In the post 24-hour news world, where the Internet churns out more articles than anyone could ever read, everyone’s Facebook feed is saturated with links to an ever increasing array of sources. Social Media has made article sharing the way many people stay informed, consequentially disarming their sense of skepticism in regard to where they're getting information.
So what are the good sources, and which of the others should be avoided? With the rise of aggregators, independent online journals, and editorial-news sites, the issue isn’t simply a comprehensive list of ‘good’ and bad’ sources. Sure, some are better and others are certainly worse, but it’s a skeptical reader that’s going to find better information than someone simply avoiding reputably bad sites.
Skepticism is the key word to remember when reading any article, in any context. When it comes to news, the largest issue is rarely false information, but rather how that information is framed. Media is a business, the object is to make money — never forget that. While online media is not trying to ‘sell papers’ like the Newsies, headlines are meant to grab the reader into clicking on a link.
Ad sponsorship rules the web, so clickbait headlines like “(Politician) makes statement regarding hat-wearing laws” gives you just enough information that you know the subject, but it also omits enough that you have to click the link to know what happened. Often harmless, though fairly annoying, this is just an example of how the media operates in generating revenue. Less harmless, however, is the way these headlines are able to frame stories for people who aren’t up to date and won’t actually read the article itself.
If you’re someone who is scrolling down your Facebook newsfeed and happen to have conservative views regarding gun control, Fox News' headlines on Obama’s executive actions may influence your reaction. “Obama’s gun control actions open legal can of worms” or “Obama defends gun control push at town hall, blames NRA for rising gun sales” both appear to be somewhat innocuous — by Fox standards — but already frame or reinforce the reader’s opinion.
The titles of the articles set up two distinct narratives that might not necessarily be true. The title of the first article leans on preexisting notions based on a particular reading of the Second Amendment, catering to those who favor Antonin Scolia’s views on the subject. Someone who already agrees with this point might see his position as validated without even having to read the article, or might read the article and assume his position vindicated — confirmation bias at its finest.
The second article’s use of the word “defend,” implies Obama is facing large push-back, which while is certainly true in some circles, it is not ubiquitously reflected in national polls regarding majority public opinion. Doing this frames the reading of any quotes from Obama as defensive and oppositional rather than productive and nuanced. Those who lean on Fox too heavily for news on this subject are then exposed to a pre-framed view and are unable to see the issue from different vantage points. This kind of insular understanding of social issues really hinders politics as people have only been presented with half the facts and entirely within a certain context.
Back to skepticism; how do you approach an article without falling for an agenda, buzzwords, or misrepresentation of facts? A good start is always considering the host of the article; if the domain is Fox News, know that it is likely to skew things conservatively and omit key data. On the other hand, sites like Counter-Current News and Complex both tend to be skewed liberally, and the former can be fairly untrustworthy in representing facts.
As mentioned before however, it’s not likely that you’ll always know the credibility of the site — This is where Google and Wikipedia become handy tools. If you’ve never heard of the organization before, you should be extra skeptical; to avoid getting false information, it doesn’t hurt to do a quick google search to see if this is a site that's frequently publishing misinformation. As an example, searching “Counter Current News” yields results from sites like Real or Satire and The American Press Institute, both questioning the site’s credibility.
If a quick google search brings you several links that have to do with bad reporting, it’s a safe bet that this is not where you want to get information. In the same realm, if a headline appears a little too remarkable, or glaringly odd, like ‘new drug could make humans live up to 120’, it might be worth searching that headline as well. The media is concerned with traffic, so headlines are not meant to capture nuance or complicated points, they’re supposed to grab attention. Claims like those about the revolutionary property of a drug will make people click, but cursory searches would provide you with a dozen articles from science websites debunking the whole thing.
Science is a key point in reading skeptically, as most media sites are not concerned with accuracy enough to have dedicated writers educated in subjects like biology or physics. Many science-related articles borrow from titles and abstracts of studies, without even reading the data. Often enough, correlation begins to equal causation, and preliminary results begin to be touted as facts. It’s worth noting, while we’re here, that Health/nutrition related articles often cite things largely out of context or studies that have been disproven.
For an example, take FoodBabe (Vani Hari) —the best representation of ineptitude and new-age, pseudoscientific, anti-academic movements that spread misinformation to peddle their own wares. FoodBabe, a person with absolutely no academic background in nutrition, cited a particularly awful study when asserting that microwaves should be avoided at all costs. The study she references was that of a Dr. Emoto, who claims that shouting ‘Hitler’ and ‘Satan’ at water changes its molecular structure. Still, despite the obvious lunacy, Hari enjoys a large following whom she instructs in purchasing the —not at all conflict-of-interest— products of her sponsors that conveniently sell unregulated alternatives to the FDA approved products she defames.
People like Hari depend on scientific ignorance and fear, and it’s important to be able to discern these tactics. People invoking buzzwords like: toxin, radical, terrorist, and using phrases like: what they don’t want you to know, or big pharma/oil/government are trying to capitalize on cultural mythologies that people already have learned —conditioned— responses to. These people will always find some study to cite, but a citation is not the same thing as proving a point and the only way to really be informed is to actually read those sources for yourself.
No news source is going to be objective, but objectivity does not equate to good or even accurate reporting. The Fairness Doctrine that the American media so emphatically espouses misrepresented the scientific consensus on climate change as a “debate,” because it was trying to be objective. When looking at articles online, the tone of forced objectivity can be fairly telling of skewed reporting. Sites like The New Yorker write very opinionated pieces, but they are heavily researched and use information rather than buzzwords. When you read the news, read it skeptically, and read with the knowledge that any free news outlet is focused first on selling your interest to advertisers and second on anything else.
