We live in a golden age of information and misinformation simultaneously. Never have we had so much useful information available to us and so much nonsense to weed through. This puts a great deal of responsibility onto the shoulders of those of us who consume media. It is also very liberating.
Many of us remember the days when the news we received was limited to our local newspapers and radio and television stations. Special interest magazines and newsletters offered some alternative perspectives, but their distribution was limited.
Not long after the end of the Cold War we saw the dawn of the internet and hoped for the free flow of information. The rise of social media with its preference for sensationalism seemed to exterminate this dream, and our world became more polarized.
But maybe the dream is not over. Perhaps we are learning that an informed public is the greatest hope for the future. As we develop healthy skepticism, we learn to recognize when we are being manipulated and are able to dig deeper to find the truth.
Just as we saw contradictions in reporting during the Cold War, we now see “alternative facts” presented by various news sources.
How do we know who is telling the truth? The best way is to simply ask a lot of questions.
The most important question is, “Who is paying for this?” Is it a particular government? Is it a corporation trying to promote a product? Is the news source more interested in good ratings than in telling the truth? Is this seemingly alternative news source funded by a nefarious billionaire trying to create confusion and turn potential allies into enemies? Is it funded by a not-for-profit that has a particular agenda?
One example of disregard for the truth now coming to light is Fox News reporting of the “big lie.” While they began reporting the 2020 American presidential election honestly, they realized that their viewers wanted to hear about how the election was stolen from Donald Trump, and subsequently changed their narrative. The issue is now in the courts, and the findings will give us a clearer idea of what happened in the Fox News corporate office.
A less obvious example of misrepresentation was Rachel Maddow of MSNBC reporting on the Rage Against the War Rally in Washington, D.C. last month. She portrayed it as a small gathering of people waving Russian and Soviet flags, white supremacists, and right-wing extremists. In fact, it was a gathering that included well-respected representatives from the left and the right. It would not be unreasonable to question whether Maddow’s cynical reporting on this peace rally had something to do with the generous funding her network receives from the arms industry.
One also needs to question what is not being reported. Millions are taking to the streets and protesting across Europe, objecting to the war in Ukraine, inflation, energy costs, rising interest rates, and corporate profiteering. Is the hope that this will not spread to North America?
Fortunately, there are reporters and news services that prioritize truth. To distinguish them from conspiracy theorists, manipulators, and liars, we need to ask more questions, such as “Why are you telling me this?” We can also question their sources, listen for gaps in their logic, and question their biases, their expertise, as well as their reputations.
We are no longer bound to the narrative of CTV and the CBC. There is a plethora of news from many sources available to us at the click of a button. The challenge to each of us is to search intelligently, avoid echo chambers, keep an open mind, and continue asking questions.
It’s not always easy to find the truth, but it’s worth the effort. No other generation has been as fortunate as ours with regard to freedom of information, but with this freedom comes the responsibility to be critical consumers of media.
Gerry Chidiac is a Prince George writer.
