Abstract
Media literacy aims to empower citizens to critically engage with their (increasingly personalised) information and media landscape. Media literacy efforts have gained urgency in the rise and rapid spread of misinformation, disinformation, fake news and other problematic information on social media and beyond. However, media literacy efforts, including corrective information, fact checking, and pre- and debunking have been topics of discussion due to mixed effects. Scholars have warned for possible backlashes, such as polarisation and increasing mistrust in journalism and institutions (Bounegru et al. 2018; Chan et al. 2021; Hameleers & van der Meer 2020; Phillips & Milner, 2021; Vraga et al. 2022).
In response, Phillips and Milner (2021) have put forward the concept of ‘ecological literacy’, which calls for a focus on media ecologies rather than individual harmful content and sources. Their concept of ecological literacy, a networked media literacy approach, is helpful here. In this winter school project, we aim to operationalise this notion, that moves from the single post to a networked view, by tracing the spread of (problematic) messages in the realm of sensitive topics such as dietary advice, current climate activism and blockchain investment opportunities.
We aim to do so not by starting from the assessment of information as being true, false, or misleading, but rather by making the act of mapping and tracing content central to our inquiry, scrutinising how specific information travels through different platforms and how it may transform through the act of circulating. Such tracing may lead to views on how the message is being reinforced, complicated, annotated, endorsed, criticised or debunked throughout its dissemination.
Starting point for the analysis is Instagram, Telegram & TikTok, - three platforms have been under scrutiny or criticised in popular media for pushing problematic content to a younger audience (Milmo & Hern, 2022, Veranen, 2022, Onibada 2021) - where messages on one or more of the following topics will be traced across platforms regarding health & diet tips. Recent articles point out teenagers are confronted with highly problematic online (English-language) content on dieting advice, with terms like ‘weight loss’ sometimes bordering on pro-ana voices, or with the hidden agenda of selling surgery or vitamin supplements. How does this kind of problematic information present itself, and how does that differ across platforms? (Also see Milmo & Hern 2022, Beeld & Geluid 2022)
In response, Phillips and Milner (2021) have put forward the concept of ‘ecological literacy’, which calls for a focus on media ecologies rather than individual harmful content and sources. Their concept of ecological literacy, a networked media literacy approach, is helpful here. In this winter school project, we aim to operationalise this notion, that moves from the single post to a networked view, by tracing the spread of (problematic) messages in the realm of sensitive topics such as dietary advice, current climate activism and blockchain investment opportunities.
We aim to do so not by starting from the assessment of information as being true, false, or misleading, but rather by making the act of mapping and tracing content central to our inquiry, scrutinising how specific information travels through different platforms and how it may transform through the act of circulating. Such tracing may lead to views on how the message is being reinforced, complicated, annotated, endorsed, criticised or debunked throughout its dissemination.
Starting point for the analysis is Instagram, Telegram & TikTok, - three platforms have been under scrutiny or criticised in popular media for pushing problematic content to a younger audience (Milmo & Hern, 2022, Veranen, 2022, Onibada 2021) - where messages on one or more of the following topics will be traced across platforms regarding health & diet tips. Recent articles point out teenagers are confronted with highly problematic online (English-language) content on dieting advice, with terms like ‘weight loss’ sometimes bordering on pro-ana voices, or with the hidden agenda of selling surgery or vitamin supplements. How does this kind of problematic information present itself, and how does that differ across platforms? (Also see Milmo & Hern 2022, Beeld & Geluid 2022)
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Publication status | Published - 2023 |