There’s too many events of relatively equal importance for a human being to follow.
As one of the effects of globalization, topics are wider, influenced by more variables than
ever, and they never stop developing.
One of the reasons you’ve been lured into this vicious circle is because the newspaper
organizations advertise to you that reading their daily coverage is the best way to be
informed, when it’s really not.
By the words of our brother Denzel himself: It’s mostly newspaper’s incapacity to
adapt to digital revolution that exploded basically still just a decade ago with the
arrival of social media and mobile computing.
You shouldn’t read daily news and expect to be objectively informed on the random topics
someone else chose for you.
With the current overflow of information and old newspaper format, the best outcomes of
this are confusion, misinformation, and geographical bias based on one cultural view of issues.
So what should you do to be as objectively informed as possible about what’s truly
important in the world of ones and zeros?
Let’s get to this strategy that will hopefully make it easier for you to make sense of the
chaotic mess we tend to call Earth.
Stick to a short range of issues that are of most interest to you and start educating
yourself about them.
It’s impossible to be uniformly informed about every topic.
Pick whichever ones suit your preferences and interests the best, regardless of their
supposed real world significance.
For example, I only have three topics that I follow regularly – international security,
digital rights, and economics.
It’s important to stay with the same topic for a while until you get educated enough
about it so that you are immune to misinformation.
So the next time you read an article about how rogue a foreign government is, and how
important it is to take military action, by that time you would have had enough knowledge
to make up your own mind using information you learned before.
So when it comes to a concrete international security issue that I don’t have prior satisfactory
knowledge of when an event happens, I first look at newspaper headlines, then pick a couple
of different articles.
I try to understand the background of all the actors involved, what stakes they have
in, and how they can profit from what they are advocating for.
Everybody pursues their own interests, which also means they will always criticize their
counter-parts.
The best way to learn the whole picture is to hear what both competing sides have to
say about one another.
The best rule of thumb is to always follow the money.
Try to find out who gets what when certain action takes place.
If an article you just read didn’t tell you, comb through some other pieces until
you find your evidence.
I try to reach conclusions on whether the actions advocated for should be taken or not.
This really helps to evaluate what candidates you can rationally align yourself with in
the upcoming elections.
The bigger picture is always more important than daily events that make it into the news.
It’s more fruitful to dig deeper into the topics by reading independent analysis and
reports on the subject.
But because newspapers still offer you centuries old format, you are left do this on your own.
For example, you can read worldwide reports on what insurance systems work best comparing
health care with other countries in the world.
Any article doing this for you would be merely an opinion reflecting the views of the shareholders
that just happen to be lobbying for a legislation benefiting them the most.
One hint to judge an article is to see if they allow comments and ratings.
If they don’t, it’s most likely because they don’t want to be exposed to criticism
for a reason they don’t want to tell.
Another good lead is whether they allow an article to be read without subscription or
logged in account.
If they don’t, it probably means they want to narrow down their exposure only to their
followers and not potential critics from outside of their readers’ base.
You should never take an organization as a trust-worthy source for information because
- People have agenda and agendas change.
It always comes down to the authors and editors.
Sometimes, even elitist media can have writers producing good articles.
The New York Times boasts with the most Pulitzer Prize winners.
That doesn’t guarantee the entire organization’s integrity.
You could make a selection of sources like: International Business Times, The Telegraph,
The Independent, The Intercept, The LA Times, Business Insider, and the Drudge Report.
But really the best way is to first look at the headlines and then independently search
for information using DuckDuckGo.
Google can’t be trusted with news searches by any standard at this point.
Using multiple search engines can only partly solve this problem though.
A great way to search for different viewpoints is to use Reddit.
You can browse Reddit without an account and you can always find anonymous views from people
from all walks of life.
There is always a subreddit community devoted to every world view on the planet, so take
advantage of that.
Read the comments under articles if the news site allow them.
When an important event emerges, having a digital newspaper subscription doesn’t serve
the need to get objective coverage.
Instead, the best way is to look at the headlines from various sites and see what angle they
are trying to cover it from.
It’s good to pick at least three articles on the same event from completely different
viewpoints.
For example, if you read an analysis of the French election on the New York Times, you
shouldn’t expect challenging view from the Washington Post.
It’s great to seek foreign sources that write in English.
There’s a strong geographical bias in the Western reporting, just like any geographical
area for that matter.
Geographical bias general represents an effect when majority or all sources forming a conclusion
are civilizationally homogeneous, which most likely suggests they didn’t take enough
counter points into consideration.
No event occurs isolated from the rest of the globalized world, so no objective study
should be isolated from other viewpoints.
I also don’t like listening to politicians speaking.
They don’t usually say much of a substance and they usually express their intentions
most clearly in text anyway.
This can be found via simple headline or directly from their policy statements.
I rather focus on the substance of the issue at hand and try to make up my own mind about
what the leaders are trying to convince me of.
Take for example France’s former president, Francois Hollande, and his act of war speech,
after ISIS attacked civilians in Paris.
What does depicting someone’s action as an act of war imply?
That you’ve been dragged into a war and now have to defensively respond accordingly.
It’s a subliminal call for justification of a military action, without using words
“military” or “intervention” altogether.
Politicians are life action figures to tell you what you want to hear to get your consent
on what you don’t want them to do.
Luckily, you can always rely on following the money and incentives principle.
There’s always someone who profits from dumping expensive military equipment and ammunition
into conflict zones.
And there are always regards that need to be sent to the folks fighting for influence
on our behalf.
So to sum it up – what should you do to dig some objective gold from a piles of dirty
fake news?
Prioritize topics that matter the most to you based on your interests, knowledge, and
profession It’s better to know a lot about a few things
that you can stand for effectively, than know little bit about a lot of topics and be confused
about the little sense they make.
People react to incentives so follow the money and it’ll get you far.
Always ask yourself who would benefit from a suggested outcome and start digging.
Focus on the bigger picture and don’t worry about daily coverage.
You don’t have to follow everything.
Always go for the counter point, even if you agree with what you learned about – read
criticism, comments, and diversify your sources.
Get some help from Reddit or other online forums.
Politicians always lie, so that you don’t believe the truth.
But you can find the truth if you apply all the previous points
in the analysis.