'Calling bullshit': the college class on how not to be duped by the news
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Oh, the irony. An article about college class that teaches people to spot bad information online is itself full of standard techniques journalists use to manipulate people.
I see this one a lot lately. Someone drops a phrase that assumes something the author wants readers to remember and believe. The phrase is usually oddly specific, while the author pretends to convey a general idea or talks about something entirely unrelated.
That quote assumes that when people think about "calling bullshit" in relation to the news that they would immediately think of Fox News or The National Enquirer. Is that wrong? Won't most Guardian readers immediately think of Fox News when they read this headline?
When I clicked on this article, I started from a perspective of "Oh look, it's The Guardian, a lefty publication, talking about how Fox News is bad. How shocking". I was wrong.
So yeah, I don't think the bit you quoted is an attempt to manipulate readers. By referencing Fox News, it's just trying to account for what it assumes its readers already think. And I think it's basically correct in those assumptions.
I know an awful lot of people who are too educated and internet-savvy to accept most nakedly-false claims, but happily bite on stats that lack per-capita corrections, or compare rates like change and accuracy without accounting for base values, or even make subtle but concrete errors like confusing 'ppm' with 'ppb'. They may not accept anything farcically false, but "less wrong" is not always "more right", and it's still easy to end up believe an entire-untrue claim off respectable looking sources. I think the focus on Snopes-style truth ratings has sometimes hindered our ability to literally call 'bullshit', asserting that a piece undermines knowledge regardless of its technical correctness.
I'm not sure if this article succeeds at that - I think conflating Fox with The National Enquirer and other sources that regularly invent things outright is a mistake that obscures the discussion. (Fox has run content sourced from RealTrueNews, but the distinction still matters; fake news sites and the media titans legitimizing their stories are different parts of the ecosystem.) But it's a worthwhile attempt regardless.
You make an interesting point about the recent/online deployment of it. Most examples of apophasis are about bringing up familiar topics without owning that action, as with invoking rumors or ad hominems in a debate. But I increasingly see the version you're describe, where it's used as a way to present a very specific statement without needing to defend it. A lot of old uses of the technique only work as a full sentence, specifically to avoid being quoted as saying the inappropriate thing directly. But the new ones do the opposite, very specifically accommodating misleading pull quotes. "As a recent Guardian article about critical thinking courses said, 'Fox News promotes "fake news"...'" The phrase comes into existence, soundbite ready, without anyone needing to actually defend it.
Perhaps this isn't the most extreme example, since the author might readily defend the "fake news" claim, but it still serves to associate the college course with rejecting Fox when that's expressly not the point.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/23/pcc-guardian-m...
Additionally there has been a culture of rivalry and personal dislike between the Graun (and now Buzzfeed news) staff towards Wikileaks from staff who previously worked with them, namely Janine Gibson and James Ball - it's worth following them and reading their tweets. It would be very naive to think this doesn't affect their (now very negative) Wikileaks & Assange coverage.
Agreed. I would trust a reporter who says they don't have any bias when reporting less than one who does and makes it known. Example: If you're a liberal viewpoint reporter, be honest about it. Same with conservative. That way I know which other viewpoints to seek out to verify / counterbalance with.
It’s utterly impossible to verify even a tiny bit of the information you rely on every day from first principle. If you don’t find some way to establish trust, you’re almost literally lost in the wilderness (if you include Google Maps and all map makers in your “trust no one” shtick).
There is an interesting debate over the morality of that lifestyle. It could easily be a net improvement over the current equilibrium of large, coordinated tribal groups. A thing is not automatically good by virtue of being supported by a large group.
For example, someone ignoring the print media would have missed decades of turned-out-to-be-inaccurate dietary advice.
Does it matter? If you resolve always to ACT from first principle, and put your trust in God, why worry about who is lying to you and who is not? Would you treat a liar with less compassion? Would you question God's plan?
You might worry that a friend (or newspaper) is taking advantage of you. But if you allow that to make you cynical and selfish with your own actions, it won't lead to good things.
However the major belief systems on offer today are stunted with so much baggage (e.g. wild claims of the supernatural, conflict with science, outdated morals, etc.) that they don't work for a growing number of people.
As long as there are great unknowns in the universe and in life, which I think there will always be, then there will be an important role for some form of spirituality. And ethics will always be important as well.
We need something better than the major religions of today. They are insufficient. They are not what they claim.
In my own life, having been unable to take on the belief system of my parents, the best thing I've found so far is meditation of the breath along with a dash of Buddhist ethics and philosophy. Of course, I have kept many of the moral teachings from my upbringing, which I appreciate. But it's not the same.
