A News Skeptic

      Even the most skeptical among us have had this happen: A friend or relative forwards an e-mail from an organization with a safe-sounding name (“The Clean Air Initiative,” “The Center for Consumer Freedom”), but the e-mail is filled with scary assertions, usually of a political nature. If the Obama-care health bill is passed, Grandma will face a “death panel” that will decide if she lives or dies; if Barack Obama is re-elected, America will soon become a Marxist or Muslim nation. Some of the chain-emails are obvious partisan propaganda. But some are more subtle . . .

      This is the opening paragraph of How To Be a Skeptical News Consumer by Donna L. Halper.  Since it overflows with her biases and tends to ramble, I have paraphrased the important content below.  You can read the article in its entirety at http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-06-12/.
      Even the most skeptical among us have had this happen: A friend or relative forwards an e-mail from an organization with a safe-sounding name (“The Clean Air Initiative,” “The Center for Consumer Freedom”), but the e-mail is filled with scary assertions, usually of a political nature. If the Obama-care health bill is passed, Grandma willface a “death panel” that will decide if she lives or dies; if Barack Obama is re-elected, America will soon become a Marxist or Muslim nation. Some of the chain-emails are obvious partisan propaganda (There is little if any chance of any president, whether Barack Obama or anyone else, imposing Marxism or Islam on America; and the Affordable Care Act [its official name] contains nothing about “death panels”). But some are more subtle, relying on truncated (or fake) quotes, or manipulated facts. And while we most often see these sorts of false (but credible-looking) assertions made during elections, they can also be generated by interest groups trying to peddle unproven cures for diseases, or anti-science advocacy groups who oppose fluoridation or vaccination.

      We are supposed to live in an “information society,” but sadly, much of what we see and hear is not entirely accurate. Often on the Internet some “fact” is posted on one site and then reposted hundreds of times, as if the amount will somehow prove it’s true. This is an aspect of Argumentum ad Populum, or the Bandwagon effect—if millions of people believe X, it must be true.  It’s on Wikipedia (or some other frequently read site), so it must be true.

      Instead of relying on Wikipedia, prefer signed articles, so the author is known.  Some of its articles are quite thorough and informative. But others contain well-traveled myths and rely on volunteers to correct them. Rule number one of media literacy: Know who created the message, so you can factor in whether the creator was pushing a special agenda. History can be written by both the winners and powerful publicists.

      The proliferation of fake news and erroneous information is nothing new. It can be traced back hundreds of years. It can be intentional, created in order to sell newspapers, such as the technique used by tabloids. For example in late August 1835, the New York Sun published an authoritative-looking piece about a famous British astronomer who used a new telescope to discover life on the Moon. The Sun used standard technique of citing an “expert,” using scientific jargon, and claiming that his “discovery” had appeared in a prestigious journal. At that time fact-checking was difficult and few readers asked the appropriate questions:  Did a “real” expert actually write what the article? Did the journal exist, and was this work published in it? Eventually, the story was shown to be an elaborate fraud and the sources of the Great Moon Hoax.

      Orson Welles’ “War of the Worlds” broadcast from late October 1938 is frequently cited and another example of media fraud. The broadcast was so realistic with scary sound effects that many listeners were certain they were hearing news.  Today, we know that reports of mass panic after the broadcast can be exaggerated, but the broadcast sounded so authentic that millions of listeners were convinced the United States was under attack from Martians. There still are programs on television about “ghost-hunting” or about houses that are allegedly haunted; and because they are often well-produced and make good use of special effects, gullible viewers think they must be true.

      Many times the media gives credence to pseudoscience, and not just to sell papers or get bigger radio and TV ratings. Far too often, journalists who lack a background in science simply repeat what a press release claims to be true, or quote from someone else’s article without checking into its veracity.  When confronted with a very dense and jargon-filled academic essay, they find ways to give it more mass appeal. In 1922–1923, many otherwise reputable newspapers eagerly touted a new “miracle man”—a doctor from France named Emile Coué, who could cure people by teaching them positive thinking, and having them chant “Every day, in every way, I’m getting better and better.” Coué was not a doctor and there was little objective evidence of any cures, but that didn’t stop reporters from going to his presentations and marveling at the people who were no longer blind, lame, asthmatic, or terminally ill. His notoriety led to the emergence of an entire cottage industry, with radio programs devoted to American “experts” in the Coué method, and schools that claimed to teach anyone how to derive amazing results.  

      It’s not just scary chain e-mails that should warrant skepticism and critical thinking. Politicians love to give non-threatening or positive names to laws that would otherwise inspire debate and controversy. Two good examples: the PATRIOT Act, which evoked emotions of standing up to terrorists and showing pride in being an American and the “Healthy Forests Act.”  But the “Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act” contained some provisions that civil libertarians and privacy advocates still vehemently oppose. The “Healthy Forests Act” sounded like something worth doing, it actually encouraged more logging in national forests. Whether logging is a good thing or not, the name did not reflect the provisions the act contained. Always Find out who is actually behind the innocuous-sounding name, in order to ascertain if the presented facts can be trusted.

      Then there are fake quotes. Did you know that the Founding Fathers said America is supposed to be a Christian nation? Did you know that they also insisted that a nation that did not rely on the Bible would never prosper? If you believe these chain e-mails sent by conservative Christian advocacy groups then you have probably been told that the American founders were opposed to the government helping the poor and they especially feared the rise of socialism.

      In journalism, it’s a truism that “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” Just because it’s from Mom doesn’t mean she had accurate information. Always fact-check quotes, because even if the person actually said it, often the quote is taken out of context. Take the time to fact-check the quotes, even the ones that “everybody” believes to be accurate. Make sure that the person really said it, and the context supports the way the quote is being used. However, be careful with the Internet. Whereas it is a great benefit in finding actual sources for quotes, it has also been part of the problem. It is very easy to put up an authoritative-looking website with a very ideological agenda.

      So much of what the media turns out is entirely false, mythically inflated, politically charged, ideologically loaded, or a mixture of facts and fiction. Many people have trouble distinguishing between verifiable fact and unproven opinion. Nevertheless, we all have a duty to think for ourselves and not rush to judgment just because of something we heard in a broadcast or read it.

“A robust will to doubt, to examine statements, and to measure them alongside common sense and experience is a hallmark of the civilized mind.”

- Uncle Dudley, “Radio and Skepticism.” Boston Globe, 1 November 1938, p. 14. (quoted not verified).