Discernment in 2021: Tips for Better Use of Sources (Part 1)
Image
“Discernment” is shorthand for the skill of identifying what’s good, right, true and most important from among inferior alternatives. The fact that discernment requires a maturing process through “training” (Heb. 5:14) tells us that these inferior alternatives often seem superior. It also tells us we can get better at it.
Good thing! People have instant access to more claims and counter-claims than at any time in human history. Christians need discernment more than ever before.
I’ve written previously about the role of good sources in the exercise of discernment. Building on those principles—and drawing on my own and others’ experiences—I want to pass on some practical tips.
1. Closest is best.
People who teach writing and research often use the term “primary sources.” Definitions vary slightly, but the gist is the same.
A primary source is an eyewitness account of an event or data obtained through original statistical or scientific research. (American University)
A rule of thumb: The further one goes from those directly involved, the less reliable the information tends to be. Information from professional media isn’t quite like the old telephone game, but sometimes it’s close. As for social media—they are the telephone game, only with photos and emojis!
If the topic is controversial and important, and you want to have a strong well-founded opinion on it, sources closer to the action are better.
We need to keep two barriers in mind, though.
- We often can’t get to a primary source because they’re not reachable and haven’t published.
- We often can’t understand a primary source because it’s highly specialized. Readers need a background in the subject to understand concepts and language in these sources.
For that reason, the tip isn’t “always go to primary sources,” but “get as close to primary as circumstances allow.” That often means prioritizing non-primary sources that name or link to their sources. These quality secondary sources are open about where they got their information, and that increases accountability.
2. Deprioritize opinion.
If getting at the truth is our goal, we should be looking to fact-focused sources far more than we look to opinion. But our culture seems to have this reversed.
- Many seem to be unaware of the difference between news and opinion.
- Many who are aware of the difference, don’t care.
To nobody’s benefit, the news and opinion are increasingly mixed together, but the extremes remain pretty obvious. TV shows named after individuals (Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, etc., etc.) are opinion shows. “News” shows that regularly feature personal judgments and emotional reactions are not really news shows either.
A good rule of thumb here: The more sensitive and controversial the topic, the more calm and fact-focused our sources need to be. If you’re seeing words like “slams,” “owns,” “disgusting,” “outrageous,” “shocking,” etc., in their headlines, you’re probably not looking at a fact-focused source!
Humans are shot through with bias—and the more emotional we are, the less we care about being accurate (a.k.a., truthful, factual). Our communication becomes nothing more than weaponized words.
Bottom line: Lovers of truth should be more interested in “boring.”
A corollary to the rule of thumb above: The more political the topic, the less political our sources need& to be. True, all humans are political, and all sources are political in that sense. That doesn’t mean all sources are equally political. There’s a big difference between The Daily Kos and Axios, or between Gateway Pundit and The Dispatch. Truth-seekers are better served by Axios and The Dispatch any day of the week … on virtually any topic!
I’ve been watching politics for what I think I can call “a long time” now. One thing I’ve learned is that leaders are never as bad as their strongest political enemies portray them to be, and never as good as their strongest political supporters portray them to be. The same is almost always true of policy.
As Christians, we should feel a strong spiritual aversion toward peddlers of alarm, distrust, anger, and hostility. For more on this topic, see This Is a Good Time to Stop Getting Your Information from Ideological Zealots.
3. Look past the headlines.
By now we all know headlines are often misleading. Many are just click bait. Many are a poor indicator of what the attached story actually claims. Headlines have to simplify, and they often oversimplify.
These problems are all common knowledge, but we need to challenge ourselves on this. Human nature means we tend to turn the critical thinking off if the headline seems to resonate with our already-held suspicions. Factor in that we often encounter headlines now in feeds of various sorts, a format that begs us to indulge mindlessly in self-validation.
Rule of thumb: If you’re not going to read the story, append the headline with a mental “probably not,” or a “maybe partly.” If it’s worth having an opinion on, it’s worth digging into, otherwise, assume the headline is noise.
Here’s a few random examples to illustrate how unhelpful headlines can be.
