This Is a Good Time to Stop Getting Your Information from Ideological Zealots
Image
All humans are political and ideological. We’re political in the sense that we have beliefs about the groups we’re part of—what those groups ought to have done in the past, ought to do now, ought to do in the future, and what sort of people should lead them. And we certainly have strong views about the groups we’re not part of.
We’re also ideological. Even the most down-to-earth among us hold to some big ideas, reject some big ideas, and look at the world through an ideological set of lenses. People’s worldviews range from highly rational, systematic, and coherent to highly random, chaotic, and contradictory, but we all have them.
And we’ve all got narratives we believe in that both flow out of, and sustain, our political and ideological commitments.
But something’s wrong if we let group identities, dogmas, and stories dominate our thinking to the point that we’re no longer able to recognize bunk (as in balderdash, hooey, flimflam) when it’s being sold to us by those we see as “our own.”
From where I sit, this seems to be a growing problem on “the right” these days. It’s probably an equal or greater problem on “the left,” but we’re primarily responsible for ourselves, and we’re supposed to be better than that.
Zealots and COVID-19
The latest example is the assortment of ill-informed attitudes and claims about COVID-19 I’m seeing echoed by fundamentalists, conservative evangelicals, and not-at-all-Christian folks on the right. I say “echoed,” because they seem to originate from two often-overlapping flavors of political-right media: partisan-right media and conspiracy-right media. I don’t want to get into a tiff about what sources belong under which heading, but the partisan-right media are the ones who are in lock-step with the GOP talking points—which means in lockstep with President Trump’s talking points.
These are the media personalities who were sure COVID-19 was a big politically motivated hoax … until they were sure it wasn’t … until they were sure it was “just overhyped, and we should all get back to work by Easter” … until they were sure that “nothing would be worse than declaring victory before the victory is won.” Their messaging is perfectly synchronous with the White House.
By conspiracy-right sources I mean media personalities who occasionally or constantly trot out a range of anti-mainstream suggestions and claims, usually with bad data and sloppy reasoning for support—if there’s any effort to support it at all. Sometimes its theories of sinister secret machinations, sometimes just dumb (and misleading) comparisons of supposed death rates (COVID-19 vs. flu, COVID-19 vs. lightning, etc.), and the like.
In both cases, what we’re getting is not very good information. One is just GOP propaganda—thoughtless cheerleading for the administration. The other is a weird mix of paranoia, reflexive nonconformity, and cynicism.
Either way, what you get from these sources is advocacy for a group, a leader, a movement, or a mood—not advocacy for truth and solutions to problems. Zealots are loyal to their agenda and truth is only one tool in the box to use, or abuse, in service of that agenda.
Toward Better Sources
It may come as a shock to some, but the majority view isn’t always wrong. There’s a really strong consensus that sunshine is warm, that birds are generally poor swimmers, and that horses don’t have feathers. Contrarianism has gotten so mindless on the right lately, I wonder if I could start a movement and get famous on the claim that horses really do have feathers, because “the left and the mainstream media say they don’t … and it’s all a plot to make Trump look bad.”
Here’s the point: for many matters in life, political and ideological zealots are the worst sources of information. COVID-19 is one of them.
It’s true that nobody is really “objective.” It doesn’t follow, though, that nobody is rational, rigorous, and committed to good information. Thankfully, some are much more interested in being accurate than they are in advancing a party, ideology, or conspiracy theory!
At the top of many organizations, you’re going to find some very political people. Because these leaders interface with national figures, some of whom are elected officials, that’s to be expected. But the CDC and WHO and countless other public and private organizations working on COVID-19 are full of professionals in biochemistry, virology, epidemiology, and related fields, who really aren’t very interested in what political party is dominant at the moment or what the current U.S. President’s popularity numbers are—or even who wins the next election.
We can get COVID-19 information straight from these sources as well as other more local ones.
We can also get information from media sources that aren’t dominated by political or ideological zealots. Although MSNBC on the left and Fox News on the right aren’t always delivering heavily spun information (or outright misinformation), there’s little need to go there—or turn on the TV at all—when you can read National Review, or better yet, The Dispatch. Though fallen humans like the rest of us, these folks are willing to look critically at the political “us,” and not just the political “them”—a key characteristic of any source’s commitment to truth. The Dispatch has even been known to argue that, as a nation and culture, we need to stop this madness of trying to politicize everything.
