Month: October 2025

Media Literacy is Crucial for Young Citizens

Posted on by Scot Wilson

In a world overflowing with information, teaching our students in grades 7-12 to be discerning consumers and creators of media isn’t just a good idea—it’s an imperative for the future of our democracy. As educators, we have a vital role in equipping students with the skills to navigate the complex landscape of news and information, fostering active, responsible citizenship and meaningful engagement in deliberative democracy. Media Literacy Week is a good reminder that helping to develop news literacy is a responsibility of all educators.

Think about the sheer volume of “news” your students encounter daily. It’s not just the evening broadcast or a printed newspaper anymore—and for young people it is rarely those things. It’s TikTok scrolls, Instagram stories, YouTube explainers, and an endless stream of links shared by friends. Without a critical lens, it’s incredibly easy for misinformation, biased reporting, or even outright propaganda to be accepted as truth. This isn’t just about identifying fake news; it’s about understanding the nuances of reporting, recognizing different perspectives, and questioning the sources behind the information.

The Pillars of News Media Literacy

So, what does news media literacy look like in practice for our students? It encompasses several key areas:

  1. Source Evaluation: Who created this information? What are their credentials? What is their agenda or funding? This goes beyond a simple “Is it Fox or CNN?” It delves into the underlying motivations and potential biases of all media producers, from individual influencers to major news organizations. Teaching students to look for “About Us” pages and author bios, to read laterally about sources by researching them online, and even to research the history of a publication can be incredibly insightful.
  2. Identifying Bias (Overt and Subtle): Bias isn’t always a malicious intent to deceive. It can be inherent in the language used, the stories chosen, the images presented, and even the framing of a headline. Help students understand the difference between objective reporting and opinion pieces, and how even “straight news” can subtly convey a particular viewpoint through word choice or emphasis.
  3. Understanding Media Formats and Purpose: A viral meme might be entertaining, but it’s rarely a reliable source of in-depth information. Students need to differentiate between news articles, editorials, advertisements, documentaries, and social media posts. Each format has a different purpose and level of journalistic rigor.
  4. Fact-Checking and Corroboration: In an age of deepfakes and manipulated images, the ability to fact-check is paramount. Encourage students to read laterally—meaning, when they encounter a claim, they open new tabs and see what other reputable sources say about it. Tools like Snopes, PolitiFact, and even a quick Google search with critical keywords can be invaluable.

Media Literacy and the Health of Our Democracy

The connection between media literacy and active citizenship is undeniable. A healthy deliberative democracy relies on an informed populace capable of engaging in respectful debate, making sound judgments, and holding leaders accountable. If citizens cannot distinguish credible information from partisan spin or outright falsehoods, their ability to participate effectively in civic life is severely hampered.

When students understand how news is constructed, they become less susceptible to emotional manipulation and more capable of forming their own well-reasoned opinions. They learn to question, to seek out diverse perspectives, and to engage in constructive dialogue, even when confronted with opposing viewpoints. These are not just academic skills; they are life skills essential for navigating an increasingly complex world and for strengthening the fabric of our society.

Integrating media literacy into your curriculum—which Close Up can help you do through our professional development training for educators and our innovative Civil Discourse Credential for students—doesn’t require a complete overhaul. It can be woven into English language arts through analyzing articles, into social studies through examining historical propaganda, or even into science by dissecting how scientific claims are presented in popular media.

Let’s empower our students to be more than just consumers of information. Let’s help them become critical thinkers, responsible citizens, and active participants in shaping our shared future. The future of our democracy depends on it.

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

 

 

A Fragile Hope: What the New Israel–Hamas Ceasefire Means for Peace

Posted on by Scot Wilson

After nearly two years of devastating war in Gaza, Israel and Hamas have reached a new ceasefire agreement that many hope could mark a turning point. Under the deal, which President Donald Trump engaged in personal diplomacy and negotiations to secure,  Hamas has released all remaining living Israeli hostages while Israel has freed more than 1,900 Palestinian prisoners.1

This round of conflict began after Hamas launched a terrorist attack against Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages.2 In response, Israel launched a military offensive on Gaza, killing more than 60,000 Palestinians according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health.3 But for the first time in many months, the guns have quieted. Aid trucks carrying food, medicine, and fuel are moving into Gaza, and both sides are tentatively beginning to talk about what comes next. Yet, while this moment brings relief, it also raises hard questions about whether peace can truly last.

