Who should be the arbiter of truth?

In an era of news & fake news, we are continually bombarded with information we disagree with. What happens when we come across “facts” that we disagree with? It turns out we are more dismissive of opposing viewpoints than ever before. Whether we’re talking about vaccinations, political leaders, social justice, or business responsibilities, finding common ground with an opposing side keeps getting harder.

That’s where the arbiters of the truth enter the picture. They’re the political leaders, social media platforms, experts, and journalists who sway (or manipulate) public opinion. They shouldn’t all be the arbiters of truth, but they are playing that role. What they deem as true is supposed to correspond to the way things actually are. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

In today’s newsletter, we discuss the question of truth. If you think this newsletter will be valuable to a friend, please don’t hesitate to forward or share it.

Don’t keep calm and don’t carry on. Trump & Churchill

Bob Woodward’s new book, Rage, included a bombshell that back in February President Trump knew how dangerous COVID-19 was while placating the public and telling them the opposite. Recognizing how difficult a full-blown pandemic might be for his re-election, President Trump rationalized his actions, claiming he didn’t want to scare the American people.

Trump quoted legendary British Prime Minister Winston Churchill who supposedly told the British people at the start of World War II to “Keep Calm & Carry On.” The only problem is, that isn’t true. Rather, Churchill was known to have said, “The British people can face any misfortune w/ fortitude & buoyancy as long as they are convinced that those in charge of their affairs are not deceiving them, or are not dwelling in a fool’s paradise.”

It has gotten extremely easy to twist the facts to suit a political or business end. That’s a dangerous place for society to be in. What’s even more frightening is when someone in a position of power is able to take advantage of that reality.

Bottom Line: Manipulating the facts only gets easier and more tempting when there aren’t universally respected arbiters of the truth.

Mistrust of Scientific Evidence has Political Undertones

Recent academic research from UCLA shows that mistrust of scientific evidence and government-issued guidelines is increasingly correlated with political affiliation. From climate change and vaccine hesitancy to COVID-19 risks, political affiliation determines levels of skepticism in the information being presented.

Using Hurricane Irma as a case study, the research showed that Republicans were 10–11 points less likely to evacuate than Democratic voters. Scientific denialism is a result of media-led suspicion of hurricane forecasts. Worse still, the research showed, this extends beyond hurricanes to other life-threatening scenarios. Who you align with politically determines whether you and your family will be safe.

Practically, this means that when comes to matters of science, information may need to be explained differently to Democrats and Republicans. The one size fits all approaches of sharing scientific evidence and government warnings obviously aren’t working.

Bottom Line: Our politics determine whether we will trust a piece of scientific evidence and government communications.

Is the Social Dilemma everyone’s ethical dilemma as well?

A new documentary about social media addictions dropped on Netflix last week. Titled The Social Dilemma, it interviews former employees of Facebook, Google, Pinterest, and Twitter to make the case that social media is damaging society. If you haven’t seen it, block off time to do so.

The message that social media technologies are fuelling addictive behavior, corroding democracies, turbo-charging conspiracy theories, and impacting mental health all are worth understanding from the more nuanced point of view of the people inside these companies. The documentary raises important questions:

1. Who carries responsibility? These companies operate within the rule of law. Like other companies, they work to maximize profit. What does it mean to carry a responsibility greater than what the law of the land requires?
2. How unique are these questions to Facebook, Google, Pinterest, and Twitter? What other companies have business practices or services that should be included in this conversation?
3. Do former employees who have made millions working for a company that they now demonize have a moral responsibility to give up their earnings and donate them to charity? Are they being hypocritical?
4. What about current employees at these companies? Do they know something different? What moral responsibility do they carry? Why have they chosen to stay?

Many in the marketing and technology industries believe that history will judge these social media companies harshly. Some even liken them to the cigarette manufacturers and how it took time for public opinion to catch up to what the science had been saying about smoking for decades. For others, these companies are just a reflection of society — no better or worse. Immense good and a lot of bad stuff happen on the platforms — just as with society. For a more detailed take, read this article.

