Sifting through the Noise: Thinking and Engaging in the Age of Mass Media and the Internet
Most of us probably can think of someone we know who has fallen down the rabbit hole of online conspiracy theories or who is stuck in some emotionally charged echo chamber. Most of us also get in echo chambers of our own, intentionally and unintentionally, even if not in super extreme ones. This closes us out of information/perspectives contrary to whatever we may hold dear or simply to information/perspectives the spaces we are in don’t favor.
At the same time, we have limited time, limited energy, and limited attentional/cognitive resources, and don’t necessarily want to subject ourselves to just any opposition outlets simply for the sake of being “open-minded” or fair. Some outlets or entities really are consistently awful and not deserving of our clicks. I don’t think many would say that you have an obligation to go on some fascist forum or website and read every neo-Nazi’s diatribe in the pursuit of “hearing every side”. But where’s the limit? What counts as worthwhile or reasonable and how do we strike a balance that sifts through the noise, helps us to think better and be better informed, keeps us out of reinforcing echo chambers, and preserves our sanity and decency when engaging in the process? That is what this article is hoping to explore and will hopefully provide some helpful guidance on.
The Problem
Before discussing our thinking and the sifting process, I want to explore the problem a bit more. In an article on fake news and the impact of “epistemic flooding”, Glenn Anderau stated that:
“Epistemic flooding occurs when epistemic agents find themselves in epistemic environments in which they are routinely confronted with more information and evidence than they can diligently process.”
Anderau further states that “epistemic environments on social media are flooded by design.” He also points out that social media and other online algorithms are “likely to exploit cognitive biases human agents are vulnerable to, such as the repetition effect or confirmation bias (Fazio, 2020).” Taken together, we are being overwhelmed with information that we aren’t satisfactorily processing (or “sifting” through), and that is being facilitated by algorithms that appeal to our biases. This arrangement is not one that is appealing to our better angels or attempting to help us to think more clearly and gain a more accurate view of the world.
In addition to the issue of information overload and problematic algorithms, we also have the issue of media outlets and influencers. Most people will say that others they know are being brainwashed by news media or influencers. The difference is, they often think that’s only the case for those they disagree with, not themselves or those they agree with. So, you might hear from someone who thinks that Fox News is the bastion of truth and freedom that is just trying to “tell it like it is”, while CNN is nothing but the “mainstream liberal media” that is lying to everyone.
Or, in contrast, you might hear from someone else who says that Fox News watchers are all just brainwashed simpletons, while they have the truth through diligently watching MSNBC. Then you have the self-perceived “free-thinker” and “enlightened” person who thinks that they have broken out of the “lying corporate media”, who simply follows fringe blogs and online conspiracy theory outlets that have their own preferred narratives, often with significantly lower standards than your typical mainstream news outlet. None of these stances are particularly healthy or conducive to better thinking and a more accurate view of the world. Their development also didn’t happen overnight either.
Mira Nalbandian reports in 2022 that:
“Just 37 years ago, there were 50 companies in charge of most American media. Now, 90% of the media in the United States is controlled by just six corporations: AT&T, CBS, Comcast, Disney, Newscorp and Viacom.”
Michael Griffin, a media studies professor, reports that:
“Many current concerns about the news can be traced back to long-term changes that began as early as the 1960s and accelerated in the 1980s, when media companies were bought by large conglomerates and chains, and increasing media concentration became a progressively larger problem.”
“Whenever a big entertainment company or conglomerate came in, the news divisions had to answer to shareholders and improve the bottom line. For the first time, there was an expectation that the news divisions had to make money, just like the entertainment divisions.”
After speaking on the process of advertisers targeting more and more specialized audiences, Griffin continues:
“As a product of these targeted audiences, silos emerged. Silos create echo chambers, which characterized developments on television even before the web began to have a big impact. As the web opened access to the internet for a large number of people beginning in the late 1990s, it accelerated these echo chambers.”
He cautions:
“We’re getting more and more of our news online, and more and more of that news — in Facebook feeds and web browsing — is suspect in terms of its status as news.”
Furthermore, following the FCC’s end of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, right-wing talk radio (think Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage) took off, which significantly transformed the media landscape. And though the Fairness Doctrine only affected broadcast licenses (not directly affecting an outlet like Fox News), the rise of right-wing talk radio and the antics they embraced helped pave the way for the kind of aggressively charged content we would later see at outlets like Fox News, One America News Network (OANN), Newsmax, and many others. Combining the reporting of the “news” with entertainment and aggressively charged commentary only further increases the difficulty of “sifting through the noise” and helping people to think better and gain a more accurate view of the world.
Instead of having news outlets that aggressively pursue the truth and do their absolute best at providing an accurate view of a given event or issue, we instead get silos of bias that seek to tell the people who frequent them what they want to hear, while demonizing those they disagree with in the process. You’ll get Fox News amplifying every crime committed by an “illegal” immigrant, while massively ignoring how infrequent it is overall and how much more crime is committed by citizens. They will put less attention on mass shootings unless they think a Transgender or Non-Binary person committed it. Heck, they might even report that one did without good information, just to exploit their target audience’s vitriol for that population.
You’ll get The New York Times trying to downplay the struggle for the average American in the current economy under President Biden, while gleefully reporting various job numbers or inflation statistics. You’ll get CNN having significant and consistent negative coverage on Donald Trump, ignoring many other stories and issues in the process. On any given day, pull up MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN, and check out how drastically different their front pages are. That gives you a snapshot of their biases and how they are reinforcing their viewers.
How can we do better?
