A healthy democracy depends not only on access to information, but on citizens who can evaluate, question, and understand it. Once learned, Media and Information Literacies become enduring skills that shape how we understand the world. They provide the foundation for lifelong learning, helping us remain both vigilant and open-minded in a constantly changing information landscape.

📊 Getting Better Poll

Leave a comment below and tell us what informed your answer or what experiences have shaped your perspective.

Leave a comment

📰 News Literacy as Everyday Civic Action

USA Today’s opinion piece argues that one of the most meaningful ways to mark the 250th anniversary is to recommit to news literacy, tying the founders’ insistence on “popular information” to modern habits of reading and verifying news. It points to evidence that communities with strong local news see higher voter turnout and civic engagement, while roughly 50 million Americans now live in “news deserts” and US press freedom has slipped to 64th of 180 countries, dropping 20 places over five years.

The article notes that many people, especially younger audiences, are turning away from news, with surveys showing high levels of avoidance and 84% of teens describing news with words like “biased,” “boring,” or “bad,” yet classroom news literacy programs measurably improve students’ ability to spot credible information and increase their willingness to engage. Perception that “all news is fake” diverges from data showing that fact-based journalism still supports accountability and participation, even as business models, trust, and exposure to AI-generated misinformation remain unresolved.

The Better Take:

When you see stories about “dying journalism” or “broken media,” look for concrete measures such as press freedom rankings, news availability, and civic participation, because they often reveal both serious risks and practical levers for improvement. Treat news literacy not as a moral lecture but as a personal skill set that makes it easier to navigate confusing feeds, spot reliable reporting, and use information to make better choices.

📖 Teaching Kids to Question the Story of America

Rethinking Schools’ article critiques efforts like the federal 1776 Commission that push “patriotic education,” arguing that forcing students to “love America” replaces inquiry with devotion and sidesteps evidence about the nation’s contradictions. It highlights a lesson from the Zinn Education Project where students work with primary sources from Black, Indigenous, and other marginalized voices of the Revolutionary era, revealing that critiques of slavery and unequal freedom were voiced when the nation was founded, not invented by modern politics.

The picture many students receive - that founders were simply “men of their time” whose contradictions can be excused - is challenged by documents showing people of the same era organizing abolition societies, petitioning for promised freedom, and calling out hypocrisy in real time. This narrows the gap between perception that critical history is anti‑patriotic and the historical reality that debate about freedom and inclusion has always existed, even as current fights over curriculum, censorship, and whose stories are told remain unresolved.

The Better Take:

When a headline claims schools are either “indoctrinating” or “erasing” history, look for who is being quoted, what original sources students see, and whether multiple perspectives are presented, because those details show whether education is about obedience or understanding. Lessons that focus on evidence and conflicting viewpoints build stronger judgment skills, which pay off far beyond history class whenever complex civic issues arise.

🧭 Using Anniversaries to Recalibrate Democracy

New America’s conversation starts from the reality that the 250th anniversary arrives in a moment of low trust, sharp polarization, and economic and cultural strain, yet notes that previous major anniversaries - 1876 and 1976 - also occurred during turmoil and still created space for national reflection. The authors describe how past commemorations combined parades and protests, world’s fairs and political crises, suggesting that anniversaries are less about simple celebration and more about contested narratives of pride, reckoning, and aspiration.

They propose using the semiquincentennial as a venue to connect pride in democratic participation with honest reckoning over injustices and an aspirational vision for a more inclusive future, pointing to activities in museums, town halls, monument debates, and street protests as evidence of public engagement rather than apathy. The divergence between common perception of pure decline and data showing sustained, sometimes growing, civic involvement suggests that anniversaries can function as tipping points if they channel attention into concrete projects, although deep disagreements over identity, belonging, and who benefits from democracy remain unresolved.

The Better Take:

When stories frame America 250 purely as evidence of democratic collapse or as a feel‑good spectacle, look for indicators like participation in local forums, changes in public memory (such as monument removals), and new civic initiatives, which show how people are actually using the moment. Paying attention to these signals can make large national anniversaries feel less like distant events and more like practical opportunities to join, or start, efforts that improve institutions over time.

📚 Getting Better Recommendations

Smithsonian: Explore the people, places, and ideas that help tell the story of America’s 250 years. Included on this page are free, featured Smithsonian educational resources that teachers and students can use as they celebrate the nation’s 250th anniversary.

📚 Explore Resources

📊 Getting Better Poll

Leave a comment below and tell us what informed your answer or what experiences have shaped your perspective.

Leave a comment

📱 Screen Time Fears, Risks, and Safeguards

The Kids Mental Health Foundation survey reports that parents’ top three screen‑time fears are privacy and safety (47%), exposure to misinformation (36%), and reduced in‑person socializing (34%), with body image and schoolwork ranking lower despite frequent media attention. At the same time, eight in ten parents say they actively manage screen time, most often by setting time limits, encouraging offline hobbies, and using parental‑control apps, suggesting many households are already experimenting with practical guardrails rather than simply worrying.

Public conversation often centers on “too much screen time” in general, but large reviews like the American Psychological Association meta‑analysis of 117 studies with more than 292,000 children find a more nuanced, bidirectional pattern: higher screen use is linked to greater risks of anxiety, depression, and behavioral issues, and children who are already struggling emotionally are more likely to turn to screens to cope. These findings fit a longer‑term trend away from counting hours alone and toward asking what children are doing on screens, with whom, and under which safeguards, while still leaving open questions about which types of content are most harmful and how design choices by platforms shape use.

The Better Take:

When a survey about kids and screens makes headlines, the most useful habit is to check what the sample measured (privacy, social life, mental health), how big it was, and what parents are already doing, not just what they fear. Using that information to fine‑tune a few concrete rules - such as where devices are used, which apps are allowed, and how often you talk with kids about what they see - aligns daily choices with evidence without needing to react to every alarming story.

🎮 How Parents Actually Manage Kids Screen Time

Pew Research Center’s survey of 3,054 parents of children 12 and under shows how normal screens have become: about 90% say their child watches television, 68% report tablet use, and 61% report smartphone use, with roughly one in four saying their child owns a smartphone and ownership concentrated among 11‑ to 12‑year‑olds. YouTube usage is widespread with daily viewing rising from 43% to 51%, including a jump among children under two from 24% to 35%.

Perception and reality diverge in interesting ways: screens like TV and YouTube are far more common than social media, yet 80% of parents say social media’s harms outweigh its benefits for their child, and large majorities want technology companies and lawmakers to do more to protect kids online. Managing screen time is a priority for most parents, but fewer than half rank it as a top daily priority compared with sleep, physical activity, good manners, and reading, and many describe themselves as “doing the best they can,” juggling competing demands while still setting rules. Long‑term, the data point toward continued growth in early exposure to screens alongside growing cross‑partisan support for structural safeguards, with unresolved questions about how to design tools and policies that reduce harm without relying only on parental guilt or constant oversight.

The Better Take:

When encountering stories about kids “always on screens,” it helps to separate types of use - TV, YouTube, games, social media - and ask which ones the data show as most common and most concerning. That makes it easier to focus energy on a small number of high‑impact decisions, such as delaying social media, curbing autoplay video, and treating screens as tools for connection and learning rather than background noise, instead of trying to control every minute online.

🎓 Helicopter Parents vs. College Children

The U.S. News interview with Brigid Schulte describes a decades‑long rise in “intensive parenting,” especially among highly educated parents, who spend more time on children than earlier generations in almost any other rich country, even while working full time. She notes that engaged parenting is linked with better academic outcomes and a stronger sense of security, but research also finds that overparenting can undermine teenagers’ autonomy and identity during the years when independent decision‑making matters most.

The perception is often that more involvement is always better, especially when college feels high‑stakes and the future uncertain, yet the evidence points to a “sweet spot” where support gradually shifts toward trust and independence. Longer‑term, the tension is not fully resolved, because structural issues like expensive childcare and limited paid leave continue to push parents toward doing more individually rather than sharing the load more collectively.

The Better Take:

When stories frame college parenting as “helicopters versus hands‑off,” look for which outcomes are actually measured and whether autonomy is considered alongside grades and admissions. Focusing on the balance between support and self‑direction helps turn coverage of parental anxiety into practical questions about skills, resilience and systems that can be improved over time, not just individual virtue or failure.