A small fact salad
These links are a bit old now, since I was gathering them mostly last weekend, but they may be of some use in countering a tiny bit of the misinformation bouncing around in the zealot-fandom echo chamber. There are also some good sources here for more up to date information.
- Testing lag: due to the shortage of tests in the U.S., we don’t have reliable numbers on the infection rate or how many are infected now. (We’re catching up now, though.)
- Probability of death by COVID-19: many misleading comparisons are going around fueled by confusion on the difference between case fatality rate and infection fatality rate or by simple innumeracy.
- Probability of hospitalization: the focus on relatively low death rates often results in overlooking the larger problem of high hospitalization rates. Overwhelming the medical system with a surge of hospitalizations is a serious problem as well—one that could unnecessarily increase death rates (more on this here).
- Data on what’s happening: The interactive data map from Johns Hopkins Center for Systems Science and Engineering is a great source of visualized data, close to “real time.”
- Canada: Probably the best COVID-19 information in Canada.
- Scams: Keep an eye out as well for Coronavirus Scams. See also Coronavirus Rumor Control, and info on Coronavirus stimulus scams.
What if they’re wrong?
Maybe the people I trust are giving me bad info. Maybe the thousands of medical professionals at CDC and NIAID, the state health departments, the private and university researchers, and the many national health departments all over the world will somehow turn out to all be wrong about the severity of the disease and the need to flatten the curve. The economic analysts I’ve been reading have me convinced that COVID-19 was going to tank the economy with or without all the state and local efforts to flatten the curve, so crushing it on purpose to save lives was the right strategy. Maybe they’ll turn out to have been wrong, too.
But if my sources turn out to be wrong, it won’t be because they put their passion for a political agenda, or party, or leader ahead of their commitment to reason, research, and helping people. If they’re wrong, it will be because they did their best to get the facts right and the response right, but failed. I’ll take that over the distortions of ideological zealots any day.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 19 views
Greg wrote:
The problem with most of the MSM, including the venerable NYT, is that the vast majority of their reporters have a leftist orientation. How about something close to a fifty-fifty balance?
It’s a mistake to frame this as a “leftist” issue. It’s a worldview issue. There are serious issues with the Republican Party, too, and it’s craven pandering for evangelical votes every four years is pathetic.
I think the real divide is between folks of an older generation who long, perhaps unwittingly, for a version of Christian America that has gone forever. For younger Christians, like me, we just don’t have that longing - because for us it was never true. We’re less addicted to Fox News. We’re less influenced by siren calls for Ronald Reagan. We’re just a different generation. That doesn’t make us better. It just makes us different.
For some context, see my review of The End of White Christian America.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[G. N. Barkman]… The problem with most of the MSM, including the venerable NYT, is that the vast majority of their reporters have a leftist orientation. How about something close to a fifty-fifty balance?
There is some difficulty even in that notion of “fifty-fifty balance.” If a budding journalist attending a public university is at the fifty-fifty point of his professors and fellow students, does that make him somehow unbiased? I would argue that if he is at that point, he is very far to the liberal side, compared with our founding fathers. “Fifty-fifty” makes it sound like if you look around and you find an equal number of people to your left as you do to your right, then you’re a “moderate.” Or if you simply find that most people in your break room agree with you, then maybe you’re “moderate.” Well, I’m sure that is the reason many MSM execs and journalists believe they are moderate, when in fact, they are liberal.
I think I get the most annoyed by NPR. Private news channels exist based on people who want to watch. And people decide if they are worth listening to. NPR get government funding. So they of course have a vested interest in government that is big and funds things like NPR. If any should be gotten rid of it’s that one, simply for that reason.
[TylerR]Wolf, Brian Williams, Chris Matthews aren’t journalists. They’re anchors. Their job is to talk to a camera.
Regarding newspapers, you need to distinguish between opinion columnists and journalists. They co-exist at the same newspapers and have very different jobs.
Everyone has biases. A journalist is someone who takes those into account and doesn’t let it influence his reporting. There are true journalists at every institution. The NYT is an excellent newspaper; even though it’s editorial board and opinion columnists trend left. Their news reporting is excellent.
