☆ How Bay Area media uses fearmongering and hero/villain framing to twist issues (2/2)
Twin brothers Deimos and Phobos—Greek gods of fear and panic—always loyally followed their father, Ares, into battle. (Odoardo Fialetti: Mars [Ares])
“Not raising taxes will kill our schools.” “We'll solve homelessness by building more housing.” Below, the Center for Inquiry's Benjamin Radford (also a folklore journalist) breaks down why these slanted local narratives seem so appealing—and how to avoid media's death trap, via critical analysis. An Opp Now exclusive.
Opportunity Now: Is it true that most of our political judgments are emotion-based rather than reason-based?
Benjamin Radford: That's largely true, and for most judgments. People like to think they make decisions based on evidence; but most of the time, it's from emotion.
This becomes an issue because fear is a powerful motivator (I wrote a book about this called America the Fearful). Fear plays on our emotions beyond what is rational, and it can be easily manipulated by those wanting to sell a story to us (advertisers, politicians, etc.).
To give an example, a lot of people are afraid of flying. It's a common phobia. Oftentimes, they don't have a personal experience with a crash but have seen movie, TV, and news footage of terrible accidents—and conclude, falsely, that flying is dangerous. In reality, it's statistically one of the safest ways to get around, much more than cars. And in the case of crashes, most passengers survive them. But people get blinded by news coverage, which typically reports on the bad.
An example in politics is that a lot of the Democrats were told for months and years how terrifying Trump would be; and all of a sudden, he's president. It was most likely a fear tactic.
ON: So when we get hit with political fearmongering, what should we do?
BR: Seek out and go beyond the fear. Ask yourself, “Is this really true? What are the facts?”
Look, we're storytelling animals. The media takes advantage of this by framing stories in familiar binary narratives: hero/villain, good/bad. And this can blind us to gaps in knowledge or red flags.
Remember the scandal with Elizabeth Holmes? She was the wunderkind for years, going to revolutionize blood testing. She was on the covers of all the magazines. And in a male-dominated Silicon Valley, she wasn't just framed as the hero but the underdog (David/Goliath). Then it turned out the whole thing was based on a house of cards, all a lie.
ON: The media really did all the PR work for her. Symbolically endorsed—we might add—without knowing all the facts.
BR: Psychology's halo effect tells us that if we see someone as being good, positive, or shaking things up, we tend to give them a pass if they don't cross their i's and dot their t's. When we really should be asking questions. And eventually, by the time scandals come out, they've caused enormous damage.
ON: And why do so many folks accept ideas like this at face value, without doing the research?
BR: People are cognitive misers. That means we're lazy. We want simple answers. But the real world is complex. Addressing issues for our community is never as simple as, say, building more houses or growing more food. We must use second-order critical thinking to reach the real causes and solutions.
ON: How can we practice healthy skepticism and critical thinking when reading local media?
BR: When you see data cited somewhere, ask: compared to what? There's lots of numbers being thrown around by corporations, governments, and nonprofits. But they're often less straightforward than they appear.
ON: It's too easy to manipulate statistics. Or cite disreputable “studies.”
BR: I'm a big fan of statistics. They help us aggregate data and understand the world beyond anecdotes. But we also have to consider them carefully.
For instance, when someone mentions an “X percent increase”: from what percentage to what other percentage? You've got to go beyond the headline, beyond that flashy number, and actually make meaning of it.
ON: Reminds us of the statistics California twists to say homelessness is down. Spoiler alert: it probably isn't.
What are your other suggestions for mitigating shortcuts and biases in political issues?
BR: We should seek out a variety of quality news sources from different political viewpoints. With social media, we're more and more curating news feeds to what we already agree with—but that means we're getting a limited picture of the world. Personally, I consult 4-5 sources to get my information.
And let's say something comes across your feed that's garbage. Don't share or endorse it. Make sure that what your followers see from you is true and constructive (going beyond complaining). If you think these are serious problems, then take them seriously.
Finally, recognize that our world is complex, nuanced. Simple solutions are rarely the best ones. And all solutions—like taking a vaccine, driving a car, etc.—have both benefits and risks. Many things are unsafe in excess but fine in the right amount. So it's our job to determine if the benefits will outweigh the risks, not make a blanket statement without consulting the bigger picture.
ON: And perhaps that's the best argument for the free market philosophy. We couldn't have said it better ourselves.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.