One of the greatest challenges in the Age of Information is filtering through the mountain of information we receive to get to the truth. In past eras people got their news from newspapers, which lived or died based on their reputation. Today, people have a virtually unlimited source of information at their fingertips through 24/7 news cycles, social media platforms, short video blurbs, and algorithms that feed you information based on how you will react. For better and for worse, everyone now is a journalist and news editor. News sources no longer have to uphold a reputation for truth, but seek views, clicks, and likes. News has become less about what happened, as it has become about how you should feel about what may or may not have happened, and more importantly, who you should be angry with. Everyone now must also become an analyst to sift through the bias and propaganda.
This is a case where technology has outpaced our ability to transform our mindset to adapt to the new way of acquiring information. Our brains are naturally wired to think quickly and help us survive life and death situations. We naturally learn to jump away from three types of snakes: big snakes, little snakes, and sticks that look like snakes. A quick, reactionary brain is more likely to survive a snake attack that a slow, analytic brain which must examine the features of the snake to determine its species, and whether or not it is venomous. You are more likely to survive running away from a bush that looks like a bear than analyzing a bear that looks like a bush.
When it comes to finding truth, our quick survival brains fail us. We often accept things to be true when they are not, and we frequently reject the truth when the evidence is all around us. Complicating our difficulty in finding the truth is the fact that we become emotionally attached to our beliefs. We naturally feel that our beliefs are right, and make us better than those who believe differently. We naturally like people who share our beliefs, and naturally assume those who believe differently are ignorant, stupid, or evil. This becomes a difficult barrier to overcome, as we are blind to our own wrongness and our own biases. If we can't see our own biases, how can we filter it from the propaganda we see? We must learn to think analytically, even if we have never before been taught how to do so. Below are several tools you can use to identify bias and propaganda in your news sources. Some are simple, while some are more complicated. Learn to use whichever techniques make the most sense to you.
Count The Adjectives
In our high school English classes, we all learned to use descriptive words to paint picturesque scenes in our readers minds. Adjectives are great tools for literature and works of fiction. They help immerse the reader into the world the author wishes to create. Adjectives are also effective tools of propaganda intended to influence the audience into believing a certain viewpoint. This is effective in works such as Jonathan Edwards' sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", or in Billie Holiday's "Strange Fruit".
Both of these works were powerful because of the descriptive adjectives they used. Both were meant to influence, rather than to inform. However, when our goal is information, we must be aware of the adjectives, as they can shift our perspective of how we interpret the information provided. This simple step can help us weed out much of the propaganda we may come across. Take the opinion piece below, for example:
The Party of Freedom: A Stinging Rebuke to the Party for the Future
In the ever-evolving theater of politics, where the stakes are high and the stakes are personal, we find ourselves in the dire position of needing to address the woeful and absurdly misguided efforts of the so-called Party for the Future. This group, which purports to champion progress, is in reality a cesspool of malevolent, imprudent, and grotesquely ignorant ideologues whose policies could spell disaster for our nation.
At the heart of their pernicious agenda lies a cavalcade of reckless and harebrained schemes that showcase not only their staggering ignorance but also their sinister, almost villainous intent. Their policies are a perilous blend of catastrophic miscalculations and misguided fantasies, driven by an utter lack of understanding and an alarming propensity for endangering our future.
To say their proposals are flawed would be a grave understatement. Their plans are not merely misguided; they are catastrophically naive and dangerously destructive. Their economic policies, for instance, are a parade of absurdity, marked by laughable oversights and a dangerous detachment from reality. These policies threaten to undermine our economic stability, leaving us in a quagmire of debt and despair. The Party for the Future's economic strategies are as flimsy as they are foolhardy, reflecting an alarming incompetence and an insidious willingness to gamble with our prosperity.
Moreover, their environmental policies, while ostensibly green and progressive, are riddled with impractical and incoherent measures that would wreak havoc on both our economy and our way of life. Their approach is characterized by a dangerous blend of ideological rigidity and environmental extremism, leading to a series of harebrained initiatives that are as unfeasible as they are radical. Instead of fostering genuine, sustainable progress, they are pushing us toward a bleak, dystopian future where common sense is an endangered species.
Their social policies are equally lamentable, dripping with an absurd level of paternalism and a disturbing disregard for individual freedom. The Party for the Future’s social agenda is a grotesque amalgamation of overreach and authoritarianism, aimed at dismantling the very fabric of our democratic society. Their policies not only undermine personal liberties but also promote a dangerous and invasive government overreach that is antithetical to the principles of freedom and autonomy.
Furthermore, their leadership is a caricature of incompetence, a tragicomedy of poor judgment and misguided zeal. The figureheads of the Party for the Future are as inept as they are overconfident, leading their followers down a path of destruction with a disturbing lack of self-awareness and responsibility. Their speeches are a hollow echo of empty promises, and their decisions are driven by a toxic mix of ignorance and hubris.
