Hi, I'm Mrs. Allchin, and I'm going to be taking you through this citizenship lesson today.

I'm going to give you all the information that you need to be able to take part in the lesson, and I'll also pause and tell you when you need to complete an activity or complete a check for understanding.

I hope you enjoy the lesson.

This lesson is called How can we protect ourselves from misinformation? And it's taken from the unit of lessons, How powerful is the media? By the end of this lesson, you'll be able to explain the importance of reviewing media and critically analyse how media stories develop.

The keywords for this lesson are review, which is to look over something carefully.

Verify, which is to confirm something is true or correct.

Source, where information comes from.

Journalist, a person who reports news.

And editor, a person who checks and revises news content before it is published or broadcast.

The lesson outline for today is: why should we review the media, and then how does a media story develop? And we're going to start off by looking at why should we review the media? So Jun is asking, "Why should we review the media?" So pause and have a go at answering this for yourselves.

The media has the power to influence people's opinions.

It can shape public debate and even affect government decisions.

Although the media can inform and educate, it can also mislead the public via misinformation.

Reviewing the media critically ensures that we are well-informed citizens who can make independent, fact-based decisions.

So what does it mean to think critically, Jun is asking.

Well, to think critically is to ask questions.

So not just take things as facts, but to probe and ask questions.

To analyse the information, really unpick it and really think about that information carefully.

To evaluate that information, so we think about things that are positive, things that are maybe negative, any sort of weaknesses with that information.

To use reasoning, so to really do some considering there.

So to also consider opposing views.

Sometimes it's really important to actually think about views that are different to ours 'cause it helps us to think critically and think about things we perhaps hadn't considered before.

And also take time to reflect, to go back, to give yourself space to think about whether or not your opinions or your thoughts might have changed.

So all of these things are what someone would do if they were thinking critically, and it's really important that when we're reviewing the media we're using these critical thinking skills, which are also really important for citizenship.

So let's have a check for understanding.

Which is not a critical thinking skill? Is it A, asking questions; B, reflecting; or C, ignoring? And it's C.

Ignoring is definitely not a critical thinking skill.

In fact, it's the complete opposite.

So it's not that we should distrust the media, that's really important.

It's not that by thinking critically you're absolutely not trusting anything the media says, but we should view media with a critical eye.

Media has the power to be highly influential, so it is sensible to carefully consider the media you are consuming to better ensure that you are not being misled due to these following reasons.

So misinformation.

Are you being given false information without malicious intentions? So is the person giving the information actually misinformed? Are you actually receiving disinformation? So are you being given false information with malicious intention? So the person that's sharing that information is being purposefully dishonest.

Or are you potentially consuming media that's got real heavy bias? So that's when you are being given information that may be true, but is heavily biassed towards a certain viewpoint, so therefore the information is very one-sided.

You're only going to really be hearing one side of a potential thought, opinion, or argument.

So Jun is saying, "But surely we should be able to trust that the media is factual?" What do you think? Can we completely trust that the media is factual? Traditional media such as newspapers, radio, and broadcast media as well as online news is centrally regulated, and this means it's checked carefully before it reaches citizens and is checked for accuracy as well.

However, traditional media can still be heavily biassed and only give one side of a story, which means it should be examined with a critical eye.

So yes, on the one hand, traditional media, we should really be able to trust that that information is factual for most of the time, but there is always potentially going to be a bit of bias there with a lot of the traditional media that we consume.

So it's always still worthwhile to think critically about what news we are receiving.

And then if we think about new media, so things such as streaming videos, blogs, social media, they're often self-regulated.

So they regulate themselves, they set their own rules and their own community guidelines and they do not go through the same prior regulation checks as traditional media.

So things like radio, newspapers are checked before they get to us, the citizens.

With things like social media, they are just put out there and it's not until afterwards that things might be spotted and things might be taken down.

And therefore, it's even more important to be critical of media that's digested in this way, as the risk of misinformation and disinformation is much greater.

Although untrue and/or harmful content can be reported and removed, because of the speed at which new media is consumed and spread, by the time this happens, thousands or even millions of citizens may have had access to the information.

So let's have a look at how could you effectively review the media, and we're going to think about using this review model.

And this also encourages us to really consider our critical thinking skills.

So for the REVIEW model, we've got R for reputation, we've got E for evidence, we've got V for verify, I for intent, E for emotions, and W for weighing it up.

