Article Highlights:
Big tech social media platforms intentionally manipulate user experience for profit
Media uses emotion to drive messaging in order to increase engagement
Suggested tools for discerning accuracy of media from multiple sources and platforms
Discerning Truth in Media Part 1 explored media bias in mainstream sources along with challenges facing journalists. These are not the only challenges we face as media consumers, as big-tech-owned social media and independent online media are rapidly replacing mainstream media sources for many people. Big tech social media, in particular, has its own methods for influencing users.
Perhaps the easiest ways to understand how big social media companies manipulate information is to watch the docu-drama The Social Dilemma. I highly recommend it. The content of this documentary was provided by a few social media tech insiders who were alarmed by what they had created, and the drama aspect illustrates how we are influenced by their creation. Social media is filtered by algorithms, which are small, mathematics-based, procedures or programs that solve a recurrent calculation or problem.
A short synopsis of the documentary:
Maximum profit is the goal of social media companies
Profit is achieved through advertising and through selling of user data
User time is maximized to ensure the greatest advertising exposure
Algorithms monitor user habits, learning what topics and/or viewpoints most interest each user
Algorithms expose users to learned topic preferences with the intent of lengthening user engagement
As users view algorithm filtered content, alternative viewpoints or topics are removed without users recognizing the information bias
Results: Users become emotionally hooked, tech earns more advertising dollars from extended user engagement, user-preference data is marketed to outside advertisers
Outcomes of this arrangement:
Users and their data become the product
User’s viewpoints become increasingly solidified due to constant reinforcement from algorithm-filtered information
Viewpoints of separated user groups increasingly deviate
User’s viewpoints become hardened, leading to rejection of alternate views
Does this sound familiar? And we wonder why our society has become divisive and increasingly fractured.
A few months ago, I created a Twitter account because I kept hearing how much useful information was available there. I learned that is a true statement. I also learned that the platform operates largely on emotional responses.
On a couple occasions, upon being irritated by a particular piece of news, I made pithy, sarcastic comments (that I later wish I hadn’t made). I was fascinated observing those comments getting thousands of ‘likes’. In contrast, non-emotional, fact-rooted comments I have made get very little response. It was clear to me from this experience why Twitter is an emotion-riddled, and often bias-pushing platform loaded with sarcasm and cynicism. Users quickly learn how to craft messages that garner a following.
On the other hand, I have found some of the best fact-based, often data-rooted information available anywhere on the Twitter platform. This is especially true in the financial space, but over the past couple years, also for finding emerging scientific information related to Covid. In other words, it is possible to find useful, reasonably accurate information if one knows where to look. This is true for the internet in general.
I rarely use Facebook because I don’t want it consuming my time, although I do have an account. I also created Telegram and GETTR accounts because some people I wanted to follow could only be found there. My take on these social media platforms:
Twitter is a war taking place in a diamond mine. If you are careful, you can locate some gems, just try not to get blown up or hit by a stray bullet. Facebook is a community potluck. Some of the food is nutritious, some is mostly for show, and on occasion a rabble rouser shows up to annoy everyone. Instagram is largely for looks. Telegram and GETTR are the land of dissidents and the censored.
Short of completely tuning out all news, how can we make sense of today’s barrage of media, bypass the bias, avoid the manipulation, and most importantly, determine what is accurate? I am not aware of any hard-and-fast rules, but I can share a general framework for how I approach the problem.
The first action I take is to sense its tone. The tone tells me whether the piece is intending to elicit an emotion, or whether it is intended to provide facts. Of course, all authors have emotions, so every piece will be a mix of both; however, it is not that hard to discern pieces intended to trigger emotion because they have trigger words and phrases, as well as other techniques.
With practice, I have found it possible to recognize those words. This requires approaching the story without opinion or passion, for these cloud my ability to recognize emotional hooks in the writing. If the message creates an emotional response in me, that is a red flag.
Let’s look at a few examples of words journalists use to elicit emotions.
Breaking News – attention grabbing
Anxious – raise fear
Heartbroken – induce sadness
Discover – create feeling of anticipation
Huge – create excessive sense of importance
Limited (offer) – fear of missing out
Words used in media to imply legitimacy without basis:
Experts say
Absolutely
Insider (information)
According to unnamed sources
Words used in media to imply illegitimacy, often used to steer away from a viewpoint or story:
Conspiracy theory
Fake news
Controversial
Fringe
Disinformation
This is just a short list of words used to elicit an emotional response. These hooks can also come through pictures. Here is an example of a picture illustrating an emotional hook for a current event.
The photo on the left was posted on Twitter shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine. Note the symbology – children with a stuffed animal and a toy gun saluting troops riding tanks with Ukrainian flags. This elicits a feeling of patriotism. The problem is, this photo, as noted on the right, was actually from an earlier post in 2016, that was apparently taken during a Ukrainian flag day parade. Even if it was a current photo, its message is not indicative of what really happens in a war.
The above photo was tweeted by the US congressman from my congressional district in Illinois. Numerous people replied that this photo was from an earlier event and was taken out of context. Nevertheless, others responded that they thought this was a powerful photo that should be used anyway. I found this telling because it illustrated how emotions can override truth, even in such a public venue.
Video has an even greater ability to influence emotions because of the combination of image, voice inflection, and body language. Not only that, but video (as well as images) can be manipulated to illustrate a very different story than reality. Watch this short clip to see a remarkable example of a small child nearly ‘falling off a ledge’.
Radio is somewhat middle ground since neither image nor body language can be perceived. People who work with propaganda understand these nuances and use them to their advantage. In fact, the entire advertising industry utilizes these concepts to varying degrees, thus manipulating the message.
