"

continues. host: our guest is peter adams, senior vice resident at the news literacy project, news lit.org to explain what we mean by news literacy. guest: good morning and it's great to be with you. simply put, news literacy is the ability to evaluate the credibility of the information we see in our lives in a busy information environment, the ability to record highs misinformation and the harm it can cause in our lives and the

role of the free press in a democracy. host: what is the role the free press is playing today in this democracy? guest: it's not in a challenging one in american history if you look back to serve as a watchdog and hold the power to account. i think the job of the press is more complex than ever because they are contending and competing for attention with more sources than ever before in human history. many of them are sharing misleading and highly opinionated or outright false information. that makes their job harder but it makes the press and the role more valuable today than it's ever been. host: how should a viewer with so many places to look for media, how should they evaluate the news and determine what is misinformation? guest: that's a huge question. when it comes to credibility, looking at the source of the information in trying to honestly evaluate the sources

included, trustworthy sources don't have two go by their word. they show where it's coming from and when it comes to the more subjective aspects of journalism, the word shows, tone , language, you should look for an aspiration to be as fair as possible and be inclusive and the copperheads of an provide people with context and serve the public. when it comes to misinformation, there is a lot of red flags we can talk about. probably too many to list what if something seems engineered to spark a strong emotional response like fear or outrage, that's the time to slow down and be cautious and take a further step to do a quick search and look at what standards they are reporting on that subject. host: let me get some specific examples. you talked about tone and

language. what are buzzwords that should raise that red flag is viewers are trying to be good consumers of the news? guest: sure, there are a lot of claims about what the media doesn't want to tell you or what big pharma doesn't want you to know about vaccines and things like that and that's always a red flag area it's editorial language that is a big red flag, anything that seems engineered to outrage you i think is a big red flag and anyone who's claiming to have information that no one else has is something to give pause. host: what is the news literacy project and you keep a list of what our credible news organizations? is that something viewers can look for? guest: the news literacy project

is a national nonpartisan organization that works with educators and the broader public to teach people how to navigate the information environment. it's how to identify credible sources of news and information and how to end the -- identify individual pieces of journalism for fairness and sourcing. also how to recognize misinformation and the role it plays on the harm it causes in our lives in the lives of others. and to really look at the role of the free press and look at the role of technology in our lives on the role that algorithms play online so ultimately, what we want is to empower people to play a more equal and active role in the specific life of their communities and the country. when it comes to a list of credible sources, we don't publish such a list on her site. we want to give people the skills and ability and knowledge

to do that for themselves. we are not going to source any particular news outlet, but we will help draw in the focus for people with the practice of quality journalism involves, what wally journalism looks like, and help them recognize it for themselves. host: doing that this week is your fourth annual news literacy week, what does that mean for viewers and the folks who go to your website? guest: we actually have a special url for news literacy week.org which takes you to a rundown. it's to bring the public tips and tools and resources to talk with educators about a resources for them in the classroom and host engaging events online and you can find links to registration with a couple more happening this week.

it's just to raise the profile of the importance of news literacy in our lives and why this is such a vital life skill and a civic responsibility for everyone. host: we are inviting viewers to join this last segment of cnn -- of c-span. to do that, the phone lines are split a recent gallup headline come americans trust in media remains near record lows, 34% of americans trust the mass media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly do those numbers surprise you? guest: they don't. but they do bother me. a slice of that issue and trust problem is earned and deserved but there is a chunk of it that

i think is not that it's due to misunderstandings about the way news organizations work, bent the -- about the way news media operates on a lot of that is in lamed by partisans and activists and pundits who don't like what the media reports. it makes for an easy target for folks and a simple answer to what is a complex practice and institution. i think it's of deep concern and i think there's a lot these organizations can do but we also have a civic duty to develop a more nuanced understanding of the reality so we see something that's problematic and hurts our trust, we can let those practitioners and reporters and editors and news organizations know in a way that resonates with what they do and can be put into practice. host: what's the biggest misunderstanding of how the news media works? guest: one is that every single news source has some kind of

