How to Overcome the Influence of Propaganda

I have been listening to and reading posts from individuals across the political spectrum and have heard people on both sides defending their position while also feeling baffled by those who have an opposite point of view. One thing that I have continued to say is that we are all victims to the propaganda that we digest. During my studies in narrative approaches to conflict analysis and resolution, I did research on the narratives pushed by various news outlets and concluded some ways to detect the best news sources with the fewest agendas. With "fake news" becoming more of a threat, I felt as though it was time to write a blog post with some suggestions on how to evaluate your news outlets and test their validity.

It has been interesting for me to watch/read different news outlets, pay attention to the way that they construct their narratives and the charged words that they use to push their agenda and then listen to viewers who regurgitate the stories almost word-for-word, with the same narrative structure. It demonstrates the impact that news has in shaping our individual and collective worldview. If I were to do a deeper analysis, I would love to be able to guess a person's news outlet by the way that they discuss world events, but alas, I do not have the time for such a project. But, I did think that it was important to share some of my findings.

Here are some things to think about in order to evaluate the validity of your chosen news sources (not exhaustive, just what I threw together):

1. Watch out for extremism and overuse of binaries.

Most news outlets are, first and foremost, a business and are trying to sell their product. Sensationalism sells papers. To test how sensationalized your news source is, look for extreme words and overuse of binaries. Some examples of extreme words are: disgusting, evil, disaster, completely, failed, insane, crazy, perfect, success, benevolent, good, bad. A fair news source should have neutral language so that the viewer can interpret the story and draw their own conclusions instead of the moral being spoon-fed to them.

Here is an example headline: "Man brutally murders wife." This is a sensationalized sentence because it assumes that the husband is guilty prior to having a trial. The extreme words are: "brutally" and "murders". It is framing the story in such a way that there is no room for the possibility that the husband is innocent. A neutral version would be "Woman found dead. Husband prime suspect." This delivers that same information without assigning judgment.

I recently saw a news headline that further demonstrates this. To keep it non-partisan I left out the party and politician's name. "(Politician) is wrong, but (Political Party) are crazy." This may seem objective because it points out a fault of both parties, but the bias is towards the politician. Being wrong is human and is forgivable. But being framed as crazy positions that party as being incapable of making rational choices and therefore delegitimizes that group, putting them in a powerless state. Meanwhile, the person who made the "wrong" choice remains a free agent who is a more trustworthy party. The bias in this story is towards the politician.

2. Locate the source's biases.

Recognize that every source has a bias, even those that are not agenda driven, because having different perspectives is part of being human and is a result of having different experiences. It is important to be aware of their biases so that they do not taint your opinion.

This can be done by paying attention to repetitions. Are there some individuals or groups that they hyper-focus on? What words are they using to describe them? Are they neutral words or extreme words? Currently in the United States, many news sources hyper-focus on political parties and over use words such as: Republicans, Conservatives, Democrats, Liberals. The American media usually has a bias towards one political leaning over another. Be aware that if they are constantly belittling a different group they are trying to get you to buy into their bias and share their negative feelings towards the group. My advice is to find a source that does this as little as possible or watch/read multiple sources to counteract the bias while thinking through how the opposing group would tell the same story. Otherwise, take note and be aware that their attacks on that group may not always be valid because they are coming from a skewed perspective.

3. Be aware of your own biases.

Be aware of your own biases and avoid sources that play into them (this is hard). There is a difference between something being true and you wanting something to be true. It is human nature to watch/read news that validates our own opinion, but that doesn't mean that it is real and honest news. Ask yourself: Why is it important for me that this be true? Is it related to my identity? Does it validate my opinion or previous views? What would it say about me if it was not true? People are usually the most defensive with their opinion when their identity is attached to it. Or when ideas that constitute their worldview are being threatened or argued against. You can separate good news from propaganda easily when you are okay being proven wrong.

4. Be wary of those who claim to be the only ones who will tell you the truth.

Be wary of conspiracy theorists or those who claim to have an exclusive story. Recognize that if it is legitimate news, many media outlets will be fighting to cover it. Even if they don't agree with it. If they say "what so and so don't want you to know" that's called manipulation. They are trying to get you to believe that they are the only ones who know and can provide you with truth. Believing that makes you a lifetime customer. You should start asking questions: If this story is true, how would this person be the only person to have that information? What are their sources? Is there a possibility that their source may have their own agenda? (The answer is always yes, if someone is leaking information they always have motive.) What could their motive be? If something is true, there usually is plenty of evidence to support it.

5. Always check the sources cited.

With print media, scan the sources cited section. If there is a story that seems extreme, see if the sources they cite are reputable (no, personal blogs do not count, even this one). As mentioned above, if it is legitimate, there will likely be many reputable sources to comb through. If not, this may be "fake news".

6. Question the "authority" that they are relying on to prove their point.

To prove a point, people often cite studies and surveys or bring in an "expert" on the subject. Be aware that studies and surveys are very easy to skew. If something seems extremely far-fetched, yet 9 out of 10 people say that it is true, you might want to consider why the 10th person did not agree and who the 9 people are. Question what they are trying to sell you and what their motives may be. I'm not saying that studies are all flawed. It is because of intense research, including studies and surveys, that many facts have emerged. I'm just saying that you should do a little more research before you buy into it and preach about it. The same goes for "experts" brought in to discuss a topic. As mentioned above, everyone has their bias and paying close attention to it is important.

