Tasha—

As the daughter of a journalist, I was raised with a firm belief in evidence-based journalistic standards. Reporters should ask a question, seek a range of qualified perspectives, consider all worthy evidence, and then answer the question in a manner that incorporates discussion of opposing viewpoints. This "journalism of verification" (Kovach and Rosenstiel 2010, 36-38) was never the only model active in the press, but the drive to achieve it framed dinnertime conversation as I was growing up.

Back in the spring of 2015, however, I was forcefully confronted with my own slide away from this core set of beliefs, even as I espoused them at work. I had failed to recognize that most of the news I encountered was specifically crafted to resonate with my political perspective, which Kovach and Rosenstiel call the "journalism of affirmation" (45-50). This became clear while meeting with students about sources for long-standing pro/con-style Socratic circles run by our government students. In these meetings, where a librarian vetted their selections, a pair of students argued for the authority of their sources by explaining the background of both the author and the publisher (the press outlet, research center, government agency, etc.). Students, trained by the same affirmative media trends to which I had fallen victim, seemed unable to distinguish between what felt good and what was good quality. I strove to articulate an "objective" set of standards by which journalism of any political viewpoint should be evaluated, but questioned my own credibility as it became clear that my knowledge of conservative-leaning sources was negligible at best. How could I ask students of any political persuasion to engage with standards-based evaluation if I did not have a range of options to offer them?

High schooler Arushi Gupta now plays a key role as we iterate on our news literacy classes. Her insights have proven pivotal to advancing the education we offer all of our students. As a government student, she participated in our earliest source approval meetings, and she tested our materials when the library was invited the next year to offer a grade-wide lesson to build a common framework for all students' selection of sources. Gupta discussed news consumption with me both before and after our inaugural news literacy class. She helped redesign that same class before we taught it this year. Her focus on identifying granular skills to help student manage this complex activity has improved the curriculum for all of our students.

Arushi—

Before attending the 2016 news literacy class, I talked to Ms. Bergson-Michelson about expanding my news feed. I was getting news in two ways—the New York Times morning briefing and an RSS feed that gave me headlines from a few sources I considered major players: the BBC, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. I found myself reading the same headline through marginally different lenses, spending hours without the return of depth or nuance. I wanted to rethink my feed, but I didn't know how to diversify the factual content and political slant without compromising the sources' quality. In the news literacy class, Ms. Bergson-Michelson provided a list of sources that catered to a range of regional and political tastes. By doing so, she drastically reduced the effort needed to diversify my news feed.

When I began reading a wider range of sources, I was amazed by both the news stories I had been missing and by the wildly varying analyses of events I had already encountered. From international sources, I learned about major happenings that didn't make an appearance in many US-based sources, but I also saw how the political framework differed from country to country. The left/right political spectrum was not a given, but rather often a distinctly American lens. In speaking of formerly communist countries, the spectrum in question isn't necessarily fiscal or social conservatism as much as support of the status quo, view of communism's past, and the level of corruption ("Who's Left? Who's Right?" 2009).

Perhaps most eye-opening for me was reading US sources with a radically different political slant than my own. Reading these sources didn't necessarily change my beliefs, but it challenged me to create more coherent arguments defending my point of view. I gained an appreciation for how a different set of values and starting assumptions could be logically taken to an entirely different conclusion. This was my most successful effort to understand the significant segment of the American population that holds beliefs sometimes antithetical to my own. I had read some conservative-leaning articles that garnered attention in my social networks due to their incendiary nature. However, these popular articles often assumed I shared certain basic beliefs with the author. Reading evidence-based, well-reasoned arguments made those points of view accessible despite my differing values and pushed me to deconstruct why I disagreed.

I think the value in reading a diverse set of news sources is twofold. One important factor is the need to try to understand and empathize with people in different parts of the world, in different situations, to witness their lives and struggles. The other is more reflective. Separating your beliefs from those of family, friends, teachers, or the media you consume and then questioning them is an important part of our education.

The multiple functions of reading widely—being aware of a larger set of events, understanding other systems of belief, and understanding our own values—cannot be served by the same sources or the same mindset. It is important to select sources with a specific goal in mind and to read them in context of that goal.

Tasha—

These observations from Gupta guided our re-writing of the news media classes for our second iteration. She reasoned that our first news literacy courses asked students to conflate actions that should be undertaken separately for burgeoning news readers.

Gupta was actively involved in the class planning for this year. She focused us on activities that would help students navigate the very specific ways in which reading for perspective differs from other kinds of news reading and what makes it so difficult. Together, we decided news readers need the ability to remove the language of affirmation from stories so students could focus on and learn from the content. Whether a story feels positive or negative to the reader, she needs to be able to "hear" the substance of it. So, we passed out two articles: one arguing the benefits and dangers of student screen time and one on the use of menstruation huts in a region of Nepal. Students read with an eye for places that inspired an emotional response and marked them, returning later to ask whether the emotional response was triggered by language, content, or both. Then, they practiced retelling the information being conveyed by the story in terms that felt neutral to the teller. Practicing the ability to "translate" something emotionally evocative into the bare bones of its underlying argument made it easier for the "translator" to hear what the author was trying to say.

Tasha & Arushi—

In the class, once we established the idea that emotional and factual content could be separated, students quickly pinpointed particular words, and even punctuation, that elicited emotional responses. One important recognition during this process was that each reader's perspective informed what language they judged to be emotional, implying that there is no entirely objective, unbiased language. This realization was valuable because it allowed students to engage with content without the assumption that only their perspective was fact-based. The sections that drew the most ire were those where the author's tone clearly conveyed contempt or disregard for the other side. Interestingly, language loaded with positive signifiers was harder to spot, indicating room for growth in further instruction. Ultimately, the students learned how to isolate emotional content and use it to better understand the opinion of the author, the factual content of the article, and their own perspective.

Although it feels like there is much that students need to know about how to access, select, and evaluate news sources, our experience is that students feel more empowered to make real changes in their behavior when given instruction that focuses on one or two very specific skills at a time they can implement. In terms of pure news consumption, it can be helpful for students in their formative stages to separate out the kind of reading they undertake and when they undertake it. Additionally, as students learn evidence-based argumentation, it becomes imperative for them to not only access multiple perspectives, but to be able to engage critically with ideas they encounter. Claims that support viewpoints different from one's own have always been a part of developing a strong argument, but increasingly students need support in finding ways they can cut through affirmative language to see the claims and evidence lying beneath.

Works Cited

Dean, Walter. "The Lost Meaning of 'Objectivity'." American Press Institute. Accessed November 11, 2017. https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/bias-objectivity/lost-meaning-objectivity/.

Kovach, Bill and Tom Rosenstiel. Blur: How to Know What's True in the Age of Information Overload. Bloomsbury, 2010.

Pokharel, Sugam. "Nepali 'Menstruation Hut' Ritual Claims Life of Teenage Girl." CNN. Last modified July 12, 2017. http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/10/asia/nepal-menstruation-hut-deaths-outrage/index.html.

"Who's Left? Who's Right?" The Economist. (April 23, 2009). http://www.economist.com/node/13525390.