Benefits: Discover 3 tests you can perform to adopt a skeptical mindset.
So That You Can: Be intentional with media, find media sources you can rely on, and Stay Curious!
Go From Inspiration to Action With the Worksheet Below!
PREMIUM CONTENT
Be Intentional with Media: Adopt a Skeptical Mindset
“Fake News!” If you’re beyond sick of hearing these words, can I get an Amen!
Yes, there’s plenty of fake news out there, trying to grab our attention. So what! We’re Deliberate Thinkers! We don’t have to fall prey to loaded words and propaganda techniques. And, we don’t need to give any more of our time and attention to media sources that we deem “Fake.”
Instead, let’s be intentional with our media use. Let’s focus our time and attention on adopting a skeptical mindset so that we can find sources we trust.
Afterall, in order to live the fulfilling life we were meant to live, we need to Stay Curious! If we allow ourselves to become so disillusioned that we stop relying on any media source, how the heck are we supposed to Stay Curious?
Curious to know why I’m saying “Stay Curious” – ha! – click here
Today, we’re going to take the first steps toward adopting a skeptical mindset, and we’re going to discuss three ways that we can be intentional with our media consumption. But first . . .
What is a “Skeptical Mindset”?
When I use the term “skeptical mindset,” I’m taken back to my days as a financial auditor when I was taught to, “Trust, but verify.” What does that mean?
When you ask an audit client a question, you go into the interaction with a trusting attitude. You do this because it’s impossible to Stay Curious and ask objective questions if you’re expecting to be deceived.
The same goes for media sources. Unless you have first-hand experience with a source, you should assume that they have good intentions. Otherwise, you’ll view the information they’re presenting through a tainted lens, and you might find “deceit” that isn’t really there. Because that’s what you’re looking for.
But, you also want to be aware of the fact that everyone is trying to sell you something. That’s why you need to “verify” what you are being sold until you have enough information to develop a risk tolerance. In other words, until you’ve tested this media source enough to know how skeptical you need to be. We’ll get into the “testing” part soon.
One more thing — being skeptical doesn’t mean that you question every single word the source is saying. It means that you remain aware of the knowledge, perspective, and motives of the media source and to determine how much “testing” you need to perform.
Don't Have Time To Read the Full Post?
Click on the Envelope to Email It To Yourself for Later!
Has Media Become Less Trustworthy?
Not necessarily. I’m not sure the mass media has ever deserved our unwavering trust. They’ve always had an agenda.
However, it’s important to note that information moves much faster than it ever has, and there’s more competition between media sources than ever before. This combination can definitely lead to some untrustworthy reporting.
When your consumers are expecting up-to-the-minute coverage, you give it to them because if you don’t, your competitors will. The consequence: poorly researched and poorly presented stories are going to slip through the cracks. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to lose all faith in that source. If the source has integrity, which we’ll discuss in a bit, it is possible to still label them as trustworthy.
I don’t think we need to label mass media as untrustworthy, but we do need to be aware of the pressures and motives that are driving the messages they produce. So let’s look at a few ways that we can do that; a few “tests” we can perform.
Test #1 - Who Pays Their Bills?
Whether we want to admit it or not, we are all beholden to whomever pays our bills — our income source. There are going to be times that we have to compromise our work to keep our income source happy, or we won’t get paid.
The question is, how much is the media source you’re testing expected to compromise their message in order to get paid? This might seem like a difficult question to answer, but, if you know where to look, it can be pretty easy to figure out.
I try to rely on sources that are funded by nonprofit foundations or donations. These sources typically provide funding information on their website. One of the reasons they do this is to offer proof that their message is credible. You can find out who supports the media source and get a pretty good feel for the compromises they might make in their message.
Next, I turn to independent content creators who are funded by their audience. These creators need to keep their audiences happy, or they’re going to be out of business. If you can figure out who the target audience of the content creator is, you’ll find the perspectives that could influence their message.