Not true. FWIW, I am a longtime subscriber. I think the NYT has excellent writers, but the left wing bias is evident in almost everything they write.
Why do I stay a subscriber?
1. The crossword
2. The Food Section
3. … hmmm, not much there…
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I also subscribe to Christianity Today, so take that for what you will …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Dan, these is much truth in your post. I agree. Mostly. But the fifty-fifty I’m suggesting is not 50% to the right and 50% to the left of an individual reporter. Although ideological evaluations are notoriously difficult, actually impossible, how about 50% Democrats and 50% Republicans? That shouldn’t be too difficult to accomplish. What we have now is about 85% Democrats (or more) reporting for most of the MSM outlets. And they claim they are being objective? Hardly!
And yes, NPR peeves me the most as well. Why should my tax dollars be funding a lobbying effort for the Democrats?
G. N. Barkman
[Mark_Smith]I just watched today’s press conference from the White House. While there are a few honest reporters, the rest are just trying to score gotcha points. It’s plain as day.
And also the definition of “main stream media” is irrelevant. The point is media bias.
If media unfairness was what concerned you most about that briefing… well, it certainly makes my point about it being a distraction from very serious problems in our own tribe. We’re straining at gnats, swallowing camels.
I really think Trump’s critics should just abandon all analysis and simply replay his words and actions without comment. It’s all anyone needs to take the measure of the man.
Edit to add: briefing video … If you don’t have time for all of it, jump to 02:08:00
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Well then, how does President Biden sound? Get ready sir. There is no real unity in the Republican party because they have lost their direction. Its a circular firing squad in there with the guns on full automatic.
Keep a watchful on Biden’s VP. I hate to say it but I doubt he makes it 4 years without something happening to him.
Joel,
I know you respect and appreciate your friend, but perhaps his comments are demonstrably problematic at best and the fact that he makes those comments in good faith is exactly the point many are making. Many media types are either disingenuous or so biased they are unaware of their bias because it looks normal to them. It is like the old line about not asking a fish what it is like to be wet. He has no answer because it is the only thing he knows. He has no frame of reference. So asking a media person about media bias is the same. It’s the only thing he knows. He’s not going to say the media is biased. It would be self-condemnatory.
First, the idea that there is no MSM is so ridiculous as to seem disingenuous. People might disagree on what the MSM is exactly, but everyone recognizes there is a difference between say CNN and Breitbart or between Fox and HuffPo or between MSNBC and John Solomon/Just the News. And the minute you admit there is a difference, you understand there is MSM. How can one deny that unless they are desperately committed to a narrative?
Second, the idea that journalists are presenting fairly and evenly has been disproven over and over again. There have long been studies regarding the media treatment of conservatives vs. liberals showing how liberals get more favorable treatment. Again, these are studies that are reputable and consistent. They are not outliers nor do they vary much. Dan Rather lost his job over it, and no one thinks that was the only time he did something like that. And that could be multiplied many times over in content (though perhaps not in firing). No one thinks Jim Acosta is trying to treat Trump fairly. Were it not for the internet that your friend decries, Dan Rather’s lies would have never come to light. People would have believed Dan Rather without a second thought because he was trusted. Many examples of bias in the MSM can be demonstrated. Take the fairly recent “Russian collusion” situation and notice how badly the MSM failed and how much is coming to light that the MSM never questioned all of which is coming to light in the non-MSM. The press was widely condemned (including by itself) for its failures leading up to the WMD/Iraq War. Yet they did the same thing with the Russian collusion story. Sure there is a difference between the news and opinion, but the MSM outlets do not make that distinction well nor consistently.
Third, when he says, “the profession of journalism was trusted because they played an important role,” he is right, but only partly right. They were trusted because they were the only voice and they do play an important role. People had no way to question them. I totally agree with him that the internet has created all kinds of “experts” who have no idea what they are talking about. But that is not true across the board. Once there was an alternative to the MSM, there was another viewpoint and people began to see things that were previously unknown. And that is what led to the distrust of journalism. It became clear that journalists were not being truthful or accurate in all cases. And once someone has misled you, it creates distrust. So the media has no one to blame but themselves. It should be the case that every story that pops up in the non-MSM has already been seen in the MSM.
