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!
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!
No comments:
Post a Comment