I’m sure we all remember the American Wild West that was being online during the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. Social media users were sharing dubious stories, websites were churning out sensationalist content like hotcakes, and everybody was extremely mad online.
What a time to be alive.
That time shaped online media into where it is now, with a lot of outlets choosing a side and catering to those who either like to be told that they’re always right or want to feel like they’re on the front line of some cultural battle of good vs. evil.
I’d like to posit a way to think through all of the news that we absorb on the internet and determine whether it is making us a more informed, well-rounded people or just constantly outraged and scared.
It’s called PIE – and it shouldn’t be too complicated, we all learned about it in grade school.
Typically, an author’s purpose can be any combination of three things: Persuade, Inform, or Entertain. If we can think through the author’s purpose of writing a news story, we may be able to decide if reading it will make us a more informed individual or just outraged.
The ability to be a savvy internet user is becoming more and more important as we become dependent on it for our everyday life, including the news. A recent Pew Research report found that 53% of Americans get their news from either websites or social media.
How easy would it be to read or watch something online and be totally convinced of the point that was being made? Maybe you already had a view on it, or maybe it was your first time hearing about the subject – but either way, you’ve heard all the facts and your mind is set.
If only life were that easy.
When somebody tries to make their case to you about something like the gender wage gap, or the Electoral College, or immigration reform, there are a few factors you should consider.
Firstly, what type of website are you on? Do they tilt right or left, and how noticeable is it? It’s important to know if you’re reading a story through a partisan lens and what the extent of it is. You can still get good, substantial information from a website with a bias as long as you understand that there are multiple sides to every story.
To make sure that you’re on top of things, I’d recommend something called lateral reading.
Say you read a story from Vox, which leans liberal, or The Wall Street Journal, which leans conservative. Before you think that you have all the facts on the subject, open a new tab, and look up the subject to find another story about it. See what one or two other outlets are saying about it, and you might come across a different view with different supporting claims.
Just because a writer is being technically factual doesn’t mean that they are giving you a detailed outlook of every side of a story; do some digging for yourself.
Rick Brunson has taught journalism at the University of Central Florida for 16 years, and he says that the reader has a lot of responsibility when it comes to absorbing the news online.
“It really comes down to critical thinking,” Brunson said. “It comes down to what you think is the basis of truth; is it a fact, is it opinion, is it your own personal experience?”
It’s important to be vigilant when reading the news online, to recognize good news from junk news.
Check to see if there are evidence and sources for the claims made in the story; who and where did the writer get their information from? You’ll want to examine this for any partisan leanings – are they just quoting a mouthpiece for a political party or a think tank with clear political leanings? Remember that journalism is, at its core, about gathering facts and informing the public.
Evidence is essential in an article, but the presence of it alone doesn’t back up a claim or mean you have the full story.
Ask yourself if what you’re reading makes you a more informed voter or if it makes you see the other side’s argument. You’re not betraying anybody if you read and even empathize with something that you don’t agree with. In fact, it’ll probably be good for you.
Despite what some publications and politicians would like you to believe, people who have different political opinions than you are not blood-sucking villains hellbent on destroying America, and you aren’t a brave foot-soldier on the front lines to stop them.
“To be a critical thinker takes a certain radical humility because you have to understand that the world is complex and life is complex and you may not have all the answers,” Brunson said. “If you’re already convinced of your own rightness, then you’re going to find articles that confirm that.”
You might also want to examine with yourself why exactly you clicked on that headline, shared that article on Facebook, checked that same website multiple times a day. Is it really because you think it makes you a more informed American, or because it might be entertaining to be angry or outraged at what the other side has done?
I always like to say, “Short-term decisions have long-term consequences.” Feeding yourself a daily dose that makes you more cynical and more distrustful of other may seem harmless in the moment, but in the long run, it isn’t good for any of us. We all need to take a hard look at how we digest the news and how we can do our part to be better at it.
