Lesson video

Hello there.

My name is Mr. Robertson.

And I'm really, really pleased to welcome you to today's RE lesson.

Today's lesson is the final one in our unit Religion and the Media: How Can We Live Online Together?

And the title of this lesson is Living Online Together: How Can We Do This Respectfully?

And in this lesson, we're going to be looking at how our online world has changed, and how it can at times lead to increased polarization, and what we can do as individuals and as a society to try and help us live together online in a safe and respectful way.

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to explain why impartial and accurate media representation of religion and belief is important.

In this lesson, we have three keywords.

Our first word is amplification.

And by that, we mean the process by which a message becomes more powerful and influential because it is repeated, shared, or spread widely across different media channels.

We also have the word polarization, which is about the division of people into opposing groups with extreme or conflicting opinions.

And finally, we have the word respect, which is the recognition of someone's worth shown by treating them with fairness, care, and consideration.

So this lesson has two parts.

And in the first part of this lesson, we're going to be thinking about media influence.

The media is all around us, and increasingly, we see religion and belief in the media.

Here, we have a mocked-up post, and this is of the Bible Brothers, which is an informal nickname for a group of Arsenal players.

They express their faith online by sharing Bible verses, reflections, and messages of gratitude.

Their post receive thousands of shares and reposts, helping to increase the visibility of Christianity.

And we can see in that image one of the players scoring a goal and thanking their teammates, but also expressing their thanks to God and their Christian faith.

And this is something we see increasingly in sport, different people being more willing and open about sharing their religious or non-religious worldviews.

As these posts are shared, liked, and recommended by algorithms, their message is amplified and reaches audiences far beyond their immediate followers.

So amplification is a process by which a message becomes more powerful and influential because it is repeated, shared, or spread widely across different media channels.

Media repeat and spread a message so widely that its impact grows, making it seem more important, more credible, and harder to ignore.

And gradually, this information begins to shape people's attitudes.

Now, amplification can lead to increased visibility.

The message appears more often because it's shared more, so it's more widely available.

It expands exposure so the message reaches more people and more places as it comes out of a filter bubble and into other people's feeds.

And thirdly, it boosts engagement because it's more out there, so more people interact with it.

Amplification has more of an impact in social media due to both filter bubbles and echo chambers.

So amplification starts the spread of information.

A filter bubble forms when the platform shows you more of what you already click on.

It decides who sees the amplified information.

And in an echo chamber, people mostly hear from others who already agree with them, and this reinforces the amplified information.

So we can see how some messages can very, very quickly be spread rapidly and then sent within certain groups of people and certain echo chambers.

More information, similar information, is fed to those people.

Laura and Andeep are discussing whether amplification is a good thing.

Laura says, "Well, on one hand, amplification helps a message reach many more people.

This is useful when the message is true or helpful because it can raise awareness and encourage positive action.

" Andeep says, "But amplification can also spread false or harmful content very quickly.

If a post is shocking or emotional, it can travel fast even when it is wrong, which can mislead people.

" I wonder what you think about their points of view.

Are there areas that you agree with?

Are there areas that you disagree with?

I wonder, on balance, whether you think amplification is a good or bad thing.

So thinking about Laura's positive messaging, during the days of the Australia bushfire crisis in 2020, a small charity post asking for donations was shared thousands of times.

Amplification helped it reach people around the world and raised millions for rescue teams and wildlife care.

So this was an example of positive amplification.

However, in 2005, photos of Black teenagers carrying food was shared with captions calling them looters, while similar photos of white people were labeled survivors.

The amplified posts helped shape unfair attitudes about who was dangerous.

So we could see a really clear example there of false information spreading quickly.

Let's just check our understanding so far.

In media, what does amplification usually refer to?

Is it a, when a platform deletes posts that break its rules, b, when a platform's algorithms boost the visibility of certain content, c, when a user reposts the same message many times, d, when a news story is shortened to make it easier to read.

Excellent, it's b, isn't it?

When a platform's algorithms boost the visibility of certain content.

Brilliant if you got that right.

Now, one problem with amplification is that it can lead to polarization.

Polarization is the division of people into opposing groups with extreme or conflicting opinions.

Polarization will be more extreme if the information amplified is false.

This information could be disinformation, false information deliberately shared to mislead, or misinformation, false or misleading information shared unknowingly.

Amanda is a specialist reporter of religion.

She's particularly concerned about media amplification of misrepresentations of religion.

She says, "When people are exposed to too much conflicting information, they can start to feel that no one is trustworthy, and this can fuel polarization.

Misrepresentations are then repeated and widely shared, stirring strong emotions and encouraging an us versus them mindset, suspicion, and even hostility.

" Let's look at an example of how this could happen in the real world.

In Middlesbrough in 2024, rising Islamophobia created real fear for some Muslim women in the community.

National and international events had created a climate of uncertainty, and riots broke out in nearby towns such as Sunderland and Hartlepool, which intensified the spread of false claims online.