Bottom Line: The Social Dilemma furthers our understanding of the social media companies while also raising important questions.

Wildfires also mean wildfire-related misinformation spreading

If you thought misinformation was limited to political news, you’re wrong. The same motivations that drive misinformation in politics are now spreading to other spheres. As forest fires rage across Washington and Oregon, extreme voices on both ends of the political spectrum have been rushing to blame the other for the cause of the fires. The far-left group, Antifa (which stands for anti-fascists) and Proud Boys, (the far-right group) have been spreading fake graphics using police department logos to falsely claim that members of each other’s group have been arrested for arson.

In response to these efforts, the FBI issued a statement that said, “Conspiracy theories and misinformation take valuable resources away from local fire and police agencies working around the clock to bring these fires under control. Please help our entire community by only sharing validated information from official sources.” There are some important lessons here for the rest of us:

• Every crisis in America is fertile ground for extremists to spread misinformation.
• Citizen journalism has limits. Unless you’re certain of the facts, don’t share.
• Help the experts to do their jobs by giving them space. In this case, it’s the fire and police agencies.
• Leave it to the official sources and their websites to be the arbiters of the truth.

The forest fires across the west coast are a national tragedy with lost lives, thousands of homes destroyed, and millions of acres burnt down. Brave firefighters and police officers are physically and emotionally exhausted as they work hard to protect people’s lives and homes. No one should be making the lives of first responders harder than they already are. More on this story here.

Bottom Line: Tragedies are often used to spread misinformation. Don’t fall prey to it.

Are you doing your own debate preparation? Here are pointers

We will be watching the first of three Presidential debates in less than two weeks. This time the debates will be different. The moderators will be forced to serve as the arbiters of the truth in a way that they’ve never had to. They won’t want that responsibility, but it’s going to be on them to hold each nominee accountable to the truth. You can do your part as well.

After the debates, the misinformation terrorists will push false narratives our way via the social media platforms and TV anchors will lean in the direction of one candidate or the other. Deciphering fact from fiction and truth from opinion will be difficult. What can you do? Here are some pointers:

• In the lead up to the debates, do your own homework on the major issues. Seek out the facts beforehand versus in the debate.
• Ignore the pre-debate spin-doctoring from the campaigns. Use independent sources for the facts.
• Elections are about who will best serve the country. During the debate focus on the plans that the leaders present.
• Post-debate polls have margins of error but not widely different results. Use polls to understand which candidate did better across the various debate topics.
• Leave your own cognitive biases at the door. Try to watch the debates with an open mind. Listen to what the candidates have to say.
• Most news organizations have fact-checkers that will be on air at some point. Listen to them more than the anchors.

The debates usually serve to help undecided voters determine whom to vote for. They can also serve to galvanize a base. With the election this close, they’re going to be more important than usual.

Bottom Line: Prepare beforehand and leave your own biases at the door so that you can be your own arbiter of the truth.

Want to share the newsletter or view the archives?

You can now do so via the Savvy Insights newsletter link. If you’ve read the book, please leave a review on Amazon.com and encourage others to subscribe to the newsletter or buy the book. Join us on our mission to rid the world of fake news.

Learn more about Savvy

Savvy has been recognized with five major book awards in less than a year. More information about the book, speaker and media inquiries at www.savvymatters.com Purchase the book on Amazon.com or via your local bookstore.

Please add our email address to your contact list so that Savvy Insights doesn’t go to your spam folder. Join us on the mission of ridding the world of fake news by sharing this newsletter with your friends and family.

Book Authors — Shiv is a business leader and multiple book author who has led innovation and marketing teams at Fortune 100 companies and Silicon Valley startups alike. Rohini is a board-certified clinical psychologist and author of numerous scholarly articles in the area of trauma and resilience. Shiv & Rohini are a husband and wife team.