systematic partisan orientation that filters down through their straight news division. news organizations have opinions the size of their newsroom. that's confusing for many folks because there is a rigorous firewall in newsrooms before the opinion site in the street news site. if a reporter takes up in -- a particular position, the folks on the street will not cater to that opinion. the editorial board can take a position and the newsroom has worked hard to remain independent of that. i think people think that they cherry pick coverage or others cherry pick it for them and push it into their social media feeds and it starts to create the perception that the world is stacked against them for the mainstream media is stacked against them. it doesn't mean they are perfect but it's not a conspiracy to promote a particular candidate or take down a particular candidate at reputable

organizations and i think that's a broad-based misconception. host: why does a new -- what is a newspaper have to have an opinion? guest: that's a good question. that's the kind of critical question we want people to ask. we want to empower the public to have that conversation themselves, it's an historical practice where the editorial board is made up of journalists typically who have worked as beat reporters and editors for many years and they offer their opinion as a group. it's supposed to represent the opinion of the paper and it's inherently confusing for news consumers to see that. i think newspapers either could consider getting rid of them or clearly and regularly explaining to the public why they keep their editorial boards and endorsements in political races. it's a pretty political -- it's a pretty important debate in

journalism now. host: you talked about sourcing so let me read you the first two paragraphs of the lead story in the new york times. why do we have so many unnamed sources? why don't we go with officials? guest: that's a great question. it's one that everyone should ask. the number of unnamed sources you see from a news source should be limited and they should make it clear why they are using them. one thing the public doesn't understand about anonymous sources of that sometimes they are necessary. in this case, some biden

official may not have spoken to the press at all. they all certainly wouldn't have if they had to be on the record or wouldn't have said the same thing with the same degree of honesty. journalism involves really difficult decisions and one of them is went to rent someone anonymity on the record to include that in a story. it is incumbent on the news organization to independently verify the information so that the number is correct before they include it but often, it benefits the public notes -- to know things that people are sharing from officials who cannot share something on the record and that's a judgment call they have to make. if there's any way to get someone on the record, it should be in on the record source whenever possible. if you are consuming a new source that's full of anonymous sources, that's a red flag. host: why couldn't those

officials go on the record? two paragraphs later it says the announcement is expected to come today and the biden administration got this story as the lead story. then they will get their announcement today. why not just go on the record and say it will happen today? guest: it's a judgment call the new york times had to make whether they wanted to run the story now or hold off. if people disagree with that decision, that's the time when you would reach out and write a letter to the editor or post a nuanced critique to social media. i think it is something to watch out for and be careful with. folks often see these things and really have to trust the news organization to verify it. it does draw on that kind of capital that a news organization has and if they do it too frequently or too recklessly or

for sensation, it can diminish that. host: two years in the biden administration, do you think press treats the biden administration the same way they treated the trump administration? guest: i don't think the press should treat any two administrations exactly the same because none -- because no two are the same. there is a mistake that people make thinking that the aspirations to be journalistically objective or is fair and accurate as possible means being completely neutral and having the same number of positive stories about one administration as the other. the reality of politics in their world do not promise that kind of absolute evenhandedness in terms of numbers of stories or treatment. i think they scrutinized biden's recent scandal over top-secret

documents that were found in a few different places and i think we can analyze that coverage and compare it. the news literacy project is not to take a position to make an announcement and say the press is upholding its duty as a watchdog under biden or it did under trump or it didn't. to really empower people to make that judgment or themselves and look at the coverage and go back and make that assessment if they feel that is something that is the case and put their own biases in check because their own feelings affect the way it affects these stories. if they feel there is something there, they need to respond. host: let's take some callers this morning, tim in toledo, line for democrats. caller: how are you doing? i just want to say that this is a conversation about literacy and misinformation.

