Tribalism Part 4: The Quest for Reliable News
Bo Brusco | July 7, 2020
Image by @markusspiske from Unsplash.com
Fact vs Fiction
In this climate of facts clashing with fiction, individual responsibility for evaluating media made claims is critical. Regardless of one’s tribe, we must begin to question and research the information being projected at us to ensure that what we are digesting is factual. As promised in the preceding installment of this series, here are some ways in which we can weed out the falsehoods so prevalent in our online news feed.
Look Beyond the Headline
As early as 2016, it was apparent that articles were being shared more frequently than they were being read. According to a Columbia University study conducted that same year, 59 percent of links shared on social media have never actually been opened. One of the best places to start, in regards to the quest for reliable news, is to ensure that we are looking beyond the sensational headlines we encounter. We know that clickbait is something designed specifically to hook an audience and be sharer friendly, so if a news article is blowing up across the net it is likely due to the alarming (and potentially misleading) nature of its headline.
It’s an understandable impulse to share something before actually reading it. If something confirms our bias, or attacks our tribe’s core beliefs, we instinctively have to “alert the troops,” as it were. Keep in mind that these types of news articles, videos, soundbites, and images, (or whatever it is being shared) are begging us to share them. We need to train ourselves to be quicker to question sensational media than we are to impulsively share it. If our aim is to prevent the spread of misinformation, a good rule of thumb is to make sure that before we share an article we have:
1 - Read it from start to finish.
2 - Verified the credibility of the source (the website or news company that published the article).
3 - Researched the content and claims of the article to determine its accuracy.
A Simple Google Search
When analyzing any news related post on social media—in most cases—a quick Google search can be monumentally beneficial. I used to teach English to 12th graders, and it drove me insane that they used their smartphones for everything but research. It is so easy to check the spelling or definition of a word, and it is just as easy to Google anything relating to news and politics.
For example, a conspiracy theory video was recently running rampant through Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and YouTube, which claimed that getting a flu shot increases your risk of contracting Covid-19. If you punch “flu shot increases risk of Covid-19” into the Google search bar, an article debunking this claim from FactCheck.org will be the first thing that pops up. (Of course, I cannot stress enough the importance of only using reliable, credible, and reputable sources when Google checking).
Fact Check
Fact checking is sort of a sub feature of the Google search. The example above illustrates a fact check that resulted from a Google search, so the two are somewhat synonymous. The easiest way to fact check is to go to sites that are engineered to be just that: a fact-checking destination. These sites include: FactCheck.org, Snopes.com, and Politifact.com—to name the more prominent ones. Of course, sometimes even the fact checkers get it wrong. That is why it is important to cross check.
Cross Check
Google/fact checking is arguably the easiest place to start when questioning the validity of claims made in the news. It’s a convenient way to be sure that we’re not getting bamboozled. If we want to be very sure that we are dealing with factual claims, cross checking with different sources is an additional step we can take. I want to note that I said very sure because, in a lot of cases, I don’t know if there is a way to be absolutely sure anymore. But if you crosscheck a fact from multiple credible sources, you can be very sure you have discovered the facts of the matter, and sometimes very sure is the best we can do.
For the science-savvy readers, triangulation is another term for cross checking, and is a technique used primarily for qualitative or exploratory research. It “facilitates validation of data through cross verification from more than two sources.” This is a powerful analytical approach because “triangulation is not just about validation but about deepening and widening one’s understanding.” With a deepened understanding of the information we are consuming, we can begin to decipher facts from the falsehoods used to promote the narratives of political tribes.
Expose Biases
Of course, the most sure we can possibly be is if we confirm facts by cross checking them from two opposing sources. We can reason that if two rival news publishers are broadcasting the same facts, those facts theoretically check out. For example, if CNN and Fox News both agree on something, then that is most assuring (I should say if they are both reporting the same story, then that is most assuring. However, their opinions of that story will likely differ). So if we listen solely to the sources of truth that are popular in our tribe, we’re only getting one perspective of the world. An effective way to see the whole—or at least a bigger—picture, is to expose ourselves to broadcasters who oppose the bias of our tribe.