So let's have a look at these in a bit more detail.

So the first thing that you can do is think about reputation.

So have you heard of the source? Is this a reputable, well-known radio station or newspaper or is this just some random social media account that you don't know? And also, have they been reliable before? Is this a source that you can normally trust to tell the truth, or is this a source that actually has been known to be incorrect and spread false information? So thinking about reputation is really important.

Then thinking about evidence.

So are there facts that have been cited in the story, and how are you sure that that evidence is actually evidence, it's factual? Are there holes in the story? Are things not quite making sense? Have there been, you know, checks to check that this evidence is as it should be? Which is quite similar but slightly different to verifying.

So that's when you're really doing that extra check.

So this is when actually, you might compare to other sources.

So are other newspapers or other radio stations or other social media accounts saying similar things or dissimilar things? So what's that comparison like? Does everything match up or are there inconsistencies and loopholes in stories? And a really important one, especially when we're thinking about things to do with bias, which we looked at before, is intent.

So what was the purpose? Why was the story published? Was it published to make us think a certain way, to act a certain way? Because therefore it could actually be that it's quite biassed, it could be that it's not very sort of impartial.

So intent is a really important thing, because media is often used to potentially make people, you know, think about things in a certain way, so it's important to be aware of that.

And then to be aware of your own emotions.

So how do you feel about the story? How's it making you feel? What's your sort of gut telling you? And are you being swayed by your feelings? Is the story making you feel really, really angry? Is it making you feel really upset? And what might that mean in in the whole review process? And then lastly, weighing everything up, and this is where those critical thinking skills really come into play.

So think about what you know, what you've learnt, what you've checked, and ultimately considering, does the story sound plausible? So that's quite a lot, but the more you do this, the better you will be at reviewing things quite quickly as you're receiving them.

So let's have a check for understanding.

What does the V in the REVIEW model stand for? Is it A, valuing; is it B, verifying; C, varying; or D, vanquishing? And it's B, verifying.

So what we're going to do now is look at the REVIEW model in action, and we're going to do this by looking at a case study, which is quite an important case study for citizenship, 'cause it looks at the media, it looks at how the media have portrayed things, so it's really, really important.

So what we're going to do is we're going to look at this case study and we're going to consider the REVIEW model in action.

So the case study that we're going to look at actually happened on the 15th of April, 1989, and it was the Hillsborough disaster, which occurred during an FA Cup semi-final football match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest, which was at Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield.

So the place where it happened was Hillsborough Stadium and that's why it's called the Hillsborough disaster.

As a result of police error, thousands of Liverpool fans were allowed into an already overcrowded section of the football stadium.

This caused a crush that caused 97 deaths and over 700 injuries.

So it's important that you know that when this happened, in a football stadium, actually where people could stand and watch the football match, it was like a series of almost pens that were penned off from another.

And due to police error, too many fans were allowed into one of these areas and it ultimately caused a crush.

So that is, in a really loose summary, what happened at the Hillsborough disaster.

But what we're gonna focus on is how the media reported on this disaster and actually the natural review process that happened as a result.

So "The Sun" newspaper printed reports that placed the blame solely on Liverpool fans.

The newspaper accused them of violence and aggressive behaviour, but later investigations concluded that it was actually police errors and stadium failures that were responsible.

So ultimately, what "The Sun" newspaper was printing was false.

So let's have a look at it in action.

So first of all, let's have a look at R, reputation.

So in the 1980s, "The Sun" newspaper had and still has a reputation for being a controversial tabloid newspaper.

So often covering stories that were involving like scandal, celebrity gossip, and using attention-grabbing headlines.

This is something that it already had a reputation for doing.

According to the BBC, it was the most popular newspaper by a significant amount during the time of the Hillsborough disaster, with between three and four million daily readers.

This suggests it had a positive reputation with the public due to its popularity.

So when this incorrect news story was published, we know that the audience was really high.

We know that "The Sun" newspaper had lots and lots of repeat customers buying that newspaper.

So let's look at E for evidence.

So the front page story that "The Sun" printed a few days after the disaster used the headline "The Truth," so it was stating that actually what was in this report was completely factual.

