BS Detector

 

I'm old enough to remember the world before social media AND cable news. Outlets were few - one major newspaper per region, a few local news stations, and the Rather/Brokaw/Jennings triumvirate at the national level. These sources were universally consumed and generally trusted, even as we've now grown to realize they like everyone had their biases. One thing in their favor is that their relative monopolies, combined with the slower cycle by which information churned, meant that the default process was to verify everything before saying anything.

Fast forward to the present and it's a free for all. Cable news and now social media is a race for eyeballs, clicks, and engagement, which seems to bear little incentive with factual reporting and balanced perspectives and instead seems to have bred a predisposition for premature speculation and blatant sensationalism. 

But, go back to my first paragraph, and to a throwaway clause I put in there about everyone having a bias. The point I'm making is all information is potentially tainted. I certainly prefer substance and verification over sugary fluff and unconfirmed conjuncture. But, I also don't want to unnecessarily confer sainthood to our "good ol' days." There's something to be said about lots of information fast, practically in real time, when compared to "I have to wait a day and even then I only get one viewpoint."

"More is better" and "faster is better" depends, though, on having a strong BS detector. I think I'm better off consuming information from a wide range of sources in a wide range of platforms, than if I rely solely on one source - a single newspaper or social media influencer - but only because I'm willing and able to wade through the noise, the falsehoods, and the half-truths while processing information on a topic. 

Indeed, the noise, falsehoods, and half-truths are part of the information one needs to consume in order to understand a topic. Not that you believe those things or put any stock in them. Rather, you realize they must exist for a reason, and it's useful to consider what that reason is when trying to get your arms around a hot topic.

I sure hope the best for the future of journalism, that it is committed to detailed reporting, good storytelling, and calling out bias. But I know there will also be lots of bad journalism, pseudo-journalism, and "hot takes" that don't even attempt to be journalism. All of that is part of the landscape we must process in order to understand what's going on out there. How's your BS detector at processing all that?