I was at happy hour with some friends and they were arguing over one of “those” topics we talk about these days. One argued from the CNN perspective while the other argued from the FOX News perspective. They turned to me. What do you think? Where do you get your news from? My answer – I don’t think you really want to know and a lot of places. My friends stared at me like I was speaking Greek.
This question isn’t new for an election year. In 2020, we had the same conversation. Let me explain what I mean by “a lot of places.” I like to verify my sources.
When I was in college, there was always that one crazy person in class who loved to hear, “30% of your grade will be a research paper.” I was the crazy person.
I bring that same research enthusiasm to my consumption of the news, election year or not. However, over the past decade, it has become difficult to digest the varying sources. The internet plays a large role in the problems. In this post, I’ll give you my tips and tricks to identify which news sources and how I use these sources to form my opinions.
Look for Warning Signs
Every morning I’m deleting junk news out of my inbox, the titles of the stories serve as the key to delete. “Two men destroying America” and it won’t just involve your personal wealth. Titles like this are aimed at your emotions to convince you they are right. Delete!
I delete anything that actively promotes racism, homophobia, misogyny, white supremacy and/or violence. Note the word promote. Promoting is different from reporting. When headlines use inflammatory word choices, they are promoting. Why waste my time?
The sources with misinformation, disinformation, and fake news prove harder to spot. We hear these words a lot but what do they really mean? Dictionary.com provides a good write-up on the mis vs. dis information debate. The difference is in intent.
Misinformation is simply a mistake; I might have said that the inflation rate was 3.1% last month when it was 3.3%. In fact 3.1% was for a year and 3.3% was for the month. I got my facts wrong, unintentionally. With the internet, misinformation causes problems because it can spread fast. Good news sources will print retractions and set the record straight as soon as they can.
Disinformation and fake news occur when I get my facts wrong intentionally. I intentionally manipulate the data to get you to join my side of the story. These types of stories, either subtlety or with a sledgehammer, play on your emotions. The emphasis is on the word intentionally. We all have biases and those biases creep into decision making. Disinformation and fake news is not about bias or spin.
How do you identify if a story is misinformation, disinformation, or fake news? Check your emotions at the door and fact check.
Just the Facts Ma’am
My go to fact checkers are:
- https://www.factcheck.org/
- https://www.snopes.com/
- https://www.politifact.com/
- https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/
There are a lot more fact checkers than these. Even fact checkers can get it wrong. If it’s a topic you really want to understand, use more than one source and more than one fact checker
Who is talking about this story?
If a story catches my attention, I go to more than one source. I’ll talk about bias later, but news sources select which stories to report based on their bias. If it doesn’t play well in their wheelhouse, they may not consider the story important enough for prime time or page one. News sources are businesses, they need readers/viewers. If they lean to the left and a story can’t be spun in a way their consumers like, they may not report it (or vice versa for the right).
I have three basic types of sources in my news stream: Broadcast TV, Cable TV, and Newspapers.
The broadcast TV stations such as ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX are nationally transmitted through local affiliates, TV stations operated in your local area. They are subject to federal regulations (FCC). I usually listen to broadcast TV stations in the morning because I also want local news, weather, and traffic.
The cable TV stations are transmitted through coaxial or fiber-optic such as BBC, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC. They are not regulated through FCC and can broadcast news 24 hours a day. I’ll tune into a cable TV station in the evening before one of my favorite shows comes on.
I get news feeds from my favorite online newspapers such as The Economist, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post and a few other research groups that like to give me chart and graph data. If the story is breaking news, I should be seeing it in multiple sources.
What is the credibility of my source?
Regardless of whether it’s an online newspaper or a TV news source, I check the bias, accountability, and veracity of the source. For example, if this is a source I have not used before, I look to see if they have a code of ethics. Does the author have a LinkedIn profile or is there a website with their credentials?
