Media literacy is having a moment. We can't lose momentum.
Media literacy is having a moment. We can't lose momentum. | Opinion A 2024 study by the News Literacy Project revealed that 82% of teens struggle to distinguish news, advertisements, opinions and entertainment.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Teens spend almost ALL their time online, new research shows
Pew Reseach surveyed teens between 13 to 17 years old to see how much time they spent online. Spoiler alert: almost all of it.
It is no understatement to say that social media has dramatically altered the news landscape, often degrading civic discourse into a battleground of misinformation.
Young people, who spend much of their lives online, are thrown into this complex world without the necessary tools to navigate the falsehoods and conspiracy theories that crowd out the facts.
Today, adults under 30 are nearly as likely to trust information from social media as from national news outlets, according to the Pew Research Center.
As I look forward to athletes from around the world converging in my hometown of Los Angeles for the 2028 Olympics, I wonder whether dodging online rumors and falsehoods should be added to the competitive games. Like landing a perfect score on the balance beam or setting track and field records, learning to recognize misinformation and find credible sources takes training, skills and practice.
Data on teens and news literacy is alarming. Social media isn't helping.
I am a philanthropist who dedicates significant investment toward improving public K-12 education, but I initially missed just how critical social media and news literacy are to the development of our youth. While I focused on traditional education fundamentals like math and English language skills, social media use among children as young as elementary school age skyrocketed.
This has diminished young people's ability to parse information. A 2024 study by the News Literacy Project, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that helps educators bring news literacy into the classroom, revealed that 82% of teens struggle to distinguish what's news, advertisements, opinions and entertainment.
We know social media is polluted with conspiracy theories ‒ such as 5G technology spreading COVID-19 to vaccines being fitted with microchips that allow government surveillance.
Opinion: I'm a polio survivor. Kennedy's vaccine stance means he shouldn't be in charge of health.
America's teens encounter such harmful lies daily. The News Literacy Project's study shows that 8 in 10 teens on social media say they see posts that promote conspiracy theories, and an overwhelming majority who report seeing this content (81%) say they are inclined to believe one or more.
Alarmingly, the report also found that nearly half of teens surveyed think that journalists do more harm than good to democracy.
Require schools to teach media literacy
These results serve as a stark wake-up call. But they also show us a path forward.
An overwhelming majority of teens – 94% – say schools should be required to teach media literacy. And students with some form of media literacy lessons are more likely to fact-check before posting to social media, push back against misinformation when they see it and seek out reliable news.
Opinion: TikTok changed our culture – and my life. Would we be better off without it?
Guaranteeing news literacy education – the ability to fact-check and find credible sources through a variety of standards-based resources – is critical to ensure that our nation's next generation of leaders has the power to discern fact from fiction.
Philanthropists have the unique opportunity to unlock this potential. By investing in news literacy, we can empower the next generation not only to participate in civic life but also to lead it with integrity and insight.
Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store.
This is a bipartisan opportunity for donors and government to create meaningful public/private partnerships. Florida, Texas, Illinois and California are among the states that have signed legislation to bring news literacy to classrooms. Even more states – blue and red alike – are considering similar measures.
It is my hope that by the time the world gathers in Los Angeles for the 2028 Olympics, all 50 states will pass legislation recognizing the importance of news literacy. We need an Olympic-size commitment to teaching media literacy in our classrooms across America.
That would set a gold standard for the rest of the world. More important, it would put young people, our future leaders, on a podium above the lies and mudslinging that drag down our public discourse.
Melanie Lundquist is a member of the Giving Pledge. She is a proud graduate of Los Angeles Unified public schools and serves as a board member of the News Literacy Project, a nonpartisan nonprofit.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
South Dakota is on track to spend $2 billion on prisons in the next decade
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Two years after approving a tough-on-crime sentencing law, South Dakota is scrambling to deal with the price tag for that legislation: Housing thousands of additional inmates could require up to $2 billion to build new prisons in the next decade. That's a lot of money for a state with one of the lowest populations in the U.S., but a consultant said it's needed to keep pace with an anticipated 34% surge of new inmates in the next decade as a result of South Dakota's tough criminal justice laws. And while officials are grumbling about the cost, they don't seem concerned with the laws that are driving the need even as national crime rates are dropping. 'Crime has been falling everywhere in the country, with historic drops in crime in the last year or two,' said Bob Libal, senior campaign strategist at the criminal justice nonprofit the Sentencing Project. 'It's a particularly unusual time to be investing $2 billion in prisons.' Some Democratic-led states have worked to close prisons and enact changes to lower inmate populations, but that's a tough sell in Republican-majority states such as South Dakota that believe in a tough-on-crime approach, even if that leads to more inmates. For now, state lawmakers have set aside a $600-million fund to replace the overcrowded 144-year-old South Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls, making it one of the most expensive taxpayer-funded projects in South Dakota history. But South Dakota will likely need more prisons. Phoenix-based Arrington Watkins Architects, which the state hired as a consultant, has said South Dakota will need 3,300 additional beds in coming years, bringing the cost to $2 billion. Driving up costs is the need for facilities with different security levels to accommodate the inmate population. Concerns about South Dakota's prisons first arose four years ago, when the state was flush with COVID-19 relief funds. Lawmakers wanted to replace the penitentiary, but they couldn't agree on where to put the prison and how big it should be. A task force of state lawmakers assembled by Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden is expected to decide that in a plan for prison facilities this July. Many lawmakers have questioned the proposed cost, but few have called for criminal justice changes that would make such a large prison unnecessary. 'One thing I'm trying to do as the chairman of this task force is keep us very focused on our mission,' said Lt. Gov. Tony Venhuizen. 'There are people who want to talk about policies in the prisons or the administration or the criminal justice system more broadly, and that would be a much larger project than the fairly narrow scope that we have.' South Dakota's incarceration rate of 370 per 100,000 people is an outlier in the Upper Midwest. Neighbors Minnesota and North Dakota have rates of under 250 per 100,000 people, according to the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice advocacy nonprofit. Nearly half of South Dakota's projected inmate population growth can be attributed to a law approved in 2023 that requires some violent offenders to serve the full-length of their sentences before parole, according to a report by Arrington Watkins. When South Dakota inmates are paroled, about 40% are ordered to return to prison, the majority of those due to technical violations such as failing a drug test or missing a meeting with a parole officer. Those returning inmates made up nearly half of prison admissions in 2024. Sioux Falls criminal justice attorney Ryan Kolbeck blamed the high number of parolees returning in part on the lack of services in prison for people with drug addictions. 'People are being sent to the penitentiary but there's no programs there for them. There's no way it's going to help them become better people,' he said. 'Essentially we're going to put them out there and house them for a little bit, leave them on parole and expect them to do well.' South Dakota also has the second-greatest disparity of Native Americans in its prisons. While Native Americans make up one-tenth of South Dakota's population, they make up 35% of those in state prisons, according to Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit public policy group. Though legislators in the state capital, Pierre, have been talking about prison overcrowding for years, they're reluctant to dial back on tough-on-crime laws. For example, it took repeated efforts over six years before South Dakota reduced a controlled substance ingestion law to a misdemeanor from a felony for the first offense, aligning with all other states. 'It was a huge, Herculean task to get ingestion to be a misdemeanor,' Kolbeck said. Former penitentiary warden Darin Young said the state needs to upgrade its prisons, but he also thinks it should spend up to $300 million on addiction and mental illness treatment. 'Until we fix the reasons why people come to prison and address that issue, the numbers are not going to stop,' he said. Without policy changes, the new prisons are sure to fill up, criminal justice experts agreed. 'We might be good for a few years, now that we've got more capacity, but in a couple years it'll be full again,' Kolbeck said. 'Under our policies, you're going to reach capacity again soon.' Raza writes for the Associated Press.
San Francisco Chronicle
3 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
How much has World Cup's global party been spoiled already by Trump's tantrums, threats?
Last month, when President Donald Trump was asked about growing tension between the United States and our 2026 World Cup co-hosts, Canada and Mexico, he said with a smile, 'Tensions are a good thing. It'll make it more exciting.' Apparently there is so much tension that it has become plural. Tensions. Hey, the more the merrier. The excitement has ramped up since Trump made that comment. Back then, the tensions involved just those three countries, and just the World Cup. Trump's recently announced travel ban on visitors from 19 countries has added more tensions/excitements. Now we can also tense up excitedly about the Olympics in Los Angeles in 2028 and even the Super Bowl in Santa Clara next year! Events like the Olympics and World Cup are world parties, and what we're doing is rearrange the schedule a bit. We're going to have the hangovers before the parties. Here's an interesting headline from Marca, Spain's daily sports newspaper: 'Trump, FIFA scandals spark movement planning to boycott 2026 World Cup.' Don't mind Spain. They're just cranky because of Trump's 20% tariffs on their exports of olive oil, auto parts and other goods. If only Spain would take a deep breath and remember that Trump's tariff policies change by the hour, so maybe better deals are ahead. Same with the new travel ban. Its effect on fans coming to America for the World Cup and the Olympics, and its implementation, are so vague and unknown that visitors from, say, Spain or Iraq might just have to get on the plane to America and hope for the best. American roulette: Maybe you come and go easily, maybe you accidentally wind up behind bars on Alcatraz. The Marca story says, 'As anger (at Trump and FIFA president Gianni Infantino) mounts, fan groups and some national associations are considering bold measures to demand change — including refusing to play or attend matches hosted in the U.S. unless FIFA addresses governance concerns and Trump's immigration policy is clarified.' Spain might not be the only whiny country. China doesn't seem thrilled with Trump's tariffs. Trump and Russia's Vladimir Putin are slow dancing one day, mud wrestling the next. Canada is steamed about Trump's tariffs and bluster over Canada becoming the 51st state. Will future Olympics and World Cup host countries slap reciprocal travel bans and restrictions on U.S. fans? The tariffs, the travel ban, the broken alliances, the global political and financial chaos, all cast a pall over America's place in global sports. The Super Bowl at Levi's Stadium in February, the World Cup games in California next summer and the L.A. Olympics in 2028 could all be negatively impacted by Trump, who threatens to withhold billions in federal funding, and to levy high fines, because of the state following its own rules to let a high school trans athlete compete in the CIF state track meet. As for the more distant future? The host of the 2038 World Cup likely will be chosen later this year. One actual scenario that has been given credibility is that FIFA could name another set of tri-hosts: New Zealand, Fiji and the U.S. Considering recent developments, what FIFA voter in his/her right mind would send Trump another World Cup? Why would tariff-squeezed New Zealand agree to join hands with America? Crazy stuff, but you have to admit, it's exciting. Tensions up the wazoo. Deeper thoughts and cheaper shots • Rick Carlisle is on his way to NBA sainthood, assuming the requirement is the performance of two miracles. His Pacers' win in the first game of the NBA Finals on Thursday night put Carlisle three wins away from his second miracle. Carlisle coached the Mavericks to a title in 2011 over the heavily favored, LeBron-led Miami Heat superteam, after the Heat took a 2-1 lead. That Mavericks title got Dirk Nowitzki and Jason Kidd their rings. Going into this season, the Pacers had the 15th best odds to win it all (per Basketball Reference). Just saying, maybe the guy's a good coach. • Still the worst idea in basketball since the invention of the Eurostep: The Commissioner's Cup in-season tournament. The WNBA one-ups the NBA by using a different ball for Cup games, a ball with alternating black and white panels instead of the regular fire orange and white. At least they didn't embed blinking lights in the seams. How about: Cut through the gimmicks and make each tournament game win count as 1½ wins? • Let's all thank Brock Purdy for signing that low-ish contract, quickly, thus sparing the San Francisco 49ers the ghastly task of sifting through the pile of discarded quarterbacks, and maybe plucking out Aaron Rodgers. The tinfoil-helmeted veteran agreed to sign with the Pittsburgh Steelers about two weeks after Purdy inked his deal, so it's possible Rodgers was the 49ers' Plan B. But Rodgers is only 41, so maybe he'll stick around the game long enough to get a third shot at a 49ers' job. • Commissioner Adam Silver is starting to talk about NBA expansion. He's not naming names, but others are, and Las Vegas is at the top of most lists. That puts more pressure on A's owner John Fisher to get his ballpark built ASAP, because MLB really wants to beat the NBA to Vegas. The A's say actual construction will begin this month. A's fans in Vegas must be heartened by the fact that the team isn't squandering all its winning luck in West Sacramento.