The report then went on to state that Liverpool fans barged their way into the stadium without tickets, so it actually suggested that the reason that the pens got so overcrowded was because Liverpool fans without tickets were just barging their way in; that people, Liverpool fans that were there at the time were actually stealing from the deceased, so when there were bodies laying on the floor, that Liverpool fans were actually taking things out of their pockets, taking watches off wrists, things like that; that the Liverpool fans urinated on and attacked the police officers that were trying to help; and that they were ultimately drunk and aggressive.

So this is what was stated as evidence on that front page of "The Sun" newspaper.

But looking at the evidence review, it's saying are there holes in the story? And yes, there were.

This evidence did not match survivor accounts, because you remember, yes, there were lots of people sadly that died, but there were lots of people that were there that lived through it and were able to give their account of what happened.

And the evidence in "The Sun" newspaper did not match survivor accounts.

They voiced many holes in the story.

So they said that actually the Liverpool fans were really trying to help.

They were helping to perform CPR on people that were injured and they absolutely were not attacking the police.

They were trying to work with them to help the injured.

Then let's have a look at verify.

So that's making sure that you're comparing to other sources and thinking, is everything matching up? And you can already see that there are some holes here.

So "The Sun's" account of what happened during the disaster continued to be disputed and questioned.

Many of "The Sun's" sources came from unnamed police officers who could not be verified.

So straight away, if it's an unnamed source, you're not able to verify that.

And also photographs and videos of the disaster showed no evidence of foul play by Liverpool fans.

In fact, it showed the opposite.

It clearly showed fans helping the injured.

You know, fans were even making makeshift supports to be able to carry injured people out of the stadium.

And eyewitnesses stated that Liverpool fans were not acting violently.

So straight away, things aren't matching up there.

It's difficult to verify evidence that "The Sun" newspaper claimed, and it became clear that the evidence was not matching up at all.

Then it's time to think about intent.

Now, remember, "The Sun" had a reputation for being a very controversial newspaper with really sort of attention-grabbing headlines.

So some people believed "The Sun" printed the story to align with its sensationalist reputation of controversial stories and those attention-grabbing headlines.

So using a headline such as "The Truth," for example.

The report gained a lot of attention, but was not viewed as being impartial as it did not give opposing accounts of the same story.

It was very much this is the truth and this is what happened.

So we can look at these two together, so emotions and then weighing it up.

So, many people across the UK and in particular those unfamiliar with Liverpool fans believed "The Sun's" lies, and this led to a negative stereotype of Liverpool football supporters as people that were violent and disrespectful.

So it had a really negative impact.

However, many Liverpudlian citizens were furious because they knew that the story wasn't true.

There were widespread boycotts of "The Sun" in Liverpool.

So this means that people just stopped, refused to buy "The Sun" newspaper, and that actually continues to this day.

"The Sun" lost a significant amount of customers in Liverpool, with many shops refusing to sell it.

And again, even today there are shops in Liverpool that still refuse to sell "The Sun" newspaper.

So what happened as a result of this public review of "The Sun"? So we've just seen in action the review process with a disaster.

So what do you think might have happened as a result? So 20 years after the disaster, "The Sun" finally issued a front page apology.

This followed public pressure, legal battles, and the findings of the 2012 Hillsborough Independent Panel.

The panel confirmed that what "The Sun" initially published wasn't true and based on fabricated claims made by the police.

In 2016, after a new inquest ruled that the victims were unlawfully killed, "The Sun's" then editor issued another apology, but for many, the initial false reporting was unforgivable.

This case study highlights the power of the media and the dangers of spreading misinformation.

It highlights how the public must review media critically, verify sources, and challenge false reporting to prevent lies from shaping history.

Let's have a check for understanding.

There is no need to review the media.

Is that true, is that false, and can you tell me why? It's false, and why? The public must review media critically, verify sources, and challenge false reporting to prevent the spread of misinformation.

So for Task A, I would like you to explain why each stage of the review cycle is important.

So for example, you might have the sentence starter, considering the reputation, because that's R, of the source is important because.

And I'd like you to do that for each stage of the review cycle.

So pause while you have a go at this task.

So when explaining why each stage of the review cycle is important, you may have included: considering the reputation of the source is important because this might indicate how much you can trust the source; if they have a reputation for spreading misinformation or an ulterior motive, this might make you doubt them.

Checking the evidence and carefully considering if there are any holes in the story is important as this helps you consider if the information is factual.