That’s a lot of work, right? Well, there are some sites to help you quickly identify if this is a new source you can trust. My two favorites are:
Media Bias Fact Check gives you a bias and credibility rating for a news source. For example, the BBC has a left-center bias with high factual reporting and credibility ratings. If you look up BBC, the Media Bias Fact Check site provides a page of explanations around why BBC has those ratings.
All Sides provides three news sources for a story: one from the left, one from the right, and one from the center. I can click into the story and get their synapsis on the context details and how the media covered it from the different viewpoints. They provide links to news stories from each viewpoint.
Fact vs. Opinion
Why is bias and credibility so important? Even though Journalists have a professional code of conduct, they are still people. They research the facts, but then add the flair of their opinion. Sometimes it is hard to separate facts from opinions.
Reality check – when a newscaster gets excited and you hear it in their voice – opinion. I block out the emotional ranting and look up the story in a paper where I can dissect the words used for reporting vs influencing.
Fact – it can be verified. Opinion – personal belief. It sounds easy, but it’s not. For example:
- “The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.” Fact. It’s been that way since humans have been on the earth. Qualifier – on earth (for those of us who are science fiction minded).
- “The sky is blue.” Maybe fact maybe not. Today, the sky is gray. If someone is blue-green color blind, the sky may never be blue. Perspective can cloud facts. It is more accurate to say, “sometimes the sky is blue depending upon if you can see the color blue.”
- “The sunrise is beautiful.” Opinion. I love sunrises. I haven’t met a person who doesn’t think the sky is pretty when it gets all fiery. But someone may not like sunrises, this is my opinion.
Controversial Topic Example – Southern Border
Now for some fun. The Republicans and Democrats are fighting over border and immigration policy. My home state of Texas has been prominent in the news these days. Yes, here in Texas we are talking about this issue a lot.
The problem statement — What is this topic about?
Let’s start the analysis by identifying word choices in the problem statement.
- “We are being invaded by drug dealers on our southern border.” There are two concepts in this sentence that are inflammatory: invasion and drug dealers. This sentence is meant to make me angry and a call to arms.
- “We have a millions of immigrants at the southern border.” This sentence states the situation but paints the picture of the population of Los Angeles creating a city along the Rio Grande and not quite accurate.
- “The U.S. Border Patrol reported more than 1.6 million encounters with migrants along the U.S. Mexico border in the 2021 fiscal year, more than quadruple in number of the prior fiscal year and the highest annual total on record.” The numbers are alarming, but I know who reported the numbers, what the numbers are and when the numbers occurred. I can verify the source.
Infomration Gathering – What are News stories saying?
Next, let’s look at a few news sources keeping in mind the word choices and how it spins their reporting. The problem is the increasing numbers of immigrants at southern border and there is legislation regarding potential solutions to the problem.
Fox News published a report on Dec 6, 2023 (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/conservative-coalition-gop-leaders-watering-down-border-measures-spending-deal). We know Fox News is rated as extreme right. The title lets you know they are reporting the side that is not happy about the proposed border solution, “Conservative coalition warns GOP Leaders against ‘watering down’ border measures to clinch spending deal.” What I get by reading this article is the Republican leaders in the House want H.R. 2 as part of the White House request for aid to Israel and Ukraine. Democrats in the Senate oppose H.R.2. Some conservatives think H.R.2 isn’t strong enough. The reporter, Adam Shaw, does a good job of sticking to the facts, the video is a bit more inflammatory and finger pointing. They really want to get me upset. It’s on video right? Video is fact? Perspective. What are they not showing me on that video?
CNN published a report on Dec 7, 2023 (https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/06/politics/senate-israel-ukraine-border-security/index.html). We know CNN is rated extreme left. The title lets you know the border policy has been tied to aid for Ukraine and Israel. “Senate impasse over border policy continues to threaten aid to Ukraine and Israel.” What I get from reading this article is the Republicans and Democrats appear more concerned about arguing about the border than providing aid to Israel or Ukraine. I learn that pairing the border policy with foreign aid was a Republican requirement. True to CNN form, we get a lot of quotes that give us a flavor of the personalities involved, but also tend to sway us from the facts. The video focuses on the issues in Ukraine, and they want to get me upset about the war in Ukraine. Inflammatory but for another cause. They too have cherry picked data to support their viewpoint.
