Here is the greatest scams in history:
Can you be scammed?
In this country we used to have something called the Fairness Doctrine. The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints.
Paraphrased: issued by the FCC in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to give equal time for differing views on television and radio. That was until members of the Reagan administration abolished it in 1985.
"Lawmakers became concerned that the monopoly audience control of the three main networks, NBC, ABC and CBS, could misuse their broadcast licenses to set a biased public agenda.
The Fairness Doctrine mandated broadcast networks devote time to contrasting views on issues of public importance. Congress backed the policy in 1954 and by the 1970s the FCC called the doctrine the “single most important requirement of operation in the public interest – the sine qua non for grant of a renewal of license.
The Supreme Court upheld the doctrine. In 1969’s Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, journalist Fred Cook sued a Pennsylvania Christian Crusade radio program after a radio host attacked him on air. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld Cook's right to an on-air response under the Fairness Doctrine, arguing that nothing in the First Amendment gives a broadcast license holder the exclusive right to the airwaves they operate on.
The doctrine stayed in effect, and was enforced until the Reagan Administration. In 1985, under FCC Chairman, Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment."
What do you think about the trustworthiness of this article?
What about the source? Does that make it more biased or less neutral? What are some reasons that striking down the requirement could be viewed as a good thing? What would Reagan's critics say?
Here's what the article goes on to say:
"Fowler began rolling the application of the doctrine back during Reagan's second term - despite complaints from some in the Administration that it was all that kept broadcast journalists from thoroughly lambasting Reagan's policies on air. In 1987, the FCC panel, under new chairman Dennis Patrick, repealed the Fairness Doctrine altogether with a 4-0 vote."
What could the results of this be? What do you think of the following video?
What can we tell about a writer's tone in a piece? What about word choice? The way information is presented, order of importance and what is left out? Something to consider moving on.
History is replete with distortion, exaggeration, myths, and selective editing.
This an interesting website for going down rabbit holes:
We're trying to figure out did 300 Spartan warriors really hold off a Persian army of 100,000?
Speaking of going down a rabbit hole, this is a great site for trying to tweaker out a unbiased opinion:
And here is a good critical thinking exercise:
After skimming all 3 short articles, What is probably the truth?
Howard Zinn published a book in the 1980 called 'A People's History of the United States' in which many of history's sacred cows are lead up the ramp for stripping. people's History was most influential to an entire generation and has been used in many classrooms with millions of copies sold.
Here's an excerpt:
"What struck me as I began to study history was how nationalist fervor--inculcated from childhood on by pledges of allegiance, national anthems, flags waving and rhetoric blowing--permeated the educational systems of all countries, including our own. I wonder now how the foreign policies of the United States would look if we wiped out the national boundaries of the world, at least in our minds, and thought of all children everywhere as our own. Then we could never drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, or napalm on Vietnam, or wage war anywhere, because wars, especially in our time, are always wars against children, indeed our children."
Zi. Zinn goes on to say that Supreme Emperor Hiro was ready to surrender and that the dropping of the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary.
Some have refuted claims made in the book, including teachers at Stanford.
From Stanford Report,
"Wineburg, one of the world's top researchers in the field of history education, raises larger issues about how history should be taught.He says that Zinn's desire to cast a light on what he saw as historic injustice was a crusade built on secondary sources of questionable provenance, omission of exculpatory evidence, leading questions and shaky connections between evidence and conclusions."
What do you think about the expression 'history is written by the winners?'
Wineburg continues to say,
"The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink."
– George Orwell, 1984
What are some examples of fake news having serious consequences?
What of what we have read today is biased? How could it be less so?
Some recent studies have stated that the average person now has an attention span of less than 8 seconds. Less than that of a goldfish? Do you think that's accurate? Why would someone misrepresent those numbers?
And that's in the news, what about what we can see with our own eyes?!
Some psychological reasons for bias: