Podcast appearances and mentions of Renee Hobbs

The average American's worldview is under constant assault from propaganda. Between the 5,000 advertisements we see daily, for profit journalism, and virtually every post on social media, the gulf between reality and the myths we are surrounded by has never been wider. And with the widespread adoption of algorithms guiding this entire process, we are in desperate need of a new set of skills to navigate the landscape.  This set of skills is widely referred to as media literacy—a concept that extends literacy beyond the ability to read and write, into the ability to understand how and why messages work across different forms of media.  Joining us is special guest Renee Hobbs, media literacy scholar, educator, and founder of the Media Education Lab.  Welcome to DoubleThink, conversations inspired by This Is Propaganda. If you haven't yet, check out the Webby Award–winning first season. — BRINK media group is re-imagining how brands, causes and artists compete in the oversaturated attention marketplace through original productions and branded entertainment. Website: thisispropaganda.show Instagram: instagram.com/thisispropagandashow Email: propaganda@brink.com

April 8, 2024 - Renee Hobbs | Dr. Allen Frances | Kevin Carey by Ian Masters

In this special episode of Digital Gardening, Paul and Adam sit down with Renee Hobbs, Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Rhode Island and Founding Director of the Media Education Lab at URI's Harrington School of Communication. Dr. Hobbs' current project, Courageous RI, focuses on violence prevention via community-led discussions on such topics as "Feelings and Facts," "Conflict Entrepreneurs," and "Preventing Violent Extremism." All Courageous RI events are free, online, and open to the public. Our conversation in this episode spans several timely topics. We talk about the role of universities and colleges in repairing the epistemic divide and mitigating the hyper-polarization of our current moment, even as institutions of higher education (like all knowledge-producing institutions) are experiencing a crisis of confidence and lack of trust from the publics they serve. We discuss the rise of influencers and the concomitant decline in expert knowledge. And we explore the future of higher education and what must change--in terms of disciplinary siloing and incentive structures--for higher education to truly seize the gravity of our current postdigital moment. Thank you for listening to Digital Gardening. We hope you enjoy this podcast. Please reach out to us with your questions, feedback, and fan mail. You can reach us at dgi@iu.edu.

Renee Hobbs, professor of communication studies and founder and director of the Media Education Lab at the University of Rhode Island, leads the conversation on media literacy and propaganda.

Renee Hobbs, Communications Professor at The University of Rhode Island, joins Bill Bartholomew to discuss Courageous RI, an initiative that she is championing that seeks to help Rhode Islanders' improve their media consumption habits and critical thinking. Support the show

Cette semaine je reçois Etienne Millien, journaliste à Sud-Ouest et directeur de l'APEM (Association pour l'Éducation aux Médias). Dans cet épisode, vous en apprendrez plus sur : # La genèse de l'APEM dans les années 70-80 où les journalistes sont autorisés à intervenir dans le monde scolaire # La place du journalisme comme un organisation d'artisanat intellectuel et intermédiaire dans nos sociétés # Les publics touchés par l'APEM : étudiants, publics éloignés de l'information et journalistes # L'accessibilité auprès des classes à travers des ressources pratiques partagées auprès des professeurs et préparées par les éditeurs partnaires # La notion de choix et de libre arbitre dans l'éducation aux médias pour former une consommation responsable # La nécessité de passer par la pratique pour affûter son regard en tant qu'usager de l'information # Leur projet de serious game et la création d'un réseau européen à l'éducation aux médias Pour aller plus loin : # Le truc cool d'Étienne : La revue Feuilleton # Le truc cool de François : L'article du Nieman Lab # La semaine de la presse et des médias dans l'école du 27 mars au 1er avril # L'interview de Pap N'Diaye, Ministre de l'éducation nationale, sur l'éducation aux médias # Renee Hobbs, directrice du Media Education Lab Retrouvez Mediarama sur : Apple Podcasts | Spotify |Deezer Pour ne rien rater de l'actualité des médias, abonnez-vous à la newsletter. Mediarama est un podcast du label Orso Media produit par CosaVostra.