Your answer may have continued on to say: verifying the information is another crucial step as this involves comparing the different information provided by each source and considering whether the different information provided supports or disputes the other.

Considering intent is useful as this makes us think critically about why the story was published in this particular way.

Considering intent also encourages us to question whether something is impartial.

Thinking about how a story makes us feel is also important.

It makes us consider the emotions a story is making us feel and why.

And lastly, you might have said that weighing up whether the story seems factual and plausible is a final step, and to do this, you need to consider all the other stages of the review process.

We're now going to consider, how does a media story develop? So Lucas is asking, "How does a media story develop?" So you need to know that a news story goes through several key stages before it reaches us, the public.

And these are the stages.

So there's initial investigation and news gathering, verification and fact-checking, writing and editor approval, publishing and broadcasting, and then public reaction and corrections.

So when we're thinking about traditional media, our newspapers, our news, our radio reports goes through these stages, and we're going to look at these in more detail.

During each stage of development, errors might happen, which can result in misinformation being spread.

So even with all of these things in place, errors can still happen.

Initial investigation and news gathering.

So let's have a look at this.

Journalists receive tips, leads, or reports from sources, including the public, officials, and whistleblowers, so people that know things are going on that are bad and want to basically report that.

They may gather information through interviews, eyewitness accounts, social media, or freedom of information requests.

At this stage, misinformation risk is high if journalists fail to verify their sources correctly.

Sources might be wrong about the information they are passing on or they might even deliberately pass on disinformation, especially when they are protected and anonymized within the media.

So let's have a check for understanding.

Why is the risk of misinformation high in the early stages of developing a story? So fill in the missing words.

Misinformation risk is high if something failed to verify their sources correctly.

Sources might be wrong about the information they are passing on or may even deliberately pass on something.

So pause while you have a go.

So the missing words were journalists and disinformation.

So let's read it again.

Misinformation risk is high if journalists fail to verify their sources correctly.

Sources might be wrong about the information they are passing on or may even deliberately pass on disinformation.

Let's look at verification and fact-checking.

So reliable news organisations ensure that facts are double-checked before publishing.

This aims to spot any errors or inconsistencies with information gained from different sources, 'cause there might be differences in what people are saying.

Sources should be assessed for credibility, and news organisations should carefully consider the potential intent of the source.

Journalists should also cross-reference information with government reports, official records, or any other expert opinions to further verify their information, ultimately, just really, really being thorough with fact-checking.

Again, if mistakes are made at this crucial stage, misinformation can be published or broadcast and spread.

So Lucas is asking, "What are the risks if these initial stages are not carried out carefully?" So pause and consider.

So let's look at some examples.

So following a terrorist attack in Westminster in 2017, several UK news outlets incorrectly reported that the attacker was a British-born terrorist without fully fact-checking their information, they then later had to correct news reports as what was initially reported was false.

We've then got writing and editor approval.

So once verified, journalists write the article, news segment, or social media post.

They make must make sure that this aligns with the organization's editorial standards.

Editors have the important job of reviewing the story for accuracy, balance, and fairness.

Some outlets may sensationalise headlines to attract attention and gain more sales.

So it's really important that we're aware of that.

And Lucas is reminding us that this is what "The Sun" did when reporting on the Hillsborough disaster.

So remember, by using that headline "The Truth." So let's have a check for understanding.

Who has the job of reviewing newspaper stories for accuracy? Is it A, the engineer; B, the editor; or C, the economist? And it's B, the editor.

It's important to remember that the majority of media organisations are also businesses and they make their money through how well citizens engage with the media that they are producing.

Editors will often make the decision to develop a story in a way that is popular and appealing to the demographic that purchase their newspaper, as this makes future sales more likely.

Ultimately, you're going to keep on buying a newspaper if it's got the stories in it that you want to read and that you're interested in.

For example, if an editor knew that their newspaper was popular with readers who have left-wing or liberal views, they might choose to cover topics such as climate change in a way that aligns with those perspectives.

This could influence the language used and issues highlighted in the article.

Then it's publishing and broadcasting.

So once a story has been approved, it is then published or broadcast to us citizens.

And due to the rise in digital media, news can reach a wide audience quickly, and if errors exist, misinformation can spread fast, as more and more people share incorrect information online.

So ultimately, once something that's untrue gets out there, it can spread really, really quickly, and that's why all of those pre-checks are so important.