Consider the present coronavirus story. Non MSM outlets are reporting entirely different stories in many respects about numbers and severity. These are things you are not hearing from MSM sources. Why? It appears there is good reason to question the prevailing models which are overwhelmingly inaccurate while other models have been much more in line with reality.
Your friend appears not to consider that the reason the non-MSM is so hated is because (1) it challenges a monopoly and (2) it challenges a narrative. They can no longer hide behind “just trust us.” Too many other things are available that give reason not to trust. And Trump, for all his nonsense of which there is much, is not afraid to push back and that is new. Previously conservatives have generally rolled over and played nice, trying to take the higher ground (though we can debate how high that is … not very IMO). There is now a significant amount of evidence coming out about Michael Flynn that the MSM is not reporting. Why isn’t the MSM reporting on the Flynn case? Are they being fair and truthful? Did they malign and falsely accuse Flynn? It seems that way. The MSM pilloried Brett Kavanaugh but has rolled over in silence on Joe Biden so far. How can your friend not notice that? And these stories could be multiplied over and over. The MSM trumpeted all the indictments of the Mueller report but where is the reporting about the indictments that were dropped?
Fourth, when he talks about the killing of the fairness doctrine, he is undermining the very principles that the free press operates on, namely, that you can’t muzzle speech based on its viewpoint. Nor can you force someone to say something or to listen to something. The fairness doctrine was misguided from the beginning. He should know that. That was the fear with Trump—that Trump was trying to shut down certain viewpoints in the media. But your friend actually has no problem doing that. He just wants it to be different viewpoints.
Lastly, when he says, “You just happen to listen to political leaders and pundits who are great at telling you what to be afraid of and why,” he is saying exactly to the kinds of things that the non-MSM has been saying. The MSM has been great at consolidating their messaging - making it consistent; and they have created a tremendous amount of fear. That is why you hear the same line at CNN, MSNBC, and other news outlets. There are even videos of this. They have consolidated their message. And people accept it because they are trusted—or more likely because they say what they already believe to be true. Think of how many times we have heard that Trump will destroy our democracy. Or that he wouldn’t accept the results of the election. Turns out neither was true.
Notice even here: You can guarantee that certain people will believe certain things no matter how strong the evidence is against them or no matter how good the argument is or no matter how many holes have been poked in an argument. It is confirmation bias—something is true because it repeats what I already believe.
Trump, for all his many follies and evil, has been tremendously useful in pointing out what has gone on. For your friend to ignore that is a problem, isn’t it?
Aaron, what if the gnat is Trump and the camel is the larger system? If so, you are straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel.
You are bothered by someone who calls out liars (however indelicately, even evilly, he does it), but you don’t mind liars calling out liars, as long as they call out the liar you like to call out. Rather, you are bothered when the liar you don’t like calls out the liars who agree with you. As the old saying goes, it’s all a matter of whose ox is being gored. There are some of us who think that it’s fine to gore oxen at times, but those who fight with the sword should be prepared to die by the sword.
I anticipate your response will be that you don’t accept those other liars and are not defending them. But it would be hard to tell that from what you have said. Weakly protesting that you don’t support them is no substitute for condemnation. You say this is about our tribe and by so doing have missed the camel. It is not a tribe problem. It is a culture problem and I think the refusal to call that out is a bigger problem. Perhaps it is more analogous to war than you are willing to acknowledge. The right of self-defense and the defense of higher principles is a just and valid one. Not all means are acceptable, but not all means are unacceptable.
Trump is no more narcissistic and evil than many of his detractors. In fact, in many ways he is slightly better perhaps, in that Trump has no obligation to fair and neutral while those in the press do have a social and civil obligation to tell the truth even when it disagrees with them. Trump is entitled to like Trump and say only good things about Trump publicly. The press has no such entitlement.
Long after Trump is gone, the problems you willingly accept will be here. That is the camel, it seems to me.
I saw a tweet the other day from a progressive/liberal/whatever who said something to the effect that this election matters because of the court — Because Trump will stack the court with conservatives that will ensure conservative policies for decades. I thought to myself, Oh how the children of darkness are wiser than the children of light. It’s sad that we even have to say that, but it is the case that some who call themselves conservatives will give up a decades to save four years, and will not gain anything because the only alternative will be just as bad if not worse morally speaking.