Social media companies allowed unverified posts to circulate widely, and repeated sharing made some of these stories appear more established than they were.

A small number of hostile accounts framed Muslims as the problem.

And although they were not representative of the wider community, their messages traveled far beyond the original audience.

Muslim women in Middlesbrough repeated feeling less safe in public spaces, worrying about verbal harassment and feeling anxious about being visibly Muslim.

Many described a growing sense that they were not always treated as part of the community and that online information had contributed to everyday life feeling more uncertain.

Nadia is a GP who works in Middlesbrough.

She's commenting on the experience of Muslim women in Middlesbrough.

She says, "Many of the women who used my surgery began missing or delaying their appointments because they no longer felt comfortable traveling through Middlesbrough.

Some of those who came for consultations spoke about growing anxiety.

They told me they avoided the town center or stopped using buses after unpleasant encounters.

And others said they waited indoors until the street outside felt quiet enough to leave.

" So we can see the very real impact of this polarization based on misinformation.

Lewis Kent is a fictional Christian influencer who we've created based on real people.

He's built a large online following and is coming to speak at an event in the UK.

He's known for his strong views on gender roles.

He often talks about the importance of family values and encourages young people to return to what he calls foundational Christian teachings.

Amanda is discussing how she thinks the media is likely to react to the event with some friends.

She says, "I expect the media will focus on the controversy around his visit, which could increase polarization.

" Louise says, "I'm concerned that media representation might amplify his views in a way that influences young people.

" And Simon says, "I'm worried the coverage will make it seem like his views represent all Christians.

" Let's just check our understanding.

True or false?

The repeated amplification of misinformation can increase polarization by pushing groups further apart.

Excellent, that's true, isn't it?

Because polarization happens when people split into opposing groups that see each other as completely wrong.

And misinformation fuels this because it gives each side false reasons to distrust and reject the other.

I've got some media reports on this Lewis Kent proposed visit.

You can look at these in the additional materials, but I'll read them to you briefly as well.

Headline: Controversial Christian Influencer Set to Shake Up UK Youth Debate at Packed Event.

Louis Kent, a Christian influencer with a large online following, is scheduled to speak at a UK event this weekend.

Known for his strong views on gender roles, he emphasizes family values and his encouragement for young people to return to what he calls foundational Christian teachings.

Organizers expect significant interest, both from supporters and those curious about how the media will cover his event.

It will include a talk followed by Q&A, and local reporters are expected to attend.

We also have a blog.

Lewis Kent's visit has already sparked discussion and it's clear his message resonates with many young people searching for clarity, identity, and purpose.

While some may disagree with his views, dismissing him outright would overlook the genuine interest he has generated among teenagers exploring faith for themselves.

His emphasis on family values and returning to core Christian teachings may challenge mainstream perspectives, but it also reflects a growing desire among some young people for firm and moral grounding.

Whether one agrees with him or not, his visit offers an opportunity for open conversation, something the UK could benefit from.

And finally, we have a social media thread.

@UKDebatesNow: "Can't believe this guy has been given a platform.

Why are we still inviting influencers with such rigid views?

" @Faith&Fire: "Media will hype this up like he represents every Christian.

He doesn't.

" @GenZVoices: "My feed is full of his clips, and honestly, the reporting better be balanced.

Young people deserve more than sensationalism.

" @NotBuyingIt.

"Watch, every outlet will turn this into a culture war headline instead of actually covering what he says.

" @ConcernedCousin: "My little brother watches him on TikTok.

I'm worried the coverage will push him even further without proper context.

" So for each of these, I'd like you to think which text is most likely to increase polarization and why.

Secondly, which text is least likely to increase polarization and why?

And three, how might different audiences respond and how could this increase or reduce polarization?

You probably want to read those again slowly, and think about it, and work with a partner, and be ready to report back.

So what did you come up with?

You might have said that the social media thread uses emotional reactions, quick judgments, and an us v.

them language, which pushes people into taking sides.

The report sticks to facts, avoids loaded language, and doesn't encourage readers to agree or disagree.

Some Christians might feel fairly represented by the neutral report, but others might feel attacked or stereotyped by the sensational headline or social media thread, which could increase polarization.

Sensational or angry reporting might reinforce simplistic assumptions about Christianity, increasing division.

The neutral report is more likely to reduce polarization by giving clear context without judgment.

The final part of this lesson is all about a commitment to truth.

Laura, Andeep, Jacob, and Izzy are explaining what they think makes a shared space respectful.

Laura says, "We should be able to explore beliefs and misunderstandings without feeling judged.

" Andeep says, "We need to keep the space calm, no shouting over each other.

" Jacob says, "We need to listen properly before responding.

It's fine to disagree, but challenge the idea, not the person.

" And Izzy says, "We need to be patient and try to understand where someone is coming from, even if we disagree.

" In a shared online space, different individuals have a responsibility to be respectful.

That is the people who post, because they set the tone of the space and can either support or undermine respectful discussion, and the people who consume, 'cause they need to check accuracy and respond fairly so they don't amplify disrespect or misinformation.

