淺談「假新聞」
最近上課時學到一個新單字「positionality」,讓我想到當前社群媒體上,不停看到的「fake news」——假新聞。
簡言之,「positionality」(位置性) 被定義為於種族、階級、性別、性取向以及能力等狀態中,創造你身分的社會與政治背景。位置性還描述了你的身分如何影響你對世界的理解與看法,以及潛在的偏見。
positionality 位置性;定位
https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/3390885/
https://www.lexico.com/definition/positionality
以下是我對「positionality」與 「fake news」的些許觀點:
“Fake news” has permeated all facets of life, ranging from social media interaction to presidential elections. Fake news can be defined as “fabricated information that mimics news media content in form but not in organizational process or intent” (Lazer et al., 2018, p. 1094). The creators and outlets of fake news do not ensure the accuracy and credibility of information, but rather disseminate misinformation or disinformation for purposes ranging from personal amusement to creating deceptions to achieve political aims. At times, fake news is created and disseminated by state or non-state actors using social media accounts and networks of bots designed to hijack feed algorithms of platforms such as Twitter or Facebook (Prier, 2017, p. 54). In the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, Facebook estimated that up to 60 million bots were used to post political content. Some of the same bots were then used in an attempt to influence the 2017 French election (Lazer et al., 2018, p. 1095). Such campaigns can be understood as a form of information warfare, a comprehensive attempt to control and influence every facet of the information supply chain, thereby influencing public opinion and behaviors. (Prier, 2017, p. 54). Often, fake news is not directly created by actors that seek to manipulate but by journalists or content creators whose content favors or aligns with the narratives of these actors (Doshi, 2020).
從社群媒體的互動到總統選舉,「假新聞」(fake news)已滲透至生活的各個層面。假新聞可被定義為「在形式上而非組織過程或意圖上,模仿新聞媒體內容所捏造的資訊」(Lazer et al., 2018, p. 1094)。無論是出於個人愛好或為達政治目的而有所欺瞞,假新聞的製造者與傳播管道並不保證資訊的準確性與可信度,反而是為了散播錯誤訊息(misinformation)或扭曲訊息(disinformation)。有時,假新聞是由國家或非國家行為者(state or non-state actors)所製造與傳播,藉由社群媒體帳號及網絡機器人來劫持諸如臉書與推特等平臺的推送演算法(Prier, 2017, p. 54)。在2016年的美國總統大選中,臉書估計有多達6千萬個機器人被用來發布政治貼文。其中,有部分機器人被用於影響隔年的法國大選(Lazer et al., 2018, p. 1095)。此類行動可視為資訊戰(information warfare)的一種形式,一種對控制與影響資訊供應鏈各環節的全面嘗試,從而影響公眾輿論與行為(Prier, 2017, p. 54)。假新聞通常是由記者或內容創造者(content creators)所創造,而非試圖操弄的行為者,前者的內容偏好符合後者的敘事(Doshi, 2020)。
Nevertheless, while the term “fake news” is commonplace, there is no universal, measurable way to quantify the fakeness or truthfulness of news. There are many fact-checking and media-bias detection tools, but they cannot objectively detect and clarify the more subtle and nuanced aims of manipulative actors that play a crucial role in news production. It can also be argued that the veracity of news depends not only on the actors that seek to manipulate it, but also on the positionality of its consumers. Therefore, one’s initial line of defense against misleading news lies not in the plethora of fact-checking devices but more in one’s pre-existing dispositions and skills to think and act in response to misleading information. This ability can be referred to as critical thinking, which can be more concretely expounded as “reasonable and reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do” (Ennis, 2011, p. 15).
然而,即便「假新聞」一詞隨處可見,卻沒有統一、可衡量的方式來量化新聞的虛假性或真實性。目前有許多事實查核與媒體偏見檢測工具,但它們無法客觀地檢測與說明行為操弄者更狡猾、更細緻的目標,而這些操弄者往往在新聞的生產中發揮著重要作用。我們也可以說,新聞的真實性不僅取決於試圖操弄它的行為者,同時還取決於新聞受眾的位置性。因此,一個人對抗誤導性新聞的第一道防線,不在於這些五花八門的事實查核方式,反而在於個人所固有的性格,以及針對誤導性資訊的思考與行動等相關技能。這種能力可稱為批判性思考(critical thinking),意即「專注於決定相信什麼或做什麼的理性思考與反思性思考」(Ennis, 2011, p. 15)。
Taiwan, also known as the Republic of China (ROC), is at the forefront of information warfare. It is wedged between the geopolitical struggles of global and regional hegemonies such as the United States and China, the People's Republic of China (PRC). Compounding the matter are the Taiwan’s own political actors vying for influence and power. This struggle seeps into all aspects of life and practice, mainly manifesting itself on social media, a battleground of information warfare. The Ministry of Education of Taiwan is cognizant of these information campaigns, and efforts have been made to introduce media literacy into all parts of its education system. According to the ministry, the government has tried to promote media literacy education since 2000 (MOE, 2002, p. 1), with one of its primary goals to cultivate its “citizens” abilities for independent learning, critical thinking, and problem solving” (MOE, 2002, p. 2).