A quick plug – The Expectation Gaps is funded 100% by contributions – click here to learn how you can support our mission and where your money goes.
What if Advertisers Are Paying the Bills?
Yes, media sources that are funded by advertisers seem like the group most likely to compromise their messages, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t trust them. It just means that you need to be more skeptical and pay attention to who their advertisers are. Let’s walk through a couple extreme examples.
You pick up your favorite guns and ammo magazine. You notice that the back cover (prime real estate) is an ad for the NRA. It’s well-known that the NRA spends a lot of money lobbying against strict gun laws. This ad is not an indication that the information in this magazine is “Fake.” However, it is an indication that the editor of the magazine is motivated to “spin” any data presented to favor the anti-gun control crowd and keep their prime advertiser happy.
Now, let’s go to another extreme. You pick up a gardening magazine, and on the back cover is an ad for a pesticide. Okay, that’s not unusual and no big deal, right? Probably. But, what if this pesticide has been linked to cancer. And, there just happens to be an article in this magazine discussing the link between pesticide use and cancer. There’s a pretty good chance that, although legitimate, the facts reported in this article were cherry-picked to paint the prime advertiser in the best light possible.
I don’t see a problem with either one of these scenarios. After all, the magazine is a business, and businesses want to keep their best customers happy. It’s not the magazine’s responsibility, nor the advertiser’s, to report unbiased information.
It’s our responsibility to Deliberately Think and test the information we are receiving to determine how skeptical we need to be of it. One way to do this is by paying attention to the media source’s advertisers, and other income sources, to determine how they might influence the source’s perspective.
Then, you can take it a step further and seek out a media source who seems to be biased in the opposite direction. See what they’re saying and if there is any overlap. The unbiased facts will be hiding in the overlap.
Test #2 - How’s the Source’s Integrity?
A quick reminder, these tests help us develop a risk tolerance so that we know how skeptical we need to be; how much we need to “verify” what the media source is saying. Testing the source’s integrity is going to play a big part in developing our skepticism. So, how do we go about doing that?
There are three questions we can ask:
- Do they genuinely try to understand other points of view?
- Do they admit when they’re wrong and make necessary corrections?
- Do they make their points without name-calling or belittling their “opponent”?
If the answers to all three questions are Yes, you’ve found a source with integrity and can lower your level of skepticism. Two people who I’ve seen illustrate Yes answers to these questions very well are Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson (of course!), and I’ll walk you through my reasoning. (Links for the three video clips I reference can be found at the end of this post.)
Example #1 – Understanding other points of view
This example is from Joe Rogan’s podcast during which he is interviewing Ben Shapiro. They are discussing gay marriage, and the first thing they both acknowledge is that they agree with each other on Point A, but they disagree with each other on Point B. Rogan then goes on to ask some great questions to try to understand what’s driving Shapiro’s perspective on Point B.
Even if you only watch the first two to three minutes of the clip, I think you’ll agree that Rogan shows integrity, not only in the wording of his questions but in the way he asks them. His follow up questions to Shapiro’s answers and his tone of voice show that he is genuinely trying to understand Shapiro’s point of view.
Example #2 – Admit when they’re wrong
This example is from an Australian talk show on which Jordan Peterson was a panelist. Milo Yiannopolous calls Peterson out for referring to Milo as a racist in a prior interview. Plus, Milo throws a few other attacks at Peterson.
Peterson remains calm and says, “Milo, I’d probably just as soon apologize to you for that. I don’t think that I did defend you very well at that particular time. I don’t believe that you’re a racist. It was a question that caught me off guard.” Peterson admitted that he was wrong, and he made the correction by apologizing.
Example #3 – Make their points without belittling others
Yes, I’m going to introduce another Jordan Peterson example. What can I say? He’s one of the best I’ve seen at keeping his cool in a debate.
Peterson was a panelist on The Wright Stuff along with Sophie Walker, the founder of the United Kingdom’s Women’s Equality Party. They are discussing gender equality, which is obviously a touchy subject.
