You’d think that in the age of new media, where “news sources” — amateur and professional — have quintupled, that we’d have less need for critical discernment. After all, more cameras aimed at the playing field gives us more chance to make the correct call. Likewise, more news outlets should make things clearer, not more confusing. Right?
Like many, I wasn’t surprised by the recent exposé on Benghazi by 60 Minutes which indicts the Obama administration of a massive coverup. Of course, many conservatives have been suggesting this for a while. And even in the face of the damning report, some are still claiming the mainstream media is not going far enough in reporting the truth.
Perhaps more surprising to me is not that a governmental cover-up might be a reality, but that a news outlet considered part of the cover-up (CBS), appears to be breaking ranks.
I’ve gone on record siding with paranoid, conspiratorial, right-wingers who believe that the mainstream media is decidedly biased towards liberals and, even worse, has successfully shaped public opinion to reflect its ideology. This opinion, however, could make me as biased as those I damn.
In this 5 minute video, acclaimed UCLA Professor of Political Science and Economics, Tim Groseclose, explains how the mainstream shapes American opinion not by reporting lies, but by not reporting everything. If mainstream news sources would report accurately all sides of a story, Groseclose suggests that the United States would look more like… Texas.
Of course, it could be suggested that the Professor brings his own biases to his reportage. Perhaps he wants the mainstream media to appear more liberal or the average American to appear more moderate. Heck, he might just want to sell more books!
Point being: Everyone and everything should be checked out.
Even Snopes.com.
In fact, the degree to which we do not feel the need to double-check a story may indicate our own bias. A good example would be Piers Morgan’s hasty reference to an event that, if it had happened, would make Sarah Palin look like a buffoon. Problem is, the story was a hoax. In Sarah Palin Easter Hoax Too Good to Check for Critics, the author writes:
These are outlandish stories we don’t bother verifying because, for some reason, we want them to be true. In Piers Morgan’s case, he very obviously thinks Palin’s Second Amendment advocacy is barbaric, and so was more likely to buy into a gross caricature of the woman’s faith.
Because Morgan wants Sarah Palin to look like a buffoon, he doesn’t bother “verifying.”
It’s a tendency all of us have. I want to believe the professor that media bias exists. But does this mean I should leave his stats and thesis unquestioned?
Between the proliferation of news outlets and avenues and our own confirmation biases, the truth might become harder and harder to come by.
In Are conspiracy theories destroying democracy? the BBC discusses a major new Cambridge University project to investigate the impact of conspiracy theories on democracy. One of the investigators suggests that the proliferation of news outlets and information, rather than diminish the amount of conspiracy theories, actually fuels them.
“It may be that one of the things conspiracy theories feed on as well as silence, is a surfeit of information. And when there is a mass of information out there, it becomes easier for people to find their way through to come to the conclusion they want to come to.
“Plus, you don’t have to be an especial cynic to believe that, in the age of open government, governments will be even more careful to keep secret the things they want to keep secret.
“The demand for openness always produces, as well as more openness, more secrecy.”
…the push for greater openness and transparency in public life will fuel, rather than kill off, conspiracy theories.
Unlike a sporting event, apparently more cameras aimed at the field does not get us any closer to the truth. Especially when “our team” is involved.
So as for me and my house, there are no trustworthy news sources.
And you can trust me on this.
Misreport news.
Print correction later, buried near the obituaries.
Maybe.
The same thing happens in the book review world. Author grouches about ‘mean’ reviewer. Author’s friends gang up and say author received death threats, but none of them can say from whom, or provide any evidence of said threats. (Surely, if you received a death threat you didn’t write it off as a joke, you’d save several copies for law enforcement?)
Story hits many influential blogs (including Salon and Huff Post) and a lot of less influential blogs, but still no evidence.
Author later apologises for over-reacting, says there were no death threats, and blames her actions on PMT.
This is circulated, but only through less influential blogs. General public still only knows the first half of the story. As Jay says, corrections are somewhere near the obituaries.
I agree. people shouldn’t take anyone’s word for something- they should care enough to do their own research and brave enough to face facts that don’t match their agenda’s/beliefs and honest enough to admit when they are wrong.
problem is, not enough people care. They search long enough to find out something that backs up their preconceived beliefs.
Another thing wrong with listening to the news or to “experts” is that many of them are taking their info from second hand sources. When you want to know something, go directly to the source.
If you want to know about the Bible, read the Bible, not someones thoughts about the Bible. If you want to know about the Koran, read it and not just someone else’s take on it. If you want to know about our founding fathers- read their words, not a bunch of other scholars are hundreds of years removed and only studying other text books.
Sorry, this is a passionate subject for me.
Yeah, twice, no, thrice I have passed on hoax news that sounded like a lot like something that was true. I have been fortunate enough to be called out each time so I could apologize and retract. But, oh, aggravating.
Once I passed on an article about what different heads of charitable organizations earned versus what the lower peons earned. I thought it was true because our local paper had a year or two earlier had a series of articles about what the local Goodwill honcho earned versus the much, much lower than minimum wages the workers get. He said he deserved the money because the changes he instituted brought in ever so much more money ( to pay him but not the workers apparently). etc. So the hoax I passed on sounded true, and why would I check what I know is true? Pointing out that our biases can blind us to the truth and to the lie is a useful service.
Thank you for passing on this article.
Agreed.
And yet… I wish. I wish there were more places I could go to get trustworthy information. I simply do not have the time to thoroughly investigate everything I’d like to be informed about and take action on.
I wish people could see the far-reaching effects of moral decline. A society that does not value integrity loses SO much, in so many areas of life.