The Lost Art of Fact Checking
In the early days, it took time, money and effort to publish the news. When a journalist had a story worth sending out, it took multiple people to prepare and load the printing press just to create a single document.
Even with the big rolling printing press, it still took time and money in paper and ink to put out the news twice per day.
Journalists also followed the concept of verifying a story through 3 different sources before printing it. That was the original “standard.”
If a mistake was made, it lingered. Printing a correction, or worse, a retraction, actually meant something. People lost their jobs over publishers eating those costs.
Now, it takes mere moments and an inconsequential cost, which is part of the problem.
With the new glut of instantaneous information, we are overwhelmed with the old brand of yellow journalism. Being first is better than being correct. It’s more important to have a catchy click-bait headline to grab readers and ad revenue.
In the rush, news is grossly inaccurate with missing information, misquotes, and hasty conclusions. Corrections, if they get caught, are slipped in with a meager apology for the “oversight,” if it’s even acknowledged.
In the aftermath, misinformation is now truth. It’s in print, so it must be true!
Further, since news outlets are part of massive publishing conglomerates, that misleading article feeds to all their subsidiaries. With each reposting, the story gains false credibility. It’s indexed and impossible to retract.
To the reader the first three results from Google show the same headline and excerpt forming a truth, so no reason to go further.
It’s not 3 confirmed sources of news, it’s the same misleading article on 3 different sites, owned by the same company. It’s truth by saturation.
Then we have the other side of the coin, which is just as flawed, people who reject factual information no matter how many reputable sources are cited.
When a well researched piece is published, citing all it’s sources, it’s time for “spin doctors” and damage control. Opponents go on the attack and quickly thrust it into the category of conspiracy theory, or fake news. Honestly, how many active conspiracies are in play at any given moment?
“Fake news” has turned into a dismissive buzzword.
Don’t agree with a topic or perception of events, just label it as fake news.
Don’t like a negative opinion, label it conspiracy theory.
Keep repeating this mantra until people start to believe you.
This abusive behavior is known as “Gaslighting.”
In light of the abuses from a former President, it’s also known as “DARVO.”[1]
The point it, we need to do our own fact checking and due diligence. We need to approach News and Social Media with skepticism and common sense. Social media is more concerned with Like and Followers than any sort of truth.
Just because something is in print or broadcast as news show doesn’t make it the truth.
Just because someone is listed as an expert, doesn’t mean they have the credentials or background to support that title. Look back at the “occult experts” from the 80s. Almost all of them were self-appointed.
People make honest mistakes, but equally, there is a lot of deception going on. We have to discern which is which.
Today’s news isn’t about being neutral, or providing objective information. It’s about being shocking and polarizing. Neutrality doesn’t sell ads.
As they say, “Don’t believe everything you read.”
At the very least ask yourself, “Does this sound plausible?”
Here’s a couple of examples:
– The 80s were full of statistics stating thousands of children went missing each week. That’s rather impossible. The lack of evidence was considered proof.
– There is the very real trend to take an isolated incident and claim it’s a trend. An incident involves someone who played a type of game, therefore a blanket statement is made about people who play that game. We can clearly see that with “Satanists worship the devil.” “People who play Grand Theft Auto are prone to violence.”
– Then there is the fun with graphs that have no legends or numbers. A department or company claims they’ve had a significant reduction in spending. Or significant increase in sales.
First thing to ask, what’s the time period? What is the start and ending values? I can easily say my spending from Friday at 5pm until Monday at 9am was down 100%. True, but total nonsense.
– Violence is on the rise… It went up by 0.5%, over the last 5 years. A true statement, but statistically insignificant.
Not a news outlet, but, Wikipedia is a good place to start for a reality check on information especially when it comes to major events or political figures. They perform fact checking, cite their sources, and make note when it’s missing.
There is some riveting reading about today’s politicians and what they’ve introduced as laws and voted on, especially those in Arkansas, Florida, and Texas.