In conclusion, the Party for the Future represents everything that is wrong with contemporary politics—a dangerous, delusional, and profoundly foolish group whose actions could very well lead us to the brink of disaster. Their policies are a cocktail of recklessness and malevolence, their leadership a farce of incompetence. As we navigate these tumultuous times, let us remain vigilant against the pernicious influence of such a misguided and hazardous faction. The Party of Freedom stands resolute in its commitment to reason, liberty, and practical progress, firmly rejecting the catastrophic folly espoused by the Party for the Future.
Based on a simple count of the adjectives in the AI-generated opinion piece above, one can clearly see that the writer for the Party of Freedom is attempting to dissuade readers against the Party for the Future. You may have never even heard of these fictional parties before, but now you may have strong feelings against one.
As a second example, take a look at this news report from North Korea during the early days of the COVID pandemic. Count the adjectives used in this report:
Using the adjective-counting technique, you will see that this news report was relatively straight-forward, meant to inform the people of a newly spreading virus, and does not attempt to lay blame or influence people toward emotions.
Practice the skill of counting the adjectives. Start with news stories from sources you don't normally get you news from, and on topics you normally don't follow. This will help eliminate some of your own biases while you develop this skill. Once you you can effectively identify biases in foreign news, try it with news sources you typically disagree with. This should be easy, as propaganda you disagree with will be easy to spot. Once you have mastered this skill, try it on your own sources of news. Spotting bias in your own news is much more difficult, but much more important when seeking the truth.
Characterize the adjectives
Once you have counted the adjectives in a news piece, you may already have a good idea of whether the piece is informative, or meant to influence. The next step will be to characterize the adjectives. Ask yourself "What emotion does this adjective try to conjure?" Some of the usual culprits include "Extreme", "Draconian", "Reckless", "Catastrophic", "Unprecedented", and many more. Once again, descriptive adjectives are effective in works of fiction, and works intended to persuade, but are a deterrent to truth when used in news sources. Using the same method as above, read through an article about a topic you are not familiar with, and characterize the adjectives used in the article. Start with the opinion piece above about the Party for the Future. Then, as you have mastered this skill, try it on news you are more familiar with, and ending with your favorite news sources. Learning to weed out propaganda will bring you much closer to uncovering the truth.
Evaluate Your Sources Over Time
The Internet lasts forever, or at least so far. Go back in time and see what your news sources said five or ten years ago. What were they right about? More importantly, what were they wrong about? Even more importantly, how did they respond to being wrong? All news sources will at some point be wrong about something. It is important for them to have the humility to acknowledge when they were wrong, and correct those wrongs. If a news source fails to acknowledge when they were wrong, or attempts to reframe history to appear as if they were right, then that calls into question the veracity of their current reporting. News sources today know that their audiences have about a two-week attention span. The thing people were outraged over two weeks ago are now ancient history in the news cycle. Take the time to go back in time to review past reporting. It will likely enlighten you on the reliability of current reporting.
Evaluate the Source of the Information
Many news platforms bring on so-called experts in their field to comment on ongoing events. These experts bring the weight of their years of experience, and lend credibility to the point the news is trying to make. But is this really the case? Does a military expert on China from 20 years ago really have current insight into issues in the Middle East? Maybe, but maybe not. Are celebrities opinions on politics or economics really what you should base your views on? Maybe, but maybe not. evaluate your sources, and beware of ultracrepidarians.
Evaluating sources of information can be very time intensive. News stories often try to convince their audience within seconds. Take the time to go back to the origin of the sources. How does what they are saying compare to video footage of the event? When you do find video footage, what does the full video footage show? does the full version support the short clip shown by the news? If not, why not? Does what is reported on the news match the experience of people who were there? If possible, try to get first-hand reporting from people who experienced the event portrayed on the news. In some instances, such as war, this may be difficult to do. However, technology has allowed us to get first-hand reporting from all over the globe. It just takes time and effort to find it.
Use Advanced Analytic Techniques to Evaluate the News
This article will not go into advanced analytic techniques, as they can be time consuming. If your goal is to spot bias and propaganda, the simple techniques above can get you most of the way there. For those of you who want to dig deeper, you may want to learn about more advanced analytic techniques such as Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH). What ACH does, in a nutshell is to pit different hypotheses against each other, and evaluate how they hold up to the facts. This can be time-consuming, but it can help identify weaknesses in certain views. This is most important to use on beliefs you hold dearest, as it can help you identify if your beliefs are based on propaganda. Another method one can use is the Red Team Approach. Military planners often use this technique to try to think how the enemy would. They think If I were the enemy, how could I attack my base? This technique can help expose flaws you may not have otherwise been aware of. On topics of great importance to you, take the time to think as someone who holds the opposing view. Try to argue it from their perspective. You may learn something new, or you may learn the strengths, and more importantly, the weaknesses of your own views. For more information on structured analytic techniques, you may want to read the book Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis. While geared primarily for intelligence analysts, everyone can learn from the techniques described in the book.
Opmerkingen