A growing number of people are having exceptional difficulty
accepting any information that does not match what they choose to believe.
“Fake news” and “alternative facts” have become throwaway terms used by people even at the highest levels of public service.
It’s not a new thing. In the 90s we talked about people living in
information cocoons. The newer terminology is information bubble. Same thing,
as far as I can tell.
Along with the cry, “Fake News!” is a refusal to accept any fact-checker
that disagrees. Evidence is irrelevant; just another part of the fake news
conspiracy. “My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with facts!”
The phenomenon is an expression of a reality I’ve discussed in several previous
blogs, viz., the “I’m right!” syndrome. I’d rather risk my grandchildren’s
safety and health than be proven wrong. It really is not about ideology or philosophy
or creed. It’s all about me.
Several recent conferences held in major universities and research institutions
in the USA and Europe have examined the current glut of fake news and
propaganda. They report that, even though all citizens are sometimes vulnerable
to fake news, misinformation is predominantly “a pathology of the right.” Due to
vicious attacks on mainstream media, conservatives are even suspicious of
fact-checking sites.[1]
The reports conclude that fake news and hateful propaganda appear at both
extremes of the political continuum but is significantly more heavily
concentrated toward the right. The uncritical re-posting of such misinformation on social
media is of particular concern. The consensus is that, regardless of the intention
of persons who re-post it on social media, “it operates to harden ‘us-vs-them’
stances, to normalize prejudices, to create scapegoats, and to mock and
discredit truth-seeking endeavors of universities, religious institutions and
faith leaders, non-partisan policy research centers, journalists, and other
concerned citizens.”
A colleague shared that an acquaintance refused to accept data even from
Pew Research Center, a world-renowned and respected, trustworthy source of
social scientific research.
My colleague followed up by scrolling through several months of Facebook
postings by her acquaintance, and used Media Bias/Fact Check[2]
to see how the acquaintance’s preferred media sources are rated in terms of
factual reporting and bias. Of 43 posts, 16 were unrated, 26 were rated from
“far right” to “extreme questionable”, one was listed as “right center”. None
were listed as “Least Biased” or to the Left.
Obviously, the acquaintance got all her information from sources, I’m
guessing, that reinforced her already existing biases. In my observation, that
is the norm.
What may not be as obvious is my colleague’s evaluation that Media
Bias/Fact Check is “the most comprehensive media bias resource on the internet.”
While my own bias leans toward agreeing with her evaluation, the question comes
to mind: who set up the categories of media bias in the first place? Conservatives
will cry, “Foul!” and automatically assume the study is biased and invalid. The
problem boils down to an unwillingness on
both sides of the aisle to accept the standards of evaluation favored by
those on the other side.
Conservatives deny sources that refute their beliefs, and liberals reject
sources that support conservative biases.
We’re all biased.
We’re all biased.
Until all of us—ALL OF US—accept
and deal with our own biases and prejudices—until all of us accept and deal the
reality that we are fallible creatures and we
know nothing—we will continue to be a divided, adversarial culture sliding out-of-control
toward self-destruction.
We know nothing. The most
universally accepted scientific principles are but conclusions based upon the
preponderance of evidence. We can, and do, believe in these principles and accept
both the evidence and the conclusions. We live our lives in the faith that
these principles are valid. We even take them for granted. But, we don’t
know. Anything. Even the preponderance of evidence fails us occasionally, as in the virtual
guarantees by the poll-takers that Hillary Clinton would be elected President
in 2016.
My statement is not new. It’s straight from Plato’s allegory of the
cave. It’s reflected in St. Paul’s first letter to the church in Corinth
(13:12): “Now I know in part.”
The danger is that when we assume or presume that our partial knowledge
is absolute, or even when we accept our knowledge as incomplete but judge it
superior to others’ partial knowledge, we do two things: (1) we erect divisive barriers
and create antagonistic factions, and (2) we deny ourselves and our culture the
natural growth and advancement that comes from exploring the unknown and
examining unfamiliar ideas and principles.
Humanity always has advanced on the shoulders of those who have been willing
to venture into the unknown, from sailing beyond the “falling-off” place in a
flat world to walking on the moon, from testing and trying new combinations to create
light bulbs to virtually eliminating smallpox and polio from the planet.
Political experimentation has seen humanity ebb and flow from tribalism
to monarchy, from Pax Romana to feudalism to the Magna Carta to Democracy.
There have been spin-offs and rebellions and aberrations, and always there have
been those whose obsession with power and wealth have led societies down
destructive paths, from Hitler to Jim Jones and David Koresh.
But, with all the advancement in human technology and ideology, no one
can say our species has yet produced a political system that effectively
actualizes “liberty and justice for all.” And our species will not produce such
an ideal as long as belligerent factions choose to hurl insulting names and
epithets at each other, rather than to enter with integrity into open, honest
dialogue. Remember: dialogue is, by definition, two-way. It involves at least
as much listening as speaking.
I believe in the human ability to resolve conflicts, to discover common
ground and to build upon that common ground to make life better and better for
everyone. I believe in that ability; but I see very little human willingness to
exercise that ability.
What I see is, “I just want to win the fight.”
That’s the way it looks through the flawed glass that is my world view.
Together in the Walk,
Jim
No comments:
Post a Comment