As much as I dislike Trump, I find it far more evil to accept the cultural narrative. We are called to be faithful citizens. To abandon that duty is dereliction, it seems to me.
Someone you disagree with 50% of the time, or someone you always disagree with? That is the question before conservatives and Republicans during the entire Trump presidency. I would say many, if not most, of the traditional conservatives have decided that Trump is unqualified. They were never on his boat, so to speak. So many of the problems with the Trump administration started right away, not merely due to Trump idiosyncrasies, but due to the utter refusal of the “establishment” Republican network to work with him. In many cases Trump had to keep Obama holdovers in their positions because the traditional wave of Republican offers to help and man positions never came. Even many Republicans in Congress opposed Trump’s programs even when they had the majority of both houses. Why? They didn’t like Trump. I suspect many of them feared he had colluded with Russia, so they refused to help. As one example, what really is the excuse that Republicans had no plan to overturn and replace “Obamacare”? That thumbs down by John McCain in the middle of the night was a stunning rebuke of Trump.
That brings me to this:
Recognize it? That is Humphrey Bogart in the The Caine Mutiny as Lt. Com. Quigg. I have often thought the lesson of this movie applies to the Trump presidency and the Republican party. To remind you, that movie is about a small ship in WW2 that gets a new captain, Quigg. He is an odd fellow with many leadership deficiencies. Perhaps he is even a coward. To make a long story short, and you should really watch the movie if you never have, the other officers on the ship turn against Quinn after too many failures by Quinn and take command during a hurricane, removing Quinn from the bridge. There is then a court martial, in which a reluctant lawyer defends the first officer and gets him off by showing Quinn is a little cuckoo.
The end of the movie is most dramatic. The defense attorney, now drunk, walks into the celebration of the officers and berates them. Why? Because they failed their captain. Was he weak? Yes. Was he a coward? Perhaps. Was his leadership deficient? Definitely. But their responsibility was to serve their captain and to help make up for those inadequacies, not to point them out.
To me this sums up the failure of the Republican party, and the conservatives that usually align with it, when it comes to Trump. Right away they determined him to be unfit. When he won, and I think even Trump was surprised, they refused to help him out. I have heard reports that Trump fully expected the Republicans to come along side him and govern. Maybe even a Democrat or two. It never happened. It was opposition from the start. Even before the start. We now know that from the impeachment fiasco.
Is Trump a perfect leader? FAR from it. Does he have major deficiencies? Yes. That is not the point. He is the President. When we can, and especially the party that the President belongs to, ought to help out when and how they can.
Imagine how Trump would have been different if he had not been faced with some much opposition early on, from all sides. I submit that many of his bad traits are amplified by that opposition. What we see now is a product of the early days.
So, if you don’t like Trump, look in the mirror. You helped make him. Learn the lesson of the command crew of the USS Caine. Help your leader, don’t chop his legs off. It makes all the difference in the world.
- If there is a plane crash, extreme national weather event, or some breaking tragedy like a mass shooting: CNN
- Print and online:
- The WSJ (subscriber)
- New York Times (subscriber) (I see a bias but there is a lot to read there and I value it)
- BBC
- Bloomberg (limited articles w/o subscription)
- Minneapolis Star Tribune (subscriber)
- AP and Reuters
- CNBC for business news
- A waste of time: MSNBC, WND
not worth the photons it takes to project the image. Here’s why. The AP comes out right down the middle, so they seem unbiased, right? Here is the problem. Take a simple example. The Democrats in the House are opposing adding to the Payment Protection Plan funds by insisting all kinds of other “protections” be added with strings to the money. Things like preference to minority businesses, women owned business, etc. In other words, a true unbiased report will note that the Democrats are holding the legislation hostage to promote their agenda. How does the AP and other “unbiased” media outlets report it? “Legislation to expand the PPP is bogged down in partisan negotiations…” They get an “unbiased” score when really they are leaning left. Happens all the time every day.
[Jim]
No.
Any analysis that believes it is balanced and marks NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, and PBS as “neutral / minimal partisan bias OR balance of biases” immediately has zero credibility.
Furthermore, as some have already noted, it is impossible to even compare many of these as the percentages of opinion and news vary drastically from one place to the next. Any analysis like this requires so many caveats as to make it nearly useless, much like any attempts to analyze COVID-19 statistics.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Discussion