There's more to say, but I don't yet have all of the words. I want better, and if I can tactfully push others to help me find a new way, then I'll try to do so.
I realize my initial comment probably didn't do this very well. Perhaps this isn't even the right venue. Much to think about.
I.e., depending on context, there might not be much use on agreeing about those sentences while still leaving the definitions of "truth", "evil", etc. up to individuals' iterpretation.
Reminds me of the old joke about the man of great faith who was trapped in a flood: https://storiesforpreaching.com/i-sent-you-a-rowboat/.
I think I am safe in opining that even most clergy would describe such a policy as sticking one's head in the sand rather than being true to one's faith.
NATO and the EU have started anti-fake-news efforts to combat this narrative. It was all over EU facebook ads a while ago.
I'm not Russian (you don't have to believe me, but surely you can find some non Russians in your vicinity with the same ideas that wasn't instilled by ...trolls in them), and I find all news outlets are equally untrustworthy. In fact, I find outlets like the "national inquirer" even more trustworthy that rags like NYT and the Guardian, because at least they deal with frivolous stuff, and don't drag whole countries to war to promote their elite's enemy du jour (from WMDs to Collusion, and lots of stuff years before -- if you follow the news for decades, it's more like 1984's "We've always been war with Eurasia").
The case with Russians and NATO is like the old adage: "This beast is very mean: it will fight back when it's attacked.". NATO has been surrounding Russia with bases, and satellite states (using countries like Georgia, changing regimes, etc) ever since the "end" of the Cold War, and they're supposed to just sit back and take it. Because for some reason the US, 10.000 miles away should have say and "strategic interests" in the region (and all over the world where it meddles), but Russia shouldn't have strategic interests in its own borders (including places with ethnic Russian population present).
Only populations naive about politics, that can't follow anything in world affairs besides the crude breakdowns of news "pundits" can ever buy this stuff.
>NATO and the EU have started anti-fake-news efforts to combat this narrative. It was all over EU facebook ads a while ago.
That sentence reads like a complete parody. "Bad X have you fooled with propaganda, but NATO and EU will sort you out with the truth -- Facebook said so".
You're overreading intent where there is little. How else could one state the bare fact that NATO and the EU have started these efforts ? Facebook didn't "say" anything beyond showing the EU anti-fake news ads in EU countries. Feels like you're really fishing here.
When I hear that "NATO will fight fake news" -- the same NATO that had been spreading fake news, carrying false flags, and even installing dictatorships and invading countries, for half a century, well, it's funny to me...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio#Operations_in...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende
And so on...
It's like "There has been crime from this gang in your town, but now Vitto Corleone is coming to put an end to it".
Of course NATO has a mandate to counter enemy info ops, that's just basic defense.
Here's the US DOD doctrine publication covering how the US does it: Joint Publication 3-13, Information Operations. https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_1...
Your examples are badly chosen. The NATO Gladio stay behind network is guerilla warfare, not info ops. Allende was a regime change, conducted by the CIA, not NATO. What are you trying to communicate with them ?
It's also interesting that you lump collusion in with WMDs even though we don't have the full story on at least one of those topics. I feel like you've drawn a conclusion on it, but if not for the media, where are you informing your world view on the matter?
A frivolous way to say I don't care if a story about an alien found or an actor having an illegitimate child are wrong, but I do care about major stories with global implications being distorted in subtle ways, or presented based on the values and interests of this or that country (or political elite in the country).
>It's also interesting that you lump collusion in with WMDs even though we don't have the full story on at least one of those topics. I feel like you've drawn a conclusion on it, but if not for the media, where are you informing your world view on the matter?
30+ years of following world affairs (and not just from mainstream sources), the actual 20th/21st century history of my own country (not a country imposing upon others, but one with actual involvement of others in it, including some dictatorships for us to enjoy), tons of readings on world politics, and 20th and 21st century political and diplomatic plays and ploys, asking "who benefits", judging relative power in the world stage, and so on.
> NATO has been surrounding Russia with bases
There is strong contradiction between these statements. You are either Russian or you have been strongly (perhaps without your own knowledge) influenced by the Russian propaganda.
If you do not believe this then ask yourself, why were the countries near the Russian border so desperate to join NATO?
There's this trend in all tribal politics where the tribes that are geographically nearest to you are the biggest threat, because everybody else would need to go through them to get to you. If you are a weak state bordered by a nearby strong state, your existence as a state is threatened daily. It makes a lot of sense to ally with a stronger but more distant partner to gain leverage over your nearby rivals. The U.S. is a very convenient ally for this because with an ocean on both sides of us, it's difficult for us to directly invade the countries in question without being invited in. At the same time, we have an industrial & military might that's a very useful counterbalance to potential regional aggression.