WATCH: President Trump Addresses Israel’s Parliament, Calling the Ceasefire the “Historic Dawn of a New Middle East”

What the Ceasefire Includes

The ceasefire terms are meant to reduce immediate suffering and build trust. Hamas agreed to release the hostages it still held and to return the bodies of others who died in captivity.4 In exchange, Israel freed thousands of Palestinian detainees and began pulling back some of its troops from heavily populated areas of Gaza.5 The agreement also allows for large amounts of humanitarian aid to enter the territory under the supervision of the United Nations and international partners.6 Although the ceasefire has brought a sense of hope, it is not necessarily a permanent peace. The agreement leaves major issues unresolved—such as who will ultimately govern Gaza, how Hamas’ weapons will be handled, and what role Israel will continue to play in the territory’s security.7 In that sense, this is a first phase, a breathing space that might either open the door to diplomacy or close again if trust breaks down.

What Comes Next

The next steps in the peace process will determine whether this ceasefire becomes a foundation for peace or just another temporary truce. The immediate goal is to maintain the pause and prevent violations. If either side resumes violence, the agreement could collapse. Diplomats from Egypt, Qatar, and the United States are working to keep communication open and to design a longer-term plan that would address Gaza’s reconstruction and future governance.

Gaza itself faces an enormous rebuilding task. The war destroyed much of its infrastructure—homes, hospitals, power grids, and schools—and hundreds of thousands of residents remain displaced. As aid workers begin distributing supplies, international agencies are calling for more consistent access and long-term investment.8 Political talks will likely focus on whether the Palestinian Authority, which governs parts of the West Bank, could take on a larger role in Gaza’s administration.9 Some leaders hope a technocratic government supported by the UN might stabilize the region. But years of mistrust and internal Palestinian divisions make such transitions uncertain.

READ: “Who Governs the Palestinians?” from the Council on Foreign Relations

How People View the Ceasefire Deal

Reactions to the ceasefire have been both hopeful and cautious. Supporters see it as a humanitarian victory that has already saved lives. They argue that the return of the living hostages, the release of prisoners, and the renewed flow of aid show that diplomacy can work even after bitter violence. They also see the ceasefire as an important step toward a broader peace that includes rebuilding Gaza, improving daily life for Palestinians, and reducing regional tensions.

Those who are more skeptical, however, warn that the agreement is too vague and could unravel quickly. Some Israelis fear that Hamas will use the pause to rearm, reorganize, and regain control. Others argue that the deal offers too few guarantees for Israel’s security or that it rewards Hamas’ tactics of hostage-taking. On the other side, many Palestinians worry that the ceasefire changes little about the daily realities of occupation, displacement, and limited sovereignty. They believe true peace will require deeper political change and recognition of Palestinian rights, including voting rights and authority over their own territory.10 Both sides know that previous ceasefires have failed, which fuels some worries about whether this one can hold.

The Role of the United States in the Ceasefire

The United States has played a central role in brokering and supporting this agreement. American diplomats worked closely with Israel, Egypt, and Qatar to finalize the terms and are now helping monitor compliance. The Trump administration hopes that U.S. involvement will keep both parties at the table and prevent a return to all-out war.11 Washington is also expected to coordinate much of the humanitarian aid and reconstruction funding that will flow into Gaza, using its influence to ensure that the aid reaches civilians rather than armed groups.

At the same time, the United States faces a delicate balancing act. It must maintain its longstanding alliance with Israel while demonstrating concern for Palestinian civilians and a commitment to long-term peace. Within the United States, public opinion remains divided and policymakers face pressure from multiple directions—some calling for stronger support for Israel’s security, others urging the United States to push harder for Palestinian statehood. Internationally, the United States will have to work with regional powers like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia to make the ceasefire sustainable and to restart broader peace talks.