📚 Getting Better Recommendations

Common Sense Media: AI is shaping our children’s world, from the videos they watch to the tools they use in school. Common Sense Media and Day of AI have teamed up to launch a free toolkit, featuring a video and interactive activities to help families and educators explore AI together. These resources support age-appropriate conversations and build the skills that kids need to thrive in a digital world.

📚 Explore Resources

📊 Getting Better Poll

🗞️ Why Some Towns Lose Their Local Paper, and Others Don’t

Research summarized in the Nieman Lab piece finds that local newspaper survival is not random, and structural factors largely determine whether a town keeps its paper. Since 2005, the United States has lost more than one third of its local newspapers, and over a thousand counties now lack even one full-time local journalist, losses concentrated in poorer and more diverse communities. Affluent, often whiter suburbs tend to retain outlets because they offer advertisers more spending power, while communities that feel poorly served or stereotyped by coverage are less likely to subscribe, reinforcing the decline.

The analysis also finds that population growth only helps if it brings money with it, high birth rates in low-income areas do not translate into advertising revenue, and neighboring newspapers can either bolster or undermine one another depending on how they collaborate. Across red and blue regions, the pattern looks similar, economics and market size matter more than local politics, and none of this is fully solved by today’s experiments in digital or nonprofit local news.

The Better Take:

When you see a story about a local paper closing, look past the headline and ask which economic, demographic, and trust factors are in play, not just who is in office. That lens makes it easier to spot towns that are structurally vulnerable, and to support collaborations, ownership models, and coverage that genuinely serve residents most likely to be left out.

📰 Local News You Trust, But Rarely Pay For

Pew’s 2024 survey shows most adults still think local outlets matter, with 85 percent saying local news organizations are at least somewhat important to community well-being, and majorities rating local journalists as accurate and in touch. Views are notably less polarized than for national media, with both Republicans and Democrats more likely to say their local outlets are doing their jobs well compared with their views of “the media” overall.

Yet engagement and financial support are sliding: the share following local news very closely has fallen from 37 to 22 percent since 2016, and only 15 percent say they paid or donated to a local source in the past year, even though 63 percent think their outlets are doing fine financially. At the same time, habits are shifting from television and print toward websites, social media, and neighborhood forums, while people who feel strongly attached to their community remain the most engaged and most positive about local coverage.

The Better Take:

When reading about the “decline of local news,” it helps to remember that trust is comparatively strong, the weak link is sustained attention and financial support. A simple habit change, choosing a professional local outlet over a random forum for key information and considering even a modest paid subscription or donation, directly strengthens the coverage ecosystem you already say you value.

🏜️ When Communities Become Local News Deserts

The news desert research from UNC and updated analyses from Medill document a long, steady contraction, more than one in five US newspapers has closed in the past decade and a half, leaving almost 200 counties with no paper and about half of counties with only a single, usually small, title. Many surviving outlets are “ghost newspapers,” with sharply reduced staff and coverage after waves of consolidation, and the people with the least access to local news are often the poorest, least educated, and most geographically isolated.

The 2025 State of Local News report counts 213 news desert counties and estimates around 50 million Americans now have limited or no access to local reporting, alongside a three quarters loss of newspaper jobs since 2005. At the same time, more than 300 local digital startups have launched in the past five years and hundreds of nonprofit outlets are experimenting with new models, though they are heavily clustered in metro areas, leaving many rural communities still searching for sustainable coverage.

The Better Take:

Stories about news deserts highlight real risks, but they also point you toward practical checks - many of these projects publish maps or databases you can use to see how your own county is faring and which outlets still do original reporting. That awareness makes it easier to distinguish between a “ghost” outlet and a newsroom that still invests in local accountability, and to direct attention, time, and financial support toward the efforts that keep your community informed rather than just repeating wire copy or press releases.

📚 Getting Better Recommendations

News Literacy Unplugged: In a world of endless scrolling, sometimes the best way to build critical thinking is to step away from the screen. The News Literacy Project has created a collection of printable activities and hands-on resources that help young people evaluate information, question sources, and discuss media responsibly - without adding to their daily screen time.

📚 Explore Resources

📊 Getting Better Poll

⚠️ Educated Young Men and AI Revolution Anxiety

The Metatrends essay argues that history’s most disruptive force is a large group of educated young men who feel blocked from economic opportunity and family formation, and it warns that AI could rapidly expand that group in rich democracies. It cites “youth bulge” research and examples from the Arab Spring, Weimar Germany, Iran, and other revolutions where unemployed or underemployed young men played visible roles.

The historical pattern is real, but the article’s framing skips over the fact that most young men, even in crises, do not join violent movements. It is important to note that institutions, safety nets, and political participation have generally grown stronger over the long run. It also treats AI’s job impact mainly as rapid destruction of entry level roles, while emerging evidence shows both automation risks and meaningful augmentation of human work. The risk is worth tracking, but the outcome is not pre‑written.

The Better Take:

When a piece links young men and instability, ask what is data and what is extrapolation. Look for actual employment, education, and violence trends, not just historical analogies, and remember that stronger institutions, better education, and broader political engagement have repeatedly turned similar pressures into reform rather than collapse. It is worthwhile to separate “high‑risk scenario” language from the slower but often improving reality.

🤖 AI Jobs Shock, or Early Warning Signal?

The Stanford “Canaries in the Coal Mine” paper uses payroll data from millions of workers to test whether generative AI is already changing employment. It finds that workers aged 22 to 25 in the most AI‑exposed occupations saw about a mid‑teens percentage decline in employment since late 2022, while older workers in the same jobs kept growing, and overall employment across the economy remained robust.

The study also shows that the sharpest declines appear where AI is used to automate tasks, not where it primarily augments workers, and that wages have changed much less than employment. Importantly, the authors caution that AI is not the only factor, and they test many alternative explanations, finding the early patterns persistent but still emerging rather than definitive. Long term, this looks less like “the end of work” and more like a warning that the first rung of certain career ladders is being redesigned in real time.

The Better Take:

Whenever you see claims that “AI is killing jobs,” look for three checks: which workers, in which occupations, over what time period. Early data suggests young workers in specific AI‑heavy roles face more turbulence, while employment overall is still growing and augmentation paths are real. The lesson is focusing less on headlines about “all jobs” and more on how to build skills and careers that work with, not against, evolving tools.

🗳 How Young Men are Defining Their Politics

The Third Way memo looks at focus groups with young Black, Latino, and non‑college white men who moved toward Trump in 2024 but are not strongly attached to him. Participants describe heavy economic pressure, a sense of higher expectations on men as providers, and frustration that Democrats do not seem to address their day‑to‑day costs or non‑college opportunities.

These young men often say Republicans better reflect “masculine” priorities like work, family, and faith, while Democrats feel culturally distant or judgmental. Yet, their support for Trump is described as tentative and conditional, especially on tariffs, immigration enforcement, and living costs. They respond positively when Democratic leaders talk plainly about jobs, non‑degree pathways, and respect for differing views, suggesting attitudes are fluid rather than locked in. The long‑term story is less about a permanent realignment and more a contest over who can listen, reduce economic friction, and speak in clear, concrete language.

The Better Take:

When you see stories about “young men turning right,” ask what is based on hard data and what comes from small, vivid quotes. Look for voting patterns over several elections, specific economic concerns, and whether people describe themselves as loyal partisans or simply dissatisfied. The valuable insight is recognizing that many peers are not deeply ideological, which means communication, material conditions, and respect often matter more than party labels.

💻 E-Seminar in Celebration of the International Day for Countering Hate Speech 2026

Free Registration for E-Seminar

📊 Getting Better Poll

📵 Parents Push Back on Technology in the Classroom

A recent New York Times report follows Los Angeles parents who discovered that even kindergarteners were spending large parts of the school day on laptops, tablets and AI apps, often with easy access to games and social media. Families formed “Schools Beyond Screens” and pressed the LA school board to limit YouTube on school devices, remove individual devices from first grade, and set time caps for older students, making LA the first major US district to formally scale back classroom screens.

The article frames this as part of a broader national rethink, where parents now want evidence that technology improves learning, not just promises from vendors. At the same time, it notes that many schools still lack clear data on which tools work, and worry about test prep and equity if devices are removed, so the shift is uneven and incomplete.