“It is easier to believe a lie that you have heard a thousand times, than the truth that you have only heard once.”
- Unknown
I have struggled for decades with the challenge of discerning truth in media. I will confess that I am no discernment expert. I’m not sure anyone is, and those that are, are likely involved in spreading misinformation. Nevertheless, I have developed some tools to filter the news.
First, I focus on the literal meaning of the words while trying to remove the emotional component. In many cases, the statements appear hollow without the emotional component. To make this easier, I sometimes imagine I was from another country, or even another planet, and was seeing this news for the first time. I ask myself, “Does the message”:
Create an emotional response?
Make sense?
Express coherent logic?
Resonate with my sense of truth?
Align factually with other information from this source?
Align with sensible information from other sources that I have decided are trustworthy?
Align with known historical facts?
Change over time when repeatedly addressing the same topic?
Ignore earlier stories on the same topic, especially stories that would discredit this story?
Have a factual, or better yet, data-based foundation?
The next thing I do is look for patterns.
Does the story fit logically with stories I have heard from sources independent to this source?
Does the story fill a hole in my knowledge regarding a bigger picture?
Does the story provide a more logical understanding than prior stories on the same topic?
Is the story consistent with other data I have determined to be trustworthy?
Is the story consistent with quoted statements from earlier stories?
This requires finding independent sources I can trust, which generally takes time and requires looking at a range of sources. I then compare these independent sources to look for common threads, patterns or unique information.
I can’t discuss sources without addressing the somewhat recent emergence of fact checkers. Seems they are everywhere these days. It is not clear to me what qualifies someone to perform that function, so let me provide one example of a fact checker I questioned.
Last year, Dr. Pierre Kory provided Senate testimony regarding evidence for using Ivermectin for treating Covid. In this example, I am not interested in whether ivermectin is effective or not. Instead, I am only interested in how he was fact checked.
Researching his background, it was easy to determine that Dr. Kory has worked for decades as an ICU doctor specializing in respiratory disease. He is one of the most published physicians in the world in this field, having written hundreds of peer reviewed studies and articles. His testimony was fact checked by an AP journalist. This journalist had interviewed a couple other doctors who, based on their statements, were not especially familiar with Ivermectin as a Covid treatment.
Researching the background of this journalist, I discovered she had a couple decades of experience and a journalism degree, but no specialization in medicine or science. Nevertheless, the fact check article declared Dr. Kory’s testimony was false and that no evidence existed Ivermectin was effective. It was clear from the journalist’s article that she had not read any of the studies Dr. Kory had referenced. (I had looked at the studies, which is why I was curious about the fact checker.)
I would expect a fact check article to look at both sides of a story, explain the pros and cons, then present a logical discussion justifying its decision on the matter. None of that happened with this particular fact check article. What bothered me about this article was not that the fact checker had written the article, but that AP had published and promoted it.
My take away was – question everything. Skepticism is healthy.
Of course, I have my own biases, so those need to be evaluated from time-to-time. As a check on that, I have tried changing my paradigm to test if my long-held views matched new information. As an example of this, for a period of time, I followed a certain financial analyst who made a lot of sense to me regarding what I saw happening in the financial system.
At one point, I realized that this analyst’s views were rooted in a deep distrust of those running the financial system, so I stepped back and took a look at the system from that perspective. Sad to report, the activities of large financial institutions did, in fact, make more sense when viewed through this lens. Even more disturbing is that, in my observation, that perspective is increasingly confirmed as the days pass.
Lastly, I try to keep an open mind in case new information disproves something I had earlier taken to be accurate. This actually can be the most difficult part, because it is hard to let go of old beliefs, especially if I have stated them publicly. For that reason, I will default to saying, “I don’t know”, unless I have thoroughly researched a topic and feel confident I have seen enough evidence to support a viewpoint.
More than ever in history, we live in a time where, due to the power of our technologies, our minds are under attack. The challenge is to see through this. It is a turning point, similar to the process we go through leaving the safety of home to face the world. It is outside our comfort zone, so needs practice. In time, if the emotional content can be stripped out leaving only the meat of the stories we encounter, a common thread can be discerned – the thread of reality.
Reality is the goal. It is sort of like swimming in the ocean with no flotation support in sight, then finding the line connected to the buoys surrounding the swimming beach. Rebuff the waves and follow the line to shore, where stable ground is found.
This is not an easy task, and it is unfortunate we must make the effort. But it is necessary, as eloquently described in the following by British activist Maajid Nawaz.
Over time, application of the above strategies has helped me separate media wheat from media chaff. Once I recognize a clear pattern and reject the propaganda, next is the difficult stage of addressing the response of others who have been captured by the emotional hook. Doing so is a good way to upset a relationship. This gives me an opportunity to Have an Impossible Conversation, as discussed in an earlier newsletter.
I have found that learning to discern truth in media is a great tool for learning discernment in other areas of life. Looked at from this perspective, these challenges are a lesson for developing clear-thinking, awareness, integrity, self-honesty, and confidence.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
-- Joseph Goebbels, German Nazi Minister of Propaganda
To summarize my approach to discerning truth in media:
Recognize trigger words and other media intended to create an emotional reaction.
Stay aware of my emotional response and keep it in check, which opens the opportunity for critical thinking.
Evaluate data and evidence from trusted sources.
Apply skepticism to find a logical thread.
Look for patterns that make sense.
Remain open to revising my view of reality as needed.
How do you discern truth in media? Leave a comment.