The peace in learning to discern the news

Media literacy courses can help news consumers, but one study in Ukraine found ways to ensure long-term effects.

AP Photo
A commuter waiting for a train reads from her phone next to an advertisement discouraging the dissemination of fake news at a station in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

If you’re reading this with a critical eye, welcome to the crowd. In recent years, more American high schools have begun to teach “media literacy,” especially during an era of “fake news.” More news outlets now offer truth checks on public statements. And as the United States heads into an election, voters will be reminded of how Russia manipulated social media in an attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election.

Yet for all the training and advice given to news consumers, how much do they really end up becoming earnest truth-seekers?

One 2003 study of an 11th-grade class on media literacy found students were better able to recognize “the complex blurring” of information and entertainment in nonfiction media. But there was a problem. The effects of the training wore off after a year. Media literacy is still a work in progress.

Perhaps the best lab to test such training is Ukraine, which has long been a target of fake news and is on the front line of the information wars. 

Since 2014, when a popular revolution overthrew a pro-Kremlin regime, Russia has conducted a massive disinformation campaign in its neighboring state, probably to sow division and steer Ukraine from joining Western organizations or becoming a showcase for democracy.

Many journalists in Ukraine have tried to counter the falsehoods. But that may not be working. Only 1 in 4 Ukrainians trusts the media. The alternative is to train Ukrainians to become long-term discerners of media accuracy and manipulation.

In an experiment funded by Canada, more than 15,000 Ukrainians participated in workshops in 2015-16 that trained them to “better identify fake news stories and actively seek out high-quality news and information.” The course was particularly focused on recognizing deliberate efforts to manipulate people’s emotions through misleading content. To measure the impact of the training, researchers from the nonprofit IREX used a control group. And they relied on trainers embedded in their local organizations or community.

The results, released May 15, are encouraging.

Participants in the training program, called Learn to Discern, were 13 percent better than peers at identifying and analyzing fake news stories – even 1-1/2 years after completing the program. In addition, 25 percent were more likely to check multiple sources.

Participants rated themselves as more proficient in three ways:

  • When I am misinformed by the news media, I can do something about it.
  • If I pay attention to multiple sources of information, I can avoid being misinformed.
  • If I take the right actions, I can stay informed.

The course was so successful that IREX is now piloting the approach in Arizona and New Jersey.

One result really stood out. Those who took the course were eager to share their new skills with others. Researchers estimate that more than 90,000 people indirectly benefited.

This finding fits with what the late Swedish researcher Hans Rosling calls “factfulness,” or the practice of perceiving what qualifies as news over the course of time. News discernment, he once wrote, is “understanding as a source of mental peace.”

With the right training in media literacy, perhaps more people can gain that peace.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to The peace in learning to discern the news
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today