While both news sources are reporting some facts, they have a strong spin to their stories. As a consumer of the news, I feel it is my responsibility to know the spin. CNN is trying to persuade me that Republicans are the bad guys. Fox New is trying to get me to agree with Republicans.
What are the facts I’ve learned thus far? Republicans want minimum of H.R.2 and pushed to have this policy added to foreign aid for Israel and Ukraine. Democrats are putting a border policy in with the Foreign Aid request, but Republicans seem to be drawing a line in the sand on negotiations because Democrats do not have a strong enough border policy.
What did these stories not tell me? What is in H.R.2 that is so controversial? Why did we tie Foreign Aid together with Immigration Policy?
I could go to the government site and read the H.R.2 bill. Or I could go to a source that is rated as least biased, The Hill. Media Bias Fact Check tells me The Hill has mostly factual reporting with High Credibility. On Jan 4, 2024, The Hill published a story about the border bill, “5 things to know about the border bill at the heart of GOP Shudown threats” (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4390204-5-things-to-know-about-border-bill-hr2-gop-shutdown-threats/) In The Hill’s write up, I get more information about H.R.2 than I could learn by simply reading the Bill. One item I’ll note, the author, Saul Elbein, is from Texas.
In this article, I’m provided with an analysis of the E-Verify system’s advantages and disadvantages. The asylum claims section contains some fact checks but held more opinions reported from other sources than data. The section on building a wall gets weaved together with issues about Department of Homeland Security legal requirements and a 2006 Bill from the Bush era, pointing out difficulties of a wall without addressing any data about the efficiency of a wall. The section on migrant children has no data, but simply states what H.R.2 requires. The last section discusses what is not included in HR2, a path for citizenship. While this article presents more verifiable statements than FOX News or CNN, I still get a spin on this article.
Follow up — what are my next steps?
So now I have a little more information about H.R.2. I can also go to the congress web site and read the bill and I can start to look for data on how effective is this bill and is it really going to solve the problem or make it worse.
Now for the secret sauce — what are these guys really arguing about? Is it really the border or do they have another adgenda? For those answers, I have to start digging into the personalities of the folks on the hill who are so vocal about their perspectives.
Ask me my opinion …
When it comes to a controversial topic and someone asks me what I think of X, what do you think is my first thought? I think – Do they really want to know or are they looking for me to simply agree with them to validate their opinion?
We are all entitled to our opinions. Sometimes we agree. Sometimes we don’t agree. When I was teaching Introduction to Anthropology, on the first day of class I had a student walk out because we were going to cover the Theory of Evolution. Unfortunately, that student didn’t wait to find out that the Theory of Evolution has data that both supports and refutes the hypotheses that make up the theory. In class, my students had to back up their conclusions with verified sources. They did not have to agree with me.
In real life, I’m not as hard on my friends. The side you take and the way you come to your decision is your choice. I simply have a different method to come to my conclusions than most. Sometimes I may agree with you. Sometimes I may not. I will however try to be respectful of your opinion even if it is not the same as mine. All I ask it for you to please allow me my foibles in decision making.
References
https://www.dictionary.com/e/misinformation-vs-idsinformation-get-informed-on-the-difference/
https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
https://www.texastribune.org/2010/09/02/bill-hobby-on-the-1984-education-reform-battle/
Great post and very informative. I also like The Economist. I use the Associated Press App to get quick updates and still use some US Government news sources. I check CNN and NBC sometimes.