The same dynamic plays out both in other regions (Taiwan & Japan ally with the U.S. as a check on China; Saudi Arabia allies with the U.S. as a check on Iran; Africa allies with China as a check on the U.S; Cuba allies with Russia as a check on the U.S.); within racial groups in the historical U.S. (black slaves allied with Northern abolitionists against Southern planters); and within social classes in contemporary U.S. politics (minorities ally with urban liberals against the white working class; the white working class allies with old-line business owners against urban liberals; urban liberals ally with technocrats against old-line business owners).
Everything coldtea said was factually correct. I personally don't have a problem with it because I'm American and it's to my benefit to have citizenship in a geopolitically strong nation. But your response is conflating "that which is true" vs. "that which is convenient for me". You can acknowledge geopolitical realism without passing judgment on it.
"NATO has been surrounding Russia with bases, and satellite states (using countries like Georgia, changing regimes, etc) ever since the "end" of the Cold War, and they're supposed to just sit back and take it."
Except this is exactly the Russian narrative coldtea is repeating.
"NATO has been surrounding Russia with bases, and satellite states"
Is this a fact or an opinion?
Joining NATO has been each time initiated by the new member state. Nobody has been called to NATO. Quite contrary, there was clear opposition to this and it was not at all certain if any of the new members would ever be able to join NATO.
This narrative like NATO is circling Russia is repeated every day in the Russian media.
It is not Russian neighbors fault that Russia has constantly demonstrated aggression towards its neighbors and willingness to repeat the invasion. Russian neighbors still remember the genocide that happened after the previous invasion.
"They're supposed to just sit back and take it."
In principle, in a civilized world where Russia has abandoned the expansion idea, yes.
Russia has chosen the isolation. Russia and NATO have been partners for long time but apparently the interests of both do not align anymore.
Edit: I agree with your description of the bigger picture.
Or you know, I could have independently formed my own opinion, and know the facts of that, much more closer to me, corner of the world than somebody in NY or Colorado reading the mainstream news.
It's like somebody following the CNN, the NYT, the Time, the Economist, etc, and their own country's government, experts, and pundit opinions about global affairs
-- without them ever having read people like Chomsky, Zinn, or anybody local on the places they read about (e.g. Eduardo Galeano) that's not an ally chose for interview by said media --
and thinking theirs is the only possible version of history and world affairs, and anything else is X propaganda (or, another term people are conditioned to use, "conspiracy theory").
>If you do not believe this then ask yourself, why were the countries near the Russian border so desperate to join NATO?
The same reason some of those countries liked the Nazis as well in WWII. Because they had beefs with Russia as USSR (which fucked some of them over royally), and now fear it as a powerful player that could do them damage for its interests. That's in many cases the popular sentiment. In other cases, and especially where ethnic Russia populations are concerned is more Russian friendly.
But add some foreign funding to candidates and parties promoting a rift with Russia, constant hammering of "independent" organizations, diplomatic pressure, some lures like loans, investments and aid if they go NATO, and it's a no brainer.
That said, not all of the where that "desperate to join the NATO", and not all at the same degree. Some understandingly, wanted to keep ties with Russia and play both sides, by cheap resources, do business etc. Those players were also undermined (e.g. by "orange revolutions") in favor of more hardcore lackeys (to the detriment of their country's interests too).
I hope you realize how deliciously ironic this paragraph is.
This "narrative" spreads itself. It's a conclusion you reach once you beat the Gell-Mann amnesia. And it's not about whether $tabloid is or isn't equal to $large-national-station. It's about realizing that it's all mostly garbage, and it's a waste of time to try and rate the relative merit of one clickbait source over another.
No basis is better than a bad basis. At least you're not duped into thinking you have a basis.
>It’s utterly impossible to verify even a tiny bit of the information you rely on every day from first principle.
Doesn't have to be "first principles" (no need to reinvent math for example).
Tons of informations we rely on can be verified quite easily with a little personal effort, and some good foundational reading on undisputed stuff (like mathematics, physics, biology, and so on).
For example, you don't need to become a doctor to not be duped by BS fad diets pushed by the media -- you just need to know enough nutrition basics, easily doable (and useful in itself).
And if something (e.g. fracking) is important for you, you can study the literature (starting with books, including university handbooks -- not internet posts, not articles, and not mere scientific papers of random research on the matter), talk to some experts directly (it's not impossible, I've talked with experts in lots of different matters), talk to people in communities nearby, affected, etc, and draw your own conclusions.
