reflections by
troy cady
Recently, a friend asked me what news sources I access. In light of all the big changes happening in our country these days (I live in the United States), I thought it was a wise question. And I realized, almost as soon as I read the question, that I don’t have an easy answer to it. That’s not because I don’t strive to remain informed. It’s because we live in a post-truth society.
Every year the editors of the Oxford Dictionary select a “Word of the Year.” In 2016, the word was post-truth. According to the dictionary’s website: “Post-truth is an adjective defined as ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.’” It has become associated especially with the phrase “post-truth politics.
In light of that, HOW we read the news and seek truth matters a great deal. It is not just a question of WHAT sources we access.
I will be the first to say that I am still learning how to make wise choices in my news-reading habits and, over the years, there have been times when I’ve been mistaken in my interpretation of certain news features. I suppose that is the first thing to remember:
We are all human
and sometimes we get it wrong.
This calls for
humility.
This is why “opinion, emotion, and personal belief” (as the definition above states) can be so dangerous. In light of the plethora of information streams we could access, we tend to select those that provide justification for our opinions, emotions, and beliefs. And we tend to feel threatened by information that challenges those dynamics. So, we go searching for someone to tell us what we want to hear.
Scientists and journalists refer to this as “confirmation bias.” It is the idea that our interpretation of facts is colored with a bias that simply seeks to confirm what we already want to be true, regardless of whether our interpretation coincides with reality. I can’t help but feel that, in a post-truth society, we tend to read (and write about) the news with a confirmation bias more than we would like to admit. Lest we demonize one another for doing this, though, I think it is important to remember that, probably, most people who read the news with a confirmation bias simply do so because it makes them feel that they are not alone and that they are not losing their mind. It’s only natural. In light of this:
I treat almost everything
I encounter on social media
as extremely
biased.
I don’t trust any of it, really. That’s why I rarely click “share” on any given social media post.[1] I never want to be part of spreading misinformation or disinformation, both of which are incredibly destructive.
Truth-seeking takes time. Because misinformation can be disseminated very quickly now, and because it occurs in such high volume, truth-finding has become extremely difficult. With the advent of artificial intelligence and other forms of computer-generated content, we need to be especially careful about what we are taking on-board and sharing with others. That is because the content generated in this way is not ideologically neutral. In some instances, these technologies learn what you want to hear to keep you engaged, so it will feed you an endless supply of content to do just that. The goal is engagement because there is power in controlling our culture’s attention. It is a way to shape reality according to a group’s own preferences. Because of this, we can expect those with totalitarian agendas to exploit this technology.
It behooves us to practice a healthy measure of doubt: we need to ask ourselves who is presenting the information and we need to consider why they are presenting it, not to mention what information they have chosen to include. Before drawing any conclusions, we also need to take into account additional perspectives that might be important. What details may have been left out? What background might be missing? The problem is:
We don’t know what
we don’t know.
The only way to know
more is to slow down
to ask questions
and find out.
With that in mind, below I will share 1) what news sources I regularly access, and 2) what I do to deepen my understanding of what has been reported. After that, in the spirit of full disclosure, I will share with you 3) my own bias when it comes to the interpretive process, and 4) what I seek to do to mitigate the negative effects of that bias in my desire to work for the common good.
First, I will take numbers 1 and 2 together as I cite 1) news sources I use and as I offer some notes on 2) other important materials I access to help me interpret the news wisely. In the following, I will reference examples that apply to current news.
My news sources and other materials I rely upon
My internet browser is set to open up to BBC News. I trust their reporting because they offer a global perspective.
When I am in the car, I listen to NPR partly because it also gives me some local news. As I listen, however, I try to keep in mind that they are left-leaning in their presentation. Still, they offer important perspectives because they make a point to amplify voices we might not otherwise hear. I will share more later on why I feel that is important, in case that gives you pause.
When I want to fact-check what I have encountered on the BBC or heard on NPR, I go to primary sources. For example, in the aftermath of the inauguration, both the BBC and NPR reported on various executive orders signed by the current administration. To check their reporting, I accessed the White House website myself and I actually took time to read the executive orders.[2]
In this instance, concerns were raised about the legality and/or constitutionality of some of the orders. So, I need to have enough familiarity with the Constitution to know what questions may be pertinent to the matter at hand. In case this sounds overwhelming, take comfort: you don’t need to be a constitutional scholar to discern this. You simply need to be prepared to listen for the questions that are being asked as the public and/or Congress debates the merits of the proposal/order. This is why it is important to have an awareness of one’s own biases because it opens us up to consider what other perspectives we may be missing.