As someone who strives to be informed, I listen to a wide spectrum of biased voices. For example, I’ll listen to The Daily and The Daily Wire in the same day (funny how the their names are so similar, but they couldn’t be more different). Witnessing the variances between news publishers is incredibly enlightening. There are also sites, like The Flip Side, that present current issues while simultaneously sharing the opinions of the right and left sides of the political aisle. I believe, like Adam Greenwood, that it is important to expose ourselves to different biases; after all, news will always be biased.
Side Note: I would also be remiss if I didn’t mention one of my favorite news sources—Philip DeFranco on YouTube. He uploads 15-20 minute videos every weekday to ‘Phil’ you in on the latest happenings in the world. He is adept at reporting the news as accurately as he can, while sharing his opinions apart from the facts.
Look to Local News
As Hisan Minhaj brought to my attention on a recent episode of his show, “The Patriot Act,” local journalists are really an invaluable source of reliable news. Minhaj refers to our nation’s diet of big news corporation drama, and social media driven scandals and narratives, as: High-fructose bullshit [that’s] making us crazy! Elaborating further, he says that news being delivered via memes, gaffes, commentaries, and commentaries of other peoples’ commentaries is not news because it’s gossip. As an alternative to the frustrating vehicles of information that are commonplace in 2020’s America, Minhaj suggests that local news might be our nation’s saving grace.
More precisely, he claims that the local journalists, who are actually writing articles in your city’s paper, are our best chance of being actually and accurately informed. In support of this claim, Minhaj points out that while local news papers only make about 25% of the country’s media outlets, they produce almost half of ALL original reporting (43% to be exact). This implies that many of the breaking stories getting spun and muddied-up because of the agendas, narratives, and biases, of big news corporations, such as Fox or CNN, originally came from local news journalists; so why not skip these sensational middlemen and just go straight to the source?
Additionally, Minhaj makes another compelling case for local journalists by pointing out that many breaking stories of national importance have been uncovered by these professionals. He cites their knack for exposing sex offenders as just one example:
The Catholic Church—that was The Boston Globe. The former Governor of Oregon—that’s The Willamette Weekly. Jerry Sandusky first broke in the Harrisburg’s Patriot-News. The Indianapolis Star broke the news about Subway Jared downloading [child pornography]. And that same paper exposed Larry Nassar, the U.S.A. gymnastics doctor. [...] R. Kelly was put on blast by the Chicago Sun-Times. And last but not least, Jeffrey Epstein [...] was brought down by [...] Julie K. Brown, a reporter at the Miami Herald.
Again, if you are interested in finding “nutrient-dense, reliable information,” as Minhaj suggests, then support your local news paper—especially because, during this time when we need them the most, they are being preyed on by private equity and hedge fund companies.
Consider This
It has become clear that this quest for reliable information is not a task our nation, as a whole, is capable of accomplishing. It is up to the individual. A common “Twitter trend trope,” as I like to call it because of my sick fascination with alliteration, is to state that such and such a thing ought to be “normalized.” One of my favorite examples is: normalize changing your views when presented with new information. I want to suggest that we should normalize fact checking. Even in common conversation, we should not shy away from Googling a claim a friend made about which we are unsure. There is definitely a polite way to go about doing this without throwing etiquette out the window. But amidst this clash of facts and fiction, we need to sort these things out for ourselves; a practice which should become normal and routine for us. We should also normalize supporting our local journalists by subscribing to their websites, buying their papers, and actually reading what they have deemed necessary and prudent for us to know. It is my firm belief that if enough of us individuals begin to enact these simple steps, we will not only become better informed citizens, but in so doing we will be able to help save our nation’s sanity.