Walker tries to pin Jordan into a corner by referring to some facts he has cited as his “theory” and by attempting to disprove his “theory.” And how does Jordan react? He does get a little passionate, but he doesn’t get angry or overly frustrated. He agrees with Walker on her point and then proceeds to debate the data she has presented with additional data.
Jordan’s presentation of the additional data shows that he is clearly more knowledgeable about the topic than Walker is, but he doesn’t say that. He doesn’t belittle her. He states his case, in a civil way, and the conversation continues without becoming confrontational.
Test #3 - Can They Back Their “Facts” Up?
A credible media source will cite their facts, and these facts should be easy to trace back to the original source. Until you’ve developed your risk tolerance for this source, you can test their facts by going to the original source. Then, you can make your own determination as to whether or not the media source has put their own “spin” on the data presented.
Two other important things to pay attention to when data is cited — sample size and the number of studies conducted. Keep in mind that a smaller, random sample is less likely to represent the target population as a whole. And, obviously, data that has been studied several times with the same results, versus only a few times, is going to be more reliable.
In addition, be wary of the credibility of real-time reporting, and keep in mind that most real-time reporting is speculation. There’s no way that the pertinent facts can be sorted out in a matter of hours or even a matter of days in some cases. Remember, we need to account for the source’s pressures and motives. In the case of real-time reporting, the source’s motive is to be the first to break the story, which increases pressure and leads to mistakes.
Last, but not least, is the source’s message precise? In other words, does the source pick their words carefully? Does their language indicate that they’re knowledgeable about the topic at hand? If they provide vague answers and keep coming back to the same talking points, there’s a good chance that they’re not comfortable with the topic because they don’t know much about it. So, although their reporting may be accurate, their perspective might be limited. Therefore, your level of skepticism might be a bit higher.
Now It’s Up to You
Practicing these tests will help you develop a skeptical mindset so that you can root out credible media sources. Once you know which sources you can rely on, it will be that much easier to Stay Curious and to Respect Other Points of View (2 components of the Cycle of Deliberate Thinking). You’ll be that much closer to realizing your full potential and living the fulfilling life you were meant to live!
I created a worksheet for you that summarizes this post and will help you practice these tests.
If you’re curious about intentional social media use, you might enjoy this post: Reclaim Your Potential From Its Silent Killer
Want to learn how to be more decisive? This post is for you: Be Decisive: Practice This Powerful 3-Step Process
Click here for more posts with a “deliberate thinking” theme.
If you’re ready to Stop Settling & Start Living! check out our home page to learn more about what The Expectation Gaps has to offer.
And until next time . . . STAY CURIOUS!
Only Have 1 Minute
Links
Ben Shapiro Clarifies Gay Marriage Stance | Joe Rogan, posted to YouTube by JRE Clips on 4.03.19
Milo Yiannopolous Challenges Jordan Peterson on Australian TV | Q&A, posted to YouTube by abcqanda on 2.25.19
Jordan Peterson discusses whether men and women can ever be equal, posted to YouTube by Jeremy Vine on 5 – Official Channel on 5.18.18
Who Can You Trust? Crash Course Navigating Digital Information #4, posted to YouTube by CrashCourse on 1.29.19
Helping Students Identify Fake News with the Five C’s of Critical Consuming, posted to YouTube by John Spencer on 12.06.16
How to choose your news – Damon Brown, posted to YouTube by TED-Ed on 6.05.14
How false news can spread – Noah Tavlin, posted to YouTube by TED-Ed on 8.27.15
This one weird trick will help you spot clickbait – Jeff Leek & Lucy McGowan, posted to YouTube by TED-Ed on 6.06.19
PRINTABLE WORKSHEET - Note: You will first have to download the PDF before you can print it.
FILLABLE WORKSHEET - Note: You will first have to download the PDF before you can add text. You will also need Adobe Acrobat on your device.
PIN IT!
