I thought this week I would expand on the last link in last week's post; then new things happened. That is a common issue when I try and be topical.
I believe I am going to hold off on that link, combined with something else that came out, and for now just spend some time on trying to be responsible and informed.
Let's start off talking about podcasts!
You might think this is going to be about Joe Rogan and Neil Young and Spotify, but it's really not. I will say it is kind of refreshing that doing the wrong thing seems to be turning out to be financially costly, but I am ultimately not sure that even if Spotify de-platformed Rogan that it would make much difference, which will relate to one of our key problems that we probably won't get to this week.
Regardless, the inspiration is really this:
A very popular, award-winning audio series on ISIS was based on an unreliable source. There were clues, but not only did the New York Times fail to follow the clues, there was intimidation against those who did.
The intimidation may have come from one person, and not generally be considered an action of the Times, but did the environment fostered by them -- where drama and engagement was more important than accuracy -- encourage that?
When my sisters and I discuss news, they often ask if a certain source is "good". There is a logic to that question. Yahoo! News, for example, is full of biased stories that focus on reactions instead of fact.
However, last week's post had Fox News clarifying one thing and muddying another. Politico has had good pieces, but they were also the ones who had the irresponsible story where Chuck Schumer having dinner with his wife was framed as Democrats attempting to influence Sonia Sotomayor, who was never there.
There isn't a rule like that. Breitbart has doctored videos so often, it would be foolish to ever trust them, but they are unusually flagrant. Most news sources are not going to be that bad, but there are factors that influence what stories they tell and how they are told.
The question one is often advised to ask is Cui bono? Who benefits? However -- and we will get back to this -- people will sometimes act against their own self-interests, or at least what we would perceive to be their natural self-interests. That makes it necessary to also consider how they benefit, and to have some understanding of people.
For just understanding reporters and other media sources, one obvious factor is engagement. Are people tuning in? Do they talk about it with other people? There are financial rewards and ego boosts to that. Unfortunately, the truth is often not that dramatic or edgy. QAnon profits from knowing that, but they do a lot of damage.
So, the first thing that media consumers have to do is reconcile themselves to the most intriguing drama sometimes being fiction designed for entertainment, and not accepting that in their news. The click bait article on Republicans angrily criticizing something by a perceived liberal are not as valuable as an article analyzing a situation in a calm, factual manner.
Except sometimes that analysis is wrong as well.
Sometimes there is bias. There is often good, measured reporting in the Wall Street Journal, but it is also based on certain assumptions about the importance of the stock market or perhaps the bad impact of a minimum wage increase. It's not the same as outright lying, because they believe it and they can point to experts who have said it, but it may still be wrong.
One bad development in recent years is a tearing down of respect for expertise. Yes, there are revered economists who are wrong, and scientists form hypotheses based on what they know and have to change them as they learn more... an advanced degree does not confer omniscience or omnipotence.
That does not mean there is no value in study. There can be real harm in listening to the uninformed who act with amazingly confident ignorance.
"I understand epidemiology, despite have never read a book on it or conducted any experiments or done anything to inculcate understanding. However, I do have things I can tell you based on my political leanings and the companies I have investments with or friends at."
I wish I was exaggerating.
And also please understand that existing bias may not be overcome by education.
A professor at Wharton, Nina Strohminger recently tweeted out that she had asked her students what they thought the average American salary was; they were way off.
These are students studying business at a prestigious school. Many of them will end up in prominent positions where they may be making choices that affect prices, wages, and distribution. They may learn more with hard study, but they may also still never quite grasp that not everyone has the same opportunities, and that their own more comfortable position is not strictly a result of personal virtue and merit.
Frankly, people hate learning that one.
Therefore, it is often advisable not just to pay attention to "experts", but to pay attention to multiple experts from different backgrounds, so you can get different perspectives. If they disagree with each other, that can be great.
I follow many people that I sometimes disagree with, but the guiding rule is that they must have some regard for the value of people.
Disagreeing on pizza toppings? Fine. Disagreeing on how to accomplish a shared goal and what would be most effective? Usually fine. Disagreeing on whether keeping Black people from voting is wrong or transgender people deserve rights? Even when you say things that are correct I will be suspicious.
That leads to another issue that is really important, but also easy to overlook: the importance of listening to people of color, especially women of color, and especially Black women.
So often when there are those click bait articles about Republican criticism, that criticism is directed toward a woman of color, like Sotomayor or Harris. That is not a coincidence. The power structure that it is so easy to not even think about reinforces them as targets.
Women of color have to think about it. That is the perspective that so often we are missing when we are white and male or otherwise relatively privileged, despite it not making life automatically easy.
That's not a fail-safe either. If you start off by following Candace Owens, Nina Turner, and Briahna Joy Gray, you will see some very different slants, and none of them will necessarily be helpful.
It's not easy. It is important.
Look for verification. What are other people saying? What are reasons they would have for saying it? How does listening to them affect your heart?
Does it keep your love for others alive?
Those are all things to think about as we try and move forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment