In deeply polarized news media, social media, and among vocal consumers of the same that form an equally visible participatory feed-back loop, I’m observing unwritten ‘rules’ of engagement that are deeply flawed. Here are a few of them:
First. When a major media outlet publishes a story first (obscure outlets don’t count), they assume unto themselves the statutory ownership of rightness and truth for their story. It becomes the basis for easy and sometimes automatic denial of any others with newer information, dissenting facts, narrative and conclusion; this in addition to other long-standing biases. It matters not when that story is gradually shown to have flawed factual basis and major omissions are uncovered.
Obscurity of sources. In the same way that media outlets have their favorite subjects, a pecking order, and caste system, so too is this applied to sources. Various celebrities, a reliable pool of favored ‘experts’, well connected in-crowd types are standard fare. Even totally ‘chosen’ yet fully unqualified young people, celebrity ‘train wrecks’, secondary groupies of famous people, and fallen stars are perfectly acceptable resources and may be accredited for stand-in notoriety whenever necessary for the chosen story. Who is not acceptable? Fully qualified academics with lifelong experience served outside the limelight and the chardonnay circuit are distained. Anyone that has eschewed the notoriety and especially if they have actually gotten their hands dirty for long stints among the underbelly of the society and among the poor; these sources are unacceptable. ‘Worker bees’ that have witnessed corruption firsthand are generally considered dishonest, tainted, bought-off by oppositions, liars, personally fallible and morally fallen. Lower class people that are articulate are rejected as are inarticulate people that have a steady moral center.
Anonymous Experts. It is incredibly common in news stories to see the phrases: ‘Experts’ say, ‘Scientists’ say, ‘Researchers’ say, etc. Many of these stories never divulge the identity of the expert, even later in the story. It is also common to even omit the expert’s sponsoring organization or to only reference a vague entity that deliberately obscures the source; ‘University researchers’, ‘German officials’, ‘State representatives’. But the most common and egregious is simply, ‘Experts’ or even ‘Anonymous’ sources. There may be several causes for this behavior in media, not all of them insidious. Robots write stories, so too do underpaid per-word and per-story contract writers that don’t have time for real and thorough research. When you come across a story that systematically ignores naming a key informants up front, be prepared to systematically ignore the story in favor of other stories that do specifically identify their sources.
Proof. One of the biggest fallacies is the ruse called ‘proof’. In a hyper connected world where billions of people can be aware of a story, familiar with all of the essential facts and have viewed multiple story sources, any antagonist can challenge any differing version of fact, narrative, or analysis by demanding ‘proof’. It’s immaterial that out of the billion people aware of and with an opinion of the story, that as few as one or two people may have been the real or sole ‘eye-witnesses’, particularly in a he-said-she-said scenario, and your antagonist isn’t one of them. That doesn’t dissuade the aggressor who by sheer force can speed to the ‘proof’ position like taking the highest hill on a battlefield. By reaching that position first, they demand that all others, other news organizations, or commenters on a story, have a responsibility that he/she/they do not share. Media agents and commenting consumers are both equally prone to defend their righteous position by demanding proof from any challengers. At this juncture, also reference the ‘obscurity of sources’ factor. If sources are even admissible in a conflict, the second defense is the false flag declared over any competing sources no matter how honorable, fully subject to the prejudices of the aggressor.
Patterns. A media outlet or commenting antagonist will almost always categorically deny the validity of patterns in favor of biases, favored sources, and positions obtained by brute force. This should not be. While a pattern rarely constitutes absolute proof (a position that should not be attempted), patterns do inform and bolster otherwise incomplete resources and information. Depending on the pervasiveness of the pattern, it may provide significant protection. For example, in a real-life social setting, if a co-worker habitually exercises behaviors that cross a personal line, they do not have to be caught in the act of gross impropriety for a reasonable person to take decision action to be removed from that person’s sphere. With that level of assurance, we can and should evaluate patterns towards the subjects of news stories. In the board game of ‘Battleship’ two people blindly call out coordinates to be filled in with pegs by the both players. If a call lands on a ship game piece of varying sizes, the player must also concede a verbal ‘hit’. The more hits and the more misses, the sooner the finite game board reveals the location and orientation of the hits and the hidden ship game pieces. In this manner, states or individuals in a news story will eventually self-expose an accurate self-representation to the news audience. If the subject state or individual habitually lies and it’s been long documented by past actions, it likely true in the current story. The caveat to be aware of is when (both) competing subjects in a story have displayed manifestly flawed patterns in conduct. In those instances, one party is likely to claim full denial at the expense of the other.
The NYT. The New York Times deserves its own entry because of how much it’s venerated world-wide. In the minds of some fans in the United States and some other countries, it’s regarded as the gold standard and sometime even, an infallible news organization. If the NYT says it, it is true and real. If the NYT denies or omits a story, it is obviously bogus, end of discussion in the estimation of some. All other news organization are expected to bow to their omniscience. How should the NYT be regarded? There rank and file research activity should be well regarded, especially for instances of stories that do not merit a front-page editorial opinion. Everyone should be aware that they’ve had their own share of reporters fired for plagiarism or other frauds. The primary fault of the NYT is when they confuse the editorial and news departments. For that reason, much of their front-page stories and all of their political pieces should be considered as expropriated by their managing editors to reflect a bias. Reject the automatic primacy of the New York Times.
Opinion as News. All news organizations have opinions and they have a right to declare it. For some organizations, it is commonly known that an outlet is nothing but editorial opinion. There is no pretense of objectivity. Even if it’s not publicly proclaimed, the universal knowledge of their bias is so prevalent as to be automatically known and accepted, such as with MSNBC. The resident evil is when an organization passes off a story as factual news when they’re driving a fixed opinion. ‘Bias’ is a quaint old-time vice that hardly applies to news media anymore. Today, hard-driving-in-your-face yelling editorial opinion content is thrown in the face of brow-beaten readers who are expected to regard it as news. It starts with the article titles that are nothing but loaded innuendo. It is accompanied by a photo image of terrible demeanor that has no bearing on the story. A strawman declaration is made upfront without any presentation of fact, followed by a quick implied warning that any dissenters to their thesis are delusional, guilty enemies of the truth. This is before any facts have even been presented. To the extent that facts follow, they’re stripped of context. Most notable are the total omissions. Only readers that would follow the same story from a periodical of a different slant may see some of the missing facts and context. Within the CNNs of the world, articles like this are presented solely to hammer home their own external agenda such that it can hardly be called an editorial. It is crass activism. Most organizations that do this simply place their story in the wrong department. If it was placed as an editorial, it would be acceptable, but it is not as news.
For every news organization, there are thousands of news consumers. In the FB era, all of us have the potential to act as our own editor of our own news stories. Small town Sally could have a hundred readers depending on what sites, pages, and threads she chooses to follow, comment on, and to spar with others in the same position. News organizations set the agenda, the starting point, and unfortunately for most, the direction of a public discussion. Some of the antagonist that she/he may encounter will pull the rhetorical tricks described here. In these instances, you can only declare your position, speak facts, and let some of those facts speak for themselves. But you should also be prepared to name the deceptions that are being pulled by the news stories and some fellow readers. Learn these methods well and above all, establish fact as best as you can before engaging with a thread or a news story.