The problem is that few journalists are that, and the majority of media are not just full of uninformed journalists, but also pushers of various interests (political party affiliations, government lobbying, private interests, industry lobbies, the newspaper's owner, advertisers, etc).
Small effect size is precisely why you can ignore most nutritional news until it reaches general consensus - because the effect is so small that it's noise in ordinary life (and it's probably noise in the studies too).
Could you link some university handbooks you have found about fracking? And what makes university textbooks more authoritative than a scientific paper? The university handbook could very well have been written by a single author with a particular agenda - that's not removing bias at all.
Handbooks have broader scope, giving you overview of the field. Their job isn't to push agendas or most recent research, but to give you understanding of the basics of a field of study, and an ability to understand other, specialized sources of knowledge.
Maybe I have a bad day for literacy, because I don't know how to explain the self-evident notion that you're better off reading a textbook used to train professionals in a field than reading a single scientific paper, and you're better off reading that paper than reading a news piece.
No, I'm telling you you're talking isolated stuff out of context, taking them to their extremes, and ask questions never implied in the original.
E.g. "So you're telling me a broader book can't have bias?"
No, he says "Handbooks have broader scope, giving you overview of the field and their job isn't to push agendas or most recent research, but to give you understanding of the basics of a field of study, and an ability to understand other, specialized sources of knowledge".
He's not meaning it as an absolute ("no handbook ever had bias"), and he's not speaking about "broader books" in abstract, but in particular (as already said in our thread) university handbooks.
Can university handbooks (and not just "broader books" in general) have bias?
Perhaps, but they're broader in scope than a single study, there are no grant money depending on good results or "publish or perish", they are not reporting on one study's results but on aggregate conclusions from multiple studies, they need to agree with the established truths of the field in general. They have passed more filters than a mere research paper.
>Also, how does that help us understand something like fracking on all it's axises? A geology book might tell you the fundamentals behind the hydrology, but it won't mention the possible environmental impact.
If only there were handbooks and university 101 level treatments of fracking's environmental impact too, and not just hydrology methods. Oh, wait, ...
That was an example, but books by university presses, or used in classes as bibliography, such as the following will do:
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/fracking-neighborhood
https://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-fracking-debate/9780231184...
https://www.wiley.com/en-bw/Hydraulic+Fracturing+Operations%...
>And what makes university textbooks more authoritative than a scientific paper?
That the latter is a random research result, which needs years and years of other studies, peer critique, reproducibility tests, etc, to be considered valid. It's like each random BS research paper touted in the news, only to be found either overblown, misleading, non-reproducible, or wrong by another study later on.
>The university handbook could very well have been written by a single author with a particular agenda - that's not removing bias at all.
That's why I don't suggest reading just one. I say "study the literature" and propose talking to experts and affected people as well. All of which are not hard for a common person -- that cares deeply for the matter and wants to have an informed opinion as opposed "x media said that" -- to do. Let's say it can be done in a month or so.
It's impossible for every subject? We don't have to care for "every subject", or adopt somebody else's stance (we haven't figured out ourselves) just to say we have one...
I've already said: "It's impossible for every subject? We don't have to care for "every subject", or adopt somebody else's stance (we haven't figured out ourselves) just to say we have one..."
Besides, that's the price of having an informed opinion -- instead of being a dupe or a parrot...
>I'm reading this all as "you'll never know anything, so don't bother".
That's surely one interpretation.
Another is, you don't have to know everything, but if you want to pretend you have an opinion on something, pay your dues...
People in my life have ended up in the national news for various reasons. The first time it happened was the first time I really read the news heavily. You learn a lot from doing that:
Plenty of clearly wrong reporting. I say "clearly" from a personal perspective - I knew the people involved, and knew details about their lives that the news just plain got wrong. This wasn't malice - it was sloppiness. The interesting thing is that once one major news organization reports it incorrectly, others follow suit. In a few cases, some of the smaller (regional) news outfits actually got the details right.
When you see that happen in front of you, then of course you'll be skeptical of whatever else you see on the news. And it's not trivial to corroborate from multiple sources, as they often copy from one another and invest very little in independent fact checking.
The corollary is:
When a story isn't big enough (e.g. it gets only one news story and isn't stretched out over time), you really should just ignore it, as you have no way to verify the information.
If you examine the news a lot, you'll realize that for most stories, there is little incentive to get the details right - especially if there aren't powerful counterforces. If the NY Times decides to write a sloppy story against Apple, then Apple is big enough to counter. And even if they didn't counter, other news agencies will have an incentive to counter.