Brian Winter, vice president of policy at Americas Society and Council of the Americas and editor-in-chief of Americas Quarterly, leads the conversation on U.S. relations with South America. CASA: Welcome to today's session of the Winter/Spring 2023 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Maria Casa, director of the National Program and Outreach at CFR. Thank you all for joining us. Today's discussion is on the record and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/Academic, if you would like to share it with your colleagues or classmates. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have Brian Winter with us to discuss U.S. relations with South America. Mr. Winter is the vice president of policy for the America Society and Council of the Americas and editor in chief of Americas Quarterly. An influential political analyst, he has followed South America for more than twenty years and has served as a correspondent for Reuters in Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico. Mr. Winter is the author of several books including Why Soccer Matters, a New York Times bestseller he wrote with the Brazilian soccer legend Pelé. He is a regular contributor to television and radio and host of the Americas Quarterly podcast. Welcome, Brian. Thank you very much for being with us. WINTER: Thank you, Maria. Thanks for the invitation. CASA: Can you begin with a general overview of current U.S. relations with South American countries? WINTER: I can try and actually, as a matter of fact, today is an extremely fortuitous day to be doing this and let me tell you why. A couple of weeks ago on February 10, Brazil's new president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, made a one-day trip to Washington. He met with President Biden while he was here. He brought his foreign minister with him as well as his chief foreign policy adviser, his finance minister, a couple other members of his Cabinet. One of the biggest sort of concrete results of this trip that Lula made up here was a U.S. donation to the Amazon Fund of $50 million. That is million with an M. Well, today, Lula leaves for China with about half of his Cabinet and a delegation of approximately two hundred and thirty leaders from Brazil's private sector in what Brazilian media are calling the biggest foreign delegation ever to leave Brazil for another country. They will be in China for six days and there is a whole roster of deals on the table ranging from financing to infrastructure to education, environmental, and so on. So the point I'm trying to get across here is one of clear asymmetry and it really reflects kind of the new moment for U.S. relations with South America overall. As Maria mentioned, I started my career in the region as a reporter a little more than twenty years ago. I was in Argentina for four years. I was in Mexico for one year and Brazil for five, and in the course of that relatively short period of time we've seen kind of the power balance in how we think about Latin America but specifically South America. We've seen a significant change in how we think about that region. Back the early 2000s, certainly, during the 1990s, these were the final years of the so-called Washington Consensus, a period characterized by kind of the unipolar moment that came with the end of the Cold War, a certain consensus not only around democracy but around a certain set of liberalizing economic policies as well, and that ran its course. But really, it was around 2003 when everything started to change for a variety of reasons. The biggest one is the one that I've already referenced, which is the growth of China as a trading partner for the region. China had always had a presence in Latin America. In fact, for the magazine that I run, Americas Quarterly, we ran a piece two years ago about the Chinese presence in Mexico going all the way back to the 1600s when they operated barber shops and other sort of forms of commerce. But what's happened over the last twenty years is really remarkable. In numbers, Chinese trade with Latin America and the Caribbean overall went from 18 billion (dollars) in 2002 to a stunning 450 billion (dollars) in 2021. China is now the largest trading partner for Brazil, Chile, Peru, and Uruguay, and for South America as a whole if you take all those countries in the aggregate China now outranks the United States. When you look at Latin America, by the way, that includes Mexico. If you take that grouping then the U.S. is still the number-one trading partner but, again, that's almost entirely because of that relationship—that trading relationship as a result of the former NAFTA and now USMCA. Along with that big growth in Chinese trade have come other changes. We've had a lot of talk in the U.S. media in recent days about the twentieth anniversary of the Iraq war. That was something—and I was living in Argentina at the time and you could really feel how that even then carried a cost for the U.S. reputation in some of these countries. I think that with the failure of the—the failures of the war over time I think that that only accentuated the view that—not only a long-standing view that the U.S. was an unwelcome, meddling, and in many cases imperialist presence but it also accelerated this narrative that the United States was in relative decline. More recent years we've seen kind of other things contribute to this diminished reputation of the United States and throughout many countries in the region—everything ranging from not just the election of Donald Trump, who, of course, was not popular in most of the region; but also specific decisions that were made by his government, such as the withdrawal from the TPP—the Trans-Pacific Partnership—that, of course, is the trade deal that was negotiated under the Obama administration that included several Latin American countries, including Chile and Peru—but also the weaponization of tariffs; and, you know, Trump's repeated threats to even cut off Mexican imports. They did—those threats did have the effect of kind of forcing, first, President Peña Nieto in Mexico and then his successor, Andrés Manuel Lόpez Obrador, to cooperate with initiatives like management of migration policy. So in the short term, they, quote/unquote, “worked” but in the longer term it showed Mexico as well as other countries in the region that the U.S. was not a particularly reliable partner. Some of you may be listening to all this and thinking, well, this sounds like the viewpoints espoused by governments in the region that are leftist and have never really cared for the United States in the first place. But another interesting thing about this latest trend and the way that things have changed over the last ten years is that this desire to forge a middle path between China and the United States as their strategic competition escalates is shared by leaders across the ideological spectrum. South American countries in particular are not unlike the United States when it seems like virtually everything is polarized, and yet in this area and specifically the need—the perceived need to have closer relations with—I'm sorry, closer relations with China while maintaining a civil relationship but not siding too much with United States, some of the most enthusiastic proponents of that view in recent years have actually been governments on the center right and right such as Sebastián Piñera, the former president of Chile, Iván Duque, the former president of Colombia, Guillermo Lasso, the current president of Ecuador, who has worked extensively with China, and even Jair Bolsonaro, who was until recently the right-wing president of Brazil, ended up essentially going along with Beijing and allowing Huawei to participate in the recent auction of 5G mobile communications technology there. And so what we end up with as a result is a policy in many countries across the region that some are calling active nonalignment, the idea that governments in the region, regardless of their ideological stripe, need to seek an equidistant or middle path between Washington and Beijing, essentially taking advantage of their relative distance from not only potential conflicts between the U.S. and China but also looking at what's happening in Ukraine right now and saying, look, we need to maintain our independence, not side too strongly with either of these emerging blocs, and see if we can benefit from this by selling our commodities to everybody, keeping in mind that these are economies, especially in South America, that rely extremely heavily on the sale of commodities exports to drive their economic growth. So, you know, in conclusion for these initial remarks that is a huge change in the course of a generation. We've gone in a little more than twenty years from this assumption that most Latin American countries are in the U.S. sphere of influence, to use a very outdated term, which I detest, that they were part of our, quote/unquote, “backyard” to an increasing realization in DC, and I think people are still getting their heads around that, that automatic support, automatic alignment, can no longer be expected whether it is in Mexico, Guatemala, Panama, and then on down into South America, which I know is our focus today, governments like Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, another country where we've seen a lot of change on this front even in the last couple years and, again, not just because there's a leftist president in Colombia now because his predecessor, who I've already mentioned, Iván Duque, was one of the main people pushing this change. So that's a lot to digest. I'm happy to take any questions and hear from you. So thank you. CASA: Thanks, Brian, for that comprehensive introduction. Now let's open it up to questions. (Gives queuing instructions.) Our first question is a written question and it comes from Andrea Cuervo Prados, who is an adjunct instructor at Dickinson State University, and asks, what is your perspective regarding the new leftist president of Colombia and U.S. relations? What is the risk that Colombia could turn into another Venezuela? WINTER: Right. It's a good question. I think that we are still figuring out exactly what Gustavo—not only who Gustavo Petro is but what his ambitions are for both Colombia and for his relationships with the rest of the region and the rest of the world. There is some distance between what he has said he wants to do and what he may be able to do. This is a president who, you know, talks in these grand sweeping terms but ultimately has to get things through congress, and to just cite a result or an example of this that doesn't directly have to do with Colombia's foreign relationships, he said—he gave a very dramatic speech at the UN General Assembly last September in which he talked about the need to legalize narcotics across the board, including cocaine. But then—it was a speech that generated a lot of attention in capitals all over the world and all over the region. But then in ensuing weeks when he was pressed on this he didn't really have a lot of detail and admitted that it was not something that Colombia could do unilaterally, which is all to say that, again, there's this gap where I think it's important to pay careful attention to the gap between the rhetoric and what's actually possible with Petro. I don't personally—you know, the question of could X country become another Venezuela it's a question that people have been asking all over Latin America for the last ten years. I think—I understand why people ask it because what happened in Venezuela was so awful and dramatic, not only with the country becoming a full-fledged dictatorship that represses political opposition but also the humanitarian crisis that has forced some 7 million people or about a quarter of the country's population to leave the country. But, look, Petro is Colombia's first president on the left and I don't think it necessarily follows that—in fact, I'm certain that it doesn't follow that every person on the left wants to go down the path of Venezuela. So I suppose I'm a little more optimistic not only that Petro is a pragmatist in areas like the economy—for example, his finance minister is a quite pragmatic figure, a Columbia University professor who is well respected by markets—and I'm also somewhat optimistic about Colombian institutions and their ability to stand in the way of any truly radical change. CASA: Thank you. Our next question comes from Morton Holbrook, who is an adjunct professor at Kentucky Wesleyan College. Morton? Q: Hello. Yes, I'm here. Morton Holbrook, Kentucky Wesleyan College. University of Louisville also. Thanks for your really interesting comments, especially about China's relationship with Latin and South America. Can I turn north a little bit to Russia? Considering particularly the Brazilian president's upcoming visit to China do you think he might want to go to Russia, too? Bearing in mind that the International Criminal Court just issued an arrest warrant for President Putin, how might that affect Latin American relations with Russia? Do you think some of them might now have second thoughts about Russia or inviting Putin to visit their countries? Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Venezuela have all signed the ICC statute promising to cooperate in the carrying out of arrest warrants. Thank you. WINTER: That's a great question and one that is—I can tell you is very front of mind for Brazilian officials and I think others around the region right now. I was just in Brazil two weeks ago working on our—our next issue of Americas Quarterly will be on Brazil's foreign policy and what it means for the rest of Latin America. This is a question that's very front and center. Brazil's foreign minister did say in the last couple of days—he did explicitly almost word for word repeat what you just said, which is that Brazil is a signatory to that treaty. That would seem to eliminate any possibility of Vladimir Putin visiting Brazil. I'm not sure that that was really on his list of things to do anyway. But it was not only a practical signal but a diplomatic one as well. Lula's position on Russia and the Ukraine war has been inconsistent. He said during his campaign last year that Zelensky and Putin bear equal responsibility for the conflict. My understanding is that after that statement, you know, nobody wants to contradict the boss openly and sometimes not even in private. My sense personally based on conversations with others in Brasilia is that at the very least his foreign policy team regretted that he made that statement. Brazil has, in other form, condemned the Russian invasion. Other governments including Chile, Argentina, Colombia, and others have done the same. However, these are countries that, like most of the Global South, are firmly opposed to any sanctions and so their position, again, ends up being I suppose you could call it nuanced. They believe it's important in part because of their own experience as nations to condemn invasions of one country by another. I, personally, think that it's fair to think of what Putin is doing is a kind of imperialist aggression, which these are countries that have certainly objected to that when it's the U.S. over the last, you know, 200-plus years and so you would think that it would be in their DNA to do so in the Ukrainian case as well, and in fairness most of them have. I would just add that, you know, the Brazilian position, I think, though, gets influenced also by two other things. One is, again, this notion of nonalignment. Most people talk about nonalignment in Brazil and Argentina, in Chile and Colombia, and they think about the U.S.