For this reason:
I recommend that
every United States citizen
take some time to
read the Constitution
and have a copy
at-hand for reference.
One other document I will mention that is important for us to be aware of is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It is an important document because sometimes countries are led by certain people who commit significant human rights violations. The UDHR mobilizes the global community in holding malicious actors like this accountable, since the leaders of oppressive regimes try to hide behind the laws of their own land as a way of providing justification for their atrocities.[3]
In addition to this, my friend Brian Newman (who has training in professional journalism) also recommends checking stories on Reuters and the Associated Press. I do that from time to time, as well, when I want to make sure certain facts are being reported accurately. Those two news agencies have world-leading journalists of the finest standards who are very well-connected and have easy access to well-regarded authorities when they are writing their stories. With good reason, many news outlets rely upon Reuters and/or AP for their own reporting. If you see a citation of either of those two agencies in a story, you can be fairly confident it is trustworthy.
The only drawback to Reuters and AP is that they are, comparatively speaking, considered to feature “short-form” reporting. In other words, they provide good summaries of current events that give trustworthy accounts of who, what, where, and when. Depending on the story, they will also answer the “how” question and, in a very limited way, they may offer some inklings as to “why” a certain thing has happened, though this would be done sparingly and cautiously. They tend to just stick to what they can know and prove, rather than offering analysis as to why something has happened.
For more in-depth reporting and analysis, Brian recommends looking at long-form journalism (like the kind you might encounter in Foreign Affairs magazine, for example). This form of journalism is important because it introduces you to the larger issues at stake and the key questions that are being asked. It avoids reductionism, which is imperative if we are to think well about complex issues.
This is where it gets to be complicated because, depending on the issue at hand, one might need to read in-depth in a wide variety of fields, which most people don’t have time to do. The important thing to keep in mind is that well-informed analysis of almost any controversial news story requires reporting that has been peer reviewed and enjoys a consensus among experts in the field who are also aware of alternative perspectives.
News sources I avoid…and why
In light of my notes above, I refrain from taking in news from certain “popular” channels such as Fox News, CNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, or CBS. One reason I have less trust in these mainstream sources is because they are for-profit entities. That is to say, they are businesses whose primary goal is profitability via the means of entertainment. Because these news outlets are considered to be entertainment, they can get away with a lot of error in their journalism.
For example, in the midst of the 2020 presidential election, Fox News spread misinformation about certain voting machines. The company who provided these voting machines (Dominion) sued Fox for this false reporting and Fox settled the case for a significant sum of money while also issuing a statement about the lies they spread.[4]
To be honest, it astounds me that anyone would continue to trust Fox as a reliable source again. One would expect that making up a lie like that would seal the end of such an outlet but, instead, they have continued to thrive. It makes me wonder: how can this be?
I think it is because they are in the business of keeping their audience entertained by providing a steady stream of stories and analysis that reinforces a particular worldview and supports certain political commitments that a significant number of people would like to come to fruition. We need to keep in mind that every minute of every program we are watching on stations who have adopted this kind of pseudo-journalistic approach is crafted very meticulously under the guidance of producers who have one goal: retain viewership and make money…or get cancelled. Lest you think I am just picking on Fox News, please keep in mind that other alternatives on the left or right of the political spectrum operate under the same premise.
Simply put, it is dangerous because these sources are controlling the public discourse on questions that require a depth of understanding which biased outlets driven by popularity, money, and power cannot possibly provide. If you do choose to tap into these streams, I plead with you to remind yourself every five minutes or so that what you are taking in is, essentially, just entertainment. Their goal is to keep you engaged, even if it means sacrificing empathy on the altar of mere consumerism.
What about live coverage?
Having said that, from time to time these news sources can provide good coverage of events that are occurring live. If you are viewing such coverage, however, I encourage you to be aware of all the analysis and interpretation these sources will add to their coverage and, as far as you are able, apply good critical thinking habits to what you are hearing.
This is why I value NPR’s format, by the way. For important live coverage, they tend to delay their analysis and limit commentary to matters of clarification for their listeners. For example, during the inauguration ceremony, NPR just aired the ceremony itself and offered no analysis whatsoever while the event was happening. The only time the radio hosts added commentary was to explain something the listener might not understand or describe something verbally that the listener would need to know because of the audio format of the coverage. They adopted this approach, too, for the impeachment trial in 2021.
