×

Be cautious, open reading the news

With “fake news” and “alternative facts,” what should we believe? Many judge as “facts” only what confirms ideology they already swallowed. Thus, one-sided “news” gets repeated on social media and elsewhere as factual.

Oxford University scholars (England) recently analyzed so-called “junk news” outlets (Google for details) according to three of five criteria:

¯ “. . . do not employ the standards and best practices of professional journalism.”

¯ ” . . . use emotionally driven language with . . . unsafe generalizations and fallacies.”

¯ “. . . rely on false information and conspiracy theories, which they often employ strategically.”

¯ “. . . frequently present opinion and commentary essays as news.”

¯ “. . . mimic professional news media. They counterfeit fonts, branding, and stylistic content strategies.”

Among those identified: Drudge Report, NewsBusters, CNSNews, MRCTV, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Free Beacon, LifeNews, National Review, Red State, and Federalist. (For more criteria: .) Furthermore, “extreme hard right pages . . . share the widest range of known junk news sources” and “share more junk news than all the other (ideological) audiences put together”!

Many people also frequently confuse “news” stories with “commentary/op-ed” columns. Most reliable media have left-, center-, and right-leaning journalists. Nonetheless, some sources get branded negatively by the ideological right as “fake news” if they report information or commentary unwelcomed by the current regime and its supporters. For instance, TIME magazine has informed Americans since 1923, yet today is shunned by the conservative right.

However, for example, a TIME news story (Feb. 5) describes a businessman (and GOP donator) who made his fortune constructing coal-fired power plants. Seeing no future for coal, he started building solar power plants. Now he’s critical of the president’s recent 30 percent tariff on solar-panel imports-because the U.S. solar power industry mainly involves installations, and he employs 1,600-plus people designing, constructing, and operating solar farms. Overall, the tariff protects the two U.S. manufacturers of solar panels who can’t compete internationally; but it threatens the national solar installation industry overall with a projected loss of 23,000 jobs in 2018 (plus, less solar, more CO2).

This is straightforward news, citing facts and their repercussions. (One wonders, however, why critics of government “subsidies” for wind farms don’t see this “tariff” as a “subsidy”?)

In contrast, a commentary article (Jan. 22) favorably outlines four “pillars” of the administration’s December 2017 “national-security strategy.” The first is “Protect the American People, the Homeland and American way of life” (pleasing rhetoric but uncontroversial). The second is “Promote American Prosperity” and “energy dominance.” The third is “Preserve Peace through Strength,” meaning a strong military. The final pillar is “Advance American Influence” through diplomacy and strategic communication. The author states these strategies are all professionally written and “surprisingly centrist.”

However, he also identifies four deficiencies. Foremost is no reference to “global warming” as an authentic threat that strains military resources and thus jeopardizes national security. Second is that Russia and China policy is one-dimensional; it doesn’t distinguish between these two very different powers. The third is the lack of “sufficient emphasis” on cybersecurity, given that our economy and cyber-infrastructure are vulnerable. Finally, the Administration is protectionist; but thus overlooks extending U.S. influence through trade.

This example offers commentary/analysis, not just reporting. But the author is the Dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO whose submitted article critiquing national security should not be discounted! Such expert media analysis is important for voters to know and understand. If these summarized stories are new(s) to you, your usual sources are incomplete.

Thus this question: How are people to judge fake/junk news if they don’t compare various sources and instead rely only on news reports that reinforce what they already believe? How can they learn or judge where “alternative facts” contradict reliable facts? On what warranted grounds can major media outlets be rejected haphazardly, given the U.S. tradition of a strong and ethical press where important facts are exposed (see, e.g., the film “The Post”) and factual mistakes are corrected quickly? Without an accountable press, citizens have only “junk news” rather than major international journalism for understanding the world.

Readers will benefit by using the criteria of “junk news” (above) to evaluate their understanding of national and international journalism and their relevance. Consider whether the article informs (e.g., solar jobs), comments even-handedly (e.g., national security), or falsely fuels one-sided ideology (e.g., junk). Consider the motives of the author and the publishing source: is it reliable news or ideological hoopla intended for the gullible? Especially consider warranted evidence, analysis, or arguments that may contradict your prior beliefs: e.g., editorials in leading media outlets. Read so-called fact checking sites and reach your own conclusions. Only from such provocative sources, and respectful dialogue with contrarians, can you learn anything new. Thus read widely and wisely.

Thomas A. Regelski is an emeritus distinguished professor at the State University of New York at Fredonia.

Newsletter

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

Starting at $4.62/week.

Subscribe Today