What do?
As of year 2020, the year of the Covid-19/Corona virus, people on the internet talk about “low-trust media environment” where we are discovering that there is a massive communication gap between well, everyone. And what is especially terrifying, between scientific vs sensationalist vs reactionary spheres.
I wanted to come up with a way to be able to easily gauge the validity of any particular piece of writing online. As it turns out conspiracy filled garbage is pretty formulaic. Before looking for specific details in a piece of informative media (articles, podcasts, videos), you only really need to ask this:
What is the purpose of the text?
Is it to inform? Is it to sell? Is it to inform you and then sell you something?
It is more or less obvious with physical products, since the product is physically present. It harder to identify informational products as such since their intent could be hand waved by “it is just an opinion” statement.
So, what details should you look out for? Brief list of signs that the information source might not trustworthy.
Verbose, latinated language:
- This includes specific-seeming terminology that is difficult to check. This terminology might be entirely made up by the author.
- Alternatively, the terminology might be correct, but “applied as a metaphor” or used in completely improper context.
- Lack of structure on subject delivery. An argument is stated, but then the speaker would not inform us of the conclusion.
- Lack of evidence is given for the conclusion of the argument.
- Often literal interpretation of abstract or relative ideas. Absolutism bordering on obsession.
Lack of specific details.
- If evidence is present, it is heavily lacking in statistical detail: “researches found out that x ” not “researchers found out that x affects z% of population y”. For example saying “as a consequence of x crime rates have risen” paints a different picture than “latest report by National Stat Bureau has shown that crime associated with x has risen from 1% to 3%”.
“Conservative” vibe and Moralism.
- “it is destroying family values”. You can’t measure family values. Furthermore, different cultures have different “family values”. Terrified of “the other”.
- The author relies on tribalism to attract the audience with such words as “as everyone knows”, “anyone reasonable would agree”
“Experts” either rejected by peers or is involved in a loud scandal.
- Expertise of the speaker does not extend to the topic at hand, “the expert” (if they is one) is from a completely different field
- Bad self-awareness, bragging “I had major luck interviewing X” instead of “In an interview with X…”, “I had the pleasure of meeting X”, “I was excited to use product X since I’ve been following the author’s work for years”
Very repetitive content overtime. Topics do not evolve or change.
- No solutions to the problem are offered. Problems are ‘raised’ to attention, but no alternative is given, in fact the main call is to “go back to the way things were”. It’s akin to pointing to a dead, rotting fish in the middle of the room, complaining about the smell and then walking away.
- Any solutions that improve the situation are rejected or deemed “not perfect” and then rejected. Incremental benefits from partial solutions are deemed unworthy of attempt.
No barrier to entry / overreliance on sensationalist information.
- Products (ingestible supplements/business ‘opportunities’) are pushed to the reader under the guise of promising instant health, wealth & happiness.
- No entry requirements – you are not required to have previous experience in this topic.
- Freud, Jung or psychological stereotypes are used to describe people’s personalities. Especially suspicious if the speaker in question does not have a background in psychology.
“Charm of the ancients”
- “We had arcane knowledge, but we lost it”
often combined with “it used to be simple back in the day, but now it is difficult”. This also includes simplifying complex socio-politico-economic factors to absurdity e.g. “men worked at factories, women did homemaking”, chasing ‘exotic’ religious practices: “taking ayahuasca was my lifechanging experience”.
First of all, the list above is my opinion, of course. Secondly, it is not a prescribed list, and a single checkmark would not necessarily point to a sketchiness of the piece of media, but a cluster of “symptoms” definitely would make me extremely skeptical.
Also, it might be just me, but the delivery of this crap is tends to be very sexless and humorless. I suspect it tends to be this way since humor and sex need other people to be there. Or rather require empathetic connection and some degree of self awareness.
Though out last decade designed algorithms have been / tend to accelerate ‘bad’ news propelled in no small part people’s predilection towards sharing the shocking and dramatically upsetting. It’s not a new phenomenon or anything – sharing information, especially if it is negative, is a survival tactic that developed alongside language.
Grifters, or self-aggrandised societal rejects that try to create their own societies through fearmongering are also not new of course but they all seem to act in a formulaic manner. Perhaps looking at the symptoms we can at least get immunised against bad information, even if there’s never going to be a cure.
Read More