-China relationship, as I noted during my introductory remarks. But they also think of it as a helpful guide to thinking about the conflict, the war in Ukraine, as well for reasons that are not firmly rooted in morals or values, let's say, but in interests as, you know, foreign policy often is. To say it in a different way, I had a conversation a couple of years ago with former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who I helped him write his memoir in English back in 2006. He was president during the 1990s, and in talking with him about the China question he said, we have to take advantage of our greatest strategic asset, which is that Brazil is far. (Laughs.) And to just unpack that a little bit, I think the meaning of that is clear to all of you. But these are countries that really see an opportunity right now just by virtue of their geographic distance from these conflict zones to avoid being dragged in and also to potentially, at some level, benefit from it through strategic superpower competition for their support as well as through higher prices for some of the commodities that they produce. There's one added element in the case of Brazil, which is that Lula, I'm told by people close to him, sees himself as almost a Nelson Mandela-type figure. He's back now for his third term in the presidency twenty years after he was president the first time. Of course, I'm sure people on this call know that he went through some real struggles in the intervening years including nearly two years in prison over—on corruption charges that were later thrown out and, you know, he may see his presidency as an opportunity to kind of write the last chapter or two in his biography, and there's talk that he wants a Nobel Peace Prize and that he sees potentially helping negotiate a peace deal for the Ukraine war as the best opportunity to do that. I actually think that that idea, which is—tends to be dismissed in Washington as well as in European capitals, I personally think that idea is not as crazy as some people here in Washington think. But maybe I can go into that a little bit later if anybody wants. CASA: Thank you. Next, we have two written questions from the same university that we can take together. They're from Marisa Perez and Trevor Collier, who are undergraduate students at Lewis University. They would like to know what world leaders such as the United States can do to prevent deforestation of the Amazon rainforest and how they can do so without compromising Brazil's sovereignty. WINTER: Well, it's a really great question, in part because it mentions an issue that Americans don't often think about, which is precisely the sensitivity on the sovereignty issue. Brazil, and specifically not only Brazil's military but Brazil's foreign policy establishment, have a long-standing concern that is part of their doctrine, I suppose you could say, that is concerned always about the possibility of territorial loss and about foreigners gaining influence or, in some cases, even control over the Amazon. And I have to say, you know, this is another one of those ideas that I think—I wish we were all together in a room. This Zoom is kind of the next best thing. I could see your faces that way. But sometimes when I talk about this I see people kind of roll their eyes as if it was some sort of imagined conspiracy. But the truth is that as recently as 2019 when the—the first year of Jair Bolsonaro's government when the fires in the Amazon really became a huge controversy, driven in large part by social media and tweets from people like Justin Bieber and Cher, who, to be clear, were, I think, justifiably and quite heroically shining light on what was happening there. In the midst of all that Emmanuel Macron actually proposed that perhaps some sort of international force in the Amazon was necessary, that that deployment of that would be a good idea if Brazil was not capable of taking care of the Amazon itself. That proposal was disastrous because it just reinforced this long-standing fear that so much of the establishment in Brazil has always had, and it's true that Bolsonaro was on the right but you, certainly, in conversations, I think, with people across the ideological spectrum this is something that people think about. So OK. So back to the original question, how can the U.S. help. Well, the U.S. could help by providing both logistical and financial resources beyond the $50 million, which is, you know, the equivalent of about seven seconds of what we're spending in terms of supporting Ukraine right now. I don't know—Norway is the biggest sponsor of the Amazon Fund. I don't have that number in front of me but I think that their contribution is upwards of at least a billion dollars, probably more. Ultimately, though, I do believe that the Amazon is a local challenge and I know that can be unsatisfying to hear in forums like this where we're sort of designed—you know, this is a CFR event. We're supposed to be thinking of ways that the international community can get involved. But it's going to be a big challenge. The good news is that Brazil has shown that it is capable of getting its hands around this problem before. During Lula's first terms in office from 2003 to 2010 his government was able to reduce the level of deforestation by upwards of 75 percent. It was a very dramatic difference in a very short period of time. This was done through a variety of means, both things like satellite monitoring and new technology that let the authorities follow this in real time. They were also able to step up environmental enforcement agencies like IBAMA, whose inspectors are necessary. It's necessary to have them on the ground in order to, you know, stop—actually stop illegal loggers from setting the fires that are the main driver of deforestation. They were also able to build political consensus around the need to reduce deforestation during those years. I don't think it's going to be—in fact, I'm certain it will not be as “easy,” quote/unquote, this time around. A lot has changed. The upwards of 60 percent increase that we saw in deforestation during the Bolsonaro years had the support, unfortunately, in my view, of local populations who believe essentially that slashing and burning will lead their day-to-day economic lives to improve. In the election that happened in October where Lula won and Bolsonaro lost but by a very small margin—the closest margin in Brazil's modern democratic history—the strongest support nationally for Bolsonaro was in areas that have seen the most illegal deforestation over the last four years and what that tells you is that, again, these are local populations that believe that this will lead to greater wealth and greater well-being for all of them, this being deforestation. So that's a big challenge for Lula with a—you know, at a time when resources are fairly scarce. It's not like it was during his first presidency when all of this increase in Chinese trade was really boosting the amount of money in Brazil's coffers. So he's going to have to figure out a way to dedicate financial resources as well as convince local populations that this is in their interest to do it. It's not going to be an easy road. CASA: Our next question comes from Mike Nelson, an affiliate adjunct professor at Georgetown University. Mike? Q: Thank you very much for an outstanding overview of what's going on in U.S. relations to South America. I study international technology policy and data governance but my question is about corruption. You mentioned corruption in Brazil but it's a problem throughout South America, and my three-part question, is it getting worse or better; are there any countries who have really done the right thing and have taken serious measures to address it; and how can the internet and some of the technologies for citizen journalism help expose corruption and make leaders less likely to dip into the public fund? WINTER: OK. Yeah. No, great questions, and reflective of if you look at opinion polling and remember that these are countries that many of them have been dealing with rising crime, rising homicide levels, economic stagnation, the pandemic, which hit Latin America by many measures harder than in any other region in the world at one point—I haven't seen updated numbers on this but it was fairly consistently throughout the pandemic Latin America, which is about 8 percent of the world's population, was accounting for about 30 percent of the world's confirmed COVID deaths. Anyway, amid all of that, and the economic stagnation that has been such a problem over the last ten years, in a lot of countries and in public opinion surveys, the thing that people identified as the number-one problem in their country is corruption. That was not always true. If you look back at public polling twenty years ago, people tended to identify kind of more, what's the word, basic needs—think, like, unemployment, hunger, misery, which often is kind of asked as a separate—that's one of the boxes you can check. Twenty years ago, those were the issues. And as the region became more middle class, especially in the 2000s because of this China-driven economic growth that described during my introduction, a lot of people were able to move beyond their basic needs and focus on essentially what was happening to the money that they paid in taxes, keeping in mind that many people were paying taxes for the first time. Some of it surely was also driven by these things, as you mentioned, mobile phones that not only things like videos of people carrying suitcases of cash, but also the attention that was given to big corruption scandals. Previously in a lot of countries, governments were able to make pacts with newspapers and TV channels, and kind of tamp things down a little bit, and lower the temperature. In an era of Facebook and Twitter, that was no longer as easy for them to do. All of this culminated in several corruption scandals at once in the mid-2010s, the most emblematic of which was the so-called Lava Jato, or car wash, scandal, which originated in Brazil, but eventually had franchises, if you will, in almost a dozen countries throughout Latin America and the world. That story is complicated. Politicians all over the region went to jail. Business leaders did too. Lula was one of them. That was the case that put him in jail. In intervening years, we've discovered that there were abuses and procedural violations, both things on behalf of the prosecutors and the judge involved, who the Brazilian Supreme Court decided, I think in 2021, they ruled—maybe it was earlier than that—that the judge overseeing Lula's conviction had not been—or, rather, it's easier to say—had been partial in his rulings. And so that's left us in a place today where populations are still angry about corruption, as I mentioned, but it is no longer driving conversation in most countries, like it did before. I still believe—and you can probably tell, this is something I've thought about a lot over the years and continue to watch. The first question you asked, in some ways, is the most important one. Is corruption getting worse or better? It's impossible to know for sure. My hypothesis is actually corruption is about the same, and may in fact be getting better, which flies in the face of all of these headlines that we've seen. But to me, the operative question over these last ten years or so has been, you know, not why—I've heard people say, well, why are these—why are these countries so corrupt? And to me, the real question is, why are we suddenly seeing these cases of corruption? Because I think it speaks to not only the technological changes that I referenced, but also the improvement—(audio break)—these are countries many of which transitioned from dictatorship to democracy in the 1980s and early 1990s. And therefore, it really took a generation for independent prosecutors to show up, to have the training and political support that they needed to go after some very powerful people. So, in sum, I am a believer in the story of rule of law improving in many countries in Latin America. I would recognize, again, that it's a very complex story, in part because of some of the problems around not just Lava Jato but in other countries, such as Peru and Guatemala. But progress is rarely linear. (Laughs.) And I still think that this is something that is likely to get better with time. CASA: Our next question is a written one from Mary Beth Altier at New York University. She asks: What role do you think misinformation and disinformation play in citizens' perceptions of the U.S. versus China and Russia in Latin America? What could the U.S. do better from a strategic communications perspective, if anything? And then—I can repeat this other question later, which is kind of a follow up. So you think— WINTER: Yeah, maybe. Well, that first one—that first one is worthy of a book. All of these are—these are great questions. They're difficult to answer in pithy fashion in three minutes. I am continually impressed by the quality of Russian propaganda in Latin America. Those guys are really good. You look at RT en Español—(changes pronunciation)—RT en Español—it has one of the biggest social media followings of any “media company,” quote/unquote, in the region. Even people who I know are—who I know to not be pro-Russia, let's put it that way, I see sharing content and videos from RT, which, of course, is just as pure a propaganda arm as you can get of the Russian government. But also, you know, have a whole network of sites that are more subtle and that push very sophisticated and sometimes, you know, not particularly obvious narratives that are designed to undermine the United States or promote the views of China and Russia. I would recognize at the same time that—I referenced this during my introduction remarks, sometimes the United States does not need any help with it comes to undermining its reputation in the region. I mentioned some of the, quote/unquote “own goals” that we've seen over the last five to ten, even twenty years, going all the way back to the Iraq War. As far as actively pushing back, all I can say is this: You know, I think that they're—on the one hand, I think there are concrete steps that are being used. We're still trying to get our heads around this problem to fight misinformation. But I was just in a different forum this morning where I was asked, what—how can the U.S. help the cause of democracy in Latin America. And my answer to that is that the best thing the United States can do to help democracy in Latin America is to get its own house in order, to move past the polarization, the misinformation, and the scorched earth politics that have put our own democracy at risk over the last several years, and try to, you know, recapture some of the consensus, at least around basic democratic rules of the game and how we hold elections that characterized most of the previous two-hundred-plus years of our history. Because I do think that while—you know, look, I lived ten years in Latin America. I know that people roll their eyes at the notion of the United States as being kind of the shining city on the hill. And I understand why. And that was always true, in part because of the long history of U.S. intervention