It can be harder to be respectful online than it is when you're with someone face-to-face.

Are the following online behaviors likely to be respectful?

Asking questions, sharing unverified claims, responding quickly, posting only content that fits your viewpoint.

I wonder what you think.

Maybe pause the video and have a discussion about that with the person next to you.

So asking questions is likely to be respectful because it shows curiosity and a willingness to learn.

Sharing unverified claims is unlikely to be respectful because it risks spreading misinformation.

Responding quickly is less likely because quick replies can be rushed and emotional.

And posting only content that fits your viewpoint is less likely to be respectful because it can ignore others' perspectives.

I wonder what you said at the same time.

Amanda explains the importance of journalistic values.

She talks about that people trust professional journalists because our work is underpinned by values like impartiality, accuracy, and accountability.

Following these values ensures our reporting is respectful.

She explains the importance of taking a questioning approach when consuming media.

Amanda says, "When we consume media, we should ask questions about every story.

Who created it?

Who is the focus on and who's missing?

What's claimed and what's the evidence for it?

What is missing?

Why, where, and when was it posted?

And how is it presented?

" She says, "In our roles as producers and consumers of media, staying curious can ensure we're respectful in online spaces.

Being curious encourages us to ask questions, which keeps conversations open.

It means we check the information instead of assuming it's true.

It makes us more willing to understand different viewpoints.

And it slows our reactions, so we respond more thoughtfully.

" Let's just check our understanding there.

Curiosity encourages to ask questions.

Why does this matter?

A, it keeps conversations open, b, it helps us win arguments, c, it makes posts longer, d, it reduces the need for evidence.

Pause the video.

What do you think?

Excellent, it's a, isn't?

It keeps conversations open.

Brilliant if you got that right.

Laura and Andeep are preparing for a class debate and discussing this statement.

Living together respectfully online is impossible.

They're gonna be thinking about arguments that either agree or disagree with that statement.

Laura thinks, "I think the problem is the way that social media works.

" And Andeep says, "I think users of social media can still choose curiosity.

" One argument for living respectfully online being impossible is that people misunderstand each other easily online, and that can lead to arguments.

People can often react too quickly, so they don't think about how their words affect others.

And that negative posts get the most attention, making respectful behavior harder.

There are some arguments against this as well.

You might say curiosity helps people understand each other.

Asking who's involved what they mean, when it happened, where it came from, why they said it, and how they feel helps avoid arguments.

And that respect happens when people use values like impartiality, accountability, and accuracy.

Let's just check our understanding one more time.

What are the missing words?

Social media can, negative reactions, which makes respectful behavior feel harder to achieve.

Can lead to more understanding online, helping people slow down, think before posting, and choose more respectful behavior.

Which words would you insert in those sentences?

Excellent.

So we might say social media can amplify negative reactions, and curiosity can lead to more understanding online.

Brilliant if you got those right.

So for our final task, we're going to carry out a paper debate on this statement.

Living together respectfully online is impossible.

You've already done some thinking about this, and we've rehearsed some possible arguments that agree with that statement and some possible arguments that disagree with that statement.

I'd like you to think about what you think about it with a partner.

And I'd like you to put your response in the middle of a piece of paper.

And then I'd like you to pass the paper on.

When you receive another pair's piece of paper, add a missing detail to strengthen one of the arguments on the paper that you receive.

So there may be an argument that you've seen, you're gonna add some more evidence to help build it up.

Then you're going to pass the paper on again.

And this time, you're going to add a challenge to their argument.

So the first time you saw it, you improved their argument and added more evidence.

This time, you're gonna have a different piece of paper that you've received, and you're going to challenge that argument.

And you're going to continue that for two more rounds.

And that will give you a really powerful set of arguments that either agree or disagree with that statement.

Good luck.

And I really look forward to seeing what you come up with.

So, what did your debate look like?

Well, you might have said at the beginning that living respectfully online is possible because people can choose to think before posting.

You may have added to that that curiosity can help people understand each other better, which supports more accurate and accountable behavior.

And you may have challenged that by saying most people react quickly and social media amplifies negativity, so respect often breaks down.

I wonder what your debate looked like.

What kind of arguments did people put to either agree or disagree with that statement?

As a class, what was your final feeling on that?

Let's summarize what we've been learning today.

So we've learned that amplification increases a message's visibility, reach, and influence.

We've learned that filter bubbles and echo chambers reinforce existing views and help amplified content spread.

We've learned that misrepresentation of religion and belief can spread misinformation and fuel polarization between communities.

We've learned that respectful online spaces rely on impartiality, accuracy, and accountability.

And finally, we've learned that curiosity and careful questioning help people slow down, check information, and understand others.

I hope you've enjoyed this lesson, thinking about some of the really powerful ideas here.

And I wonder whether this will affect how you consume social media and think when you react to people that you see online.

I look forward to seeing you in another lesson soon.

Thank you.