So, a young friend posted the terrible news that the ‘Dems’ had a plan to end Social Security by 2024. You can dislike and disagree with the Democratic National Committee at length. But if you’re been reading very long, you probably can suss out “BustaTroll.org” is playing with your urge to think for yourself to fill you with misinformation.
It’s like, if I read Donald Trump was using the military, or private contractors, to organize death camps (not ICE detention- though, the rampant COVID-19 outbreaks are making detention centers of all kinds, far more dangerous than they should be). Let's say, "on the moon."
Whatever I think of the President, I’d find that unbelievable, and no matter who posted it, and especially before I re-posted it, I’d double-check anything I found inflammatory. We're not talking about metaphors or equivalencies or emotional catharsis. Like Jack Webb said, "Just the facts, ma'am." Obviously, the real confusion lately has been about COVID-19. Strong opinions divide people on what they'll consider factual.
If I’m going to attach my name to something, I want to know it’s true. When I speak of integrity, I don't mean, I want to be right for the sake of my ego, but rather, because there's never enough illumination these days. I could write another entire post about kidding.
If it's got my name on it, for the sake of anyone who takes the time to consider my words, words I've shared, or make any decisions inspired by them, I need it to be right. That's my respect for others at play, too.
I asked my pal if “BustaTroll” vets its sources. Not surprisingly, she had no idea what that meant. She didn’t grok the lingo. “Vets”- the verb- just means, they check, they verify.
Numerous organizations, even with an international platform, generate inaccurate information. How occasionally do they- and do they run a retraction, admitting their mistake- is the cornerstone of Accountability.
Like, let's say, based on what I already know from previous reading, something seems out of place in a headline, or, if it's true, it would have important consequences. I might type in the name of the site and "media bias" to get something like this: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
Some of these sites are serious news sites: when they report facts not presented as opinions, you can check with the boring-sounding agencies or sources, and what do you know, them's the facts.
Many depend on what we call "confirmation bias": they report things that could be true because you're predisposed to think that way, and they cater to people who don't fact-check.
So, even while those people think they're sharing some kind of earth-shattering news, they really take it as true on face value. Papers that correct their mistakes, or carefully edit to prevent being proved wrong before they go to print, are accountable.
Without accountable sources, we're stuck believing anything! We're lemmings of limited literacy.
This is how a lot of policies and politics are promoted. Someone wealthy funds a campaign to mis-inform the public, and many people, just to get clicks for their site, echo those ideas, because they get the happy advertising dollars, whether they're truthful or not.
My young friends, there are people three times your age who only read headlines or just spout ideas they heard somewhere, because it 'feels' true to them. So I don't want you to feel picked on. I wouldn't bother if I didn't think you were smart enough to make use of the available tools to become savvy. Good sources are able to call out any government or political party when they're wrong. Many sources cater to the left or right, but then, the important thing is, how factual are they?
Do they have a reputation of retracting mistakes and presenting real sources, or are they tin-foil hat, Russian Trollbots, National Enquirer-level speculation? Some of them report facts at times, too- there’s money to be made from picking up legitimate news stories when they fit their overall view of what their customers want. But they mostly produce garbage just to get people clicking. Even if a headline pisses someone off, whether they think it's right or wrong, my friends, our click helps feed the numbers they want to give advertisers to say, "hey, we can get eyes on your product."
This may seem so apparent to many of you. But I encourage you to think of an even-handed way to communicate the idea of how disinformation works, rather than just rip into people or shame them. What matters is that your self-respect includes respect you can personally extend to others. How they react does not change what you put out into the world, either. For all you know, they'll think about it later.
I know, it’s easier to just scroll on by, or hide people, when you’re feeling overwhelmed. Most of us want something more interesting to do. Some just want to take anger out on others. But if you’re going to strike out, rhetorically, hit at the source. Don’t throw our young people, especially, to the dogs.
No comments:
Post a Comment