#the discourse about accommodations on Twitter for example is totally ignorant of the current situation | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

theloudlibrary · 7 years

Text

Fake News and Library Reference Work

Reference work is not easy. Being able to refer patrons to information is an acquired skill that takes patience, practice, and care. As it states in the ALA's Code of Ethics, we are to "provide the highest level of service to all users," as well as "distinguish between our personal convictions and our professional duties and not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with the. . .provision of access." No matter what a patron desires, if the institution has the money and resources to furnish their request, the reference librarian is obliged to provide. In our current political and cultural climate, the task of the reference librarian has become even more markedly complex with the advent of fake news, the misappropriation of the term fake news by politicians, and the general popularity of 'doubling down' on known falsehoods.

Fake news has materialized in a time of ubiquitous social media use, something that allows people to share non-stop, even if the material shared is deliberately fake or false. Lauree Padgett writes that there is a consensus in this situation that "media literacy, and with it, critical thought," should be made "a cornerstone of education." What Padgett implies here is that fake news, the propagation of falsehoods in media, relies on a lack of critical awareness. How people assess what they consume (on Facebook, or Twitter) is at the center of the issue here. In terms of reference work, the reference librarian must assess what a person currently knows before finding what else they should know. The context, not only of the research, but of the patron's knowledge, remains central to the reference interview. As patrons may have an agenda, or may be informed by falsehoods, the reference interview becomes a very delicate task: one cannot immediately assume that a patron has a critical understanding of what fake news is, or that their knowledge is based on fake news.

In reality, it does fall to the reference librarian to seize these teachable moments. We are to provide the best possible service and allowing a patron to continue to possess knowledge based upon known, demonstrable falsehoods is not within the ethos of the reference interview. However delicate one must be, it is required that one point out the falseness of previously possessed information should the situation arise. So as reference librarians, as knowledge workers, we continue on and accept this complication. And yet, as if being conspired against, the seemingly clear term "fake news" became more of a monster.

As Callum Borchers writes in the Washington Post, "conservatives—led by President Trump—have hijacked the term and sought to redefine it as, basically, any reporting they do not like." In numerous instances, the President and others use the terms "fake news" to imply that coverage of them and their policies is biased or flawed or bad. Ignoring the glaring issue at hand, namely that social media allows for deliberate falsehoods to be shared widely and quickly, these politicians have complicated the meaning of the term and shifted that meaning in their favor. Now, patrons may have a understanding of the term fake news as falsehoods, as unfriendly coverage, or as some ambiguous middle ground. Aside from how reckless this is of the President and others to do (they set the example for kids, after all, and adults too), this leaves the reference librarians with the task of determining now only a patron's previous knowledge of certain subjects, but also how patrons define specific terms relating to the knowledge they already possess.

The layers of nuance here do nothing to enhance the reference interaction. It is clear from this that some of these politicians place no value on reference or knowledge workers and completely disregard them when using such reckless and impulsive language. If the key is to educate, as Padgett assumes, then Borcher's revelation that the meaning of the term is being intentionally made ambiguous by people in power means that teachers and librarians will be hesitant to approach the topic. It is complex, developing, there is a lot written about it and yet at the same time very little definitive information has been circulated about fake news. All that is really known is that 1) it exists and 2) the President (intentionally?) misuses the term. Reference librarians, then, are likely to be questioned, misinterpreted, or disregarded.

So how to deal with this onslaught? First, it is important to understand that sometimes facts do not change people's minds. Elizabeth Kolbert writes in the New Yorker about how difficult it is for humans to revise their previously created ideas: "Even after the evidence "for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make appropriate revisions in those beliefs," researchers noted." She is referencing Stanford studies where subjects were deliberately misled and nonetheless stuck to their false beliefs. Reference librarians and knowledge workers need to have a grasp of this. Certainly, it is a failing of human cognition to rely so blindly on previously established knowledge (it is also a blessing for us to be so trusting with ourselves, but that is a different issue). To that end, reference workers can be sure to encounter a wide range of feelings about knowledge and information. Some are more flexible, not all are so rigid in their thinking.

If we understand, however, that some people may be rigid in their thinking, that does allow us to change our countenance in order to best accommodate them. In such cases, it is very likely a good tactic to be as nice as possible. To avoid dismissing someone's knowledge immediately may very likely be key in remaining sympathetic to them. Along those lines, it does not fit into the ALA Code of Ethics to be combative. Instead, reference workers need to be understanding, not condescending, and accepting: if someone is looking for confirmation of their fake news, they will likely not be able to find it, but that does not make it acceptable to be mean to them about it: let them down gently.

There are also indignant patrons, those who themselves are combative or angry. When dealing with such a patron, it is important to remember that even though someone is looking (in very likely the right place, no less!) for information, it does not mean that they may interrupt the library usage of other patrons. It is important in these cases to remember that loud disruptive patrons do more than go after reference librarians. Further to that, angry, combative language affects other patrons. Libraries are open and inclusive institutions by their nature. Exclusion from a library is a serious matter, but reference librarians need to remember that their patrons can negatively affect those around them by being loud, rude, racist, or otherwise unkind.

Finally, if one does not experience a nightmare scenario like that described above, it is essential that one engage. Showing interest in these topics is not enough, as a mere passing idea of something does not communicate the gravity of what fake news does. One needs to demonstrate a willingness to engage in a topic on a level similar to that of patrons. That does not mean a fervor or zeal for the topic is necessary, but many topics are not passing by so simply. Rights, climate change, voting laws, these are some issues that will continue to shape, alter, and change the society around us and engaging patrons in a serious manner regarding these issues is key to communicating that these issues are not in a vacuum. Additionally, a distinct seriousness about these topics could afford one the opportunity to engage in a meaningful discourse regarding the subject.

Reference librarians are obligated by the ALA's Code of Ethics to provide the best service possible and that means candid work that possesses veracity. One cannot, under any circumstance, provide patrons with deliberately false information. Should that act place a reference librarian in opposition to those in power, for example the President? Short answer, no, but we live in a tumultuous world. Our profession cannot sit idly by as "fact" is disregarded. Now, more than ever, library science has risen to the forefront. Even though many in our profession may want to "stay out of it" or "let things be," we are (thankfully) obliged to work for the truth within out very ethics, a specific library ethos that has been developed and changed time and again over the last century. If we are to assume that libraries are vital to US American society (as we rightfully should), then we must defend these institutions from their antithesis: fake news. It is no problem to access information digitally or to share it (we librarians love that), but the willful and rapid spread of false fact, information, and narrative does more than a disservice to our institutions of knowledge, it makes the world a demonstrably worse place. This is not only for us as professionals or as tax-paying adults, but it shapes the world that our children live in. Fake news is an ambiguous term, but what is certain is that information (the abstract, conceptual thing that we know we know even when it is hard to tell that we know it) is being attacked from multiple sides and librarians have no choice but to work for the good of the people, even if someone as powerful as the President does not.

References

Code of Ethics of the American Library Association (2008). Web.

Borchers, C. (2017). 'Fake news' has now lost all meaning. The Washington Post.

Kolbert, E. (2017). Why facts don't change our minds. The New Yorker.

Padgett, L. (2017, Jan/Feb 2017). Filtering out fake news: It all starts with media literacy. Information Today, 34, 6. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxycu.wrlc.org/docview/1861789240?accountid=9940

#fake news #tumblarians #library #reference

0 notes