with literacy, we misuse words today in society. like game of the century every week or something. the hyperbole is out of control but the misinformation is the big one. i call a conversation debates because i was in debate class in school. my teacher told me i am not here to teach you what to say but how to say it. you want to recognize when someone is given a half to perpetrate a lie. somebody will say pollution is all right. pollution is bad weather is changing the climate or not. there are so many different aspects. i even have a couple of bumpkins

in my family that don't want to debate me anymore because they say trump never lives. have you ever heard him give a speech? he is full of misinformation and he was on a scale that was mind-boggling. guest: what jumps out to me and is a concern is that it's something we say a lot, our aspirations to teach people not what to think but how to about news and information and understand not just the press and not just the standards in app or -- aspirations of quality journalism but also our information architecture and what social media does and how it works. and why it can be a powerful tool that create positive change but why it can also cause real problems and harm and how to think about those things for themselves and take action. i appreciate the call. host: in new york, this is lee

on the republican line. caller: two years ago, we had three conservative tv news outlets, one american newsmax and fox news. they canceled for american news off the air and last night, the canceled newsmax off the air. periodically, they talk about canceling fox news but even the mainstream media has objected to that. at&t is partisan. they own verizon and they roam -- and they own directv. we are being canceled out i don't understand how they can do that. host: peter adams, are you with us? we will reestablish that

connection. as we are establishing that, we will talk to mark from oklahoma city, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what are your thoughts on this question about media literacy? caller: it seems like one stations for the left and the others for the right. who can you really believe? host: how do you make that determination yourself? [no audio] do you want to answer the question? no> ?we will go to anthony in arizona. caller: good morning. one of the things that seems to be missing again is critical analysis. critical analysis to me is

essential to situational awareness, the light a lot of our communities. test the lifeblood of our communities. here they are getting ready to rollout in our school district, a 68 new curriculum that is a proposal. it will help students through school all the way up to high school. it will give them the ability to be more critical and understanding. for instance, how science works. if you start at an earlier age, not just look at the end result but look at how it actually gets there. host: you think a program like that would make these students better consumers of the news when they grow up? caller: without a doubt.

i have to say that how many meetings have you gone into and as soon as you walk into the room, everyone there is on the phone? they are scrolling up their screens. people go to movie theaters and they are scrolling their screens. i worked in i.t. and i worked in systems engineering so if you can keep someone's attention on any specific device, then they don't look around and we have got to get people more into themselves and understanding what makes me at her, not what feeds into me and then i take back that information and say that i know this because i saw it onx or y or z. host: this is ike, republican in

arizona. caller: good morning. host: news literacy is the topic. caller: my opinion is that the mainstream media, they have their own narrative and i watch a lot of newsmax and the lady before said last night that directv canceled newsmax so you can watch it. for me, you watch mainstream media news and then you watch newsmax and you see where mainstream media barely touches or doesn't talk about it at all and you actually see it on a station like newsmax and it's just frustrating to me that i feel like a lot of lives -- lies are being perpetrated on the

public. host: what's a recent example of that happening where you don't feel the mainstream media is covering something and you feel like an organization like newsmax is all over a story? caller: for example, probably the biggest one was the riots we had a couple of years ago in washington state, seattle, oregon and all that. the mainstream media doesn't really touch on everything. they don't tell you everything that's going on. i've seen a lot of stuff -- i watch news and i watch everything. just like the lady also said, oam got canceled and you were talking about conservative news organizations. for me, i just watch as much news as i can because i like to see was going on in the world and keep abreast of everything. i find that mainstream media is

telling the exact same story and it's redundant. they don't tell you everything that's going on. host: this is from lacey, washington, independent. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes, sir. caller: i think your guest has shown his bias by some of the comments he made about legitimate media. i would like to ask a question related to an incident that occurred when reagan was elected. after reagan was elected, you had the news journalists in a debate in a group discussing the election. the question, i believe was sam donaldson asked -- why did americans vote for this

man after what we said about him? what's wrong with americans? donaldson was legitimately upset that people didn't hear everything they said and they responded differently and elected reagan. the other journalists all agreed. something's wrong with americans. how does your guest respond to the legitimate media making those type of comments? does not show their bias? host: we have peter adams back on zoom from the literacy project, talking about this issue of misinformation and about consumption of news. did you get that question? guest: i got some of it. it's where a little opinion

