My cute little birdbath in my garden
You can discover the Truth about almost anything by employing journalistic methods and standards.
Mostly, this blog pertains to politics and current affairs because I was recently accosted by an acquaintance who challenged me to tell her how I know that what I believe is true, with regard to a conspiracy theory she presented as fact.
But regardless of which type of truth you are trying to determine, Truth itself is a crucial signature of virtue and a sign of the virtuous person, who clings to truth. The Bible tells us that all lies originate with Satan, the "father" of all lies. Truth is essential to the Christian person.
How do I know what is truth?
The question of the day is: when presented with a preposterous story, how do you determine whether or not it is true?
A few weeks ago, a random person caught me in a random conversation and brought up politics. They asserted a conspiracy theory that was long ago debunked, but it almost needn't have been, because it is one of those stories that is so ludicrous, one finds it difficult to understand why anyone would give it any space in their brain to begin with. But this is the era of the credulous consumer of conspiracies.
The conspiracy I was challenged to debunk...
The claim is that Mexico is emptying out their prisons of violent criminals, loading them onto busses, driving them over the border, and dumping them in the United States.
Who do we believe?
I nearly laughed when I was presented with this claim, and I confidently told her that it was not true. But this person pushed back and told me that there was no way anyone could know what was true because various outlets are saying contradictory things about the topic.
I explained that no one has to tell me what to believe, and I am confident that I know the truth, otherwise, I don't express an opinion.
She was skeptical and retorted, "How do you know what is true?"
If we aren't already educated, we need to study
I told her that it was mostly because I was educated, vis-a-vis educational course curriculum centering around journalism and civics, government, Constitutional Law, a few units in classical logic, as well as debate.
I attempted to tell her how I applied that knowledge and how I used the journalistic methods and standards, but she interrupted me with some hostility, so that I was not given the space in which to answer her question. It quickly became obvious that the nature of Truth and how one discovers it was not important to her.
Your values will color stories you choose to spread.
If you are a Catholic, and you believe and try to follow everything that the Catholic Church teaches and requires, you will be more inclined to display the love, charity and fellow-feeling of Christ in your attitudes about other people. Your conversation will exhibit a certain amount of empathy. A news story that exposes cruelty toward the poor, the vulnerable, the disabled, the aged, will typically engage your compassionate heart.
Those who hold a sincere love of Truth, will not automatically believe all the details of the story, however, until they have verified the facts, unless the authority from which it comes is so impeccable that everyone can safely believe it. For instance, if you read something on the Vatican's website that discusses recent homilies of the Pope, further proof of validity may not be necessary.
If, however, you are hostile toward religion and you also lack a devotion to a virtuous philosophy, your values may be primarily selfish, and the same news story might cause you to celebrate the hurtful actions against the vulnerable. People who lack a virtuous set of standards for themselves may have no compunction against spreading stories that celebrate those things which demonstrate the opposite of what is good. If the story lends credibility to a pet theory of such a person, they won't make much, if any, effort to authenticate the article.
Spreading malignant stories can be an indicator of an individual's personal character and can cause harm to our society, overall.
Many of us have become surprised upon hearing previously unspoken but repulsive beliefs of long-time friends or associates who have recently been freed to express alarming ideologies because certain celebrities and some prominent government figures have begun to communicate despicable, cruel and reprehensible opinions about "others." The othering of humans into small groups has been responsible for hateful rhetoric being spread about them. Immigrants are particularly vulnerable, such as in the story that my acquaintance was fostering. The remedy for such spurious accounts requires the application of journalistic methods, mentioned above.
Honest folks will make a good faith effort to find the truth.
This is not to say that virtuous people never promote untrue anecdotes, but theirs may be fanciful accounts of "good" reports, such as unproven miracles and that sort of thing. Their tendency to allow these myths to be circulated without fact checking does not usually have animus attached to it, but the absence of Truth may be just as damaging to our culture or the reputation of The Faith, depending on the circumstances.
Are you too biased and predisposed to find the Truth?
I gamely tried to answer the acquaintance's question. After all, she had directly asked me how I could possibly know what is truth. Unfortunately, I could not get a word out, because the original story about the busses full of violent criminals turned out to be only one of a host of complementary stories about immigrants who are somehow responsible for her not receiving Social Security and welfare benefits she thinks she deserves to get. She believes other stories that place the blame squarely on "illegal immigrants" who are supposedly getting Social Security benefits that should be hers.
Have you been brainwashed?
She would not permit me to offer any facts that contradicted her beliefs. In particular: I tried to inform her of the fact that undocumented immigrants do not qualify for Social Security benefits and that, even if they did, it would have no effect on her benefits. I had studied this topic, in detail, over many years time, and I also had personal experience of it.
People who have been brainwashed are always told that someone else is to blame for whatever is bothering them about their life. Hitler did this in the 1930s, and that is how he came to power. He did not have to overcome by force. The population gave him the keys to the government.
I suppose the real problem is that she believes the story that there is TONS of "waste, fraud and abuse" in all of the benefit systems and that it is so easy to get money from the government that this is why the undocumented workers so easily "game the system" and get money. It simply is not true. Anyone who has tried to get help from the government KNOWS how difficult it is.