in Latin America often showing, you know, some of our worst behaviors. On the other hand, as a Brazil specialist, I've seen how some of the tactics and even some of the same people that were behind our own democratic decay of the last five years, some of those same tactics were repackaged and exported to open arms in Brazil. So I do think that it makes a difference on the ground in places like Brazil, potentially, and other countries as well, when a strong democratic example is being set in the United States. And I think that's the most powerful thing we can do. Some of the other stuff, like what's happening on RT and Telesur and some of these other outlets is relatively outside our control. CASA: We have a complementary question from— WINTER: There was a second part of that question. CASA: Oh, no, you did end up answering, I think, what could the U.S. do better from a strategic communications perspective. I think you kind of covered that. We have another question from Gursimran Padda, a student at Stony Brook University, who asks: Does China's strategy of gaining influence in Latin America differ from its tactics in Africa? And if so, why? WINTER: Gosh, all these great questions. China—I have to start from the beginning. I am not an African specialist. But I can tell you kind of the narrative of what happened in Africa through Latin American eyes, if that makes any sense, because this is a conversation I've had a lot over the years. The perception is that China went into some of these countries in sub-Saharan Africa, and engaged in infrastructure projects and other things that had abusive terms. In many cases, China imported its own labor to do some of these projects. They also engaged in some predatory lending practices. And that was all—essentially the takeaway from actions like that in places like Buenos Aires, Bogota, certainly Brasilia, was that the Chinese would not be allowed to come and engage in those same behaviors in Latin America. And I think, in practice, it seems that the Chinese have realized that. There have been examples, such as the construction of a dam in Ecuador, where the terms ended up being perceived as something of a debt trap. But my sense—again, and this is not so much my sense; it's repeating what I've heard in numerous conversations about this subject with leaders across the ideological spectrum and throughout the region—is that they understand the risks involved in working with China, in part because of the experience throughout parts of sub-Saharan Africa. And they're determined to not let those things happen in their home countries. You know, I know that that's a view that, in places like where I am today—I'm on in the road in Washington, participated in this other conference this morning. That's why my Zoom background is not quite as put together as it sometimes is, by the way. I know people roll their eyes at that notion here, and are constantly warning—you know, kind of wagging their finger a little bit at governments throughout South America, and saying that they need to be eyes wide open about the risks of engagement with the Chinese. The problem is that here in the U.S., I think they're underestimating, in some cases, the sophistication of foreign ministries and trade ministries in places like Peru and Chile when they make those comments. Which is to say, I think that there's something both visually and in terms of the context a bit paternalistic about it, that everybody picks up on and tends to make people in the region justifiably crazy. (Laughs.) And then, the other part is that the U.S. is not really offering much in the way of alternatives. We're at a pretty unique moment in the history of the United States right now where we have both parties—the Republican and Democratic Parties—are pretty much closed to the idea of new free trade deals. That, in my lifetime, has never happened before. I mentioned the fact that Trump dropped out of TPP. Well, Joe Biden has not picked that back up. I think there are domestic political reasons that explain that, but what it means in practice for our relationships with governments in Latin America is that Washington doesn't have a whole lot to offer. Because, unlike the Chinese, we can't just order our companies to go invest someplace. That's not how our economy works. It is very much how the Chinese economy works, where they can decide to make these decisions. They are not necessarily for a short-term economic payoff, but for medium-term reasons, or even decisions that have very little to do with dollars and cents or ROI, return on investment, and everything to do with geopolitics. So wanting to have beachheads in terms of, say, ports in places like El Salvador. So, you know, again, without that—without trade and without that ability to kind of dictate investment, there's not a lot that's left in Washington's toolkit for counteracting this kind of influence. CASA: Our next question comes from Daniel Izquierdo, an undergraduate student at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Daniel. Q: Good afternoon, sir, ma'am. Thank you for taking the time. I just had a quick question on the increasing tensions between China and the U.S., and how that will kind of develop itself in Latin and South America. So given the strategic interests of Latin and South America, and the persistent political unrest, along with increasing tensions between China and the U.S., what do you believe the likelihood to be of proxy conflicts or foreign meddling, similar to what occurred during the Cold War, occurring in the region? And if not, how do you foresee the U.S. and China competing for influence in the region? WINTER: So another very good question. Thank you for that. Look, I think some of this ground we've covered already, but I would say that, you know, you're the first to mention—I had not previously mentioned this idea of a new cold war. And this—you know, this is another reason why so many countries across the ideological spectrum are opting for this policy of nonalignment. Essentially because they believe that the first Cold War went badly, very badly, for Latin America. It resulted in all kinds of traumas, from the wars in Central America during the 1980s to U.S. support for coups in places like Chile, to, you know, Cuban meddling in places like Bolivia and elsewhere around the region during those years, which led to the rise of guerrilla movements like the FARC, that ended up killing very high numbers of people. And so essentially, you know, not to be glib about it, but the reaction that today's generation has is: We want no part of this. Because it didn't go well for us the first time. I think there are obvious differences between a conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union back in the 1950s and 1960s, and this strategic competition between Washington and Beijing, that thankfully has not quite reached those heights, at least not yet, here in the twenty-first century. But I have to tell you, and again this is based on conversations I'm having all the time, the fear is real. The perception is that the world may be headed back to that kind of conflict, being driven not only by what's happening in the Ukraine but the increasing speculation of potential war over Taiwan. So this, again, as far as—as far as how it could play out in practice, I think it's still early. I think it remains to be seen. Right now there is—you know, there are clear cases where I think the Chinese are, as I alluded to in my previous answer, making investments not for economic reasons but for strategic ones, with a long-term horizon I mind. Things like the, quote/unquote, “space base” that they've established in Argentina, which really is deserving of the full air quotes when we say the phrase “space base.” I think everyone senses that—you know, that that conflict—or, that competition, if you will, is likely to define the next twenty to thirty years. And I think there's a determination in most countries, it makes a lot of sense to me personally, that they don't want their countries used again as a chessboard amid that larger conflict. CASA: Our next question comes from Damien Odunze. He's assistant professor at Delta State University who writes: Ideas in the long run change the world. Do you think a closer educational collaboration between U.S. universities and those in Latin and South America could help shape and strengthen liberal democratic values in those countries? WINTER: What an interesting question. Look, let me talk first about kind of the—that equation today. There's already quite a lot of connectivity, especially at the—at, you know, not a word I love to use, but at the elite level, the elites in government and business and U.S. education systems. Which is an unnecessarily wordy way of saying that a large percentage of people in South America come from the elite classes and get educated at universities and sometimes even at high schools in the United States. That is one reason why, again, many of these governments are likely to at least forge a middle path between China and the United States, rather than going full-fledged in the direction of China. I think there's a cultural affinity, family ties, cultural ties, educational ties, and other things that are probably kind of the strongest connection that the U.S. has with a lot of these countries right now. As to whether a strengthening of those educational ties would improve dedication and the strength of democracy, whew. It could, but I watched with dismay as poll after poll suggests that younger generations, not just in the United States but across the Western world, are less committed in theory to both democracy and democratic institutions than their predecessors. And so I wonder just—I don't have an answer to this—but I wonder if even, quote/unquote, “even” within the United States, if we're properly instilling an appreciation for democracy in today's generations, which then raises the question of whether we'd be able to do so amongst the youth of other countries as well. I'm not sure. I think this is another area where, you know, in the U.S. we have some work to do at home before we start thinking about what's possible in other countries. CASA: Our next question comes from Mary Meyer McAleese, who is a professor of political science at Eckerd College in Florida. Mary. Q: Yes. Good afternoon and thank you for this opportunity. I have, well, two questions. I hope they're quick. The first one is, what do you think the effect will be on Latin America or South America with regard to the failure of the Silicon Valley Bank? I read that a lot of Latin American businesses have had investments in that bank, so I wonder if you could say a bit more about the banking situation and the longer-term effects there. And also, gender violence, of course, is a horrible problem all around the world, but especially in Latin and South America. What do you think the United States and the Americas Society could do to support groups in the region that are fighting against gender violence? Thank you. WINTER: Well, thank you for both questions. Both very good questions. There's been a lot of talk about SVB and possible effects in Latin America. What I've heard from people who are far more knowledgeable about the financial—excuse me—the financial system than I am, is that as long as it does not spread and become a more systemic risk, it should not pose much of an issue for Latin America. In part because—and this is another area where just like—where we were talking about the courts having, I think, been engaged in a thirty-year long process of improvement—I think the same can be said of banking and financial systems around most of Latin America. My first job was covering the financial crisis that Argentina went through back in 2001 and 2002. Which, for the uninitiated, that saw five presidents in two weeks, a freeze of bank deposits, and a 70 percent devaluation of the currency. It was quite a traumatic thing to be a part of. And during those years, we saw similar—well, not quite as bad—but at least thematically similar crises in Brazil, Colombia, and elsewhere, following other crises in the 1990s. Which is all to say, Latin America has been curiously quiet this time around in terms of financial contagion. The economies aren't doing well, for the most part, but at least we're not talking about a financial meltdown. And that is because of lessons learned. These are banking systems that now have stricter capital requirements than they did in the past. And the macroeconomic fundamentals, generally speaking, are better than they were twenty years ago. Argentina, of course, is kind of in trouble again with an inflation rate that just passed 100 percent. And that's terrible. But again, the depth—(laughs)—everything's relative. And the depth of just financial devastation is, thankfully, nothing compared to what it was when I was there twenty-plus years ago. So, you know, we'll see. If the bank run spreads and we start seeing other banks come in trouble here in the U.S., then my sense is that, with the whole Credit Suisse thing, and we're not out of the woods yet. But if it stays more or less contained, then the consensus, at least so far, is that Latin America should be fine. Your question about femicide is an excellent one. It has driven the political discussion in Brazil in recent years. It's something that President Lula has spoken movingly about. It has also been, on the other end in Mexico, the feminist movement that has had femicides as one of the main areas of concern, has been one of the most effective opposition groups to President López Obrador, who has often been, sadly in my view, dismissive of the seriousness of that problem. As far as what the United States can do to help, or even what my own organization can do, I think that in a lot of cases these are—you know, like a lot of problems—there are things that the international community can do to help. And certainly, I see things from a journalist's perspective, even though I'm more analyst than journalist these days. I think that shining light on these problems, using vehicles like—platforms like Americas Quarterly, which is the small publication about Latin American politics that I run, that's, you know, my own insufficient contribution to looking at his problem. But it's certainly one—I mean, we look at the numbers in places like Brazil. I don't have those numbers on my fingertips, but it is just an incredibly serious problem, and one that deserves more attention. CASA: Thank you, Brian. We have so many other questions. I'm really sorry, though, we have to cut off now. We're at the hour. But this has been a very interesting discussion. And you've covered an enormous amount of ground. Thank you to all of you participating for your great questions. I hope you will follow Brian on Twitter at @BrazilBrian. The next Academic Webinar will take place on Wednesday, March 29, at 1:00 Eastern Time. Renee Hobbs, professor of communication studies at the University of Rhode Island, will lead a conversation on media literacy and propaganda. In the meantime, I encourage you to learn about CFR paid internships for students and fellowships for professors at CFR.org/Careers. Follow at @CFR_Academic on Twitter and visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. Thank you, again, for joining us today, and we look forward to you tuning in again for our webinar on March 29. Bye. WINTER: Bye. Thank you. (END)

Renee Hobbs, URI Communications Professor / Director, Media Education Lab joins the show to discuss the "media literacy" initiative that is taking place in Rhode Island. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tune into a fun conversation with author and professor Renee Hobbs. Renee first got on our radar with he recent book and winner of the 2021 PROSE Award, "MIND OVER MEDIA: Propaganda Education for a Digital Age." We discuss her book and how she first got into media literacy. This conversation helped reframe how I saw "screen time" and how my students could communicate their grasp on my class content.  We hope you enjoy! Links to connect with Renee Hobbs:Recent book - Mind Over MediaTwitterWikiMedia Education Lab 

Themes: Propaganda, Media Literacy, News, Persuasion, Social Media Summary: Today I'm joined by Renee Hobbs, who is an expert in digital and media literacy education. She's the author of Mind Over Media: Propaganda Education for a Digital Age and for 30 years has helped educators across four contents integrate digital and media literacy into all subject areas and grade levels. In this episode, Renee unpacks what propaganda is, why we should be aware of it, and how it really affects and influences us. A topic as timely as ever these days! Discover: How propaganda works and why developing critical thinking skills around all types of media is so important How media messages shape our culture and society How powerful language is as a persuasive tool The importance of curiosity and seeking out divergent perspectives Increasing your capacity for complexity and critical thinking 00:00 Intro 00:49 Information in today's era 02:35 Propaganda is everywhere 04:19 News and facts 06:03 Definition of propaganda 09:02 The power of language 15:29 Media's role in society 19:36 Conspiracy theories 20:25 Stereotypes vs. embracing complexity 23:55 Self-interest is inescapable 27:02 Manage your rage 29:57 Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder 31:54 Searching for opposing beliefs 34:55 The learning journey with podcasts 37:50 Learning by creating media Links: Mind Over Media Website Contemporary Propaganda Gallery Set Your Motivation Media Education Lab Sponsors: Cured Nutrition | Use code CREATETHELOVE for 20% all products at https://www.curednutrition.com/createthelove Organifi | Use code CREATETHELOVE for 20% off all products at http://organifi.com/createthelove Create the Love Cards | Use code CTLCARDS15 for 15% off at http://createthelove.com/cards See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Week 5 in COM 250 Digital Media Literacy with Renee Hobbs