臺灣,也被稱為中華民國,正處於資訊戰的最前線。這是全球霸權與地區霸權之間——如美國與中國(中華人民共和國)——的地緣政治對抗。使問題惡化的是臺灣自身的政治行動者對影響力與權力的奪取。這場對抗遍布於現實生活的各個面向,主要於社群媒體中——資訊戰的戰場——展露無遺。臺灣的教育部注意到了這些資訊的煙硝,並已努力將媒體素養引入其教育體系。據該部稱,自2000年以來,政府一直試圖推展媒體素養教育(MOE, 2002, p. 1),其主要目標之一是培養「公民獨立學習、批判性思考以及解決問題的能力。」(MOE, 2002, p. 2)。
★★★★★★★★★★★★
上述段落認為,由於個人的位置性(positionality),「假新聞」極難定義。此外,有許多人把不符合自身成見與偏好的新聞逕斥為假新聞。這其實相當危險,因為個人觀點將會變得愈發孤立與激進。
閱聽人應意識到,他們在網路上看到的每個資訊都有特定立場。是否真有毫無立場的新聞文章?為了對抗操弄性或強制性資訊(coercive information),我們必須意識到權力於個中的作用,以及我們自身的位置性如何形塑我們的詮釋。這是我們的第一道防線。
★★★★★★★★★★★★
參考文獻
Doshi, R. (2020, January). China steps up its information war in Taiwan. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved March, 21, 2021, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2020-01-09/china-steps-its-information-war-taiwan
Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational leadership, 43(2), 44-48.
Lazer, D. M., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., ... & Zittrain, J. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094-1096.
MOE (Ministry of Education), Taiwan. (2002). White paper on media literacy educational policy. Retrieved March, 21, 2021, from http://english.moe.gov.tw/public/Attachment/ 2122416591771.pdf
Prier, J. (2017). Commanding the trend: Social media as information warfare. Strategic Studies Quarterly: SSQ, 11(4), 50-85.
★★★★★★★★★★★★
教育時評: http://bit.ly/39ABON9
相關詞彙: https://bit.ly/2UncrfI
TED相關影片: https://bit.ly/3BDsDKl
同時也有1部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過12萬的網紅王炳忠,也在其Youtube影片中提到,🔥支付寶打賞:13581883245 🔥王炳忠今日頭條:搜索「王炳忠台灣」 🔥王炳忠臉書粉專:https://www.facebook.com/bingzhong.wang ♦♦♦ “Are you helping or harming us?” This is my serious questio...
u.s. one china policy 在 護台胖犬 劉仕傑 Facebook 的最佳貼文
新聞下標真的是一門學問。
看看這些標題,請問大家:
白宮承認的「錯誤」,是指「推文放上台灣國旗」?還是指「刪除台灣國旗推文」?
看聯合報,感覺是前者。
看自由時報,感覺是後者,標題讀起來是小編不小心誤刪台灣國旗推文。
中央社標題有點踩在兩者之間。
答案是什麼?
可以看白宮新聞稿原文。
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/07/08/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-july-8-2021/?fbclid=IwAR0uRafGhnU5salqhuEO3w6E4ZvhNrA14JUfYgDHo3Z51qIsPN0VoQhUh80
答案很清楚。
白宮發言人說的是,當時一開始放上台灣國旗是個無心之過(honest mistake),後來發現了錯誤,就把推文刪掉了。
意思是,白宮的政策,「不應該」放上台灣的國旗。
以這三家媒體來看,聯合報的標題最符合白宮原意。
但如果不看標題,其實點進去看文章,三家都有把白宮發言人的話寫出來(但完整程度不一)。
台灣的媒體編輯下標時真的是各顯神通,建議大家還是要盡量看原文。
原文在此:
Q Thank you. There are hurt feelings among government officials in Taipei after the White House COVID team posted and then deleted a tweet that had an image of Taiwan’s flag along those of other nations getting vaccine doses from the United States. Was this tweet a mistake in the first place? And if not, then why was the tweet deleted?
MS. PSAKI: So, this was an honest mistake that was made by the team handling graphics and social media, and should not in any way be viewed as a shift in official U.S. policy. When we recognized the mistake, we removed the tweet. So we did exactly as you said.
We remain committed to our One-China Policy based on the Taiwan Relations Act, the three joint communiqués, and the six assurances.
u.s. one china policy 在 Apple Daily - English Edition Facebook 的精選貼文
#Opinion by Chung Sau Ha 鍾秀霞|"We have also noticed the consumer power of the new generation in China and the changes brought by it. In the past, under the one-child policy, the new generation in China has been the sole attention of their “parents, paternal grandparents and maternal grandparents,” hence they are more willing to splurge and borrow money than their older counterparts. Now their consumption behaviors are becoming similar to those in Europe and the U.S."