The Better Take:

When you see stories about classroom technology battles, look for three details: what problem the tech claims to solve, what independent evidence exists, and whether it displaces core activities like sleep, reading, and real-world play. Asking schools for clarity on goals and measures turns concern into practical leverage, and helps you support uses of tech that genuinely aid learning while pushing back on deployments that mainly add noise.

🧬 AI Literacy is Really Media Literacy

Media Literacy Now argues that AI literacy and media literacy are inseparable, because most of what young people now see and share online is shaped by algorithms or generated by AI. They point to research suggesting that more than half of online content may already be AI-generated, with estimates that this share could climb toward ninety percent in 2026, and that four in ten teens report encountering misleading content.

The narrative often paints kids as helpless in a sea of deepfakes and other AI-generated content, yet the article highlights practical levers: state laws like the Take It Down Law, classroom resources, and advocacy toolkits for parents who want media literacy taught in K–12. The long-term trend is that more states are considering media and AI literacy requirements, though fewer than ten percent of school curricula worldwide explicitly cover AI or digital ethics today. The gap between the volume of synthetic media and the rate of classroom instruction remains wide, which is exactly why this framing matters.

The Better Take:

When you read about AI harms, ask whether the story also addresses skills and safeguards, not just threats. The advantage comes from treating AI output like any other media message: Who made it, with what tools, for what purpose, and what evidence supports it. That habit scales across every new platform.

🧭 Helping Parents Navigate AI in the Classroom

Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered AI describes how AI is quietly woven into K–12, from language and math tutors to grading assistants and immersive simulations. For the 2025–26 year, many students will sign “responsible AI use” agreements, even as school policies remain vague, teachers worry about misinformation and cheating, and detection tools sometimes misidentify honest work as AI generated.

Instead of either panic or blind enthusiasm, the piece offers three grounded steps for parents: find out how teachers are using AI, engage school leaders with concrete questions, and talk with children about when AI supports learning and when it gets in the way. Researchers emphasize that it is too early to know the full developmental impact, and that the bigger risk is AI further displacing real human interaction, not instant cognitive collapse. The long-term direction here is toward shared norms and clearer policies, but those will be shaped by parents who show up and ask specific, informed questions.

The Better Take:

When a story highlights AI in classrooms, treat it as an invitation to get curious rather than anxious. Your edge comes from knowing which tools your child actually uses, what guardrails the school has, and how you model “responsible AI” at home. The more specific your questions, the more influence you have.

Let’s explore why violent crime is falling sharply even as many people still feel less safe and what that tells us about modern media.

📊 Getting Better Poll

📉 Violent crime is falling more than the narrative admits

Former congressman Adam Kinzinger highlights FBI data showing murders fell about 12 percent in 2023, 15 percent in 2024 and more than 18 percent in 2025, producing the largest drop in violent crime and murder since 1937. He contrasts those numbers with the familiar storyline that cities are burning and crime is out of control, a message that moves ratings and votes but often ignores trend data. Independent analyses of FBI reports confirm that overall violent crime is now at its lowest level since the late 1960s, with robbery near a twenty-year low and property crime also falling.

Yet surveys show a large majority of Americans still believe national crime is rising and consider it a very serious problem, especially when they or someone close to them has been a victim. The good news is that community programs, better trauma care and long-term prevention appear to be working, even if gun violence and neighborhood level hot spots remain stubborn problems.

The Better Take:

This is a reminder that scary anecdotes do not automatically reflect the bigger picture. When you see crime news, ask for multi-year trends and compare national and local data so you can calibrate your own risk and be harder to manipulate by politicians or pundits who rely on fear.

🗺️ A quieter decline in crime across many cities

A January 2026 article in the Atlantic steps back from daily headlines and shows how the crime drop is playing out on the ground, noting that the national violent crime rate in 2024 fell to its lowest level since 1969, led by nearly a 15 percent decline in homicides that early 2025 data suggests is continuing with almost a 20 percent drop in murders. Cities like Detroit, San Francisco, Chicago and Newark are seeing their lowest murder rates since the 1950s and 1960s, even as many big city police departments operate with about 6 percent fewer officers than before the pandemic, which challenges simple claims that only more policing can produce safety.

The piece stresses that this progress is uneven, with violence still concentrated in specific neighborhoods and shaped by deep issues like poverty, housing and guns, yet it also shows that post-pandemic spikes are not destiny and can reverse. Over a longer horizon, the story fits into a three-decade pattern of declining crime that has survived recessions, political swings and a major public health crisis, suggesting that a mix of community work, smarter enforcement and social investment can keep bending the curve.

The Better Take:

It is prudent to resist single cause explanations when someone claims credit or blame for crime trends. When you read about safety in your city, look for reporting that tracks both policing and social supports over many years so you can spot which combinations actually move harm down instead of assuming one lever explains everything.

🧠 Why crime feels worse even as the numbers improve

A May 2026 Washington Times report, drawing on Council on Criminal Justice research, shows that from 2005 to 2024 the combined violent and property crime rate in the United States fell from about 3,973 offenses per 100,000 people to 2,119, nearly a fifty percent drop, even while roughly 69 percent of Americans consistently believed crime was increasing. Killings have fallen about 44 percent since their 2021 peak, and if 2025 trends hold, the homicide rate could reach about four per 100,000 residents, the lowest documented level in more than a century.

Yet fear stays high because personal experience with victimization, witnessing shoplifting, living in poorer neighborhoods and broader economic anxiety weigh more heavily on perception than national statistics. Recent Gallup polling shows fewer Americans now say crime is a very serious problem nationally or locally, though worries about child safety and financial fraud remain, suggesting perception may gradually start to catch up to reality without ignoring real harms. This divergence between feelings and facts is not about one party or one media outlet, but about how humans process risk, stories and rare but vivid events.

The Better Take:

The practical advantage for you is learning to hold two ideas at once you can respect people’s fear and your own while also checking whether a specific story reflects a spike, a level or a long-term direction. Before you share or react to alarming crime coverage, pause to ask what time frame is shown, what baseline it uses and whether your reaction comes more from headlines or from trend data.

📊 Getting Better Poll

🛰 Neil deGrasse Tyson on UFOs and actual proof

On Michael Shermer’s show, Neil deGrasse Tyson walks through why eyewitness testimony, secret military files and dramatic pilot stories are not the same thing as hard evidence for alien visitors. He stresses that extreme flight maneuvers that would turn a biological pilot into “a pile of goo” demand extraordinary data, not just confident narration.

The conversation separates two ideas that often get tangled together: the universe is likely full of life, but no one has yet produced a single verifiable alien artifact or body here on Earth. That gap between what feels possible and what is actually demonstrated has held steady for decades, even as cameras and sensors have improved.

The Better Take:

When you see bold claims about aliens, ask what would count as real proof and whether that standard has been met. This mindset helps you enjoy the mystery without outsourcing your judgment to confidence or charisma. Over time, it trains you to look for underlying data, not just a gripping story, which pays off in every other news topic too.

📁 Pentagon UFO files and quiet findings

Scientific American reports that the Pentagon’s new trove of declassified UFO or UAP files, promoted as a major transparency move, mostly contains familiar blurry videos, photos and case summaries rather than smoking-gun revelations. The release is framed as historic, and the interagency effort is real, yet experts say the material so far shows “nothing unexpected” and still no confirmed alien technology.

Earlier U.S. government reviews, including a 2021 report, also found no evidence tying UAP to extraterrestrial craft, even while logging hundreds of incidents that deserve normal aviation analysis. The long-term trend is that governments are slowly getting more open about these files, while public expectations of a grand disclosure event stay much higher than the actual contents justify.

The Better Take:

When you read about “bombshell” declassifications, compare the promised stakes with what the documents actually add to what we already knew. This habit protects you from both government spin and influencer hype by pulling your attention back to incremental changes in the record. It also lets you appreciate genuine gains in transparency without expecting them to answer every mystery at once.

🔭 UFO research in 2025 and slow, steady progress

A 2025 Space.com column notes that while strange objects continue to be reported in U.S. airspace, the real shift is that more scientists are quietly building better ways to study them. Researchers like Michael Cifone and Robert Powell argue that chasing old “cold case” sightings is less useful than deploying calibrated cameras and sensors in the sky to collect new, high-quality data over many years. Projects such as the University of Würzburg’s AllSkyCAM and Avi Loeb’s Galileo Project are early attempts to do exactly that, though they face major funding and access hurdles.

