In today’s media landscape, discerning truth has become an increasingly complex task. Denzel Washington once remarked, “If you don’t read the news, you’re uninformed. If you do read the news, you’re misinformed.” Echoing this sentiment, comedian Ron Funches humorously questioned, “I just don’t understand how do you not believe in any conspiracy theories? You just think the government’s just battin’ a thousand at telling us the whole truth? That’s a strong stance to take!” With these thoughts in mind, let’s delve into the challenges of our interactions with information sources.
On one end of the spectrum, we have individuals who believe in far-fetched conspiracy theories, from directed energy beams to extraterrestrial beings living among us. On the opposite end, there are those who accept every mainstream news narrative without question, whether it’s about political affiliations, global health recommendations, or controversial events.
The truth often lies somewhere in between. While it’s essential to approach government and media narratives with a healthy dose of skepticism, it’s equally crucial not to get lost in a sea of baseless conspiracy theories. The lines between satire and reality have blurred, with parody sites like The Onion and the Babylon Bee occasionally hitting too close to home. This doesn’t validate them as news sources but highlights the unpredictable nature of our times.
So, how do we navigate this intricate web of information? Relying solely on mainstream news can be limiting, as they sometimes present a singular perspective. Conversely, diving deep into the vast internet can lead to a mix of misinformation and genuine insights.
One significant challenge today is the echo chambers created by personalized news feeds. It’s vital to expose ourselves to diverse viewpoints. Subscribing to a mix of news outlets, from CNN to FOX News, and from The Young Turks to Steven Crowder or Glenn Beck, can offer a broader perspective. While some figures, like Alex Jones, can be extremely polarizing, it’s essential to approach such sources with an open mind, always cross-referencing with other reliable sources. Is it possible that there is a kernel of truth in what they are saying, and what are the implications of that?
However, it’s crucial to differentiate between verifiable facts and baseless claims. For instance, while some conspiracy theories can be easily debunked, others, like the global issues surrounding human rights violations, require deeper research and understanding.
The key is critical thinking. When faced with new information, research its origins, check its spread, and compare it with counter-narratives. If a topic seems skewed in one direction, it’s worth investigating why and considering the implications.
This is the hard part… use your brain. Don’t just let someone tell you what is going on, actually think about it. Look at how widespread the information is, and how much counter information is there? Is Ivermectin just horse dewormer, or is it a possible candidate for a therapy? Look up the Wikipedia article. Look up some medical sites. If it is significant enough look up the original journal articles and see what they actually say.
If you find something is being skewed by a group based on your research, then you need to assume two things:
• Other information about that topic is likely to be similarly skewed
• There is probably a reason they are skewing it, and it probably won’t be to your benefit
So now you have a template on that particular topic to make some assumptions as new information is released. You also know if you can trust what a particular source is saying.
You face a decision: remain uninformed, become misinformed, or find a balance between the two. Let’s introduce a term for those who choose the middle path: “quasi-informed.” A quasi-informed individual may not always be right, but they’ve dedicated time and mental effort to scrutinize the information from media outlets. They form their own opinions, which they can articulate and substantiate to some degree. Importantly, the quasi-informed are open-minded. They’re willing to swiftly adjust their views when presented with more accurate information, not with reluctance but with gratitude for a clearer understanding of a topic.
The rise of AI and deepfake technologies further complicates matters. It’s becoming increasingly challenging to trust even what we see and hear. In such times, being “quasi-informed” is perhaps the best approach. A quasi-informed individual is not always right but has invested time and effort in understanding various perspectives. They’re willing to change their views when presented with new, credible information.
In conclusion, in this age of misinformation, it’s more crucial than ever to be proactive in our quest for knowledge. Whether we choose to remain uninformed, misinformed, or strive to be quasi-informed, the decision will shape our understanding of the world and our place in it. Let’s aim for a future where we’re equipped with the tools and mindset to discern truth from fiction, no matter how challenging the journey.
Comments
It would seem that the truth does not matter in our current predicament. The institutions of power use circular reporting and a barrage of false information to steer public opinion to the desired effect. Once the veil of propaganda has lifted, public attention is now onto a new crisis, and no one cares if our government officials and “journalists” have told provable lies. Russiagate and Covid being the obvious examples.
Author
I agree. I also think that one of the big issues is that they are trying to fire hose so much information that the things they want hidden get lost in the flood. It is crazy to see how predictably a new major announcement is made to overshadow some indictment or failure. It is amazingly coordinated.