(quoted from http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/teachers/media_literacy/what_is_media_literacy.cfm)

What is Media Literacy?

Now, a lot of people in EVERY political party are guilty of having poor media literacy. A well educated citizen in any democracy should occasionally read/listen/whatever to media that directly contradicts their political views, as it challenges them and exposes them to other approaches to solving problems. This is necessary because politics evolve over time. The modern conservatives would seem scandalously liberal 300 years ago, and similar evolution has occurred all across the political spectrum. As our problems evolve, so must our political systems.

Failure to develop media literacy helps lead to the kind of people who believe that all conservatives are evil and all liberals want to destroy freedom. Each party has their different approaches to problems, and each approach works in certain situations. That basically is one of the best reasons that elections exist in a democracy.

An open mind and strong media literacy are incredibly powerful tools for navigating the information we’re given in our day-to-day lives.

What is media literacy and how do you define it? Please discuss.

Take your title for the link: The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S. – 17 Per Cent to Be Exact

You are saying that the administration is wrong by exactly 73 percent. That too is incorrect. The fox article specifically says that the 90% number is wrong. That’s not correct. The 90% number is not proven based on the given information. Neither is the 17% number proved to be conclusive. It is simply a proven component of a larger unknown. You’re making an exaggeration to attack an exaggeration. Does that make sense?

In good reporting and good logic, you need a chain of connection. Let’s look at three connected statements from the article:

There’s just one problem with the 90 percent “statistic” and it’s a big one:

In fact, it’s not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

If A is the first statement, which is that the 90% statistic has a problem.

And B is the second statement, which is that the statement is not true.

Then C should be a statement offering 100% conclusive proof that it is incorrect. It suggests it is wrong, but the facts do not offer a conclusive statement. Hence, failure to prove in the article.

You need to realize, I’m not arguing what the administration did or retracted. Read what I’m writing. I’m arguing that the article is consists of poorly constructed logical arguments masquerading as 100% conclusive fact. If they prove the government wrong, that’s one thing. If that was the sole purpose of the article, it could be well written as such. But they tried to do that while advancing their own set of numbers, which are ALSO inconclusive and/or incorrect. Unless you’re writing a pure editorial, you have the responsibility as a journalist to defend and support the theories you advance.

Journalists are as important to a functioning democracy as politicians, as they help to inform the people. When they fail in their journalistic responsibilities, it can be a problem for everyone.

As to my assumptions, the article ends with the conclusion that this numerical exaggeration is an attack on 2nd amendment rights by the current administration (quite a leap, especially if they’ve retracted the statement as you say). Taking that as anything other than a political agenda promoting a specific viewpoint would display a shocking lack of media literacy.