media

Fake News

Randall — Tue, 15 Jan 2019 02:46:32 +0000

Fake News

subtitle

You're likely worrying about the wrong problem

Randall Mon, 01/14/2019 - 18:46

In the past few years, the world has been awash in a term called "fake news." I recall first hearing the term in conjunction with the US presidential election campaign in 2016. My American colleagues at the time were chatting about whether news they were seeing and reading was real or not. I could sense clearly that this situation was to them quite troubling. How to know who to vote for? How to know if a given story was trying to trick "us"?

After a bit of squirmy hand-wringing, one of them helpfully pointed out that there was a website (or was it several websites?) that could confirm/verify whether a given story would pass a fact check. The rest of the group seemed pleased with the tip. Problem solved. How useful!

Here's my perspective. "Fake news" is a red herring. It is likely the biggest red herring that I've seen in my lifetime. The problem is not whether news is fake or not. The real problem is whether news is useful, relevant, and actionable. And to that, dear reader the answer is definitively "No". News has never been worth ingesting.

So how could the term "fake news" even become a thing? As I've pointed out in an earlier writing, news addiction is real. There is a large portion of the population that has been trained (either by education or by socialization) that the consumption of news is a de-facto requirement for an informed life. I don't pretend to know what percentage of people fall into the addicted category, but based on the people I encounter in my daily travels I'm guessing it's 80% or more. The message that one must follow the news is everywhere. And, as you might expect, that idea is spread by the creators and sellers of news and by politicians and propagandists who know that a news-consuming public is a public that is easily manipulated.

The regular consumption of news (RCON) is an epidemic. It's also an excellent vector for attacks on people's thinking.

Scott Adams (the famous Dilbert cartoonist) is an extremely clever (and controversial) audiocast personality. (If you aren't familiar with his work I recommend you check it out.) Scott has written and spoken at length about master persuasion techniques. One of the most powerful techniques that he has brought to my attention is "thinking past the sale". Thinking past the sale is the notion that if you want to persuade someone to think (or do) something, you should offer an idea that is one or more steps beyond the position that you are trying to persuade them to adopt. For example, if I'm trying to sell you a car, I might describe a perfect roadtrip that you are taking with the love of your life. A beautiful scenic drive down an idyllic country road. The top down. The wind in your hair. See what I just did? You haven't even bought the car and you're already on the road in a dream.

So, if I were a propagandist and well-versed in the techniques of persuasion and manipulation and wanted to exert control over people, I would distract people in this way too. Who wouldn't?

The next time you hear the term "fake news", I recommend that you think of it as the cunning tool that it is: A sneaky trick designed to persuade you that news is worth something when it's actually worthless, fake or not.

(Image Credit: The Public Domain Review)

Add new comment

Joseph Overton

Randall — Tue, 01 Jan 2019 18:05:45 +0000

Joseph Overton

subtitle

What Is Dare Not Said

Randall Tue, 01/01/2019 - 10:05

The Overton Window is a concept that some of you might be familiar with, but probably not in this context. Please allow me expand on it to encompass the theme of this site.

According to the authoritative source, "Joseph Overton observed that in a given public policy area, such as education, only a relatively narrow range of potential policies will be considered politically acceptable."¹

In nearly every domain, there are alternatives ways of living or topics of discussion that a large majority of people deem to be too radical or off-the-wall to even entertain. And if they do, it's usually with a dismissive sneer. (I've also heard this referred to as the "third rail", a reference to the electrified rail on a subway system that provides an instant lethal jolt if touched. Stand clear!)

So what is forbidden to utter? What is clearly outside of Overton's Window? What is the third rail? Seemingly this:

It is absolutely unnecessary to keep up with current events. It is unnecessary to consume television news, the news that is reported in newspapers, and the news that appears on web sites. One can lead a perfectly happy and thriving life without any of it. In fact, one's vitality is diminished with every piece of news ingested. None of it is healthy.

There. I said it.

Am I the first person you've heard dare utter that sentence? Maybe. Have you ever seen that idea appear in the media? Nope. In a way I'm not surprised. One shouldn't expect those who make their living by pushing news push the one idea that would make them broke.

What's worse though is even the harshest of media critics that I can find don't say it. For example, people like Doug Rushkoff, Scott Adams, and even the godfather of "media is manipulation" Noam Chomsky himself. Perhaps they also fear the repercussion of an audience that suddenly declares "I'm outta here!" I hold them to a higher standard though, and I think they are doing the world a major disservice by not saying in clear terms to stop paying attention to news and get on with a meaningful life. Shame on them!

Whether you're a media critic with a large audience, or simply a low-key person with a handful of friends and acquaintances, I encourage you to smash Overton's Window and encourage everyone you know to dismiss the news forever.

All of it.

1. Mackinac Center for Public Policy. https://www.mackinac.org/overtonwindow

(Image Credit: Sean McCormick.)

Comments

I believe Doug Rushkoff…

I believe Doug Rushkoff presented that idea in Present Shock.

Yes, Rushkoff is well versed…

Yes, Rushkoff is well versed in these things. Thanks for the comment (which I'm seeing 5 years after you posted it :P)

Add new comment

Second Hand Smoke

Randall — Sun, 30 Dec 2018 18:01:53 +0000

Second Hand Smoke

subtitle

Who's Blowing It In Your Direction?

Randall Sun, 12/30/2018 - 10:01

I'm old enough to remember when I'd walk into a restaurant and be asked "Smoking, or non-smoking?" I've never been a smoker, but my answer to the question seldom seemed to matter. There was nearly as much smoke in the non-smoking section as there was in the smoking section. Smoke drifted everywhere, and unless one wore a respirator, it generally couldn't be avoided. The question more aptly should have been, "Would you like some smoke or a lot of smoke with your meal?" Ah, the good old days!

