By Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Last week, Harvard released a new research guide on “fake
news.”
“Fake news,” of course, is the source of all evil,
according to the Left. It’s only thanks to lies that Donald Trump was elected!
Instead of targeting stories that are completely false, however, the Left
applies the label of “fake news” to outlets that report factual stories but
draw political conclusions from them — in other words, they call everything
with which they disagree “fake news.”
Which means that their talk of “fake news” is actually
fake news.
Of course, the largest “fake news” item of all is that
“objective” news sources aren’t biased in their coverage. They obviously are,
and it’s why conservatives have warmed to President Trump’s labeling
left-leaning outlets such as CNN “fake news” even if CNN isn’t actually
reporting anything factually false but merely drawing convenient leftist
inferences from overblown coverage of core facts.
Nonetheless, the Harvard guide, written by “social
justice” professor Melissa Zimdars of Merrimack College, purports to compile a
handy-dandy list of fake-news sites to avoid. The list provides ten different
ways to label the stories on such sites:
• fake news (actual
fake news)
• satire
• extreme bias (“sources that come from a particular
point of view and may rely on propaganda, decontextualized information, and
opinions distorted as facts”)
• conspiracy theory
• rumor mill
• state news
• junk science (“sources that promote pseudoscience,
metaphysics, naturalistic fallacies, and other scientifically dubious claims”)
• hate news
• clickbait
• proceed with caution (“sources that may be reliable but
whose contents require further verification”)
Two other indicators are used for leftist sites that meet
Zimdars’s politically correct standards:
• political (“sources that provide generally verifiable
information in support of certain points of view or political orientations”)
• credible (“sources that circulate news and information
in a manner consistent with traditional and ethical practices in journalism”)
So, for example, AlterNet.org, a far-left site, is
labeled “political” and “credible.” Here’s one of their top headlines as I
write this, by one John Feffer: “The Trump Dystopian Nightmare: Nuclear War,
Climate Change, and a Clash of Civilizations Are All on the Horizon.” National Review is labeled unknown. The
website I run, the Daily Wire, is
labeled with “extreme bias,” as is the Daily
Signal, the website of the Heritage Foundation, as well as the Drudge
Report, which is essentially a linker site. The Daily Caller is called “political,” “clickbait,” and “unreliable.”
The Blaze is called “political” and
“clickbait.” The list doesn’t mention Barack Obama’s favorite outlet, Vox; it doesn’t mention Slate or Salon, either.
No wonder conservatives don’t trust the media — or the
supposed media police. They’re too busy upholding the myth of mainstream-media
objectivity to be concerned with the truth, which is that every outlet has its
bias, and that we’re all better off admitting our bias openly rather than
slathering facts in opinions and then conflating the two. I’ll proudly state
that National Review and the Daily Wire are more honest than CNN;
both outlets have an editorial point of view reflected in their content, but
neither mistakes news for opinion or opinion for news. The supposedly objective
outlets, by hiding behind the façade of that faux objectivity, constantly
conflate their opinions with their news.
Here’s the reality: We’re not all going to be able to
agree on narrative. But we should strive to find the facts we can discuss
together.
So, how do we identify the facts? Here are a few tips for
determining reliability of information — tips that we all (including me) fail
to use consistently but that could prove handy:
1) Locate the
information intersection. If we view news coverage from various sides of
the aisle as lines on a grid, the point where they converge — the common point
of coverage – gives us the facts. So long as an outlet reports those facts,
it’s not fake news. It’s just opinion journalism, unless it obviously treats
opinions as facts. So if Huffington Post
and National Review report the same
underlying facts but disagree about the ramifications, we can at least identify
the underlying facts worth discussing. This does mean that you should survey
the literature — and that you should move outside your Facebook feed from time
to time.
2) Wait 24 hours
to believe supremely controversial claims. The Twitter/Facebook news cycle
favors the people who are the first on a story, but exclusivity and speed often
trump reliability. That’s why veteran Twitter watchers almost never tweet out
early reports from shooting scenes: The information from the ground evolves
over time. Most of us on Twitter fall victim to this from time to time. “Too
good to check” sometimes overrides better judgment.
3) Anonymous
sources are anonymous sources. Don’t put tons of weight on anonymous
sources unless an organization with a history of caution has a bunch of them claiming the same thing.
This also means that when one anonymous source denies an allegation from
another anonymous source, you shouldn’t just believe the anonymous source you
like.
4) Outlets that
make corrections are more reliable. If an outlet issues corrections, it is
more likely to be more reliable than others. Outlets that double down after
they’ve been proved wrong are either stubbornly right or — far more likely —
stubbornly wrong. That doesn’t mean that outlets that constantly back down are
better than those that don’t. It means that outlets that never back down are probably willing to fib to you.
5) Consider the
ideology. Let’s say a site leans right but will print information that
counters its prevailing orthodoxy or will tolerate voices of dissent within a
band of the spectrum. It’s more likely that such a site will treat information
with respect, since the ideology doesn’t trump the facts. It’s dangerous when a
site decides to quash news or rewrite news based on the ramifications of the
news.
6) Read the whole
article. Don’t just read the headline. We all read the headlines for
shorthand, but all too often the real point of an article is buried in
paragraph 19, as all the mainstream outlets understand (which is why, as good
little leftists, they bury all the exonerating information about Trump-Russia
connections deep in their articles). More complexity in information makes it
more difficult to digest and tempts us to filter out new or conflicting info,
but it also makes our information more accurate.
All in all, don’t believe that everything the Left labels
“fake news” is fake news. It’s far more likely that the real fake news is that the Left is capable of policing fake news
honestly, rather than merely determining that sources they hate must be ruled
out of the news realm entirely.
No comments:
Post a Comment