In that same vein, some people really value tuning in to C-SPAN when Congress is in session. That is a good option because it is simply a broadcast of the gathering without all the commentary and analysis.
I like to think of live coverage like that of NPR or C-SPAN as “primary source material,” simply because one has the chance to be exposed to what is actually happening without it being filtered through any kind of politicking.
This is why I rarely tune in to coverage by some of the other major outlets I mentioned above. They almost always add analysis because, remember, their goal is to feed their audience what they want to hear so their audience stays tuned…so the producers can make more money. The money-making and power-seeking cycle is relentless and pervasive. It is precisely the way our post-truth society has been created.
Thoughts on podcasters and pundits
Along these same lines, I also refrain from listening to podcasters, You Tube celebrities, famous radio personalities, and political pundits. These are influencers who know they can easily be “cancelled” if they do not tell their audience what they want to hear. The model is susceptible to the same flaw that characterizes the major networks, only on a smaller scale.
Recently, however, I have made one exception to this guideline. I have found the daily briefings by Heather Cox Richardson to be helpful, well-informed, and trustworthy. She always cites her sources and offers much-needed historical perspective in her analysis. Having said that, I do keep in mind that she is a left-leaning analyst. I don’t read everything she offers, but I take a peek, say, once every few weeks.
This also isn’t to say that I don’t listen to podcasts. When I do, the podcast tends to be on a very specific topic that helps me dig deeper. I think of it as the audio equivalent to long-form journalism. In any case, I am very careful about what I listen to and it tends to be on a very specific subject. For example, some time ago I listened to a limited series on the intersection of creativity and faith. Another podcast I took in dealt with the prevalence of toxic masculinity among evangelicalism in the United States; it was very well-researched and made important historical connections. In any case, you can see by these two examples that I never listen to podcasts that are merely offering commentary/analysis of current news trends.
Along the same lines, I have found that books and audiobooks are good ways to gain perspective on what is happening in society. Again, you could think of this as long-form perspectives that draw on primary source materials.
If there is a rule
to my approach to news consumption,
it is that slower is
better.
This rule ensures that I am being conscientious and doing what I can to compensate for the possibility of issues and questions that may be blind spots for me.
In light of that, I would now like to address how I understand my own bias in reading/interpreting the news and what I practice to limit the negative effects of that bias.
My biases and what I do to compensate for them
First, my interpretation of current events is colored by an ever-evolving understanding of what it means to live a life that reflects the qualities I observe in the person and work of Jesus. Because I have come to understand Jesus as someone who spoke truth to power and aligned himself with the marginalized, I am particularly sensitive to the way political movements contribute to the suffering of marginalized people (or, conversely, how such movements may contribute to their flourishing).
Because of this, I refrain from news sources that seem to justify or minimize the harm that may have come to a certain marginalized group because of a particular political leaning or religious commitment. I have personally found that much of the right-wing media is complicit in this. Here I am thinking of Fox News, OAN, Newsmax, and Breitbart news. Additionally, much religious broadcasting (sad to say) falls into this trap, as well. As a pastor, I discourage folks from taking in news segments that are on televised religious programs.
One special note I should also make about this deals with my theological training. Because of my studies in graduate school and seminary, I have become concerned about the ways in which certain segments of Christianity have become obsessed with viewing current events as if they are direct fulfillments of “end times prophecies.” Unfortunately, faulty interpretations of certain “prophetic” biblical texts[5] have led to this way of viewing current events. It is a direct result of a theological movement known as Dispensationalism, which did not appear on the scene of Christian thought until the mid-1800s.
I have found in the past that many conservative religious broadcasts fall prey to interpreting current events in light of this particular theological stream. One big example of this is in the way they will present conflicts in the Middle East. When you are familiar with the tenets of Dispensationalism it is easy to recognize how their theological persuasion colors who they portray as “good” and who they portray as “evil.” I will speak below to how we can unlock our hearts and minds from this limited way of thinking when considering news concerning the Middle East.
Another factor that inclines me to select some news sources over others deals with another aspect of my educational background. As someone who studied history in graduate school, I am particularly attuned to the ways in which current events may be viewed as echoes of our past. We are where we are today because previous generations laid the groundwork. Looking back to the past can offer us some much-needed perspective on what is happening now.