Renee Hobbs - Mind Over Media: Propaganda for a Digital Age. This is episode 454 of Teaching Learning Leading K12, an audio podcast. Renee Hobbs is an internationally-recognized authority on digital and media literacy education. She founded the Harrington School of Communication and Media at the University of Rhode Island and is Director of its Media Education Lab.  Renee co-founded the NAMLE (National Association for Media Literacy Education), and is creator of the first national teacher education program in media literacy at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.  She won the Media Literacy Education Meritorious Service Award from NAMLE in 2015, is the author of 10 books, and over 150 scholarly articles on digital and media literacy. Her book, Mind Over Media: Propaganda Education in a Digital Age, won the 2021 PROSE Awards of Excellence from the American Association of Publishers (AAP) in Social Sciences and Education Practice & Theory. Today we will take a look at some Quick Reference Guides, The Media Education Lab, and Renee's book - Mind Over Media: Propaganda Education for a Digital Age. Thanks for listening. So much to learn! But wait... Could you do me a favor? Please go to my website at https://www.stevenmiletto.com/reviews/ or open the podcast app that you are listening to me on and would you rate and review the podcast? That would be Awesome. Thanks! Ready to start your own podcast? Podbean is an awesome host. I have been with them since 2013. Go to https://www.podbean.com/TLLK12 to get 1 month free of unlimited hosting for your new podcast.  Remember to take a look at NVTA (National Virtual Teacher Association) The NVTA Certification Process was created to establish a valid and reliable research-based teacher qualification training process for virtual teachers to enhance their teaching and develop their ongoing reflective skills to improve teaching capacity. NVTA is an affiliate sponsor of Teaching Learning Leading K12, by following the link above if you purchase a program, Teaching Learning Leading K12 will get a commission and you will help the show continue to grow.  Don't forget to go to my other affiliate sponsor Boone's Titanium Rings at www.boonerings.com. When you order a ring use my code - TLLK12 - at checkout to get 10% off and help the podcast get a commission. Oh by the way, you can help support Teaching Learning Leading K12 by buying me a soft drink (actually making a donation to Teaching Learning Leading K12.) That would be awesome! You would be helping expand the show with equipment and other resources to keep the show moving upward. Just go to https://www.buymeacoffee.com/stevenmiletto Thanks! Connect & Learn More: https://www.mindovermedia.us/ https://mediaeducationlab.com/ https://www.facebook.com/renee.hobbs1 https://twitter.com/reneehobbs https://www.youtube.com/c/MediaEdLab https://www.instagram.com/reneehobbs2002/ https://www.facebook.com/mediaeducationlab https://twitter.com/MedEduLab https://www.linkedin.com/company/media-education-lab/about/ https://www.instagram.com/mededulab/ Length: 01:09:02