Former Navy pilot Ryan Graves and groups inside AIAA and AARO are pushing for standardized, stigma-free reporting because unidentified objects in shared airspace are first a safety and security issue, whether or not they turn out to be exotic. Progress is incremental, but there is more organized, data-first work now than at any point in the modern UFO era.

The Better Take:

When stories say, “we still have no answers,” look for whether the underlying systems for gathering better evidence are improving. Seeing the slow build out of tools, standards and reporting channels helps you recognize that uncertainty is not failure, it is a normal phase in learning how to measure a messy problem. For you, that means less frustration and more patience with long term, methodical work on hard questions.

📊 Getting Better Poll

🧨 Big tech, jury verdicts, and what “harm” really means

A recent Hill opinion piece argues that landmark jury verdicts against Meta and Google prove that big tech is clearly hurting kids and that Congress must step in decisively. Juries in California and New Mexico did find these companies liable for negligent design and deceptive practices, awarding a young plaintiff 6 million dollars and ordering Meta to pay 375 million dollars in a separate child safety case.

Large reviews and longitudinal studies link heavier or more “problematic” social media use with higher risks of depression, anxiety, sleep problems, and poorer school performance, but effect sizes are generally small and vary widely across teens. Some work also finds positive or mixed effects, especially when social media supports connection and belonging, which means policy has to grapple with design choices and context, not simply screen time totals. What is still unresolved is how to translate these modest but consistent risks into law in a way that curbs exploitative features without overreaching into broad censorship or heavy-handed age verification.

The Better Take:

When you see another headline about social media “destroying” a generation, look for three layers before reacting: what the legal case actually found, what the best quality research says about risk size and who is most vulnerable, and what specific design features are being blamed. Doing that gives you more leverage in your own life: you can ask schools, platforms, and lawmakers to target addictive design and data practices instead of treating all screen time as equally toxic.

🔕 Michigan’s “kids over clicks” push to tame nudges and data

Michigan’s Senate just passed a “Kids Over Clicks” package that would bar platforms from sending notifications to minors during late night hours and the school day, limit the collection and targeting of their personal data, and restrict advanced chatbots that can act like intimate confidants. Supporters frame this as giving parents tools against “exploitative and addictive algorithms” that keep kids in endless scroll mode while harvesting detailed profiles.

At the same time, business groups warn that state by state rules may add compliance burdens and nudge platforms to collect more verification data about all users, including adults, in the name of age checks. The bills are part of a broader trend in which states use narrower levers like notifications, ad targeting, and chatbot behavior instead of broad speech controls, but the long-term impact will depend on how enforcement works and whether kids actually see fewer pings at midnight.

The Better Take:

When you encounter stories about new “child protection” laws, it helps to ask three questions: does this rule change how platforms can nudge kids, what data they can collect, or what content kids can see. As a parent, teacher, or voter, that distinction matters for you because design and data rules tend to reduce background risk without telling your family what to think, while pure content rules can easily spill into broader censorship and heavier tracking for everyone.

🌍 Global moves to delay kids on social media

A Reuters overview shows that Australia and a growing list of European countries are moving toward hard age-based limits on social media access, sometimes banning under 15s or under 16s altogether and backing those rules with steep fines. Australia’s law, which requires major platforms to keep under 16s off their services and threatens penalties up to about $34.9 million, has become a reference point for Denmark, France, Greece, and others considering similar bans or device level “minor modes.”

These moves reflect mounting concern about addiction, bullying, and mental health, reinforced by research that finds heavier social media use in early adolescence is associated with later depressive symptoms, self-harm, and poorer school performance, even if many kids are unaffected. European regulators are also leaning on existing tools like the Digital Services Act to push platforms away from addictive design and toward safer defaults, rather than treating bans as the only lever.

The Better Take:

When you see headlines about countries “banning” social media for kids, read them as natural experiments rather than final answers. For you, the opportunity is to track which policies actually reduce harm while preserving helpful uses, then use that evidence to guide your own advocacy and household rules instead of reacting only to the strongest rhetoric from either tech companies or politicians.

📊 Getting Better Poll

🔍 How America Has Really Changed in 50 Years

Pew’s 250th anniversary snapshot shows a country older, more diverse, better educated, and modestly richer than it was in 1976, even as inequality and family gaps have widened. The share of adults with a bachelor’s degree has more than tripled since 1970, and median earnings have risen, but most of the gains went to people with college degrees.

At the same time, the middle class has shrunk, marriage has declined, multigenerational living has grown, and racial gaps in poverty and homeownership persist. The big picture is slow, cumulative progress layered over stubborn structural divides rather than simple decline or simple triumph.

The Better Take:

When you see alarming headlines about “American decline,” ask what time window the story is using and which metrics it highlights or ignores. Long arc data on education, longevity, and poverty reduction can help you hold today’s problems in context without dismissing them. Knowing that many trends improve over decades, even as inequality and housing remain unsolved, lets you stay concerned about what is broken while also noticing where policy and compounding progress are quietly working in your favor.

🌐 Steady Concerns in a Country of Constant Change

The American Communities Project finds that even as policy and politics swing sharply, people’s core worries remain surprisingly stable: rising prices, a “rigged” economy, homelessness, and corruption. Their 2025 survey of more than 5,000 Americans shows deep divisions on cultural issues and immigration, but broad agreement that inflation and affordability are major problems in almost every type of community.

Interestingly, hope about the country’s future has risen in many Trump-voting areas and fallen in Democratic-leaning ones, while Hispanic communities that swung toward Trump express less optimism than a year ago, especially amid stricter immigration enforcement. Under the noise of partisan conflict, there is real common ground on material pressures and distrust of institutions.

The Better Take:

When you read polling about “how divided we are,” look for where people actually agree, especially on concrete issues like prices, housing, and corruption. That overlap is where coalition-building and practical solutions become possible for you as a voter, neighbor, or professional. Instead of internalizing a story that “no one cares about the same problems,” notice how many different communities rank affordability and integrity near the top; that mindset makes it easier to support cross-partisan efforts that could meaningfully improve day-to-day life.

📉 Record Low Optimism in a Time of Material Gains

Gallup reports that only about 59 percent of U.S. adults expect to have a high quality of life in five years, the lowest level since they began tracking this nearly twenty years ago. Current life ratings have slipped since 2021, but expectations about the future have fallen even faster, pulling the share of Americans classified as “thriving” down to under half.

The drop is steepest for Democrats and Hispanic adults in 2025, suggesting that politics, inflation aftershocks, and economic insecurity shape feelings about the future at least as much as standard indicators like unemployment or GDP. The result is a lived experience that feels like a crisis even when many long-term social and economic trends point toward gradual improvement.

The Better Take:

When you see surveys about pessimism, treat them as an important signal about mental models, not as a direct readout of whether progress is “real.” It helps to routinely compare mood data to longer series on poverty, health, safety, and opportunity, so you can distinguish “how people feel right now” from “what has actually changed over decades.” That habit lets you take public anxiety seriously - including your own - without letting it erase measurable gains or the real room we still have to shape better outcomes.

📊 Getting Better Poll

🔍 When Everyone Knows “A Little” Health Misinformation

Edelman’s 2026 Trust and Health report finds that about seven in ten people worldwide believe at least one of six contested health claims, from fears about fluoride in water to theories that vaccines are used for population control. Confidence in making health decisions dropped roughly ten points in a single year, yet doctors remain the most trusted voices even as trust in the wider health system and media declines.

The publisher frames this as a crisis of misinformation; the underlying data suggests something more subtle, with confusion cutting across education and politics rather than sitting at the fringes. The long-term trend is a slow erosion of institutional trust alongside persistent faith in individual clinicians, and what is not fixed yet is the gap between people’s everyday worries and the way official health advice is delivered.

The Better Take:

For you, the opportunity is to lean into two habits at once: keep a trusted personal source (your doctor or another qualified professional), and also build a short “second opinion” routine for surprising health claims, checking at least one independent evidence-based outlet before sharing or acting. That mindset helps you stay open to new information without being pulled around by every alarming headline.

