The Disbenefit of the Doubt
This weeks lecture concentrated on the concept of research; what it is and how we utilise it. As someone who is already versed in using google scholar and references to academic journals a lot of what was being said was somewhat superfluous to me, but as the lecture came to a close I began to reflect on the reading we had been set for this week. I started to think about exactly how we, as consumers, come into contact with, and respond to ‘research’. Danah Boyd’s article Did Media Literacy Backfire? explores how our relationship with facts has changed, most notably in the way we discuss them. She pointed out the divide between the highly educated and the common man and how a declining sense trust has meant that “doubt has become a tool”.
The concept of doubt is a really interesting one because it allows us to counter facts with emotions rather than arguments of substance. Doubt doesn’t rely on a counter argument, just the concept that there is one. This point of hers reminded me of Carlos Maza’s video for Vox about how CNN treats the News. CNN has an attitude towards news coverage that mirrors sports coverage. This means that you have every argument with a seemingly equal argument facing off in one of their many panels.
In the Trump era this has lead to seasoned professionals sitting across from uninformed Trump supporters, and this attitude towards information is a huge problem. As audiences we are prepped to agree with arguments that support our view of the world, when information is presented in this manner we choose the side we want, not necessarily the one thats right. When CNN, and networks like them, pay these Trump supporters to appear on their broadcasts, they do not come with alternative arguments, they come with spores of doubt that they spread across their opponents argument.
The spreading of doubt in this manner truly makes fact a debatable concept in a strangely distorted postmodern way. Everything seems like its up for debate, and the mind-numbing length of these debates not only makes us tune-out to the conversation, but also makes us lack the sense that we can trust the news to present us with the truth at all. This shows us that it is not the information we are getting, but our relationship with information that has begun to rot. As Boyd claims, we don’t need to reform and eradicate fake news, as much as we need to “change how we make sense of information”. Fake information has always been around, but the way we discuss information has given it unprecedented legitimacy.
The fact is, news media is losing its grip on its reputation, and its losing it fast… which is a problem. The way we find credible sources is through a sense of who is likely to present us with the truth, yet even our ‘credible’ sources are presenting the ridiculous arguments we should only be able to find on places like Breitbart. More than anything this reading, and my general enquiry into the dilemma of fake news, has taught me that the facts are nowhere near as important as how we presents them. Whilst research is important, and will be important for the entirety of my career, I will need to focus just as much on how my information is received by my audience, if I stand a chance of delivering a narrative without doubt.