A Cautious Path Forward

For people in Israel, the ceasefire brings the hostages home. For people in Gaza, it brings a rare moment of quiet and a promise of food and medical aid. After years of suffering, families have been reunited, aid is arriving, and communities can begin to rebuild. But peace in the Middle East has often proven fragile. The future will depend on whether both sides can move beyond short-term gains and toward political solutions that guarantee security, dignity, and justice for all.

Discussion Questions

  1. Before the ceasefire was announced, what had you learned about the conflict? Where did you get most of your information?
  2. What are the key elements of the new ceasefire between Israel and Hamas? Why do you think each side agreed to those terms?
  3. Supporters and skeptics of the ceasefire have very different views about what it achieves. Which arguments do you find most convincing? Why?
  4. How should the United States respond if Hamas violates the ceasefire? If Israel violates the ceasefire?
  5. How should governments and international organizations balance the need for security with the responsibility to protect civilians during and after a conflict?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

 

Sources

[1] Associated Press: apnews.com/article/9e4921406e846189c90144609c1a9530; apnews.com/article/ded7055617d60579a1c7ae730bd1461c
[2] ABC7 Los Angeles: https://abc7.com/post/israel-says-hamas-hands-first-7-hostages-red-cross-part-gaza-ceasefire/17995407/#:~:text=The%20war%20began%20when%20Hamas,killed%20and%20251%20taken%20hostage
[3] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-many-palestinians-has-israels-gaza-offensive-killed-2025-10-07/
[4] Reuters: reuters.com/world/middle-east/israelis-honour-trump-hostages-return-home-two-years-after-their-capture-2025-10-12
[5] Reuters: reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-hamas-agree-gaza-ceasefire-return-hostages-2025-10-09
[6] Center for Strategic & International Studies: csis.org/analysis/what-comes-next-israel-hamas-ceasefire
[7] Reuters: reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-aims-surge-aid-medical-supplies-into-gaza-once-ceasefire-starts-2025-10-09
[8] Reuters: reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-hamas-agree-gaza-ceasefire-return-hostages-2025-10-09
[9] Reuters: reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-authority-ready-help-trumps-gaza-effort-succeed-says-official-2025-10-12
[10] Reuters: reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-suggests-hamas-has-approval-internal-security-operations-gaza-2025-10-13
[11] PBS: pbs.org/newshour/world/analysis-trump-achieved-a-breakthrough-gaza-ceasefire-but-a-tough-road-lies-ahead

 

The Trump Administration Advocates Changes at the Smithsonian

Posted on by Scot Wilson

On August 12, 2025, the White House sent a letter to the Smithsonian Institution stating that it would be “leading a comprehensive internal review of selected Smithsonian museums and exhibitions.”1 This review aims to ensure alignment with President Donald Trump’s vision to “celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions.”2

The Smithsonian, which includes 21 museums and 14 education and research centers, is the largest museum and research complex in the world.3 Centered in Washington, D.C., Smithsonian facilities attract millions of visitors each year to learn about American history, natural sciences, technology, art, and culture. The Institution welcomes visitors as it seeks to execute its stated mission: “The increase and diffusion of knowledge.”

The Smithsonian receives significant federal funding, with approximately 62% of its budget coming from an annual congressional appropriation and federal grants and contracts. Yet, it operates outside of the federal government as an independent body.4 It is governed by a bipartisan Board of Regents whose 17 members include the sitting chief justice of the Supreme Court and the vice president of the United States. Six members of Congress (three senators and three representatives, which presently include both Democrats and Republicans) also serve on the Board. The other nine regents are members of the general public. The regents work together to govern and oversee the Smithsonian and appoint a secretary to manage it.5

The August 12 letter is in accordance with President Trump’s March 27 executive order titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” This executive order expresses concern about efforts to rewrite American history by “replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth” and by painting America’s founding in a negative light. The order questions the Smithsonian’s approach to teaching American history and criticizes the Institution for coming “under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology” and for promoting narratives “that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive.”6

In response to the Trump administration’s letter, Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch III reasserted his organization’s independence and control over museum content. Bunch said that the Smithsonian would do an internal review of its materials and programming and report those findings to the White House. However, White House official Lindsey Halligan argued that the Smithsonian “cannot credibly audit itself,” noting: “By definition, an ‘audit’ must be neutral and objective.”7

It is not yet clear what this demand from the Trump administration will mean on the ground at Smithsonian facilities. Prior to the release of the August 12 letter, the National Museum of American History altered references to President Trump’s two impeachments during his first term in an exhibit titled “The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden.” The exhibit includes information on the impeachments of Presidents Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton and details of the Watergate scandal and President Richard Nixon’s resignation. In a statement to NPR, the Smithsonian said it chose to restore the exhibit back to its 2008 appearance and that the information about President Trump’s 2019 and 2021 impeachments were only a temporary addition pending a more extensive exhibit update.8 The museum has since restored references to the impeachments, although in a less prominent location.

