AMERICA is in perilous free fall towards political extremism. While we are collectively more divided than we have been in nearly 50 years, Americans can all agree on the rising threat that propaganda plays—especially as it pertains to our elections. To a faction among us, this effort comes from the far right, among dissenters online and those who have found an audience outside the status quo. To another bloc of the electorate, it is perceived to be from the corporate and social elites of this country. In both cases, the threat of propaganda is equally real as both major American parties now hold their own “token grievances” as to the role mass-media messaging has played in the last two presidential elections. While an argument could be made for each side’s role in furthering extremism, the truth is that such an argument would fall on deaf ears. Somehow in an age where good information has never been more abundant, Americans have forgotten how to think critically. In this article, we will go over ways to spot good and bad information in a hostile media environment: Wearing the hat of a 21st century skeptic requires users to think about where their media comes from.
Understanding Bias
Many of those in gen z and across the internet at large have developed bad habit of blaming content they disagree with on “bias”, but we should start by analyzing what Bias is: Bias, in a political context, is a thematic sympathy towards a political party or idea. It presents in the form of poor logic, opinions that ignore aspects of reality, or bad-faith arguments made to make you feel instead of think. Now, there’s room for nuance here: a good argument can be backed with facts and make you feel very strongly at the same time. What people need to do is dissect the information that they read before accepting it.
How to Read (Critically)
Start by figuring out what’s fact and what is opinion. Opinions can be messy, and their implicit biases aren’t ever going to be black or white. Opinions can’t really be fact checked, so the best thing you as a reader can do is to ignore them until you find the facts those opinions are or aren’t based on.
Any fact you come across is one of three things: correct, incorrect, or missing context. The first thing you should do as a reader is to look for the same primary sources of information that whatever pundit you’re listening to has based their opinions oƯ! Almost every major political controversy is extraordinarily well-documented, from signed affidavits to transcriptions of hearings and statements from politicians. You can find these sources easily on YouTube, often from senators or political action committees (PACs), or by googling the relevant political documents that are typically mentioned by commentators in passing.
You will find that most differences of opinion are due to people operating on a different body of knowledge, i.e. the facts they believe to be true. You can investigate these claims individually or analyze the claims that are most important to you—typically you will find that the winning side of an issue is the one presenting more concrete data in the form of primary sources, not by pointing to opinions of others in lieu of real evidence.
More Ways to Check Yourself
As the old biblical adage goes, “Ye shall know them by their fruits”. Often, communities surrounding an issue can be a tertiary “check” to ascertain the validity of an idea or political stance. Good ideas breed good communities that are open to outsiders, open to new information and to the scientific process. If a community is hostile to dissent, hostile to opposing views, or encourages its members to avoid contact with the opposing side of an issue, they are usually not on the correct side of that issue and are covering for weak arguments. This behavior isn’t just bipartisan, it’s a function of human nature and will almost never lead you astray. Still, there are times where you may meet a segment of radicalized members of a community who don’t represent the consensus of that group—hence why you should never rely solely on this method of gathering an opinion for yourself.
Staying Vigilant
Finally, while no political party or camp will ever be perfect, this guide should help you dissect the information you receive. Even when pundits get things wrong, the one thing you can always do as an information skeptic is to actively make and check predictions. Many have said we are in for a very turbulent four years. Uncertainty among the electorate is at an all-time high.
The best thing you can do now to discern reality from misinformation is to hold the people vying for your attention accountable. What are they saying will happen in the next two, four, or ten years? Hold them to their word: see what comes to pass and what doesn’t. Use those results to inform your model of the world and who can be trusted to give you information about it. The next four years may be some of the most tumultuous in American history, but sweeping predictions have already been made on both sides. Eventually, the facts will come out. Now it’s up to people like you to stay vigilant and build a more analytical, thoughtful America.
 | A guest post by
|