The overall point of this is to stay skeptical and search for news outlets that provide enough neutrality in the way that they construct their narratives that you can come to your own conclusions. Relying on news outlets that tells us blatantly what is "right" or "wrong", "true" or "false" is tempting because having to think critically requires focus and work. But, relying on these sources instead of critically thinking through issues, I would argue, is the biggest cause of contention and division within the United States currently. As stated in the Bible, Mark 3:20: "If a house be divided against itself, it cannot stand." The Pledge of Allegiance proclaims our country as "indivisible" This type of unity requires Americans, of all religions and political leanings, to work together to ensure, as the pledge states, "liberty and justice for all." Opening yourself up to other people's perspectives is the start of this. Here's to a more informed and less contentious America!

What is Truth?

I usually attempt to stay away from heated political conversation. Not really because I am the type who has little to no opinion (quite the opposite). But, because I have realized from my study of conflict how interesting it is that people so easily believe what they hear or read (news, articles, professors, textbooks, google) and take it as fact (if it supports their previous opinion). And then exert unnecessary energy arguing to defend that position. But, when you unpack the information that you see on the news, read in articles, hear professors or other experts share, the truth is that majority of the time you are believing someone else’s opinion or theory which may or may not be true. You are choosing a conglomeration of narratives (some being culturally chosen for you) and letting those narratives make up your worldview. Think about it for a moment, why do Americans see pancakes, bacon and eggs as breakfast food? Why is it that when restaurants in America say: “breakfast served all day” we immediately assume that those items will be available? Why can’t it be beans and rice served as breakfast food? Or lasagna? Or meatloaf and mashed potatoes? Has it been scientifically proven that pancakes and eggs can only be considered breakfast food? Here is my point: pancakes and bacon are only breakfast food because our culture has deemed them so. There is no truth behind it. There are no facts or studies involved proving that it is the superior breakfast food. Someone at some point decided that they liked eating it in the morning and a new cultural narrative was born. We are surrounded by narratives that constitute our “truth” or “facts” without even knowing it. Here are some other examples: shaking hands when making a new acquaintance; raising your hand in school; a man opening a door for a woman; wearing a suit and tie to work as proper dress code…the list could go on. All of these are cultural narratives that we have deemed right and proper and when someone does not abide by these narratives they are viewed as rude or improper. Now let’s take that to the next step and discuss politics. There are two (or three, or four, or one hundred) worldviews on what it means to be a democracy and on how to run our country. All of these are derived from groups of individuals with opinions. Some have done studies (which as someone who has done multiple research studies knows – it is impossible to do an unbiased study). Some have read books and articles (written by other people with their own biased opinions). Some others have witnessed events (through the lens of their own perspective and opinions). And yet, we take these people’s words as truth, many of them strangers to us and argue against family members, neighbors, and schoolmates, ourselves convinced that they are wrong when they are simply listening to different narratives than the ones we are. My point? Conflict is contagious, and before you engage in it ask yourself this question: What is truth?

What Are You Willing to Sacrifice for Peace

It was the first day of my first class in Conflict Analysis and Resolution. The air buzzed with enthusiasm as we were introduced to each other and introduced to some of the theories and practices that would be our companions for the next couple of years. I was surrounded by do-gooders, like myself, who desired to make a positive impact on the world. Before us stood a professor, who had already left his mark on the conflict resolution community and had turned to teaching to motivate the next generation of practitioners. Towards the end of the class this professor stood before us, with tears in his eyes, and asked us this question: "what are you willing to sacrifice for peace?" He began to tell a story of a Dutch man named Dirk Willems who had been condemned by the Catholic Church and arrested for following the Anabaptist church. Dirk had eventually escaped from prison by tying fabric together to make a rope and then using it to climb out of his prison window. As he was running across a frozen moat to his freedom, he saw the guard that had been pursuing him fall through the ice. Instead of continuing on, he turned around and saved the drowning man from death. As a result of this act, he was taken back to prison where he remained until 1569 when he was burned at the stake. He had sacrificed his freedom to rescue one of his captors. When the professor had finished relaying this story the once boisterous room had turned silent. Our professor, choked with emotion, emphasizing each syllable asked: "What are YOU willing to sacrifice for peace?"

Years have passed since that time but I have never forgotten that moment. It is a question that has replayed over and over in my mind. I have not fully decided to what extent I am willing to sacrifice for peace. But I know that I can give my time. And I can give my voice.

I want to devote this blog to be a place where crucial conversations can occur. I want to talk about things that are hard to talk about because they are painful or controversial. I want to carve out a space where every side of an issue can be shared without political agendas or personal gains. I do not want this blog to be a place to air grievances or share contentious deeply held opinions. This is meant to be a safe space, free of judgment or shame, where the purpose is to think through what needs to happen to resolve the conflicts that we are witnessing in the world around us. And hopefully as these topics emerge and take shape more people will be led consider that poignant question asked of me years ago: "what are you willing to sacrifice for peace?"