Media Literacy in the Digital Age

Media literacy has become an essential skill in the digital age, where the internet and various forms of media play a pivotal role in the daily lives of individuals. The ability to critically evaluate content across diverse media platforms empowers individuals to actively navigate the complex landscape of modern information rather than consume it passively. The abundance of sources and the speed at which information spreads online demand that one possesses the skills to distinguish between credible and misleading or biased content.

With the evolving nature of media, media literacy is not just about understanding content but also involves a critical approach to assessing the purpose, message, and impact of what is consumed. It incorporates the capacity to recognize and evaluate the techniques used by media producers to convey their messages. Developing media literacy skills is crucial for individuals to interpret the reliability of different information sources, which fosters informed decision-making and encourages participation in civil society.

The traditional media of previous generations, such as television, radio, and newspapers, were historically the gatekeepers of information—these entities decided what was deemed newsworthy to share with audiences. While the advent of social media has democratized influence and created seemingly endless sources of information, it has also become an efficient and effective vehicle to spread disinformation.

In addition to providing a venue for professional networking and knowledge sharing, LinkedIn has evolved into a platform for shameless self-promotion, humblebragging, questionable claims, and dubious authority. LinkedIn is rife with false claims, exaggerations, and outright lies. Anyone can post anything on LinkedIn and position themselves as an authority. There is also a preponderance of “repurposed,” aka plagiarized content—generally provocative— published multiple times, intending to drive engagement. Just today, I saw this post from a self-proclaimed business leader:

I hired a candidate with zero experience. 

Here’s why...

They arrived 5 min early for their morning interview (respect), pronounced my name correctly (major kudos), had a genuine smile, and dressed sharp.

During the interview, they smiled, made eye contact, and were honest about having zero experience (I value honesty).

They asked me questions, they wanted to learn, they showed up!

To all the hiring decision-makers out there, don’t disqualify candidates because they don’t have “experience.”

They can develop skills and experience with your guidance.

More “experience” does not guarantee a harder work ethic or a better fit.

Sometimes the candidate with little to no experience- who is grateful just for the opportunity-is the better fit because they are humble and hungry to learn.

All they need is someone like you to give them a chance to prove themselves and to help them grow, regardless of their lack of experience.

Be the person that gives someone the chance they’ve been waiting for.

Be a leader that creates leaders.

Let’s apply some media literacy practices to this as we analyze it. I first noticed the controversial, provocative headline, designed to create an emotional response: I hired a candidate with zero experience. This sentence could imply a few things. Does it mean that this person just hired someone into an entry-level role? Or are they saying they ignored the lack of industry or functional experience and hired for another reason? As we read on, we learn that it is the latter. Let’s examine the criteria ostensibly used in hiring: Arrived five minutes early. Presented themselves articulately. Smiled and was well dressed. Do any of these sound like reasons to make a hire? They are entirely superficial and have no connection to an ability to do the job. Now, let’s consider this within the context of the known world. Does this seem like something that happened? Or is it more likely that this was posted so that the author could increase engagement and gain followers? 

Obviously, this is a made-up story, one that I’ve seen posted over and over again on LinkedIn. The person who posted it wants to position themselves as a maverick here. It is intended to make the poster seem both credible and authoritative. When we look at this critically, it does not hold water. It is too pretty, too perfect, too feel-good. When engaging in online content, it is imperative that you do so through a critical lens. Is it authentic? Is it credible and corroborated? Is evidence presented? Does it demonstrate solid reasoning? It is incumbent on each of us to be conscious and deliberate in drawing conclusions from what we read online. If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.