations
  17. 0:33for this fact for the fact that
  18. 0:35misinformation
  19. 0:36pervades so many topics and
  20. 0:40has spread so wide online one of the
  21. 0:43main ones
  22. 0:44is the fact that online anyone can be a
  23. 0:47source
  24. 0:47anyone can be a publisher it's quite
  25. 0:50simple to set up a twitter account and
  26. 0:52start tweeting or set up a facebook
  27. 0:53account and start posting
  28. 0:55and with so many different sources of
  29. 0:57news and information online
  30. 1:00it can be very difficult to determine
  31. 1:03which sources are generally trustworthy
  32. 1:05and which ones are generally unreliable
  33. 1:08let's think about two different websites
  34. 1:10cancer.net and cancer.news
  35. 1:14based solely on the names of those two
  36. 1:16websites
  37. 1:17can you tell who's behind each of them
  38. 1:19and
  39. 1:20whether they publish reliable
  40. 1:22information
  41. 1:24if you saw their articles in your
  42. 1:25facebook feed would you take the time
  43. 1:28to investigate each site and determine
  44. 1:30whether it's credible
  45. 1:32and even if you would do you think all
  46. 1:35of your facebook friends would
  47. 1:36the unfortunate reality is that many
  48. 1:38people don't consider the accuracy of a
  49. 1:40source before believing its content
  50. 1:42or sharing it with their friends and
  51. 1:45additionally many people lack the skills
  52. 1:47to effectively assess the reliability of
  53. 1:50information and sources
  54. 1:52or in other words they lack media
  55. 1:54literacy skills
  56. 1:55media literacy is defined as
  57. 1:58the ability to effectively evaluate and
  58. 2:02engage with
  59. 2:03media and information in all of its
  60. 2:05diverse forms
  61. 2:07be it a video on youtube an article in a
  62. 2:10print magazine
  63. 2:11a tweet or even a tick tock so
  64. 2:13recognizing these problems
  65. 2:15the proliferation of misinformation and
  66. 2:18the lack of media literacy skills among
  67. 2:20people of all ages
  68. 2:22two veteran journalists stephen brill
  69. 2:24and gordon krovitz got together
  70. 2:27and they started a company called
  71. 2:29newsguard
  72. 2:30so newsguard what we do is we help
  73. 2:31people avoid misinformation
  74. 2:33and build media literacy skills by
  75. 2:35giving them more context
  76. 2:36for who's behind the sources that they
  77. 2:38encounter online
  78. 2:39and whether those sources are generally
  79. 2:41trustworthy
  80. 2:43here's how we do it we have a team of
  81. 2:45trained journalists
  82. 2:46who rate and review the reliability of
  83. 2:49thousands of news and information
  84. 2:50websites
  85. 2:52unlike a fact-checking organization like
  86. 2:54snopes or politifact
  87. 2:56we don't write the accuracy of
  88. 2:57individual claims or articles
  89. 3:00but the general accuracy of websites as
  90. 3:02a whole we assess
  91. 3:04each website using nine basic apolitical
  92. 3:08criteria
  93. 3:09that evaluate the source's journalistic
  94. 3:10practices
  95. 3:12first we look at each site's credibility
  96. 3:15asking questions like
  97. 3:16does the site repeatedly publish false
  98. 3:18content does it use deceptive headlines
  99. 3:21then we look at its transparency does
  100. 3:24the website tell you who owns it and how
  101. 3:26it's financed
  102. 3:27does it name its authors and provide
  103. 3:29information about them
  104. 3:32based on how the site fares on each of
  105. 3:34those nine criteria
  106. 3:35it receives an overall grain rating
  107. 3:37indicating that it's generally reliable
  108. 3:40or red rating indicating that it's
  109. 3:42generally unreliable
  110. 3:45these ratings are designed to help
  111. 3:46people quickly understand
  112. 3:48whether news or advice from a source can
  113. 3:50be trusted
  114. 3:51but we also give people additional
  115. 3:53information in the form of
  116. 3:55what we call a nutrition label
  117. 3:58our nutrition labels are detailed
  118. 4:00reviews providing more background about
  119. 4:02each source and explaining exactly
  120. 4:05why we rated the site the way that we
  121. 4:07did
  122. 4:08remember cancer.news and cancer.net from
  123. 4:11earlier
  124. 4:13cancer.news as it turns out is part of a
  125. 4:17network of websites that promotes
  126. 4:18conspiracy theories
  127. 4:20including the repeatedly debugged claim
  128. 4:22that vaccines
  129. 4:23cause autism because of this practice
  130. 4:27it fails all but one of our nine
  131. 4:29criteria
  132. 4:30and receives a red rating overall
  133. 4:33cancer.net
  134. 4:34on the other hand is run by a nonprofit
  135. 4:37that represents oncologists
  136. 4:38and other medical professionals it
  137. 4:41receives a green rating overall
  138. 4:42because it meets most of our nine
  139. 4:44criteria
  140. 4:46let's return to the concept i mentioned
  141. 4:47earlier media literacy
  142. 4:50at newsguard we help people build media
  143. 4:52literacy skills in a few different ways
  144. 4:55first our green and red icons prompt
  145. 4:58people to
  146. 5:00start thinking about source reliability
  147. 5:03seeing a red icon prompts someone to
  148. 5:05pause and
  149. 5:06think before sharing or believing an
  150. 5:09article
  151. 5:10second our nine criteria can be used as
  152. 5:13a framework
  153. 5:14to help people understand which criteria
  154. 5:17are important
  155. 5:18to consider when evaluating whether a
  156. 5:20source is trustworthy
  157. 5:22and third our nutrition label reviews
  158. 5:25help
  159. 5:26people gain a richer and deeper
  160. 5:28understanding
  161. 5:29about who's behind all these sources of
  162. 5:31information i'm seeing online
  163. 5:34so through these methods and strategies
  164. 5:37we help people build media literacy
  165. 5:39skills so that
  166. 5:41they can effectively assess information
  167. 5:43online and spot misinformation
  168. 5:46even without the help of news garden
  169. 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.