She never researched the criteria. I tried to explain to her that in order for any of us to get help from the government, we have to have an income that is way under a certain low ceiling. It isn't that someone else is getting her benefits. The point is that she was not entitled to them because the entire benefit system is very tight and chintzy!
Personal experience can be a small part of the research...
I am one of the people who can tell you, first hand, how very difficult it is to get Social Security benefits, for instance, even when you have paid into the system and legitimately qualify for them. It took me ten years to get my Social Security monies when I became disabled at age 39. In the next ten years, I had 15 different jobs because I could not keep up. My disabilities caused constant problems. I was always taking time off from work due to illness, and finally, when I was 49, the Social Security administration admitted to my advocate, "it is clear to us that she tried as hard as she could to stay employed and she could not do it." So I was finally approved, after ten years of terrible struggle. If the Social Security system was "easily gamed," I would not have had to go through this.
If you want the truth, close your mouth and get to work
...
My first advice about determination of fact is to keep your mouth shut until you know something is true. Don't present something as a fait accompli until you have established that it is true, to the best of your ability.
Then you have to decide if the topic means enough to you that you are willing to exert yourself and do some studying. If you are not willing, then don't pretend to know and don't run around town and blab these conspiracy theories to everyone you run into, as if you do know something.
In the beginning, Research facts, not opinions...
The first step in your research: You must gather facts. I have just illustrated one type of fact, and that is personal experience. But personal experience, although it often convinces ourselves of some idea, is the weakest kind of first-hand facts because it is limited and biased, with self interest mixed in.
It is better to gather facts that include large groups of people. You do this by getting those facts from the agencies that directly deal with whatever you are talking about. In this case, I had to learn about our policies from the Social Security Administration itself. I read quite a bit of their website and I wrote a modest blog post about this topic, years ago.
Are you suspicious of every authority?
If your immediate reaction to the previous sentence is to ask me how I know that the Social Security Administration isn't lying to all of us, this question presupposes a muddy motive and a level of corruption that is not practical. Millions of people rely upon the Social Security Administration and it would be impossible to keep hidden the facts of how one qualifies for Social Security, if they were different than what appears on the website.
If you are suspicious of every authority that holds information you need, then you have been brainwashed, because I would bet that you have far less suspicion about the commentors to whom you are regularly listening.
Ignore the commentary until you know the facts...
Face it. If you sit around listening to nothing but Fox News you are just absorbing the ,primary dispensers of conspiracy theories in America today. On the other side of the spectrum, I do not listen to it, but I am willing to bet that if you only listened to Rev Left Radio, you would be no more informed to make a decision about what is true or not than if you listened to only Fox News. Save the commentary until you know the facts.
After gathering facts from the agency closest to the topic (in this case, Social Security Administration), then I gather more personal experiences of the people who can comment on Social Security. This would include beneficiaries and also "how to" videos that explain how the system works. I guess I might call these "reviews" of the service.
Quality checked Authority counts!
Mainline, established news sources have more credibility because their journalists are made to adhere to demanding sets of criteria for the establishment of fact. Every aspect of a story must be fact checked in order to be included in their news items, and some of the news outlets even require a certain number of eye witness accounts before a story can be run in the newspaper at all!
If a source does not agree with your opinion, it does not mean they are "biased" or "lying." It usually means you are wrong
A certain amount of detachment is required when searching for the truth. We all have to fight the urge to find those sources that will agree with us. We all want to be right.
Especially in cases where you know that a certain personality is inclined to lie, extrapolate too widely, embellish, or deliberately mislead people, we must be willing to accept the possibility that the person or platform in question may be right occasionally. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. We have to avoid the assumption that a story is "fake" or that a person is lying before we announce it. Find out for SURE that Donald Trump is lying about a certain issue before you start telling everyone that he is prevaricating.
It takes tremendous self-control, especially if we are emotionally invested in an issue, to make sure that we do not dismiss a source out of hand.
Choose your commentary and analysis wisely...
After you have assembled all your facts, only then should you take a look at the commentary about the issue you have been researching.
Remember that the news programs that are communicated over the airwaves are the only ones that are regulated by the FCC and meant to meet rigid standards of truthfulness, etc.
We are talking about ABC, CBS and NBC, basically. Those are legitimate news outlets that must meet rigid standards or they get into trouble with the FCC. You should make sure to research those channels of news, in addition to your other sources.
Fox "News" is considered a subscription channel that is (1) NOT a "news" program, and (2) is NOT regulated by the FCC. They are designated as an entertainment channel and they are allowed to lie as much as they want to lie. You might as well be watching Beverly Hills Housewives for as much reliability.
If the standard channels and sources do not post anything about a story, it means there is something wrong with it:
I often see channels advertised as being sources of information that no other news channel will air. There is a good reason for that! The story is full of holes, or is made up or mischaracterized, or has unreliable witnesses or SOMETHING that makes it unworthy for inclusion in a television news program. No one is trying to hide explosive facts from you. Explosive facts are the ones that everyone wants to read. It does not make sense that a great story is being hidden by all the major news agencies.