Now that we have a decent grasp of the problem, what should we do to address it in our own lives? Firstly, it’s important to improve your ability to think more generally. I’d recommend getting acquainted with logical fallacies (deceptive or false arguments) and attempting to spot them and reduce your own use of them. Make sure you aren’t excusing them for those that you agree with or only looking for them and calling them out for those you disagree with. Also, watch out for “The Fallacy Fallacy”.
Bernard Marr addressed developing critical thinking skills in the context of a world where:
“the sheer volume of information that we’re bombarded with on a daily basis — and with the pervasiveness of fake news and social media bubbles — the ability to look at evidence, evaluate the trustworthiness of a source, and think critically is becoming more important than ever”.
He writes that:
“….critical thinking means arriving at your own carefully considered conclusions instead of taking information at face value.”
Marr promotes such practices as (not exhaustive, read his article!):
- Asking questions about the information being presented and whose voice is left out.
- Examining the source and what their motivations are.
- Trying to avoid anonymous sources or sources with an ax to grind or a product to sell.
- Watching out for emotionally charged language in pieces and questioning their accuracy by seeking out better sources.
Those are just a handful that stood out, but there’s so much more mentioned and even more that could be added beyond what Marr covers.
In addition to spotting and avoiding logical fallacies, as well as increasing your critical thinking skills, it’s important to pay attention to what sources you are viewing and where their biases are. This was explored earlier in the “problem” section, but it’s important to discuss it specifically here. I want to plug the outlet “All Sides” as a great source to see what differing news outlets are reporting on a given issue or event. It’s important to see how outlets with specific political leanings are reporting and how that affects the framing of the issue or even the reporting of the supposed “facts”.
If all you do is watch Fox News and right-wing online media, you are getting a VERY skewed perspective. Likewise, if all you do is watch MSNBC and listen to NPR in the car, you are also getting a skewed perspective and limited choices of topics covered. Therefore, it’s important to be aware of the skew and to attempt to adjust for it by checking out a plethora of sources with different leanings. That doesn’t mean you have to look at just anything, but you shouldn’t stay in a media echo chamber that only promotes your preferred brand of politics, often insulating you from perspectives and facts that challenge your perspective or take on a given issue.
And if you’re limited on time, be careful before sharing the first thing you see on a given event or issue, especially on social media. Err on the side of caution and wait to gather your thoughts when you have a fuller picture and have confirmed key details. Also, try finding a more neutral outlet to follow regularly, such as Reuters and the Associated Press, if you have limited time and just need to keep up-to-date on pressing current events and issues. These sources aren’t without their biases and leanings either, but they are going to be much less infused with politically charged biases and leanings than most other outlets, while keeping up strong journalistic standards and practices. If part of the problem is being overloaded with information, we need to simplify things and cut out a lot of the poor quality “noise”. Start with trusted, more neutral sources first, and then go from there with the aid of things like All Sides.
And if you get angry seeing people you like attacked or criticized (whether that be Donald Trump or Joe Biden or anyone else), which pushes you towards your media silos that treat them less critically, you need to do some serious soul-searching and (I’m not kidding) may want to consider seeing a therapist to discuss why that is. It isn’t healthy, and it is going to get in the way of you thinking more clearly and gaining a more accurate view of the world. That goes for really anything you are avoiding simply because you don’t want to face opposition to your views or cherished preferences.
Lastly, you also need to do a better job at being civil with those you disagree with and steel-manning their arguments (within reason). I say “within reason” because, again, I don’t think every perspective deserves a seat at the table. We don’t need to try to steelman Hitler’s policy of committing a genocide against the Jewish people. Some things are just objectively abhorrent and should be opposed. Also, some people are so awful that the best course is to avoid them and not give them the time of day. But be careful before you lump too many things or people in that category. Nonetheless, when you do steelman, you should try to put forth your opponent’s argument in the strongest form possible and put that version under critique. If possible, you should also run it by your opponent and make sure it is actually conveying what they are arguing. This is the exact situation you should want from your opponent when they are critiquing your views (#TheGoldenRule).
Even using the term “opponent” can come across as too antagonizing or adversarial. It’s better to think of each other as conversation partners in disagreement or in a quest to figure things out. Let’s not approach the situation like we are in an arena getting ready to destroy the other, but rather in an open-ended conversation trying to figure out the best position. That invites friendly, civil dialogue rather than each person being put on the defensive and getting increasingly agitated or angry. Additionally, each person is looked at as someone who has something to offer the conversation rather than someone who is simply wrong and in need of correcting. This also lowers the temperature in the room and makes each person feel valued.
Now, in the case of seeing an article or something online, you can’t necessarily engage with anyone in the moment. However, you can seek to understand the best within it (steel-manning) and to subject it to a balanced critique without resorting to simple name-calling and dismissiveness. Even that has a time and place depending on the context I’m sure (within reason lol). But the reality is it takes little effort to attack and smear others, and we are more often prone to doing so when we are opposed to something or someone. It takes greater effort and self-control to be fair-minded, calm, and collected. That doesn’t mean you have to suppress your natural reaction to observing something abhorrent. If I read a nasty anti-LGBT article, I am not going to necessarily be Mr. Calm and Collected. But, I probably should step back before responding so I can better convey how it has affected me and do a better job of critiquing it if I so should choose.
Conclusion
None of what I have said here is exhaustive. Nor should any of it be treated rigidly and not modified depending on the context. However, I think most people (myself included) would benefit from the many recommendations throughout this article, and I think our overall society would be better with more people following them too. We’ll all do a better job at “sifting through the noise” if we are vetting our sources, understanding and checking our biases, doing our best to think more critically, and reacting more civilly and collectedly to those we disagree with. In the age of mass media and the internet, with all of its information overload and “fake news”, all of this is becoming even more imperative if we are hoping to build a better world.
