How to Tell What is True and What Is Not
20 February 2017 | Pago Pago, American Samoa
This is a post truth era. We are awash in agendas that color everything. The mainstream media has an agenda presently, with CNN at the vanguard. It is to disparage, slander and misrepresent Trump and his administration to the maximum extent feasible because that is what many of the public who hate Trump want to hear. The mainstream media also fears the changes Trump is taking about.
However, credibility is the price of that policy with other members of that public who are more neutral or who favor Trump. The issue then becomes for all who are interested how to determine the truth in the news, especially on what is occurring.
First, the task is ever and always an individual one. Second, several things need to be considered. a) What is the political bias of the source? That bias can be discerned by reading all or most all of what that source publishes on that topic and related topics, especially including editorial positions. Political direction can be easily determined in that manner. Themes and contentions, implicit or not, can be discerned. It is not difficult to discern the direction of bias. It is super simple in some instances. Degree of bias can also be gauged, but that is harder and requires referants from broad reading.
b) what is truly newsworthy and what is only nominal and perhaps implicitly disparagement needs to be considered. What topics, in the scheme of things should be being addressed seriously and in detail that are or aren't. What is thoughtfully and consideredly presented and what more just serves a political agenda or patronize a part of the public.
c) what is the source and what is the current reputation of that source for neutral objective reporting, especially by keeping facts separate from opinions. Are the two merged and blurred or carefully delineated, as the New York Times used to be, into factual articles and stories and separate editorials of opinion, How bad is the lack of separation? Read over time and in the aggregate does a bias or nominal agenda emerge? Sometimes matters are so blatantly screwed up a quick read or viewing of only a few articles or stories is needed to determine an acute bias or an agenda. Hugely discount such sources.
d) does the source present information neutrally or is something more requested, impliedly or otherwise, to or from the reader? Is a reaction from the reader sought -- of affirmation. What kind of affirmation? If it is "Yeah, that's right," also hugely discount the source.
e) does the information stand up to considered analysis and is it logically compatible or consistent with other known information? What other information is known? By whom?
The last screen or test e) somewhat begs the question by presuming the reader hearer or viewer is capable of analysis and knows how to parse quantum information for verifiability, logical consistency and comparison to what is already known. That brings me to f) the individual's strong need 1) for a quality and usually higher education, or otherwise a well developed thinking capacity and 2) to be widely and well read across a broad range of topics and issues from earlier and nominally good sources so as to have a considered and careful view on matters generally, as the background needed for critical thinking. It can't occur well in a vacuum.
These acquisitions are hard, time consuming and often expensive to get but they lead to and comprise the skill of critical thinking and having a knowledge base on which to apply it. Like cross examination, such critical thinking and the background for it is a powerful tool for getting at the truth They are the best test for veracity and where the American public increasingly misses the boat most badly, especially with declining reading and thinking skills. That is why political lying can now be so successful and is used so much more aggressively now.
Very little misinformation and disinformation can slip by all of these screens, especially f). But two key points remains noteworthy. First, look how much work and effort these skills and the background needed to apply them, require. And, secondly, consider the ability of average Americans to have and apply these skills. Pretty scant among most I am afraid, which makes the practices of faux news and bad media increasingly worthwhile. With declining IQ's, declining reading skills and falling educational standards and opportunities and with the cost of a good education rising out of reach of most, the prognosis is not good even for those who try to apply these screens, especially f).
Deceit, which was learned from the American business community, has made huge inroads into the provision of news and into its media. America is largely unable to deal with it. Much news media is so bad and so politicized it is fair to ask, what sources should be turned to for accuracy and truth? The answer, I am afraid, is none although The Hill comes closer than most. Only by a massive readying of all can truthful news be gleaned. The MSM is not sufficiently choreographed to hide it. Critically read, the Huffington Post, the NY Times, The Hill and several other more outlier sources in aggregate create a leak of the truth or the essentials of it, enough to critically think about it against the background of all you know, if you are adequately well read and informed.
The MSM is so bad, blatant and political these days, like much of the CIA, it should be summarily fired or dismissed. What we have is atrocious, with CNN and HuffPo at the vanguard, contending for the title of the worst. Regrettably that is the way it is going too be for a while, because Trump and the mainstream media are at war and each will say whatever it thinks will gain it stead and hammer the other. Americans should demand better of both and not be so gullibly taken in by either. But alas, we don't and are. We are witlessly divided and we instead just unthinkingly jump to a million conclusions and firmly take sides. All critical thought goes out the window.
The outlook is poor and the American public is as lacking as its media and President. In a way, all deserve each other. So glad I am gone.