Reflection on Class, January 23

This class left me wondering about information literacy. As part of an in-class exercise, Kristen read aloud a story about a moviegoer at an AMC theater in Ohio who was detained and questioned by Homeland Security ICE because he had worn his Google Glass, fitted with prescription lenses, to a showing of Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (of all things). We began discussing the story, and after a while Kristen put forth the possibility that the story might not be completely true. Of course, everyone who had accepted the story five minutes ago now pointed out all of the aspects of it that seemed "off" or "fishy." We, information professionals, had been tricked into forgetting to be information literate.

The thing is, at this point (and at the time of the discussion), it seems much more likely that the story is true than false. Here's the story from the Columbia Dispatch. Here it is from Time. An extended interview with the victim from TechCrunch. The Examiner. Business Insider. NBC News, PCWorld, and the Associated Press. Just for good measure, here's AMC's confirmation of the event from Twitter.

Of course, it wouldn't be the first time that news media was fooled, and it is worth pointing out that the news reports are all a little different, and the only detailed report of the incident still comes from the man who was questioned. But some of the "fishy" elements of the story (Homeland Security's involvement, the presence of the MPAA, the fact that the man had prescription lenses in his Glass) are the things on which every one of the news reports agrees. All of the reports I included above were published before our class on the 23rd.

So we, the students, were right the first time. But does that mean that we exercised our information literacy? Short of witnessing an event ourselves, the only way we ever receive information is through trusted sources, and that's exactly what we did in class by listening to Kristen. Was it just luck that the story (as of right now) appears to be real?

I think that it is as tempting to be too skeptical as it is to believe unquestioningly. By using skepticism, cynicism, or just disinterest to hold ourselves back from believing in or engaging with something, we save ourselves the embarrassment of looking foolish later. We also miss opportunities, not to mention vital information about the world around us.

But then what does it mean to be information literate? Maybe it's walking the line between unquestioning belief and refusal to actually believe anything.

- K