Above The Noise

(soft beat in background) - All right, so I've got a few burning questions for you. Who's the better Chris? Evans or Hemsworth? Should you use Apple Music or Spotify? Which is better, DCEU or MCU? Some questions just defy easy answers. Well, not in that last case, but you get my point. Sometimes, there is no consensus on what the truth is and when you're talking about important issues, like policy decisions that affect all kinds of people, that makes for some good journalistic analysis. Topics like... should race be considered in college admissions? Should 16 year olds vote? Should there be a carbon tax? But not every topic warrants a both sides approach. Some viewpoints are simply not backed by empirical evidence or are based on false information. And journalists have to be really careful not to present them as legit debates. If they do, they are creating a false equivalence. So, how can you spot false equivalence in journalism? (record scratch) First of all, what is false equivalence? It's when you set up two opposing sides of an argument and make it look like they hold equal weight when really, they don't. I got an example for you. Take genetically modified foods, or GMOs. The science is pretty clear, GMO foods aren't harmful to your health. This has been validated in peer reviewed journals. Yet you often find articles and news segments about GMO foods where non-experts and interest groups question the safety of GMO's. And presenting both of these views as valid is actually illogical... A false equivalence. These two sides don't deserve equal time in a news story, not even close. One is based on scientific consensus, and the other is based on vague speculation by interest groups and non-experts. The logic of comparing them is flawed. So now that you get what false equivalence is, (different beat begins) Why does it happen? Well, it can be tricky for journalists to avoid, especially when news is breaking and reporters are scrambling to fact check a story, and be the first in line to publish it. Enter misinformation and propaganda. Propagandas try to persuade people to buy into a particular cause or belief. They often take advantage of the chaos of breaking news, and spread rumors and conspiracy theories on social media. They get really sneaky to make a phony post seem real. They create a bunch of fake accounts, and then use those accounts to like and comment on the post. Even trained journalists can fall for false posts when they are shared widely by real looking accounts on places like Twitter or Facebook. And it's easiest to get fooled during breaking news events. Online convo's start on social media, where there's no focus on fact checking. These platforms distribute more information than any other institution in history. But they aren't doing a good job at checking for what's real, and what's not. And propagandists don't just manipulate journalists on social media, they also know how to game news programs. In an effort to be balanced, news shows often bring on people with different views to debate each other, leading to those screaming matches that go viral. If you think that's trivial I can't believe you're actually a physician. Look, this is the most studied element in medicine. - Excuse me, I'm not sure This is something - where you're getting your that is actually the biggest revolution Your, your facts are- -

Interviewer

Hold on, hold on, hold on, Dr. Dorian finish and then Dr. Wolfson, I'll give you a chance to reply. Now, when one not at all credible side comes on to spew false information to distort the facts, it's treated the same as the factual side is. Just being on the program legitimizes it. Then, those clickbait-y soundbites spread on social media and we all end up engulfed in a toxic misinformation wildfire. So with all this manipulation going on, how can journalists stop the spread of misinformation to the public? We thought it would be a good idea to talk to a real journalist about how they deal with false equivalence. Meet Marisa Lagos, she covers politics for KQED, so she has to think about this stuff all the time! So, could you give us some tips on how to avoid false equivalence? Absolutely. My number one tip is to think like a journalist, and that means to be skeptical. Do your own fact checking, don't just accept something somebody's saying just 'cause they're on TV, or they're in a certain newspaper. Tip number two would be to check your sources. So, when somebody says something, when you're reading it, or when you see them on TV, think about where they're coming from. What's their point of view? What's their agenda? Understanding the reason somebody might be making a certain argument is really important so that you can make your own call about how valid that is. Make sure that when you're talking to people, or you're, say, looking at different types of news outlets, that it's not all coming from kind of the same place. And that also means to, sort of, check your own biases and question, maybe, why you feel a certain way about something. Is that because of your own life experience? So, kind of back to the first point. Be skeptical of everyone, including yourself. There you have it. If you think more like a journalist, you can avoid the traps of false equivalence. Recognize it when you see it, and think twice before hitting that share button. What are a couple examples of false equivalence that you've seen recently? Let us know in the comments below! And if you like this video, check out this episode we did on how to spot bad science reporting. You'll be glad you did. It'll make sense when you watch it. And last but not least, give us some love and like and subscribe. And stay above the noise, y'all. Peace out! (outro music)