Founder of the Media Education Lab and author of Mind Over Media: Propaganda Education for a Digital Age Renee Hobbs joins Rushkoff to discuss how the enlightenment project can work without gatekeepers.

The 2021 TBR Podcast Carnival: Contending with Misinformation in the Community and in the Classroom concludes with an episode of The Big Rhetorical Podcast hosted by Charles Woods. This episode features a Keynote Interview with Renee Hobbs about her new book, Mind of Media: Propaganda Education for a Digital Age. Renee Hobbs is an internationally-recognized authority on media literacy education. Through community and global service and as a researcher, teacher, advocate and media professional, Hobbs has worked to advance the quality of digital and media literacy education in the United States and around the world. She is the Founder and Director of the Media Education Lab, whose mission is to improve the quality of media literacy education through research and community service. Be sure to check out more carnival episodes from podcasts from around the world each day this week. For more information visit thebigrhetoricalpodcast.weebly.com.

In this special episode of May it Displease the Court, a podcast about how unjust the court system has always been, but especially in this age of rampant misinformation, produced specifically for The Big Rhetorical Podcast Carnival. The Carnival runs from August 16-19, 2021. Check out participating podcasts who all produced episodes incorporating this year's theme “Contending with Misinformation in the Community and the Classroom”. The Carnival culminates with the keynote speaker, Dr. Renee Hobbs, Professor of Communication Studies at the Harrington School of Communications and Media and Founder of the Media Education Lab at the University of Rhode Island.  Mary Whiteside, an attorney, is joined by expert guest, Dr. Amanda Cronkhite, an assistant professor at the US Army School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth. Dr. Cronkhite's research focuses on the role of media and information in politics and national security. Her latest published research looks at #FakeNews and the handling of misinformation in the media. This episode looks at how misinformation spreads throughout populations, as well as how easy it has become to create deep or cheapfakes, which may become a problem in courtrooms. Here are the highlights: MAIN POINTS: 1) A small percentage of social media users share an overwhelming majority of the mis/mal or dis-information out there, especially if it confirms their existing prior biases.  2) Strategies for combating misinformation or mal-information include: teach individuals to check for fact-checking articles about a news story trace the source of information  read laterally, that is, check other sources' evaluations of the story's source 3) One type of misinformation, deepfakes, which are videos produced or altered to present content that never occurred in real life and the technology to produce videos has evolved so quickly that now it can be done cheaply even from a single image. Mary and Dr. Cronkite explore weather deepfakes can create a big enough doubt to be reasonable so often that they create a “liar's dividend” as described in (Chesney and Citron 2019) that undercuts the existing legal system? Resources mis/dis/mal-info written: https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-report-november-2017/1680764666 mis/dis/mal-info video: https://www.weareiowa.com/video/news/local/explaining-the-difference-between-disinformation-misinformation-and-malinformation/524-151c0a53-76d8-4481-842f-116a527f5ad4 Kahneman book https://bookshop.org/books/thinking-fast-and-slow/9780374533557 Peter W. Singer on media literacy https://time.com/5932134/cyber-citizenship-national-priority/ Estonia & media literacy https://www.educationestonia.org/finland-denmark-and-estonia-top-the-media-literacy-index-2021/ Foreign Service https://careers.state.gov/work/foreign-service/officer/ The Conversation is a website where scholars write about their work for the mass public. Some articles from there:How to not become a misinfo spreader https://theconversation.com/7-ways-to-avoid-becoming-a-misinformation-superspreader-157099 How to talk to misinformed family members https://theconversation.com/how-to-talk-to-someone-you-believe-is-misinformed-about-the-coronavirus-133044 https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/05/14/deepfake-cheer-mom-claims-dropped/ https://apnews.com/article/dc-wire-donald-trump-health-coronavirus-pandemic-election-2020-b7e929bb8d49b77d0922eae7ad3794b7 https://www.journalism.org/2020/09/28/many-americans-get-news-on-youtube-where-news-organizations-and-independent-producers-thrive-side-by-side/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/23/younger-americans-are-better-than-older-americans-at-telling-factual-news-statements-from-opinions/  https://www.npr.org/2021/06/17/1007472092/facebook-researchers-say-they-can-detect-deepfakes-and-where-they-came-from   Need More Access Follow the pod on Facebook, Twitter @courtpod to see what we think about current events and let us know your thoughts. Have compliments, criticisms, or suggestions. Email us at displeasethecourt@gmail.com Subscribe so you don't miss an episode on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Podbean, Spotify,  Sticher,  Vurb, or via RSS. Rate and Review (5 Stars!) the show to help people find us. ​​​​