Read more: https://bit.ly/2SL4Q9n
"在中國,我們也留意到新世代消費者的力量及其帶來的轉變。在以往的一孩政策下,中國的新世代集「父母、祖父母、外祖父母」萬千寵愛在一身,相較於年長一輩,他們更願意花費及借貸,消費行為跟歐美國家漸漸趨近。"
____________
📱Download the app:
http://onelink.to/appledailyapp
📰 Latest news:
http://appledaily.com/engnews/
🐤 Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/appledaily_hk
💪🏻 Subscribe and show your support:
https://bit.ly/2ZYKpHP
#AppleDailyENG
u.s. one china policy 在 王炳忠 Youtube 的最佳解答
🔥支付寶打賞:13581883245
🔥王炳忠今日頭條:搜索「王炳忠台灣」
🔥王炳忠臉書粉專:https://www.facebook.com/bingzhong.wang
♦♦♦
“Are you helping or harming us?” This is my serious question to you American politicians, including those in the Trump administration and in the Congress. As the spokesperson for the New Party, one of Taiwan’s political parties, and also a young man who has lived in Taiwan for more than 32 years since my birth, I should tell you that the answer decides our future without doubt. In other words, the very fact I must confirm is whether you support Taiwan independence instead of the One-China policy or just deploy Taiwan as your pawn to bargain with Beijing. To be honest, as you always take it for granted to sacrifice others for your benefits, it is quite important for us to make sure in advance.
As we all know, the US Congress usually tends to challenge China’s sovereignty over Taiwan because of the impact of the military-industrial complex and the lobbies hired by the Taiwan government. The Taiwan Travel Act and the TAIPEI Act are the late instances. However, without the administration’s implementation, these are only lip service. Thus, the administration’s attitude is crucial indeed. So, let’s see the Department of State. As Secretary Pompeo stated last March, the US is now using every tool in its tool kit to prevent China from isolating Taiwan through diplomatic channels. This year, after shifting blames for its neglect of the pandemic prevention by attacking China and the WHO, the Department of State recently expressed support for Taiwan’s participation in the WHA. The above really triggered my curiosity: The establishment of the US-Taiwan formal diplomatic relations is just the most useful tool, isn’t it? Why does the US not use that? Besides, since Taiwan should become a formal member of the UN before entering the WHO, why does the US not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state or the ROC government in Taiwan as the only legal government of China instead of the PRC?
The answer to my question seems that your real intention is not to support Taiwan’s real independence but only to trouble Beijing. Just as Pompeo said at a congressional hearing, the Trump administration’s way of viewing the US-Taiwan relations can consider the threat of China’s rise more than the predecessors, which reveals that Taiwan is only a chess piece for Washington to play with Beijing. Furthermore, since the US has no will to have Taiwan as a formal ally, Taiwan is just a pawn you can sacrifice anytime. Consequently, Taiwan must suffer the worsening of cross-strait relations at our own cost while the US just plays Taiwan to bargain with Beijing for your own interests. The outcome is so predictable that Taiwan should go through a depression for its large economic dependence on mainland China which you are unable and unwilling to make up. Besides, we should even consider the most serious situation that a war occurs in the Taiwan Strait. The scenario of Taiwan military is holding on alone within two to three weeks in order to wait for the US military aid. Nevertheless, as the former AIT chairman Richard Bush said, the implied commitment of the US to come to Taiwan’s defense has never be absolute. In other words, we should risk engaging a war with Beijing resulted from your dangerous game, sacrificing our lives for your lies.
As I already told you earlier, the real threat to the US is not China’s rise but the loss of your self-confidence. Moreover, you have weakened the stability across the Taiwan Strait by inciting Taiwan to deny the 1992 consensus and intervening in Taiwan’s campaign last year, which destroys the status quo and your interests indeed. Certainly, as what Secretary Pompeo has told us, “We lied, we cheated, we stole,” how can we bet our future on the US “glory” of lying, cheating, and stealing? In fact, as you once betrayed us in 1978 even though the ROC government in Taiwan and your government was formal alliance then, it is much easier for you today to abandon us when the deal has been done.
In conclusion, as your government declared plainly in the U.S.-PRC Joint Communique (1972), the US had its interests in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. Accordingly, since you are not willing to recognize either Taiwan as an independent state or the ROC as the legal government of China, we have no choice but to deal with the question of reunification with Beijing by the Chinese ourselves. Helping instead of harming us, you could stop intervening in the Taiwan question, otherwise it will only strengthen the risk across the Taiwan Strait and put us in jeopardy. Thank you if you release your hands.
u.s. one china policy 在 What Is the US “One China” Policy, and Why Does it Matter? 的相關結果
To this day, the U.S. “one China” position stands: the United States recognizes the PRC as the sole legal government of China but only ... ... <看更多>
u.s. one china policy 在 US State Department reiterates basis of 'One China' policy 的相關結果
Washington, Oct. 7 (CNA) The United States reiterated Thursday that its "One China" policy is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, ... ... <看更多>
u.s. one china policy 在 What is the 'One China' policy? - BBC News 的相關結果
It is the diplomatic acknowledgement of China's position that there is only one Chinese government. Under the policy, the US recognises and ... ... <看更多>