leaked into straight news from sam donaldson in the 80's, is that right? host: for just the times in general where news media get caught showing their own bias. guest: i think the practice in general but not commenting on what he said and i'm not familiar with that context. in general, the practice of journalism is incredibly complex and we are his people to make judgments and they sometimes get them wrong. they do have feelings and beliefs and ideas about the world and even though there are methods and standards in guidelines, sometimes the biases creep into coverage in some ways. what makes it more complicated is that we are all very opinionated and strongly biased to me all have our personal histories and beliefs and they

affect our perception of coverage. no one thinks the media is biased in their for whether you are democrat or republican or conservative or liberal. i think people agree that journalism should aspire to be fair and transparent and accountable and i think people on the whole believe that straight news coverage is intended to inform you and should be distinct from opinion. it should be -- an opinion free zone. there are a lot of formats particularly in broadcast television news now were commentary and news reporting are kind of landed. i think that's for folks to keep their eye on and talk back if they don't like it. a lot of the audience watches the shows with host whose opinions they agree with. consuming and finding coverage that we feel sticks to the facts

is straight and impartial is the way to go. you need to talk back to sources that are not heading that mark. host: what you think cable news stations do that? why did they start mixing news and opinion? guest: it's engaging, it's what people want. we like to have our biases and beliefs can back to us, it feels good. he gives you an opening when you are told you are right about the world and institutions are stacked against you and it feels good. there may be some reality and truth to that at different moments and different times. it's very different than the dispassionate and impartial search for the truth. i think we all to dish we all need to keep that in mind an immediate diet area

host: rich from new jersey, you're on with peter adams. guest: first of all, we don't have a free press no more. that is over. the big three like abc, cbs, nbc, they are so partisan, they don't report the real news. they hide stories. the new york times, washington post, c-span puts them on all the time have light continuously including the five years with trump. the time that they allocate for democrats on scandals is rooted list. they just cut it down to absolutely nothing including c-span. i remember when trump was on c-span every day. they have done hardly anything on biden. a few minutes here and there. this is ridiculous. they are controlled by the

democrats and the democrats send them memos. member the story when he said he got his email hack? he hit the wrong button. they wouldn't let anybody see after they posted everything that they said, how they wanted to separate americans. all of a sudden, the media can't post that. they will sue us if we say anything. this is ridiculous, we have no free median anybody thinks we have a media now is really out of it. even the gentleman sitting there looking at right now, i don't know what his agenda is but if it was a free agenda, he would have minutes on his website of who is showing what and who is not showing what. host: do you want to address those concerns? guest: the concerns of what my

agenda is is to make sure we share the importance of these skills. i don't think it's controversial to say that journalism should be fair and transparent and i appreciate the caller's asking for those ideals and think it's important to go back and look at coverage. people say this thing i care about is not getting enough coverage. everybody feels that way about their issue as important to go back and actually look at that for yourself and do something with that weather's reach at involved or to documented on a website. our organization is quite transparent. we use a variety of sources and our undoing is from a variety of sources.

i don't want to get into the cynical belief that everyone around has some sort of secret, tactical agenda. our agenda is to help americans navigate what is good and complex and confusing in this information environment. i think we still have a free press so i would disagree with the caller there. they are not perfect and there is a lot of issues but it can always be better. if you pick up a few daily papers and take a look, you will see. host: we do something different on this program. we bring reporters on to talk about their stories and we allow americans to call in and ask questions. as somebody who studies news literacy, what are some questions to ask a reporter if you get a chance come about their story about how the after

their story or did they were working? guest: making the practice of journalism more transparent and more understandable to the public is of vital mission and a vital need. having journalists on to talk about their work, you can ask them why they decided to do the story in the first place. how is the decision made in your newsroom and how did you decide where to start and who did you talk to, who did you talk to who you didn't quote in your story because you cannot include every perspective in a story. how did you make that decision? it's a necessarily subjective decision in the practice of journalism about who to talk to and how much to quote them and what to include what they said so talk to them about those kinds of decisions and how they are made. i think you will hear a lot of careful consideration that these

