{"title":"批判性思维:对抗媒体欺骗的动态盾牌。探索分析思维与新闻生产中假信息技术和逻辑谬误的检测之间的联系","authors":"Oana Olariu","doi":"10.18662/lumenss/11.1/61","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As research on fake news and deepfakes advanced, a growing consensus is building towards considering critical and analytical thinking, as well as general or topic specific knowledge, which is related to information literacy, as the main significant or effective factors in curving vulnerability to bogus digital content. However, although the connection might be intuitive, the processes linking critical or analytical thinking to manipulation resistance are still not known and understudied. The present study aims to contribute to filling this gap by exploring how analytically driven conclusions over a media content relate to proper evaluations of its credibility. In order to observe how observations highlighted through critical engagement with a specific content are related with awareness on its manipulative structure, a biased, not fake, journalistic article was first passed through Faircough’s (2013) model of Critical Discourse Analysis, which was adapted for media studies. The same article was then screened for disinformation techniques embedded in its architecture, as well as for logical fallacies incorporated as arguments. Preliminary conclusions show that analytical thinking outcomes are consistent with evaluations based on particular filters for credibility attribution. Furthermore, the two ways derived observations over the same content, partially overlap.","PeriodicalId":203824,"journal":{"name":"Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty: Social Sciences","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Critical Thinking as Dynamic Shield against Media Deception. Exploring Connections between the Analytical Mind and Detecting Disinformation Techniques and Logical Fallacies in Journalistic Production\",\"authors\":\"Oana Olariu\",\"doi\":\"10.18662/lumenss/11.1/61\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"As research on fake news and deepfakes advanced, a growing consensus is building towards considering critical and analytical thinking, as well as general or topic specific knowledge, which is related to information literacy, as the main significant or effective factors in curving vulnerability to bogus digital content. However, although the connection might be intuitive, the processes linking critical or analytical thinking to manipulation resistance are still not known and understudied. The present study aims to contribute to filling this gap by exploring how analytically driven conclusions over a media content relate to proper evaluations of its credibility. In order to observe how observations highlighted through critical engagement with a specific content are related with awareness on its manipulative structure, a biased, not fake, journalistic article was first passed through Faircough’s (2013) model of Critical Discourse Analysis, which was adapted for media studies. The same article was then screened for disinformation techniques embedded in its architecture, as well as for logical fallacies incorporated as arguments. Preliminary conclusions show that analytical thinking outcomes are consistent with evaluations based on particular filters for credibility attribution. Furthermore, the two ways derived observations over the same content, partially overlap.\",\"PeriodicalId\":203824,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty: Social Sciences\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty: Social Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18662/lumenss/11.1/61\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty: Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18662/lumenss/11.1/61","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Critical Thinking as Dynamic Shield against Media Deception. Exploring Connections between the Analytical Mind and Detecting Disinformation Techniques and Logical Fallacies in Journalistic Production
As research on fake news and deepfakes advanced, a growing consensus is building towards considering critical and analytical thinking, as well as general or topic specific knowledge, which is related to information literacy, as the main significant or effective factors in curving vulnerability to bogus digital content. However, although the connection might be intuitive, the processes linking critical or analytical thinking to manipulation resistance are still not known and understudied. The present study aims to contribute to filling this gap by exploring how analytically driven conclusions over a media content relate to proper evaluations of its credibility. In order to observe how observations highlighted through critical engagement with a specific content are related with awareness on its manipulative structure, a biased, not fake, journalistic article was first passed through Faircough’s (2013) model of Critical Discourse Analysis, which was adapted for media studies. The same article was then screened for disinformation techniques embedded in its architecture, as well as for logical fallacies incorporated as arguments. Preliminary conclusions show that analytical thinking outcomes are consistent with evaluations based on particular filters for credibility attribution. Furthermore, the two ways derived observations over the same content, partially overlap.