This tip comes from me, Patricia McLinn. It’s still in honor of Elizabeth Margaret “E.M.” Danniher’s profession as a reporter at KWMT-TV in the Caught Dead in Wyoming mystery series.
If you accept mis/disinformation you are being scammed. If you spread it, you are scamming.
We each have an obligation – to ourselves and others – to not let either happen. That takes work. It’s a pain, but that’s just the way it is.
We could get into a discussion about whether it’s worse now than ever before (I tend to doubt that, after all, snake oil salesman is not a new term), but it doesn’t matter. We have to do it.
Who, what, when, where, how, and why.
Those are the building blocks of journalism. Asking yourself those questions will combat a whole lot of mis/disinformation.
A sampling of applying those words:
Who is the source?
Why are they using quote marks?
How can a question mark skew meaning?
Where is this taking place?
When did this take place?
What conclusion do you come to after reading the entire piece while asking critical thinking questions and how does that differ from your initial reaction?
A recent video from the Bulwark podcast highlighted this topic and is worth a listen.
Notice in the example at the center of this podcast how the mis/disinformation skimmed over (and later scammers outright ignored) the time element – citing a stat for all of 2015, when the person they blamed was given the job to resolve the issue in October of that year. In other words, the scammers blamed the person who arrived in October to fix the problem that had accrued for nine-plus months before he was there.
Notice how it used an emotional word in quotes.
Quotes are often used when the disseminator does not have facts to support the word, but someone – anyone — spoke it, so the disseminator can use that quote. Always ask yourself who said something in quotes. Try your darnedest to withhold any assessment until you find out who said it, what their expertise/bias/background was, what the complete quote was, what the context was, when they said it . . . and more.
Perhaps the easiest approach is to recognize that something in quotes means that the disseminator does NOT stand behind the quote as a statement of fact. The disseminator is either (best case) passing it along as a comment made sometime by somebody (see the previous paragraph for questions to ask to assess the validity of the comment) or it is taking advantage of the emotional word to hijack the brains of those who encounter it.
Question marks in headlines can do this, too. Podcasts, particularly political podcasts, set my teeth on edge with how much they use question marks. They are, indeed, clickbait. If the article/podcast had the facts to make a statement, they wouldn’t be asking it as a question. So, when you see Is Political Polly a vampire? Your response should be: Not proven or you’d say so. And I’m not encouraging your behavior by clicking/reading.
Additional question marks or alternating question marks and exclamation points (Is Political Polly a vampire?!?!???) makes the headline even more – pun intended – questionable. Nah, on second thought, not questionable. Outright unreliable.
Mind you, no question mark is not an assurance of accuracy. The more blatant disseminators of mis/disinformation don’t bother with that subtlety.
The video linked above makes the vital point that each of us is responsible for what we like, repost, share.
Each of us is responsible for assessing sources, not disseminating the ones who get it wrong, and supporting the ones working to get it right.
Polls and surveys deserve a special mention. Who did they survey/poll? Who funded the poll? Who funds the group who conducted the poll? How large a sample was used? What are the demographics of those sampled? When were the questions asked? What were the questions? I generally dismiss surveys/polls unless I can see the questions that were asked and have the answers to the other questions in this paragraph.
Be particularly aware of infographics that make a statement, but don’t include a source. They deserve the skeptical response, Sez who? Perhaps especially if you find yourself agreeing with and/or liking the (unsupported) statement.
Exercise your critical thinking muscles at all times and you won’t be scammed or scam other people by sharing.
~ ~ ~
For ReadHeads in the U.S., be particularly aware of mis/disinformation spouted out as “October surprises.”
The idea behind this political ploy is to scream out headline-grabbing claims close enough to election day to be remembered by voters but without sufficient time to be refuted. (Plus, more people remember the accusation than absorb the facts that come later.)
Be on guard against this.
Do your homework on candidates and issues now. Gather information from multiple reputable sources, never just one, never all from one viewpoint. I highly recommend using Ground.News to see coverage and issues from multiple standpoints. Think it through for yourself.
If an “October surprise” erupts, do not react with emotion. Ask the who, what, when, where, how, and why questions and assess the answers.
I know this is a lot of work.
Tough.
How many people have died for us to have the right to vote? How many more have sacrificed so much for us to have the right to vote? With that right comes responsibility.
Be responsible.