As a society, we got smarter. It took decades though. The "smoking does not cause cancer" lie was finally exposed, and the horrible health effects of second-hand smoke became public knowledge. It's easy and tempting to look back on the smoking generation and say "They should have known better." Unfortunately, society doesn't seem to work that way. People get infected with information that harms them. In this case, the idea that smoking was cool, or fun, or not harmful ultimately destroyed millions of lives before it was extinguished by a gang bigger than the public relations industry that started and promoted it.

We're living it again.

No, the modern problem isn't the second-hand smoke from cigarettes. Thankfully, smokers have been exiled to areas safely out of reach of the lungs of others. The problem today is a different kind of second-hand smoke. This smoke is from those who are addicted (in the truest sense of the word) to the information cigarettes that come in the form of newspapers (be they paper or electronic), TV news (be it on a television or on a web site), and social media gossip. The addicted are spreading their information smoke to those of us who have decided not to ingest the toxic information from these sources. And yes, it's all toxic.

Let me give you an example. I work and write from coffee shops. As a person who's out in these spaces a lot, it's not uncommon for other coffee shop patrons to notice my (normally) friendly face and try to strike up a conversation with me. Usually they initiate conversations in a manner like this, "How about that in . Isn't that amazing?" I try to be polite in my response. I say things like "No, I haven't heard of that" and then change the subject to something more meaningful and relevant to the neighbourhood we're in. This cue is sometimes enough to get a real conversation going. But more often than not, it's met with another random piece of information harvested from whatever source these things come from. (See above).

On several occasions, I've even cut the conversation off by saying, "Hey, I don't read or follow news so could we talk about something else?" This was met with incredulity. How could someone not read news? The scandal! And in the most extreme and persistent cases, I've even said "What you just shared with me is second-hand smoke, and I'd prefer if you didn't." Not the most endearing response, I admit. But the effect was as intended. No more useless information to wade through and debunk.

The people who ingest "news" are addicted. If they've been addicted long enough, their thinking is likely impaired. I am sympathetic, and on a good day, I might be willing to coach. But I am never willing to breathe their second-hand smoke. I don't smoke. I never have.

We live in an era where nearly everyone is smoking information cigarettes. If you are not one of them, congratulations! I want to talk to you. I would love to hear your perspective.

One day, hopefully in my lifetime, the ingestion of information cigarettes will be widely known as dangerous and harmful. Until then, if you are one of the addicted, all I ask is that you blow your smoke in another direction, far away from me.

(Image Credit: Kati Jenson. Smokified by author.)

Add new comment

French Fried Information

Randall — Sun, 23 Dec 2018 20:12:13 +0000

French Fried Information

subtitle

What have you eaten recently?

Randall Sun, 12/23/2018 - 12:12

I love french fries. They're delicious, inexpensive, and comforting. They're also easy to get.

But, I don't eat them every day. I want to, but to do so would be to subject myself to health risks that don't justify the pleasure that I would get from a steady diet of comfort food. It is widely known that one's body chemistry changes with foods ingested. The chemistry changes that french fries are known to cause are not changes that I want. And, spending the remainder of my life in a state of poor physical health for the sake of a short-term "Mmmm that tasted good" doesn't sound like a bargain. At best french fries are a once-in-a-while treat. Maybe you feel the same?

So what does that have to do with "decluttering the infoscape" (the stated mission of this blog)? Everything!

Here is my line of reasoning: One's mind becomes the sum of one's experiences, whether from direct experiences or from descriptions and depictions of other people's experiences, whether in print (on paper or screen), video, or audio. Information is to the brain as food is to the body. Over time, one's thinking becomes the collection of ideas one has acquired or ingested. Over a decade or two, this adds up.

Here's where it gets dangerous: With the explosion of information brought about first by books, then by movies, then radio, then television, then the internet (the web really), and now "social media", other people's experiences are generally now more available than one's own. The net result: You are the sum of what you've ingested and to a lesser degree what you've experienced. Your brain has been tuned, or more accurately stated -- "de-tuned" to reflect mostly the experiences of others.

So what's going into your brain with regularity? The optimist in me wants to hope that it's a steady stream of accurate, relevant, actionable, respectful, and testable information. That brain diet would lead to a cumulative positive impact on your thinking. Over time, and given enough good information fuel your brain would be stronger and clearer. The pessimist in me worries that that is expressly what's not happening.

Many people that I've observed day-to-day are ingesting the equivalent of "brain french fries". Without enumerating all of the observations I've made here (a task I may do at a later date), I will just say that the patterns I see are troubling. People are reading about (or listening or watching) other people, usually not near them, doing things that largely don't matter to them and never will. Worse still, the depictions are usually second or third-hand and take the form of "Someone says that someone else is doing something somewhere other than here." Mostly it's hearsay and it's packed with bias and agenda.

So what has your mind ingested recently? Information can be like french fries. Is that really what you want to "eat" every day?

(Image Credit: Roland Tanglao.)

media

Fake News

You're likely worrying about the wrong problem

Tags

Add new comment

Joseph Overton

What Is Dare Not Said

Tags

Comments

I believe Doug Rushkoff…

Yes, Rushkoff is well versed…

Add new comment

Second Hand Smoke

Who's Blowing It In Your Direction?

Tags

Add new comment

French Fried Information

What have you eaten recently?

Tags

Add new comment