In light of my note above about the Middle East, it is imperative that we gain a good understanding of the full history of that region beyond the history we know from the biblical text. Of course, the same holds true when thinking about other regions of the world. In particular, those of European descent have much to reckon with as the colonial period of Euro-centric expansion fomented incalculable harm upon the peoples of Africa, South America, North America, and Asia. Even the word “America” serves as a testament to how deeply entrenched European ideals are in how we view the histories of two entire continents in the Western hemisphere. This fact alone should give us pause whenever we are reading news presented through a Euro-centric cultural lens.
Because of this, I also try to be aware of the ways in which my own cultural background can limit my understanding. For example, I am a straight, white, middle-class married man with two kids living in an urban setting. I am fluent in only one language. I mention all this by way of saying that these factors can limit my ability to see life the way other people experience it. This is important as I consider how to respond to certain current events. In this way, I have come to believe that my ability to follow the Golden Rule[6] is directly related to the degree to which I am able to empathize with those who are not like me.
For example, in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd, it was important for me to listen to the voices of Black leaders and pay attention to Black voices in the news media. In a similar way, as I hear the current news of the federal government’s suspension of DEI programs, it is important for me to listen to how minority groups are being affected. This is one reason I really appreciate the programming of NPR. They make it a point to feature certain “minority” voices and perspectives I might not otherwise hear.
As a straight, white, Christian, middle-class married man it behooves me to keep in mind that I enjoy a certain kind of power and privilege that other people do not have simply because they are a different gender, or have a different racial background, religious background, sexual orientation, or marital status.
In this regard, I will also sometimes seek out friends who have expertise in a given area to offer insight as to what is going on in the news. For example, when refugee resettlement was affected in 2017, I called up my friend Susan (who is the Executive Director of a non-profit resettlement service) to find out how her organization was experiencing the change. In a similar way, as current events touch on people who are Muslim or Jewish, I think of my friend Brian whose ministry involves peacemaking with Muslims, Jews, and Christians. I have another friend who is an epidemiologist whose insights I appreciated when the first Covid vaccine was being developed. Getting first-hand perspectives from people you trust who are experts in a given field can help you to avoid interpreting or responding to current events in ways that are unwise or hinder the common good. I should caution, however, that it is important not to base one’s perspective on mere anecdotal evidence but to check what you are hearing by taking into account what seems to be a broad consensus among other experts in the same field. In this light, it is always good to bring to bear primary sources, statistics (when possible), and reputable news sources, as we have already noted above.
Concluding summary
The goal of all this is so that we may avoid taking in and spreading misinformation and disinformation. Given that we live in a post-truth society, it is imperative that we do what we can to ground ourselves in the truth. To pursue this, we need to be aware that many of the major media outlets in our society are in the business of entertainment. The bottom line is viewer retention and financial profit. Their power is rooted in claiming our attention and gaining our loyalty. This means we need to be careful about what news sources we regularly access, and we need to tap into primary sources as much as possible. We especially need to do this before we decide to share anything on social media.
Further, we need to be aware when we are taking in analysis, opinion, and conjecture…and we need to avoid treating it like fact. We also need to be aware of our own biases and seek out the perspectives of others. This includes people who are part of any one of a number of minority groups in our society, such as racial (BIPOC[7]) and sexual minorities (LGBTQ+[8]). Additionally, when seeking out additional perspective, it may be helpful to consult someone you know who may have expertise in a particular field, whose insights coincide with a broad consensus of other experts.
I hope this has been helpful. If so, I encourage you to share it with others. My heart’s desire is that we would know the truth because, as Jesus said, the truth will set us free.[9] Be loved, dear friends…because you are beloved.
Endnotes:
[1]
The only time I “share” a social media post from someone else is when I am absolutely
confident that the information is one hundred percent accurate.
[2]
You can also find a record of every executive order of every president, along with
other documents of national importance that are public record at the Federal
Register. The website for that is https://www.federalregister.gov/
[3] To
find out how various countries vote on any matter in the United Nations, you
can go here https://www.un.org/en/library/page/voting-information
[4] You
can find AP’s coverage of this story at
this link.
[5]
Key “prophetic” texts include but are not limited to the following: Daniel,
Ezekiel, Revelation, I & II Thessalonians, I Corinthians 15, and the Olivet
Discourses of Matthew, Mark, & Luke.
[6] “…do
to others what you would have them do to you.” Matthew 7:12
[7]
This acronym stands for Black, Indigenous, People of Color.
[8]
This acronym stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender, and Queer.
[9]
John 8:32
No comments:
Post a Comment