Critical Digital Literacy Education Guide

8 activity 9: COMPARING DISCRIMINATION IN THE MEDIA Examine and compare the impact of media-fuelled discrimination in the past and today. During the SARS outbreak of 2003, media coverage provided valuable information to a frightened public. While news sources shared vital information, the volume of media coverage sometimes contributed to “public hysteria in reaction to the disease and to Asian communities.” 1 Although the outbreak took place more than 15 years ago, the discrimination and bias revealed then are still alive and well today. In this activity, you will compare coverage of SARS with a current news story. 1. As a class, watch “ The SARS Outbreak ” video, and review your notes from Activity 2. 2. Read The Canadian Encyclopedia ’s entry on SARS , taking notes about media coverage and discrimination faced by Asian Canadians during the epidemic. 3. Working in pairs, choose an issue that is prominent in the media right now (e.g., immigration, refugees, etc.). Work with your teacher to identify a relevant topic and suitable media coverage. 4. Research how the story has been covered in the media. Consider the following questions: Do headlines reflect the content of the stories? Is the story told from multiple perspectives? Create a T-chart with article headlines and source information on the left and your analysis on the right. 5. With your partner, review your chart and discuss the similarities and differences between the media coverage of SARS and your selected contemporary example. 6. Discuss as a class the ways in which discrimination can appear in news stories, and how you can identify it. TEACHER TIP: Guide students to a relevant topic or news article to use as a comparison with the SARS media coverage. Extension: Individually, write a reflection on prejudice and discrimination in news media. Consider the power of media to shape public opinion and the consequences of inaccurate reporting. There are four steps in the initial screening process: Consider the source • Is it a source you are familiar with? Is it one that you trust to be reliable? • Click away from the article/post to find out more about the source. Visit the “About” section on the website, or do an online search for more information about the source. • Consider the bias of the source. Many news outlets have political leanings, which influence the stories that are told and how they are told. Check the author • Is the author named, or are they anonymous? • If the author is named, is it a reputable journalist, a news agency, a “citizen journalist,” or a blogger? • What kind of bias might the author have? Go beyond the headline • Does it use inflammatory or sensationalist language that might provoke an emotional response? • Does it make outlandish claims? • Does the content of the article reflect the headline accurately? Assess the content (fact versus opinion) • Identify the type of content: satire, article, editorial, infographic, sponsored content, etc. For example, newspaper op-ed articles (originally placed opposite the editorial page) often adhere to journalistic standards but are still just one writer’s opinion. • Distinguish between statements of fact and opinion within the content. • Consider where information might have been manipulated or selectively left out. Is there obvious bias in the source? section 3: examine the SOURCES and CONTENT Assessing the reliability of sources and content is essential to digital literacy. Every piece of content we consume should go through a critical screening process to determine its trustworthiness. This screening process is just as important for established, respected news organizations as it is for infographics you come across on Instagram. Commuters avoid an Asian family (Still from “The SARS Outbreak,” Historica Canada, 2019). News vans outside Scarborough Grace Hospital (Still from “The SARS Outbreak,” Historica Canada, 2019). 1 Dr. Jian Guan, “Yellow Peril Revisited: Impact of SARS on the Chinese and Southeast Asian Canadian Communities,” Chinese Canadian National Council, p. 7