When misinformation is released without full verification, this leads to retraction or corrections needing to happen at a later date, and this is really damaging, as it can cause citizens to distrust the media.

So if, for example, a newspaper was to print something that was later seen to be false and it then had to have a retraction saying, you know, "We are very sorry, the news printed on this date was false," that can make people really start to distrust the media, which is really poor in a democracy.

So let's have a check for understanding.

Why are media corrections or retractions damaging? So they can cause citizens to distrust the media.

We then have public reaction and corrections.

After a news story has been released, citizens and subject experts may question the accuracy of a story.

This was witnessed with "The Sun's" reporting of the Hillsborough disaster.

If false information is identified, news organisations may issue corrections or apologies.

This might happen fairly quickly or could take years, depending on how easy it is to disprove the misinformation.

However, even when a correction or retraction happens, the harm's often already been done, with many citizens engaging with and believing incorrect information.

So Lucas is asking, "Are there any examples of misinformation being broadcast as it hadn't gone through final checks?" Let's have a look.

So some anticipated news stories are so important that media outlets actually practise when and how they will communicate key information to citizens.

An example of this is the death of the monarch, 'cause that's a huge, huge media story, it's really, really emotive information, so therefore media outlets actually practise how and when they will do that and how they will respond to that as and when it happens.

So in 2016, during a rehearsal for the announcement of the death of Queen Elizabeth II, BBC Urdu accidentally posted that she had died.

Even though the misinformation was spotted and taken down within minutes, the story quickly went viral, with citizens believing that the monarch had died.

As the post gained traction, it was shared amongst a wide variety of different platforms. This highlights how even though there are clear procedures that take place during the development of a news story, errors can still take place.

This could be due to the need to provide sensationalist stories, as we witnessed with "The Sun's" reporting of the Hillsborough disaster, or as a result of genuine human error, as seen in the incorrect reporting of Queen Elizabeth II's death.

Even with very clear procedures in place, misinformation can make its way into the media, so it is vital that we consider all media types critically.

Let's have a check for understanding.

True or false? There are not clear procedures in place when a media story is developing through traditional media outlets.

Is that true, is that false, and can you tell me why? It's false.

And why? A news story goes through several key checking procedures before it reaches the public.

However, errors can still happen.

For Task B, I'd like you to outline how a media story develops, including the stages below, and I'd also like you to explain how and why misinformation can still occur.

So the stages to include are initial investigation and news gathering, verification and fact-checking, writing and editor approval, publishing and broadcasting, and public reaction and corrections.

You do not have to explicitly name every stage, but your work must show an understanding of them.

Pause while you have a go at this task.

When outlining how a media story develops, your answer may have included: a media stories starts when journalists find out about something interesting or important happening.

They gather information by talking to people and looking at other important documents.

Next, they make sure the facts are true by verifying sources and fact-checking everything.

After that, they write the story and editors check it to make sure it's clear, fair, and follows the rules of journalism.

Once approved, the story gets published or broadcast on television.

After the news has been released, people react by sharing opinions.

If mistakes are found, corrections are made to keep the story accurate.

When explaining how and why misinformation can still occur, your answer may have included: misinformation can still happen during a media story because mistakes can be made at any stage.

Reporters might get wrong or incomplete information from sources.

Even though fact-checking takes place, misinformation can happen if there's pressure to report quickly.

When a story is published, the editor might decide to portray the information in a certain way to suit their customers.

If mistakes are noticed later, corrections can be made, but by then the false information might have already spread.

This is why it's important to think critically when accessing the media.

So in summary of How can we protect ourselves from misinformation, when looking at media, it is important to think about the source.

If they have a history of spreading false information, be cautious.

Check the evidence and compare different sources.

Also, ask why story was written that way and if it's fair.

Notice how it makes you feel, as emotions can be used to influence opinions.

Finally, decide if the story seems true by considering all these factors.

A media story begins when journalists find interesting news.

They gather and fact-check information, then they write the story.

Editors review it for fairness and accuracy before it is published or broadcast.

After it is released, people react and any mistakes are corrected to keep it accurate.

However, errors can still happen at every stage.

This brings us to the end of the lesson, How can we protect ourselves from misinformation? Well done for all your hard work, and I hope you come back for some more citizenship lessons in the future.