More of our lives are spent on screens each year. At the same time we are living in an era of divisive partisanship with unprecedented assaults on truth. So what role can schools play in helping students navigate the competing media sources they are bombarded with every day? We’ll hear from Renee Hobbs, author of the recent Mind Over Media; media scholar, Dr. Jayne Cubbage; and a public school media teacher from Maryland, Alex David.

Think that propaganda is an outdated thing of the past? Well, think again. Propaganda is everywhere -- in the news, entertainment, politics, education, social media and more. Renee Hobbs, a media literacy expert, says it's vital that adults and children better understand how to identify and analyze propaganda. Hobbs, the director of URI's Media Education Lab, and the author of "Mind Over Media," is leading the way in what propaganda education looks like in our classrooms. She shares the history of propaganda education in America, and some of the ways pedagogy can incorporate lessons on propaganda in almost every subject today.     

In this episode, we’re circling back to a favorite topic here on the podcast: media literacy. Leading Lines producer Melissa Mallon recently talked with Renee Hobbs, professor of communication studies at the University of Rhode Island, about her new book, Mind Over Media: Propaganda Education for a Digital Age. Professor Hobbs is a longtime leader in the field of media literacy education, with a CV a mile long, and her new book distills her research and practice on propaganda education, a topic that is as timely as ever these days. In the interview, she talks about her entry into media literacy, how the field has changed over the decades, and how faculty and teachers in all disciplines can practice connecting their classrooms to the culture around them. Links • Renee Hobbs’ faculty page, https://harrington.uri.edu/meet/renee-hobbs/ • Renee Hobbs on Twitter, https://twitter.com/reneehobbs • Mind Over Media: Propaganda Education in a Digital Age, https://www.mindovermedia.us/ • Media Education Lab, https://www.mediaeducationlab.com/ • NAMLE, the National Association for Media Literacy Education, https://namle.net/

In this episode, we explore how some tenets of media literacy can be co-opted by conspiracy theorists, and how to approach media literacy education in a way that ensures students have the skills and abilities to navigate this landscape and assess information holistically.My guest is Renee Hobbs – professor of communication studies at the Harrington School of Communication and Media at the University of Rhode Island; Director of the Media Education Lab; author of the new book, Mind Over Media: Propaganda Education in a Digital Age.In part two of my conversation with Renee Hobbs, we explore the limitations of media literacy taught in isolation, including how it can be flipped by conspiracy theorists, as well as the importance of teaching media holistically, and hand-in-hand with things like empathy, discernment, art, and collaboration.

In this episode, we explore the allure and growing influence of conspiracy theories, and how they are both combated by and influenced by Media Literacy. This includes the role of conspiracy theories in our sociopolitical context, and the issues and challenges in our current marketplace of ideas - in the classroom, on social media, and in our public discourse.My guest is Dr. Renee Hobbs, professor of communication studies at the Harrington School of Communication and Media at the University of Rhode Island, and Director of the Media Education Lab.She is also the author of the new book, Mind Over Media: Propaganda Education in a Digital Age (W.W. Norton).  This is part one of a two-part interview.

Larry Magid and Kerry Gallagher spoke with Renee Hobbs, founder of the Media Education Lab at Univ. of Rhode Island, about why digital & media literacy is more important than ever.Our conversation with Renee Hobbs can be described in many ways, including "delightful." The subject matter wasn't all that funny, but she was, as she not only demystified media literacy but challenged many assumptions -- including some of our own.

Larry Magid and Kerry Gallagher spoke with Renee Hobbs, founder of the Media Education Lab at Univ. of Rhode Island, about why digital & media literacy is more important than ever.Our conversation with Renee Hobbs can be described in many ways, including "delightful." The subject matter wasn't all that funny, but she was, as she not only demystified media literacy but challenged many assumptions -- including some of our own.

Renee Hobbs interviews teachers about some of the delights and challenges about teaching about contemporary propaganda.

Reflection on propaganda in journalism, education, activism and entertainment created at DW Akademietag 2018 in a workshop on Contemporary Propaganda with Renee Hobbs

Renee Hobbs, URI Communications professor talks about "fake news", how the term has changed since the 2016 election and how to regard the label - made more current by President Donald Trump

In episode 35, Michael and Dan discuss media literacy and fake news with Renee Hobbs, one of the leading voices in media literacy education, and Annie Jansen, a terrific AP Government teacher from Washington. There is also a brief discussion of the French Revolution and Publius gets a shout out.

In episode 7, Dan and Michael interview Renee Hobbs about teaching propaganda in addition to some discussion of media literacy education.

Renee Hobbs, author of Copyright Clarity: How Fair Use Supports Digital Learning, discusses the critical issues of copyright and fair use in digital media and composition, while considering together how these support youth voice and learning inside and outside the classroom.

Renee Hobbs is founder of the Media Education Lab at Temple University. Hobbs works to promote media literacy and critical thinking about information sources-which can be a powerful tool against hate speech and Holocaust denial.

The 2007 Media Smart Award winner, Kelly Mendoza, presented her findings (MP3, 45MB) to an audience of education and cable leaders in March. Her paper Mapping Parental Mediation and Making Connections with Media Literacy, provides insight on how media literacy can strengthen and improve effective parental mediation. Mediation is defined as any strategy parents use to control, supervise or interpret media for children. Parental mediation, described as one of the most effective ways of managing television’s influence on children, helps children to think about the use of media and the messages they receive in order to highlight positive aspects of media, but also to intervene in media’s potential negative effects.“Effective intervention of parents with their children’s media consumption in the home may strengthen children’s skills in thinking more deeply about media messages they receive,” said the study’s author Kelly Mendoza. “Parental mediation informs children about television’s importance or lack of importance, how it should be used, and how much attention or disregard they should give to the material.”Dr. Renee Hobbs, professor at Temple University, and Anna Weselak, immediate past national president of the PTA also commented during the presentation.