Proponents of the White House’s actions at Smithsonian facilities believe that cultural institutions, such as museums, that are mostly paid for by taxpayers should largely represent the country’s progress, innovations, and achievements. In a Truth Social post, President Trump commented, “The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been—Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future.”9 In the March 27 executive order, he noted, “It is the policy of my Administration to restore Federal sites dedicated to history, including parks and museums, to solemn and uplifting public monuments that remind Americans of our extraordinary heritage, consistent progress toward becoming a more perfect Union, and unmatched record of advancing liberty, prosperity, and human flourishing.” The 1776 Project, a conservative political action committee that focuses on bias in education, also argues that focusing on identity, such as race and gender, in education spaces is divisive and anti-American.10 Proponents of intervention in museums agree and contend that Smithsonian museums should not focus on these topics.

Opponents, meanwhile, characterize the administration’s actions as altering museum content for political gain, which they argue is wrong from either right or left. They argue that museums are educational facilities that should be allowed to operate independently and outside of the political sphere. The American Historical Association (AHA), a consortium of over 10,000 historians, released a statement in support of the museum historians and curators who design the exhibits, noting: “Political interference into professional curatorial practices and museum … content places at risk the integrity and accuracy of historical interpretation and stands to erode public trust in our shared institutions.”11 As the AHA and other critics argue, interference in museum content and programming undermines the Smithsonian’s autonomy and status as a nonpartisan educational institution.

Amy Sherald, the artist who painted the official portrait of former First Lady Michelle Obama, withdrew her upcoming fall show at the National Portrait Gallery after she was informed that “internal concerns had been raised” about including one of her works depicting a transgender Statue of Liberty, leading to discussions about removing the work from the exhibition or contextualizing it with a video.12 Her exhibition, “American Sublime,” which included portraits of many Black and LGBTQ+ individuals, was set to open at the National Portrait Gallery in September.

Discussion Questions

  1. How should museums decide what information to highlight in exhibits?
  2. Should the president have a role in determining what federally funded museums display and educate the public about? Why or why not?
  3. Should federally funded museums be used to inspire patriotism? Why or why not? And if so, how should they address difficult or shameful aspects of U.S. history?
  4. Should museums avoid displaying information about race and identity to avoid pushback from people who believe these topics are divisive? Why or why not?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

 

Sources

Featured Image: REUTERS/Annabelle Gordon
[1] The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/08/letter-to-the-smithsonian-internal-review-of-smithsonian-exhibitions-and-materials/
[2] The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/08/letter-to-the-smithsonian-internal-review-of-smithsonian-exhibitions-and-materials/
[3] Smithsonian Institution: https://www.si.edu/about
[4] Smithsonian Institution: https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/factsheets/facts-about-smithsonian-institution-short; New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/03/arts/design/smithsonian-bunch-trump.html
[5] Smithsonian Institution: https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/smithsonian-statement
[6] The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/restoring-truth-and-sanity-to-american-history/
[7] ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/smithsonian-secretary-reaffirms-institutions-independence-response-white-houses/story?id=125296667
[8] NPR: https://www.npr.org/2025/08/01/g-s1-80602/smithsonian-impeachment-trump
[9] Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-targets-smithsonian-again-says-it-focuses-too-much-how-bad-slavery-was-2025-08-20/
[10] The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/restoring-truth-and-sanity-to-american-history/; 1776 Project PAC: https://1776projectpac.com/priorities/
[11] ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/smithsonian-secretary-reaffirms-institutions-independence-response-white-houses/story?id=125296667
[12] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/24/arts/design/amy-sherald-smithsonian-censorship.html