Washington Post
4 hours ago
- Washington Post
The Bluesky bubble hurts liberals and their causes
Ever since Elon Musk bought Twitter, changed the social media site's name to X and altered its moderation policies, progressives have been hunting for a substitute. To judge how their search is going, consider a recent item from Politico's Playbook, which notes that 'a number of prominent commentators, experts and groups' are pledging to post on other platforms before X. 'The 'X-last' strategy,' says Playbook, 'led by Indivisible and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, is an effort to shift discourse from Elon Musk's platform to Bluesky.' Note that they're not demanding that people stop posting to X. They're just asking them to post a bit less. It's certainly inventive, but a little wistful, as though they're aware how unlikely this is to work. A recent Pew Research Center analysis found that many news influencers have Bluesky accounts (I'm one of them) but that, like me, two-thirds post irregularly. By contrast, more than 80 percent still post to X on most days. Engagement on Bluesky appears to have peaked in mid-November. It's now down about 50 percent, and the decline shows no sign of leveling out. This is the tyranny of social media network effects. When a network grows, each new user makes it more valuable to every other user, enabling exponential growth. When the users start leaving, however, those network effects also hasten the decline. Nor is this process likely to be halted by organizing your pals and exhorting people to be better, or getting progressive writers to post to Bluesky before X. Yes, seeding platforms early with a small group of influential individuals can help it grow, as other users flock to be around them. But when that movement is organized by liberal groups, it's most likely to appeal to folks who are very interested in progressive politics — which is to say, the other people who have already moved to Bluesky. You can't blame them for trying, I suppose. But wait, actually, I can. Because even if this works, moving progressives off X into Bluesky's beautiful blue bubble isn't a great idea for the movement. This effort isn't just a doomed attempt to re-create the old Twitter. It's likely to sap already-waning progressive influence and make the movement itself less politically effective. Consider why progressive groups are so eager to hasten the demise of X and move their users to other platforms. One reason is simply that they are mad at Musk for supporting Donald Trump and allowing the alt-right to flourish on X. But another is that they are trying to duplicate what used to be an incredible platform for liberal influence. For roughly a decade, Twitter hosted what is lightheartedly called the 'national conversation' on issues of the day, particularly social justice and public health. Twitter never had that many users, compared with Instagram or Facebook. But it had a big group of influential users — politicians, policymakers, journalists and academics, all of whom were engaged in a 24/7 conversation about politics and current events. That was a boon to progressives, who wielded outsize influence on the platform because they were early adopters who outnumbered the conservatives. They were also better organized and better networked, and had the sympathy of Twitter's professional-class employees, who proved increasingly susceptible to liberals' demands for tighter moderation policies on things such as using male pronouns to refer to a transgender woman. Moderation suppressed conservative users and stories that hurt the left — most notoriously, the story about Hunter Biden's laptop, which Twitter throttled as 'disinformation' in the run-up to the 2020 election. Of course, progressive Twitter mobs also policed the discourse themselves, securing high-profile firings that made many people afraid to cross them. Thus, that national conversation ended up skewed toward liberal views, creating the illusion that their ideas were more popular than they actually were. That's a major reason that institutions went all-in on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and why the 2020 Democratic primary field moved so far to the left that Kamala Harris was still struggling to backtrack four years later. All that changed when Musk bought Twitter. It's not surprising that progressives want to return to the good old days. But it's not working, and I'm skeptical it ever will. The people who have migrated to Bluesky tend to be those who feel the most visceral disgust for Musk and Trump, plus a smattering of those who are merely curious and another smattering who are tired of the AI slop and unregenerate racism that increasingly pollutes their X feeds. Because the Musk and Trump haters are the largest and most passionate group, the result is something of an echo chamber where it's hard to get positive engagement unless you're saying things progressives want to hear — and where the negative engagement on things they don't want to hear can be intense. That's true even for content that isn't obviously political: Ethan Mollick, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School who studies AI, recently announced that he'll be limiting his Bluesky posting because AI discussions on the platform are too 'fraught.' All this is pretty off-putting for folks who aren't already rather progressive, and that creates a threefold problem for the ones who dream of getting the old band back together. Most obviously, it makes it hard for the platform to build a large enough userbase for the company to become financially self-sustaining, or for liberals to amass the influence they wielded on old Twitter. There, they accumulated power by shaping the contours of a conversation that included a lot of non-progressives. On Bluesky, they're mostly talking among themselves. One can say the same about Truth Social, of course, but that's not an example the left should be eager to emulate. Segregating yourself in a political silo amplifies any political movement's worst tendencies, giving free rein to your most toxic adherents and cutting you off from vital feedback about, say, your unpopular tariff policies. Something similar has happened on Bluesky. The nasty fringe has become even nastier: A Bluesky technical adviser recently felt the need to clarify that 'The 'let's tell anyone we don't like to kill themselves' crowd are not welcome here' because left-wing trolls kept urging people who disagreed with them to commit suicide. And without the leavening influence of their opponents, Bluesky discourse appears even more censorious and doctrinaire than what progressives were saying on old Twitter. When you never hear from the other side, it's pretty easy to talk yourself into a political dead end. That might be enough for the political dead-enders. But it's a terrible mistake for any political movement that actually hopes to rack up some durable victories.