Thanks. I have not used the associated press app, but will check it out. And yes, lots of government sites are in my bookmarks. 😀
I agree with you, but would like to add, that in my experience a number of people go astray trying to be reasonable by giving equal credit to different sources, as the truth may not lie in between claims. For example, if one source says the Earth is round and the other one states it is flat, the truth is not that the World is lense shaped. That is one more reason, why the fact checking, you refer to, is so important. Perspective affects what the facts look like to us. CNN is not left leaning at all, when looking at it from here in Finland. On our political field it would be considered more like moderate right.
One problem of different media sources is ownership. Privately owned media is inclined to lean on supporting private ownership and all the priviledges it offers. State media may be inclined to support the government, unless regulated and protected by democratically set law to keep political integrity, as with our state media the YLE, or indeed the BBC. The fact, that the BBC appears leaning left may not be as much a result of their reporters holding left leaning sympathies and biases, as it may be, that their reporting is actually more accurate.
Excellent points. Thank you. In fact, I’ve been pondering the meaning of some of the words we use to describe perspectives. I’ve always considered myself right leaning, slightly conservative. However, in the past decade, my views have not changed, but I’m now in the liberal camp. How did that happen? Lol
Perhaps, it is just that the world has changed around us, as it all the time does? Populism has reared it’s ugly head both here in Europe and there in the USA. Or perhaps, in addition, you have applied some of your formidable skills of critical thinking and fact checking to your assumed values? For me at least critical thinking has led through a slow process of clearing my mind to see the world in less absolute tones, than I did as a youngster. My parents were Communists, but I see myself more as a democratic Socialist. It is a question of morals to me. What sort of society would I be willing to build, if I did not know what position am I going to have in it? Also in the words of Dr. Spock: “The needs of the many go before the needs of the few.”
Ya had me at the Spock quote! 🙂 Democratic Socialism is admirable although I highly doubt it will ever happen in the US. The taxes would be way to high for most US Citizens to vote that way. We have a few social programs managed by the government: Social Security and Medicare come to mind. Social Security began in response to the Great Depression, the Act was admended in the 1960’s with Medicare. Those two programs get pulled out quite frequently during elections where one party wants to slash them. I hope they don’t. I’ve been paying into them my entire working life! I’ve heard about other countries where the costs of health care and education are funded through government control and taxes. But I haven’t researched the pros and cons.
I am not an actual “Trekkie”, but I do like the optimistic view of future the series paints, as opposed to all sorts of dystopies so often depicted in sci-fi.
OECD countries other than the USA have public healthcare. It is pure Socialism, I admit. What is sad, is that while this the result of marrying Socialism with Democracy, the two should never have been separated. After all Socialism is all about equality and there can be no equality without democracy. Democrac leans on factual news reporting, because voters can only make as good choises as how well they are informed.
In Soviet Union nobody paid taxes, but it was hardly the ideal societ it tried to be. Here in Finland progressive income taxes are paid by the companies they work for. Sensible people commonly understand, that their salary is the netto after taxes, not the brutto paid by their employers. It is always the richest people to whose survival the taxes have the least effect, who make the most noise about losing money to government. A society needs to pay for infrastructure, fire department, military and for example prisons. The less a society invests in education, quality news information and social security, the more it needs to invest on police and prison systems. It is a moral choise. In general people are more willing to pay taxes, if they feel they recieve benefits in return.
My parents could not have afforded for me to go through university, but it is free here, so I went. Naturally I took the place of some rich kid who would have wanted to study archaeology and whose parents could have paid for his studies, but who was less qualified than I in other respects.
In Star Trek they do not use money and when they travel back in time, they are shocked, that they need to pay for a newspaper. One issue definately infecting news, is the commercialist streak to sell us scandals. The fortunes of Murdoch and his ilk are based on selling the fears, preconceptions and biases to the consumer segment most vulnerable to such, who are largely the same segment most vulnerable to advertisment, due to low analytical skills, poor education, or just poor general knowledge base due to cultural reasons. I am generalizing here for brevity, as obviously there is much overlap between different groups, but this is how I see it.