📉 Falling Trust In Health Agencies, Steady Support For Vaccines

KFF’s tracking poll shows trust in U.S. health agencies like the CDC, FDA, and local public health departments has slipped over the past eighteen months, especially among Republicans, while trust in one’s own doctor has also edged down from the mid‑90s to the mid‑80s in percentage terms. At the same time, large majorities across parties still say they trust scientists at the NIH and support public school vaccine requirements, even as more Republican-leaning parents report delaying or skipping some shots.

The headline story is declining confidence, but the data also shows a “malleable middle” that is unsure rather than firmly opposed, and broad ongoing support for core childhood vaccines. Over the longer arc, this looks less like a collapse of trust and more like a hardening partisan divide layered on top of a still-strong belief in vaccines and science, with lingering confusion about who exactly sets the rules.

The Better Take:

When you come across stories about trust in health agencies, it helps to ask two questions: “What is the overall level of trust?” and “How is it changing by group?” rather than assuming a universal backlash. That perspective can lower the emotional temperature and highlight where progress is still real, so you can focus your attention on the specific gaps that affect your family - like clarifying vaccine schedules with a clinician instead of treating every policy fight as an emergency.

📡 How Information Overload Affects Critical Thinking

A recent Lancet viewpoint describes a paradox: as science becomes more complex, coordinated, and effective at solving hard problems, many people feel more distant from it, gravitating instead to influencers and peers who feel emotionally authentic in social media feeds. The authors argue that engagement-driven platforms reward immediacy, group identity, and emotion more than accuracy, which helps explain why those least accountable for being correct can seem most credible in health debates.

Empirical work backs this up, finding that people who perceive a lot of health misinformation on social media are more likely to report low trust in the health system, especially if they have experienced discrimination or poor-quality care. The long-term risk is obvious, but the article also maps out constructive steps, from “co-producing” messages with communities to redesigning algorithms and communication norms to match both scientific standards and human need for connection.

The Better Take:

When you encounter health claims on social platforms, the useful question is less “Is this person on my side?” and more “How accountable is this source if they are wrong?” Treat emotionally compelling posts as a prompt to seek corroboration from sources that have real-world responsibilities - clinicians, public health institutions, or peer-reviewed research - so you can benefit from the reach of social media without outsourcing your judgment to it.

📊 Getting Better Poll

🐶 Quiet healing in a loud world

A Psychology Today article describes how calm, everyday interactions with a dog can literally bring human and animal bodies into sync, with studies showing aligned heart-rate variability, breathing and stress responses during gentle activities like petting or resting together. The author highlights research suggesting that while some people may be biologically more sensitive to animals, repeated caregiving and shared rituals - a slow walk, a nightly grooming routine, three shared breaths - matter more than genetics for strengthening empathy and emotional regulation over time.

Evidence also points to a spillover effect, where people who practice this kind of attunement with animals report greater patience and steadier emotions in their human relationships, even as broader social stresses and bad news remain very real. The gap is that we often treat self-care as dramatic or expensive, when the data here suggest that quiet, predictable contact with another living being can be a low-tech, accessible buffer against an overactivated nervous system.

The Better Take:

When you see stories about burnout or “headline anxiety,” remember that not every solution lives on a screen or in an app. Your nervous system responds powerfully to simple, repeatable signals of safety like a pet’s breathing or warm weight against your foot. Thinking this way turns companionship from something “nice to have” into a practical tool you can use to downshift your stress response after consuming difficult news. Over time, those tiny, boring rituals are often what keep you grounded enough to stay informed without feeling wiped out.

📰 When every headline feels heavy

Mental Health America’s 2025 resource on negative news reports that in a survey of 266 therapists, 99.6 percent said watching or reading the news can negatively affect mental health, especially for people in BIPOC and LGBTQ+ communities who are more often targeted in the stories themselves. The guide cites research showing that just 14 minutes of news exposure can increase symptoms of depression and anxiety, particularly when people feel they have no control over events they are seeing. It points out that more than half of Americans now get news via social media, where algorithms and clickbait headlines are built to keep you coming back, reinforcing doomscrolling and addictive checking rather than measured engagement.

In response, it recommends specific guardrails: identify your personal triggers, read rather than watch graphic footage when possible, cap total news time to about 30 minutes a day, pair news with a planned pleasant activity, join affinity or support groups, and consciously build optimism through social connection, movement, hobbies, mindfulness, and even time with pets.

The Better Take:

When you encounter alarming coverage, the most useful question may not be “Is this true?” but “How much of this, and in what format, is my mind built to handle today?” Setting time limits, choosing less graphic formats and planning something enjoyable right after the news is not avoidance; it is using what we know about stress hormones and attention to protect your ability to think clearly and act where you actually have leverage.

📡 How Information Overload Affects Critical Thinking

A recent essay by Getting Better Foundation’s Managing Director explores “media noise” and the flood of low-quality, repetitive and emotionally charged content that exceeds our ability to process it, weakening focus and critical thinking over time. Studies on information overload and media literacy find that when people face too many conflicting claims, they rely more on shortcuts like familiarity or group identity, which makes misinformation and polarization easier to spread.

At the same time, systematic reviews show that teaching media and information literacy - checking sources, motives and evidence, not just headlines - measurably improves people’s ability to evaluate information, especially in schools and community programs. Longer-term, we are not becoming worse thinkers, but the information environment is getting noisier faster than our skills are growing, and education, platform design and policy have not yet caught up.

The Better Take:

When you feel swamped by hot takes, the most useful move is not to read more but to raise your bar for what deserves your attention - fewer sources, checked more deeply. That shift protects you from manipulation, saves time and makes it easier to notice real patterns in the world instead of reacting to every spike of outrage or novelty.

📊 Getting Better Poll

🤖 AI’s footprint and UNEP’s call for guardrails

The UN Environment Programme describes a fast-growing AI infrastructure that relies on critical minerals, energy hungry data centers, large volumes of cooling water, and creates rising electronic waste, yet also notes that data on the full footprint is still incomplete. Headlines often swing between “AI will save the planet” and “AI will cook it,” but UNEP’s own work on methane detection, illegal mining and climate monitoring shows that the same tools causing strain can also strengthen environmental protection when governed well.

The longer trend here is that digital systems are moving from invisible background to regulated infrastructure, with early steps toward standard methods to measure impact, mandatory disclosure, and requirements to use more efficient hardware and renewable power. What remains unresolved is how quickly these safeguards will spread beyond a few leading regions and how to manage upstream mining impacts in a fair way.

The Better Take:

If you understand AI as infrastructure with a measurable footprint and not magic, you gain leverage as a citizen, worker, or builder. You can ask concrete questions about energy sources, water use, repairability, and disclosure instead of reacting to slogans, and you can support policies that tie AI deployment to clear environmental standards while still recognizing its potential to improve monitoring, forecasting and enforcement.

🌱 Innovation that puts climate first

A World Economic Forum piece argues that while robotics, 5G and electric vehicles are booming, climate focused innovation still lags, as global energy related emissions rose to about 37.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 2023 despite decades of warnings. The popular belief that “tech will fix it later” misses the current pattern where high growth digital tools like AI, cloud and consumer electronics expand faster than green technologies that would offset or reshape their impact.

At the same time, there is a visible shift toward climate centered investing and policy, from the European Green Deal’s emission reduction targets to rising climate finance and company level efforts such as greener packaging, code optimization and dedicated climate innovation funds. The open question is whether this pivot can move from pilot projects and headline pledges into routine practice quickly enough, especially in regions without strong regulation or capital access.

The Better Take:

For you, the signal here is that “technology” is not a single force; it is a set of choices about what gets funded, regulated, and scaled. Looking for evidence of climate aligned design, not just shiny features, makes you a more informed consumer, investor, or professional and helps reward the firms that treat emissions and resource use as core design constraints rather than afterthoughts.

💧 Mapping the real cost of AI data centers

Cornell researchers estimated that if current AI growth continues, U.S. AI related computing could emit 24 to 44 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2030, similar to adding 5 to 10 million cars, and use enough water for 6 to 10 million households, which challenges industry net zero promises. The cloud is often sold as weightless, but this work shows how location, grid mix, cooling technology and operations together determine whether data centers deepen local water stress and emissions or help accelerate clean energy.

