NewsAndAnalysis.org

Roadmap for Readers

How to identify bias, sensationalism, and poor analysis

 

NewsAndAnalysis.org aims to provide its readers with better access to all information relevant to a given issue in the news.  By doing so, we hope to arm our readers against bias, sensationalism, and poor analysis propagated by media and political figures.  This guide will outline several techniques that are purposefully or inadvertently used by the media to steer the reader toward a particular point of view.

 

Absolutes

• Skepticism of absolute words (such as never, always, cannot, and all) is typically warranted.  The use of these words often reflects insufficient research and hastily drawn conclusions.

• For example, a common argument against the use of "profiling" to better identify potential terrorists is that not all terrorists fit a single profile.  Timothy McVeigh was not a Muslim, therefore profiling aimed at Muslims would not have identified him.  True.  However, judging a suggestion based on its inability to catch "all" terrorists ignores the potential for it to catch "more" terrorists.

Deceptive statistics

• Percentages may be calculated using selective - and not truly representative - sample sets.  If seven of the ten people surveyed about a political issue were libertarians, the results would not likely represent the opinions of the nation.

• Persons with political agendas have been known to misrepresent statistical findings.  Consider this article: Fun With Numbers.

• Statistical findings do not always have real meaning.  For example: averages have less meaning for highly diverse data sets.  If the people in a group of four have 3, 7, 12, and 46 apples respectively, it is not informative to say that they each have an average of 17 apples.  Also, to claim that America is divided 50-50 (as the media seems to often say recently) is not fully accurate.  Polls reveal that Americans are divided on a few key issues, such as abortion and gun control, but are not as divided on many other issues.

Criticism

• Determine if alternative options exist.  It is typically easy to criticize a decision, but the decision may be correct if a better alternative does not exist.  Often, a decision-maker is successful for choosing the least bad option.  The fact that someone was not perfect does not mean they did a poor job.

• Determine if the criticism accounts for all of the facts.  If the opponent of an idea is selective about the facts they will debate, it is likely the opponent has an agenda of which the reader should be aware.

"Experts" and "analysts"

• Many, if not most, "experts" and "analysts" used by the media are otherwise employed.  Determine for whom they work or with whom they are affiliated to identify their underlying interests.  Prior to Presidential elections, some "experts," such as college professors, become more active in an attempt to support their political party or to possibly win a political appointment.  Notice the number of former academics serving as Deputy Assistant Secretaries of Defense, State, etc.

• Determine the person's credentials.  What makes them an authority on the issue they are discussing?  A person is not a military expert simply because they served in the military.  Often, a 20-year veteran of a profession is blinded to the big picture because they have spent 20 years in the weeds.

• The media promotes from within.  Often, long-time, charismatic, or physically attractive journalists are christened as "experts" to justify their presence in front of the camera.  Journalists are not required to study in-depth the issues they cover, meaning that years of reporting experience may have honed their presentation skills, but not their broader understanding of the issue.

Generic labels

• Consider several headlines with generic labels (underline added): “Iraq says elections must take place,” “Government investigates…,” “The UN protests….”  Iraq, Government, and the UN are diverse groups of individuals and organizations and do not have a single opinion or agenda as is implied by these sorts of headlines.

• Generic labels suggest conspiratorial notions of a unified plan when a unity of purpose or opinion do not exist.

De-emphasized or disguised source

• A particular opinion can be presented in a manner that implies greater legitimacy to the opinion by stating it as fact and then assigning attribution as an afterthought.

• e.g., “Creating a National Intelligence Director will add a layer of bureaucracy that will delay tactical intelligence from reaching the people who urgently need it,” a politician said.  The source of a statement like this is more important than the statement, because the source’s identity notifies the reader that the remark is an opinion, not a finding from an objective study.

Hidden agenda

• A person’s or organization’s stated agenda may not necessarily be their actual agenda.  People often latch on to arguments that support their ulterior objectives.

• e.g., U.S. military leaders may decide that the most palatable approach to preventing their loss of control of certain intelligence systems (which would reduce DoD’s power) is to side with those analysts who believe that an IC reorganization will hinder tactical intelligence sharing.

• e.g., Iran may claim that it is seeking nuclear technology to further its “peaceful” nuclear power industry, but it is likely seeking nuclear technology to develop nuclear weapons.

Attempts to influence public opinion

• Warnings, reports, and newly released “facts” are occasionally timed by politically opinionated institutions to precede high-visibility events related to the subject and are intended to influence the dialogue of the event and not merely inform the public.

• e.g., A study regarding the “worsening effects” of global warming was timed for release just prior to a UN environmental summit.

• e.g., A New York Times report on NSA surveillance of terrorism suspects in the U.S. was timed for release just prior to the author's book release covering the same material.

The difference between "vision" and "analytic findings"

• CNN on 12/7/04 reported that a classified CIA report contradicted the President’s assessment of long-term prospects for Iraq.  More accurately, the CIA report indicated that the President may need to alter his tactics if he wishes to achieve his vision, if it’s achievable at all.

• When the President declares that Iraq will attain a democratic society, he is stating his vision, not his analytic findings of likely outcomes.