Of if you have a story on a polarizing topic, you can expect pushback and fact checking.
But when you have a story about someone who isn't famous getting arrested for some misdeed, and even if it becomes national news, likely no one will call out sloppy reporting - as long as it is not a polarizing issue. And most news stories are one-offs.
The major media outlets are pretty good at providing transcripts or video of events. They are terrible at summarizing. If there's a news headline that someone said/did something that seems outlandish, 9/10 they didn't say/do that, or what they said makes perfect sense in context (Recent example: A major politician is not going to publicly support infanticide). Always read/watch the source material, preferably from multiple sources because the media will tend to edit out context (recent example: Covington kids). If I can't be bothered to read/watch the source material, then the alleged story wasn't important enough for me to be upset. I can behave as if I'd never even heard of such a thing.
Never believe unattributed/anonymous statements. You should assume any quote that does not have a real person's name attributed to it is a lie. Sometimes it will be true, but not often enough to matter. If it is true, and it's a concern of actual importance, real evidence will surface eventually. Wait for this to actually happen.
Always assume statements made by officials in the lying industry is a lie. That's NSA, CIA, FBI, DHS, etc. The media tends to report, "X official said Y" in such a way that we're supposed to assume Y is a fact now. But the media is almost never critical of these statements and there is often on supporting evidence provided. If it's not important enough to potentially reveal secret techniques by showing me the evidence, it's not a big enough deal for me to care what you said about it. I'm not anti-CIA/NSA/etc. but I understand their role is sometimes to lie to me in order to further some greater agenda like promoting a war effort.
Unless there's a world changing event going on right now, like 9/11 scale world changing event, avoid 24 hour and even daily news. These outlets are drug dealers, selling you an outrage high. Weekly news sources are much better. If a story isn't important enough to make it into the weekly news, it probably wasn't worth spending time on in the first place. Also, being a weekly publication means more of the story has unfolded, and the corrections are more likely to already be baked in. In the 24 hour news cycle, the outrage hot-take gets spread around, and then nobody ever sees the correction/retraction.
I would hope this caveat is obvious, but unfortunately such "question everything" narratives are also commonly spewed by antivaxxers, flat earthers, the alt-right, etc. alongside the classic "do some research".
I think this is summed up nicely by "skepticism doesn't mean denial", or the more pithy "don't open your mind so much that your brain falls out".
No it's not. Questioning climate science at a time where the consensus is near-universal and the consequences are dire and imminent is itself destructive. You need to question what doesn't make sense or isn't supported by evidence, and believe the rest.
especially the Guardian.
This analysis fails to account for the prediction that in early 27th century FTL speeds will be achievable and a woman would invent a relativistic shoe that would allow here to wind the 100 meters dash.
Nobody wants to explain to their 5yo why they can't afford a Barbie Jeep but can afford booze or going out to eat. Nobody wants a teenager that is well versed in assessing the goals and motivation of all the parties in any given situation because they'll recognize all the partial truths they get fed in an attempt to make them to take risks in a manner more like an adult. A teenager that understands statistics well would be impossible to scare into not doing "bad things". Likewise thinking critically is not a high priority thing for parents to teach.
When you're dealing with someone who can't think on the same level as you lying is just so damn easy. They are playing checkers. You are playing seven dimensional chess. Teaching kids to think critically requires a constant effort and directly negatively impacts the parents in the short term. It's like quitting smoking for 18yr, no wonder most people don't do it.
Then, start asking questions: can we trust the information we receive? Is it possible we receive a biased/incomplete/wrong information? Are we being manipulated? Who would benefit from supplying us with incorrect information? correct information? How can we verify the information?
Look at the history. What can we learn from historical events? Have we been lied to in the past? How did we learn that we've been lied to? Who benefitted?
It would go over:
1. Rhetoric
2. Historical methods of propaganda
3. How propaganda spreads
4. "Virality in communication networks" (https://www.amazon.com/Hooked-How-Build-Habit-Forming-Produc...)
5. Gossip
6. Tactics of Manipulation (48 laws of power is a good recording of this)
7. Strategizing on cognitive basis.
For Guardian (or others) to really regain the trust, they should have a WE WERE WRONG article on their front page for as long as their fake story was there. And it should outline where they went wrong and what steps will be taken to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Read any mainstream coverage over a topic you are deeply knowledgeable in.
Apply to all topics
Maybe they should just teach stats...
Edit: pre-empting a nitpick: when I say “wealth” I mean largely as proxied by hairstyle