Encouragingly, the same study outlines a practical roadmap where smarter siting in less water stressed regions, faster grid decarbonization and more efficient cooling and server use could cut projected carbon impacts by roughly 75% and water impacts by more than 80%. What is still uncertain is whether companies, regulators and utilities will coordinate at this “build out moment” or let infrastructure lock in higher emissions and water risks for years.

The Better Take:

When you hear about new data centers or AI services, you can translate the story into specific levers instead of abstract fear. Asking where facilities are built, how quickly local grids are moving to renewables, and which efficiency measures are in place helps you see AI as part of regional planning and climate policy, not just an app on your phone, and highlights how better design can drastically shrink the footprint without abandoning progress.

▶️ If you want a deeper look at how trust is built and broken, and why media literacy behaves like a public health tool, add our documentary “Trust Me” to your watch list.

📊 Getting Better Poll

🧠 Breaking down TikTok health trends

A health teacher and librarian in North Salem, New York asked students to bring in the health posts that show up in their TikTok and Instagram feeds, including tanning touted as safer than sunscreen, chia seeds as miracle weight loss and dares that seem funny but carry real risk. They built a lesson with the News Literacy Project that explains how algorithms push more extreme content, how influencers use relatability and aesthetics to sell products and ideas, and how to spot red flags like “quick fix,” “all natural” and dramatic before and after photos. Students practiced lateral reading by opening new tabs, checking sources and discovering that some “miracle” cures had already been debunked.

By the end, many no longer equated likes and followers with trust, and one student reported fact-checking a “tanning is safer than sunscreen” post and choosing sunscreen for their weekend game instead. Yet a national survey from the same project found that about four in ten teens report never having had any media literacy lesson, even though almost all say they want it, and only a few states like New Jersey and Connecticut now require such instruction. The long-term trend is hopeful but incomplete – media literacy is moving into curricula, yet many young people still rely on ad-driven feeds to learn about health.

The Better Take:

When you or someone you care about sees a viral health tip, treat popularity as a cue to pause, not a reason to trust. Ask three simple questions: Who is behind this claim, what evidence do they show and what do independent sources say when you open a new tab. A few extra seconds of checking can mean fewer wasted purchases, fewer risky experiments with your body and more confidence that your decisions rest on evidence rather than on algorithms.

🌍 Media literacy as the next public health campaign

An essay by the Managing Director of Getting Better Foundation argues that media literacy should be treated like the next public health campaign because mis- and disinformation now shape choices about vaccines, supplements, relationships and more. It notes that the deluge of misleading content erodes trust in science and public health, and exposes the most vulnerable – children, older adults and people already under stress – to extreme claims and manipulative content.

The piece stresses that media literacy is more than fact-checking: it is learning to question how messages are constructed, to recognize stereotypes and fear-based narratives, and to see when our own confirmation bias is being targeted. It points to research showing that media literacy education can improve knowledge, attitudes and behaviors on topics like body image and substance use, making people more skeptical of unhealthy advertising and gender stereotypes.

The Better Take:

When a health story sparks anxiety or excitement, it helps to remember that you are not just consuming information, you are being invited into someone else’s narrative. A simple habit is to ask how a piece of content wants you to feel and act, then deliberately look for a source that has no product to sell and no outrage to stoke. Doing this regularly builds your “mental immune system” – over time it becomes easier to avoid harmful bandwagon trends, to notice when your emotions are being played, and to make calmer decisions about your own health and your family’s health.

🏥 Building a safe and informed digital nation

The UK government published “A Safe, Informed Digital Nation,” a multi-year media literacy action plan that treats these skills as basic infrastructure for democratic and healthy living. It sets a vision that everyone should be able to navigate the internet confidently, recognize misinformation and find trusted information, with media literacy woven through schools, libraries, local services and adult skills programs.

On health specifically, the plan commits health departments and the UK Health Security Agency to keep producing clear, evidence-based messages on social media, to direct people to NHS resources and to use men’s and women’s health strategies to build media literacy skills that help people evaluate health information. Perhaps most importantly, the plan states that effective regulation must go hand in hand with education and shared responsibility – no single platform, regulator or campaign can fix the problem alone.

The Better Take:

When you see a government or platform announce a new initiative on misinformation, it can be useful to ask two questions: Are they investing in people’s skills, not just in takedown tools, and are they making trusted information easier to find when it matters. For you as a citizen, that lens helps cut through vague promises and focus on concrete changes you can look for locally - updated lessons in schools, simpler official health guidance, or new support in libraries and community centers. These are slow, unglamorous shifts, but they are the ones most likely to leave you and your community better equipped rather than more dependent on gatekeepers.

🎞️ If these issues interest you, please consider watching our documentary Trust Me to see how media narratives shape our fears, our trust and our sense of what is really going wrong - and right - in the world.

📊 Getting Better Poll

📱 Is social media truly addictive or just hard to put down?

A recent feature on the Meta and Google verdict follows a young woman who started YouTube at six and Instagram at nine and later developed depression, anxiety and body image struggles; a California jury agreed that the platforms’ design was negligent and awarded 6 million dollars in damages. The case argues that features like infinite scroll, autoplay and streaks are built to keep users, especially kids, engaged longer than they mean to be, echoing expert concerns about design that maximizes attention rather than wellbeing.

At the same time, researchers still debate whether “social media addiction” is the right label, since there is no formal diagnosis and many teens use these apps heavily without severe problems. The long-term trend is clear though: courts and regulators are starting to treat feeds and algorithms as products with safety obligations, even as appeals and uneven evidence mean nothing is settled yet.

The Better Take:

When it comes to social media, the better question to ask is, “What about this product makes it so hard to stop?” rather than “What is wrong with me or my kid?” When you see stories about “addiction,” look for details about specific design choices and who benefits from your time online, and remember that design can be changed - which means this is a solvable problem, not a fixed human flaw.

🧩 What the verdict really changes in social media platform design

Scientific American’s analysis of the same Los Angeles case explains how lawyers focused on design rather than content, arguing that Instagram and YouTube’s endless feeds and recommendation systems should be judged the way we judge other consumer products for safety. The verdict itself is small and may be overturned, but it comes alongside thousands of similar suits and a separate New Mexico ruling that found Meta misled users about safety, so companies now face steady legal pressure to justify engagement driven design choices.

Regulators and expert groups are also converging on “safety by design” ideas, from age-appropriate defaults to dialing back the most compulsive features for young users. None of this creates an instant fix, yet it marks a shift from vague concern to concrete levers that policymakers and courts can actually pull.

The Better Take:

When you read future coverage, focus less on the courtroom drama and more on what specific design changes are on the table - things like autoplay limits, gentler notifications, or stricter defaults for minors. The practical upside for you and your family is that as legal and professional norms evolve, safer defaults become the baseline, which reduces how much constant vigilance you personally need just to keep up.

🌱 New evidence that teen wellbeing is not a simple screen time story

A large Australian study that followed more than 100,000 students found that moderate social media use after school was linked with the best wellbeing, while both very high use and no use at all were associated with worse outcomes, and patterns differed by age and gender. Other recent work finds that for most young people, simply spending more time on social media does not strongly predict later anxiety or depression, even though heavy use can raise small but real risks, especially for self-harm.

Stronger links appear when researchers look at problematic or hard to control digital habits - the kind where stopping feels impossible and use continues despite clear harm - which are associated with later depression, sleep problems and suicidal thoughts. In the long run, this nudges the conversation away from blanket bans and toward more targeted approaches that combine healthier design, support for vulnerable teens and better digital habits.

The Better Take:

It is more helpful to ask, “How do I feel before, during and after I use this app, and can I stop when I mean to?” than to fixate on a single number of hours. Evidence suggests that moderate, intentional use can fit into a healthy life for many people, so the practical advantage is the freedom to design routines that work for you while staying alert to early signs of compulsive use that deserve more support or boundaries.

One consistent finding across countries is that people report higher well-being when they feel they can trust others and when they are part of communities that encourage cooperation and mutual support.

At the same time, environments where trust is eroded - whether through social fragmentation or unreliable information - tend to correlate with lower overall life satisfaction.

The Better Take:

When people are repeatedly exposed to misinformation, biased narratives, or low-quality content without the tools to evaluate it, it can weaken trust - not only in institutions, but also in each other. But with the right tools and education, individuals can learn to question sources, recognize bias, and make more informed judgments.

