Good News, Bad News, and Fake News

Sam Labun
The Graph
Published in
4 min readMay 23, 2017

--

America has a serious critical thinking problem. Too many false, fake, or wholly speculative stories are easily believed. The U.S. Government deems the threat of fake news so serious that on December 23rd, 2016, in the final days of his presidency, Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. This large bill contained the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S. 2692), and the Information Warfare Act in turn created the Center for Information Analysis and Response.

The Center will “develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations by our enemies and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests,” according to one of the bill’s authors, Sen. Rob Portman (D-Ohio) on his website.

One wonders what the Center will do if the true, fact-based narrative doesn’t support U.S. allies and interests. What will the Center do if the truth contradicts the government’s position? Those are matters for another discussion. My focus here is on what I believe the Center’s mission should be.

The Center for Information Analysis and Response should focus on educating American news-consumers to be critical thinkers, critical evaluators, and healthy skeptics of all news media. If the Center merely acts as a Ministry of Truth, legally cracking down on all media outlets they deem fake news or foreign propaganda, then America’s ignorance problem will only get worse.

News is like food, and it should be treated like food by all parties involved in its consumption. Healthy food contributes to a healthy body; good news contributes to a healthy mind. Bad food leads to a sickly body, and false or fake news contributes to an ignorant, uncritical mind.

The problem with junk food isn’t the food itself; it’s the consumer who eats too much. Likewise with fake news, the problem isn’t the fake news, it’s the consumer who uncritically believes the fake news at face value.

The nutritional value of food is easily assessed by most consumers- they check the nutrition facts and cross-index them with their dietary knowledge. From kindergarten and up children learn how to assess the nutritional value of foods.

The Center for Information Analysis and Response is in a perfect position to implement “credibility facts” on news stories. Credibility facts would function with news much like nutrition facts function with food. Here is a checklist of what could be on the “credibility facts.”

  • Publication/Media Outlet (e.g. The New York Times)
  • Owner?
  • Parent corporation?
  • For profit or non-profit?
  • Author
  • Anonymous, pseudonym, or named?
  • If anonymous, why?
  • If a pseudonym, why?
  • Paid or unpaid for this article?
  • Business ties?
  • Government ties?
  • Sponsors?
  • Source
  • Anonymous or named?
  • If anonymous, why?
  • Paid or unpaid for information in this article?
  • Qualifications?
  • Content
  • # of claims where a citation is needed to verify the claim?
  • # of claims where citation is needed but is not given?
  • # of logical fallacies?
  • Logical fallacies can be easily identified by a computer programmed to convert language predicates into symbolic logic.

The goal of news-education should be to instill healthy skepticism in all news consumers. Consumers should approach all media outlets, from The Washington Post to TMZ!, with healthy skepticism and a list of credibility facts.

Objection: Many news stories, particularly stories about complex issues like healthcare and tax reform, could take hours to properly fact-check and analyze. Typical news consumers do not have the luxury of such time. Credibility facts alone are not enough- an independent fact-checking body is needed.

Response: This objection is well taken. Media outlets should be encouraged to voluntarily submit their stories to an unbiased fact-checker. The Center for Information Analysis and Response is well situated to act as a fact checker. The Center’s analysis/checked report should be included alongside the original, unaltered article.

Objection: Just as all the nutritional education in the world has not prevented alarming numbers of Americans from eating themselves into obesity and heart disease, likewise, no amount of news education or credibility facts will prevent alarming numbers of Americans from believing fake news stories on Facebook and Twitter. So, the only option is for the Center for Information Analysis and Response to enforce legal measures against media outlets deemed to be fake news and to disseminate their own, State Department-approved narrative.

Response: If the Center for Information Analysis and Response acts as a blunt instrument, it will not solve America’s critical-thinking problem You don’t solve a critical-thinking problem by telling people what to think. Telling people what news is “good” and what news is “bad” makes the populace even stupider and more dependant on the government. If you want to solve a critical-thinking problem, you teach people how to think.

The solution to fake news is not the creation of a government anti-propaganda center that assigns ratings to news stories or bans others outright. The solution to fake news is not social-media self-regulation. The solution is education. Teaching children about logic, argument validity/soundness, and logical fallacies from elementary school and up is a good place to start. To adapt the old Confucian proverb, Tell people what to think and they will learn nothing. Teach people how to think and they will learn everything.

--

--