are not easy decisions but they are made on deadlines and we have to appreciate the reality of that. we have to hold them to their own standards many of which publish those on their own websites. you can bring those into play in those conversations. host: if you asked those present from a reporter, what answers from reporter would concern you? what would make you skeptical? guest: bad answers to that question on the newsworthiness side would get a lot of clicks so that's not sound judgment. if the sourcing was a bit lazy, if they just reprinted oppressed relief -- release or took a spokespersons word or published it or broadcasted it, if the

same for an official, that would be a big red lag as well. i think you are looking for someone who has a concern for the truth and is putting the public first and is trying their best to be fair and accurate and include the information people need. host: what is false balance? guest: that being impartial or pursuing journalistic object committee and mistaking that for being neutral. evidence for the realities of climate change is overwhelming. if you treat that like a 50 50 debate and you have someone who lays out the evidence and you have someone else who agrees with that, you get a perception that the scientific community is on that question.

you might pursue impartiality but what you are doing is pursuing false balance or a neutrality over impartiality. host: to burlington, north carolina, pam, democrat. caller: good morning, i could say so much. i used to watch fox news. i love shepard smith. he couldn't take it anymore. there are so many journalists out there that, to me, are trustworthy like anderson cooper. there are so many people out there that you can trust. i guess what's fearful to me is, over the past six or seven years, you've got these crazy stories or conspiracy theories

like jewish space lasers, italian space lasers or -- i guess it's really hard for me to understand how people can believe these things about people like even democrats being demotic or drinking the blood of children or transgender human beings who are grooming our children. i just don't get it. guest: i think the rise of conspiracy theories and conspiratorial inking, it's long been a part of our lives. i think social media has changed the game there. the ability for people engaging in a conspiratorial explanation

and idea to network and meet one another and to have to share those theories and have them fester and then to use social media to push those out to the larger world is a big problem. the platforms on which they are operating are engineered to catch us at our cognitive worst. we are sort of in automatic mode and are not inking riddick the, just reacting quickly. quick shares are their bread and butter. as consumers, we need to recognize the role we are playing. these conspiracy theories also play two major vulnerabilities in the psychology and the things we feel like we need. we really need and crave similar

explanations in the face of complexity. conspiracy theories offer that. they break the world down into good and bad. the underlying suppose are very basic. there is good and evil, secret conspiracy to do this and people glom onto that and it's important for us all to watch out for selves and our loved ones because the radicals don't just distort the national conversation but also cause real harm in people. host: in the next few minutes, the house is expected to come in for the day we will take our viewers there for like gavel-to-gavel coverage. until then, we will continue with peter adams, talking about how we consume the news. news lit.org is the website. this is angela at of johnstown pennsylvania, republican, good morning. caller: good morning, john.

i'm 83 years old and i have a comment that i have one question for the guest. whenever the democratic representatives from illinois were on, we were talking about the debt ceiling. i look at it as like a credit card. there was a guy on and then the representative from illinois was on. she mentioned that they have all the money in the world to pay the debt ceiling off. if you have a credit card and you over charge, what would you do? host: we are running short on time and the house is about to come in so what is your restaurant? caller: as i said, the point is

that you would pay your debt off, number one. you wouldn't continue to increase your debt constantly. i don't lend the republicans for increasing the debt, i blame the democrats. host: dave from florida, go ahead. caller: the news business has become a business and perhaps information and news is the most precious commodity we have. not even a single cell organism can survive without accurate information. one red flag that might like up the bulb in your head is when any news organizations calls itself fair and balanced, that should set off an alarm right away. there is no such thing as a fair and balanced news report. it's either true or it's false.

not fair, not balance, the world is not fair and life is there. it's either two plus two equals four or you are claiming two plus two equals nine or 27. host: mr. adams? guest: i appreciate the caller and their emphasis on facts and things that aren't up to date. that's an important part of the national conversation. we have to agree on facts and truths. and things that are verifiable. i think journalism is more complex than that. people have to be trained in decisions have to be made about coverage. it's the inclusion of showing your work. it's to accentuate that and complement that is in them or part of that. i appreciate the caller.

i 100% agree that all organizations need to be accurate in their reporting. host: peter adams the senior vice president at news lit.org area you can find them on twitter as well. what was the website for news literacy week? guest: news literacy week.org.

this is about 45.