📈 At Getting Better Foundation, this is the problem we are working to address.

We are a UNESCO and Walter Cronkite Excellence in Journalism award-winning non-profit organization whose mission is to advance media and information literacy in homes, schools, and communities worldwide.

We produce practical media literacy tools and run workshops that help educators integrate critical thinking into everyday teaching, whether in English, Math, Biology, Civics, and Social Studies. The goal is simple: equip students to better understand information, recognize bias, and make informed judgments.

Our Walter Cronkite award-winning film, “Trust Me”, has been licensed by leading universities and high schools and premiered at a U.S. State Department global media literacy conference. It is used as a teaching tool to spark conversations about credibility, truth, and how information shapes perception.

🎞️ Watch Trust Me

🏫 Educational Licensing

At a time when both trust in information and trust in each other are increasingly important to societal well-being, strengthening media literacy is one practical way to support more informed, connected communities.

❤️ Support Media and Information Literacy

Getting Better Foundation operates with very little overhead - just a small team focused on building and distributing tools that educators can actually use.

Won’t you take a moment to help us expand media literacy programs, reach more educators, and strengthen critical thinking in an age of misinformation?

We’re a 501-c-3 organization, so your contribution is fully deductible.

❤️ Donate via PayPal

❤️ Donate via Check

Thank you in advance,
The Staff at Getting Better Foundation

Reality Check is now Getting Better News - a shift from identifying misinformation to understanding what is truly meaningful. We look forward to sharing this new chapter with you.

We are living in a time when false or distorted information spreads faster and feels more personal than ever, yet our tools for understanding it are quietly getting better too. We look at how institutions, educators and communities are shifting from quick fixes to long term strategies that strengthen people’s capacity to navigate complex media environments.

Explore our curated media and information literacy resources to build calmer, evidence-based habits for navigating today’s information floods.

📊 Getting Better Poll

🧩 Media literacy as an ecosystem, not a quick fix

The World Economic Forum argues that media and information literacy now needs to span everything from AI and privacy literacy to news, advertising and human rights, and that fragmented “one-off” school projects are not enough in the face of AI‑accelerated disinformation. It supports this with a new “information resilience mapping model” that combines the life cycle of disinformation (from pre‑creation to post‑consumption) with a socio‑ecological view of individuals, communities, institutions and policy. The perception that media literacy is just about teaching children to spot fake news misses this systemic view, where platform design, workplace training and regulation all shape what people see and how they interpret it.

The long‑term trend is towards more actors recognizing media literacy as a shared responsibility rather than a classroom add‑on. What remains unresolved is how quickly practice and funding can catch up with this broader model, especially as generative AI keeps lowering the cost and increasing the persuasiveness of targeted false narratives.

The Better Take:

When stories spotlight a single media literacy workshop as the solution, it helps to ask where it fits in the wider system - who controls incentives, how platforms behave, and whether adults are learning too.

🏛️ Disinformation policy moving from panic to planning

The Council of Europe’s “Ten building blocks” describes disinformation as a long‑running “wicked problem” that undermines public trust, but it also shows governments slowly moving from scattered reactions to more structured national strategies. The document calls for evidence‑based approaches that prioritize research, media and information literacy, and support for quality journalism and election integrity, while explicitly warning against over‑reliance on criminal law and free‑expression‑chilling quick fixes.

Over the past decade, international standards and promising national strategies in countries like Ireland, Norway and Latvia suggest a slow trend toward more coherent, rights‑based frameworks, even if implementation is uneven and often under‑resourced.

The Better Take:

When you see claims that one law or one platform tweak will “solve” disinformation, it is worth looking for whether there is a broader, rights‑respecting strategy behind it, or just a short‑term reaction to the latest crisis.

🎓 Media literacy in classrooms as democracy infrastructure

The NYSUT frames media literacy as essential for “democracy‑ready” students, highlighting that young people spend around eight and a half hours a day on screens while many admit they lack the skills to evaluate what they see, and surveys show large majorities of students struggle to judge credibility or distinguish news from ads and dubious sources. Educators and librarians describe practical strategies such as teaching students to check for bias, question whether content may be AI‑generated, use “lateral reading” with extra tabs, and rely on curated search tools that surface vetted sources, while also noting the decline in full‑time school librarians and time for civics and media literacy.

The perception that teenagers are “digital natives” who intuitively understand online information ecosystems does not match the evidence that many lack background knowledge and structured guidance to spot manipulation or agenda‑driven content.

The Better Take:

Whenever you hear that young people “just need to be more careful online,” it helps to ask whether they actually have structured time, skilled mentors and stable institutions backing those skills, or mostly good intentions and guesswork.

📊 Reality Check Poll

🧵 Inside AP’s AI Tension

Semafor highlights internal Slack messages from an AI lead at AP declaring that “resistance is futile” and imagining reporters feeding quotes into large language models so AI can draft stories, sparking backlash from journalists who see this as devaluing writing. AP’s official stance, however, stresses more bounded uses like translation, summarization, transcription, and tagging - similar to how many outlets already use AI to handle volume rather than to publish fully automated stories.

This gap between provocative internal futurism and more cautious public policy mirrors a broader divide: managers under revenue pressure view AI as one of the few scalable tools left, while many reporters focus on job security, craft quality, and editorial independence. So far, the clearest newsroom gains come from assistive tools - searching non‑English sources, transcription, internal summaries - while the long-term balance between support tools and direct content generation remains unsettled.

Your Reality Check:

When news about AI in media sounds like a binary “bots versus reporters” battle, look for specifics about which tasks are being automated and where humans still make final calls. A grounded habit is to treat AI as a shifting mix of back-office infrastructure and drafting help, not yet a wholesale replacement for reporting, while still paying attention to how economic incentives could change that mix over time.

🏘️ Can AI Help Local News Cover More With Less?

Coverage of the Wall Street Journal’s “Can AI Save Local News?” story shows how the Philadelphia Inquirer uses AI to transcribe and summarize dozens of public meetings, score them for newsworthiness using criteria designed by journalists, and then route high-potential items to reporters, who still review the footage and do the reporting and writing. That workflow has supported new suburban newsletters with more than 50,000 free subscribers and plans for expansion funded by philanthropy and tech partnerships, while similar tools at other outlets draft routine stories or scan public data so small teams can oversee many sites.

These pilots suggest AI can lower the cost of monitoring civic processes and revive some coverage in places that lost it, but they operate against a backdrop of long-running local news contraction and do not yet show that automation leads to sustainable revenue or deeper community engagement at scale. The unresolved question is whether AI will ultimately free reporters to do more original work or gradually normalize thinner staffing and more templated content.

Your Reality Check:

When you see AI framed as either the savior or the downfall of local news, ask how many reporters are actually on the ground, what new beats are truly being covered, and who pays for the work. AI can make it cheaper to find and organize information from public records and meetings, but healthy local journalism still depends on human relationships, investigative follow‑through, and business models that reward depth rather than just volume.

🤖 Americans Are Wary of AI - But Still Use It

Pew Research Center’s 2025 survey of over 5,000 adults finds that about half are more concerned than excited about AI in daily life - and a majority rate AI’s societal risks as high, while only a quarter say the same about its benefits. More people expect AI to worsen creativity and the ability to form meaningful relationships than to improve them, though views on problem‑solving are more mixed and many respondents say they are unsure, which suggests ambivalence rather than a fixed position.

At the same time, majorities support AI playing at least a small role in background analytical tasks like weather forecasting, detecting financial crimes or fraud, and helping to develop medicines, and most say they would accept some AI help with everyday tasks while wanting more control over how it affects them personally. Many place high importance on knowing whether media content is AI-generated but do not feel confident in spotting it. Younger adults - who use AI more - are paradoxically more likely to predict negative effects on creativity and relationships, underscoring a nuanced mix of familiarity and worry.

Your Reality Check:

When polls about AI are boiled down to a single “for” or “against” number, look at the exact questions, trends over time, and differences between use cases. Right now, public attitudes are best described as cautiously mixed: many people accept AI in technical, behind‑the‑scenes roles while being far more hesitant about handing it emotional, moral, or identity‑shaping decisions, and that distinction is a helpful lens for reading future AI headlines.