Include commentaries and analyses of experts
After I have collected all my facts about a topic, I check many different commentaries and analyses, some of them in the legitimate, mainline newspapers such as New York Times, but also many of the internet sources such as CNN, Fox News, Joe Rogan, and the like - as well as some PBS programs such as "FIRING LINE" with Margaret Hoover, the resurrection of a right wing program originally created by William F. Buckley. PBS also has a number of reliable authorities whose analysis is worth watching.
I often find that the commentaries will sometimes take a slant on an issue that I had not considered, and they sometimes provide me with one last bit to research that is ancillary to the main issue. I just make sure that I watch "both sides" of the topic, which is easy for me because I am as solidly in the middle as one can get. This is a hard position to be in, considering how much both right and left have gravitated toward their corners. These days, I feel like everyone hates me, as I do get hit with missiles meant for the other side.
Watch your bias, analyze it, and understand it...
With Donald Trump in office, I often land squarely against him because he breaks the law constantly and I continually catch him in lies. I do not approve of his METHODS by any means and I believe he is proving to be bad for the country. This does not mean I am willing to risk my immortal soul by lying about him! Satan is the father of all lies, and I am not about to hold hands with THAT bad boy.
The fact that I have an opinion about him does not mean that I am being manipulated by "left wing media." As you can see from this blog post, I listen to, watch and read a wide variety of material, on both sides of the left/right spectrum. I base my opinions about his character on first hand observation of what I have seen him do and heard him say.
It is not difficult for me to disagree with Donald Trump because he himself says these things that I know to be illegal and unconstitutional. It is coming out of his mouth, and I do not need any program or personality to convince me of what I know to be true with my own eyes and ears. Of course, it helps to have a legal background and I do remember my education on the Constitution from my school days. This is an easy one, folks. I don't have to listen to "biased" commentary from the left wing in order to see for myself that Donald Trump has dictatorish tendencies, for instance.
You are allowed to believe your own eyes and ears, as an eyewitness to the words of anyone you see in public life. Don't take anyone else's word for it, but you can certainly believe the evidence of your own eyes and ears! Compare what he does and says to the precepts on which our country was built, and you can form a good opinion about his merit as a leader..
If you are ignorant of what the Constitution provides, then that's another matter. But that's not my problem. I do recommend that you get up to speed on what the Constitution says.
But even though I generally disagree with what Donald Trump is doing and saying, I STILL fact-check anything that has a fact attached to it. He makes a lot of wild claims and I check them out thoroughly. I never assume he is lying.
Check out the trustworthiness and the curriculum vitae of the person who is giving you the analysis of the issue.
Whatever you do, make sure that the people you rely upon for your analysis of your facts are not just entertaining talking heads that are fun to listen to. Check out their background. Do they have work experience in the area in which they are rendering their analysis?
It is very easy to hop onto the internet and research the bona fides of the analysts. See if their primary career includes the approximate arena that is being discussed.
After gathering facts, acquaint yourself with classical logic...
Biased websites that do not have to meet any criteria will often feed their audience logical fallacies, which is the next step in this process. You have to make sure that the opinion and/or analysis has not been infected with these fallacies.
I was lucky to have taken classes in classical logic that helps us to make our way through the fallacies that sound good but which do not prove the point they pretend to prove.
For instance, the classical fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Proper Hoc (before, therefore because of) can often be found behind conspiracy theories. Someone will claim that a certain thing is the CAUSE of another thing because it came directly before it! But it makes no sense, when you really work the problem.
It's like saying, "I ate a banana for the first time this morning, and this afternoon I had an auto accident, therefore eating bananas causes auto accidents." This is obviously ridiculous, but when some supposed expert on a purported "news" program tells you that the definitive cause of something bad is a certain thing that happened the day before, you might initially be predisposed to believe it, when causation has not actually been proved.
There are other fallacies of classical logic that can be very helpful, but I'm not writing a book here.
Check your facts with nonpartisan websites:
When you have your facts collected and you've seen some analysis by the experts about those facts, then it is time to do some last minute fact checking to make sure you don't have any garbage in the mix. The two best sources of nonbiased fact checking I have found are:
factcheck.org
Snopes.com
The traditional primary source of news stories has been:
Reuters
Most newspapers "in the day" got many of their initial news items from Reuters and would then go on to develop their own stories, using their own investigative reporters.
After I collect all my facts, I then measure those facts against the fact-checking sources available about the topic.
These nonpartisan fact-checking sites are my final step in determining if a story is TRUE or not.
What do I do about it?
Whether or not I LIKE what is happening is another topic entirely! I have to measure an issue against my personal values, which are mostly religious and spiritual in nature. Once I do all this work that I've outlined, I make up my mind about whatever action I might be able to take. At this late stage of the game, with my body falling apart so much that I am barely able to walk, I can't do much more than pray for a positive outcome, but I know when I do that, I have done all I can to understand the truth of the issue.
And I never worry that I do not know the Truth of the matter, to the best of my ability.
After all this, I can start talking about it.
Silver Rose
No comments:
Post a Comment