📊 Reality Check Poll

🛸 Aliens, Anxiety, and a Meaning Gap

A recent essay argues that America’s renewed “alien fever” says more about cultural anxiety and distrust than about evidence for visiting spacecraft, pointing to spikes in UFO reports alongside high-profile documentaries and hearings. It notes that reported sightings have risen sharply since 2023, but much of this appears linked to easier reporting, media attention, and misidentified satellites rather than new hard data about nonhuman craft.

Drawing on Jungian psychology and survey data on declining religious affiliation, the piece frames UFO belief as a modern myth that fills a spiritual and institutional trust void, offering belonging and cosmic meaning where traditional faith and public institutions feel less reliable. What remains unresolved is how to rebuild trust and provide healthier ways to meet those same needs for purpose, community, and awe.

Your Reality Check:

When stories focus on dramatic sightings instead of the quality of the evidence, it helps to ask: what’s actually changed in the data, and what’s changed in people’s fears and sense of meaning?

🧪 Can Brief Science Lessons Undermine Conspiracy Beliefs?

Research suggests that short, targeted scientific literacy interventions can reduce belief in some emerging conspiracy theories, especially those built on simple reasoning errors like confusing correlation with causation. In experiments with more than 2,700 participants, three‑minute videos on basic concepts such as evidence evaluation made people less likely to endorse novel conspiracies and nudged real behaviors, like donations to advocacy groups.

At a broader scale, states with higher science literacy scores tended to show lower endorsement of COVID‑19 conspiracies and higher vaccination uptake, even amid messy public health messaging. These results do not imply that quick lessons will undo deeply rooted or identity‑based conspiracies, but they do indicate that timely, concrete explanations of “how we know” can make some misinformation less sticky - especially early in its life cycle.

Your Reality Check:

When you encounter a new alarming claim, pausing to check for basic reasoning errors - like mixing up “happens with” and “causes” - is a small habit that can quietly change long‑term outcomes.

🧠 Critical Thinking Works - But Teaching It Is Hard

A large randomized trial tested whether short educational videos on six core critical thinking skills - like causation vs correlation, source credibility, and statistical significance - could help people spot fake or misleading social media posts. Before any training, people who already scored higher on these skills were markedly better at identifying both fabricated tweets and clear misinformation, reinforcing the idea that critical thinking is strongly linked to resilience against false content.

However, the intervention itself (a set of brief, non‑interactive video lectures) did not meaningfully improve participants’ critical thinking scores or their accuracy in flagging fake or misleading tweets, across age, education, and country. The long‑term picture is mixed: we know which skills matter, but scalable, engaging ways to build them - likely more interactive and practice‑based - are still an open research and policy challenge.

Your Reality Check:

When headlines tout a simple “debunking video” or one‑off lesson as the fix for misinformation, it’s worth asking whether it trains reusable habits of thinking or just delivers content you might soon forget.

📊 Reality Check Poll

📱 If screen time isn’t the problem, then what is?

The Psychology Today piece argues that blaming “screen time” itself misses what kids actually need from their digital lives, especially when states focus on bans and limits rather than teaching digital skills. Large-scale studies do find that very high total screen time is linked to higher obesity risk, more depressive symptoms, and lower quality of life, but the overall associations are modest, and the exact thresholds remain unclear.

Newer clinical guidance increasingly emphasizes what kids do on screens and with whom (creative work, homework, co-viewing with parents) over raw hours, echoing the article’s core claim. The long-term picture is not “screens good” or “screens bad,” but “excess, poor content, and isolation still matter; balanced, purposeful use can help.” What we still lack are precise guidelines that account for age, content, and context without collapsing everything into a single daily time limit.

Your Reality Check:

When you see a concerning headline about “X hours of screen time”, ask: Are they talking about time alone, content quality, or broader life context - and is the claim about correlation or proven cause?

📉 Headlines oversimplify what social media really means for teen mental health

Pew’s survey finds parents are more alarmed than teens: 55% of parents, versus 35% of teens, say they are extremely or very concerned about teen mental health today. Among those who worry, parents most often name social media as the top negative influence, while teens spread concern across social media, bullying, and pressure to be perfect. Teens’ perception of social media’s impact on their peers has grown more negative - about half now say it’s mostly harmful - but most describe its effect on their own lives as neutral, with only about one in five saying it hurts their mental health.

The same survey shows many benefits: roughly three-quarters say social media helps them feel more connected to friends, and most see it as a space for creativity and sometimes for mental health information. At the same time, many teens report worse sleep and productivity. Crucially, Pew is explicit that this is perception data, not causal proof that social media is driving the wider youth mental health crisis.

Your Reality Check:

When a story blames one technology for a broad “crisis,” look for two questions: Are we seeing teens’ feelings about social media or hard clinical outcomes - and are long-term trends in mental health moving the same way?

🌍 Children’s digital wellbeing is entering a polarized phase

The 2025 Children’s Wellbeing in a Digital World Index shows both the positive and negative sides of children’s online lives rising at the same time - a shift from earlier years where the negative index was relatively stable. More children say the internet is important for meeting good friends, up from 50% to 56%, yet vulnerable children now report their highest levels of negative experiences since tracking began. The majority of children still feel safe online (77%), but that share has dipped from 81%, and vulnerable children are less likely to feel safe than their peers.

At the same time, almost all children say they are at least somewhat open with parents about what they do online, and parents report higher awareness and more use of tools and controls to set boundaries. Over four years of data, the story is less “runaway decline” and more “polarization”: the internet is becoming simultaneously more useful and more upsetting, especially for those already at risk.

Your Reality Check:

When coverage focuses only on harm or only on benefits, ask whether vulnerable subgroups are moving differently from the average - and whether parental awareness and support are improving in parallel.

📊 Reality Check Poll

🧭 Americans agree more on rules than on results

New polling from Gallup finds that around eight in ten Americans reject political violence, endorse compromise in government, and say a mix of races, religions, and cultures benefits the country. The same survey shows broad support for free, nonviolent expression but far less agreement on questions like how fast cultural change should happen or whether government or individuals should carry primary responsibility for meeting basic needs.

Media narratives often emphasize partisan warfare, yet the data suggests a substantial baseline of shared democratic norms alongside real splits over policy and pace of change. Long-term, support for democratic principles remains relatively resilient, but doubts about how well those principles are delivered in practice are persistent and not yet resolved.

Your Reality Check:

When coverage highlights spectacular conflicts, look for the underlying rules most people still endorse; broad agreement on core norms can coexist with noisy, unresolved debates about how to live them out.

💵 Pocketbook concerns dominate a crowded priority list

An AP‑NORC survey of Americans’ priorities for 2026 finds that roughly seven in ten adults name at least one economic issue for government to focus on, and mentions of personal finance concerns have risen compared with last year. Immigration and health care also rank high, while issues like abortion and non‑immigration foreign policy have dropped sharply from their 2025 peaks, reflecting how attention often spikes after major events and then recedes without disappearing.

Across parties, people diverge on specific priorities such as the environment, crime, and taxes, yet pessimism about Washington’s capacity to respond is widespread, with only about one in ten expressing confidence the government will address these concerns. The long‑term pattern here is less about abrupt mood swings and more about a consistent focus on basic economic security amid recurring doubts about institutional effectiveness.

Your Reality Check:

When stories frame “the issue of the year,” check multi‑year polling for recurring themes; public worries about core economic and everyday needs tend to be stable even as momentary hot‑button topics rise and fall.

🧒 Younger voters distrust institutions but are not rejecting democracy

New research from the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins reports that younger Americans show lower trust in democratic institutions, weaker attachment to political parties, and greater dissatisfaction with how the system functions than older generations. At the same time, younger respondents report more cross‑partisan contact and less tendency to label political opponents as “evil” or “less than human,” while older respondents are more likely to use such moralized language.

The survey also finds that some younger people say political violence could be justified, but the authors caution that youth have historically been more approving of violence and tend to become less so with age, suggesting this is a worrying signal but not clear evidence of a generational break with democratic norms. What remains unresolved is whether parties and institutions will adapt to younger voters’ skepticism and detachment, or whether disengagement will harden over time.

Your Reality Check:

When headlines pit generations against each other, look for whether researchers see a true historical rupture or a familiar life‑cycle pattern unfolding within a new information environment.