Supreme Court sides with New Mexico woman shot by police who attempted to flee | Just for laughs. In the story, the police are not attempting to flee! |
US Air Force says it will test bizarre ‘hypersonic’ weapon this month | “Bizarre” is dramatic and skeptical, but the story is information rich and doesn’t support the headline’s language. Story also shows that there’s no reason to put “hypersonic” in scare quotes. |
Warp Drive Is No Longer Science Fiction. The Physics of Faster-Than-Light Travel | Story: it’s still science fiction. We don’t have a warp drive or even know how to build one. What we have is some new (very cool) theoretical physics. |
“SHOCKING” in all caps is pure click-baiting. There is nothing even a little bit shocking in the story. | |
Pro-life, pro-abortion activism labeled as domestic violent extremist threat in US intel report | Extremely misleading. The story: An intel report on “domestic violent extremists,” refers to a range of motivations, one of them being “ideological agendas in support of pro-life or pro-choice beliefs.” |
Species of Gut Bacteria Linked to Enhanced Cognition and Language Skills in Infant Boys | “Linked to” is weasel language for “correlated with,” and correlation isn’t causation. Many read a headline like this and think “the science” says probiotics will make their kids smarter. |
In a future post, we’ll take up “the science” and studies, among other things.
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 Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service.
- 56 views
[Aaron Blumer]I’m out of time, but I think anti-intellectualism and devaluing of logical rigor are a major contributing factor to the “conservative Christian gullibility problem.” And we really do have a conservative Christian gullibility problem.
And what is interesting is that over the past 2,000 years (the last 100 years notwithstanding), some of the greatest philosophers, scientists…. were Christians.
Not that it excuses fundagelical Christian gullibility, but it is worth noting that a significant portion of QAnon and the like are not Christians at all, but rather almost neo-pagans.
It is cold comfort that “our tribes” are not the only blithering idiots out there, but we are not alone. :^) And really, we might also point out that for believing in total nonsense, let’s talk about a huge portion of the Democratic Party, which really doesn’t see any big issue with Communism, the most lethal and oppressive ideology the world has yet known.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Not that it excuses fundagelical Christian gullibility, but it is worth noting that a significant portion of QAnon and the like are not Christians at all, but rather almost neo-pagans.
It is cold comfort that “our tribes” are not the only blithering idiots out there, but we are not alone. :^) And really, we might also point out that for believing in total nonsense, let’s talk about a huge portion of the Democratic Party, which really doesn’t see any big issue with Communism, the most lethal and oppressive ideology the world has yet known.
25% of White Evangelicals embrace Qanon
https://www.newsweek.com/one-quarter-white-evangelicals-believe-qanon-s…
It is hard to put the true figure of how many that makes up within Qanon. One poll showed 56% of Qanon were White Evangelical Republicans. But that has shifted down quitge a bit.
No, a broad range of Democrats do not support Communism. This is a false narrative that is perpetuated by the right leaning media. Many Democrats support social models such as the Nordic model found in the Nordic parts of Europe (Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and to a partial extent Netherlands). These countries are sometimes looped into socialism. Having lived there, it is not accurate at all. In fact the Nordic model supports capitalism more strongly than even the US on most international scales. There are some in the democratic party that support a more extensive socialism model than the Nordic model. This get the media to pretty much spread the idea that democrats are for socialism and then they convert that into communism. They also tout how socialism fails. Again distorting what they are really embracing, which is social models. Which for most intents and purposes don’t fail and are very successful. The Nordic countries have a high index for happiness, low debt, trust in their government, long life spans, all significantly greater than a country like the US.
….please explain to me why the port side cauci aren’t raising H*** about Cuban emigre Mayorkas’ refusal to allow refugees from Cuba’s dictatorship into the country. Actually, Mayorkas is worse, as he’s the son of a woman who fled the Holocaust, too. He should know **** well why it’s important to accept refugees from dictatorships, and he’s got the support of his party in more or less sending the St. Louis back to Germany Havana. President Biden has said as much, too, and Jen Psaki’s public statements about the uprising soft-pedal the realities of Communism as well.
Sorry, as long as Democrats aren’t raising the roof on this one, the only sane conclusion I can come to is that there is indeed a strong portion of Democrats who really don’t think Cuban communism is all that bad.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]….please explain to me why the port side cauci aren’t raising H*** about Cuban emigre Mayorkas’ refusal to allow refugees from Cuba’s dictatorship into the country. Actually, Mayorkas is worse, as he’s the son of a woman who fled the Holocaust, too. He should know **** well why it’s important to accept refugees from dictatorships, and he’s got the support of his party in more or less sending the St. Louis back to
GermanyHavana. President Biden has said as much, too, and Jen Psaki’s public statements about the uprising soft-pedal the realities of Communism as well.Sorry, as long as Democrats aren’t raising the roof on this one, the only sane conclusion I can come to is that there is indeed a strong portion of Democrats who really don’t think Cuban communism is all that bad.
Mayorkas is following the exact same policy as Trump did with Cuba. Mayorkas has also said the same for Haiti which is not communist. While there are many progressive Democrats that lean that way, the approach Biden is taking is a bit more complex than painting the picture that they think Cuban communism is all that bad. This would be identical to saying that Trump supported the reemergence of the Taliban when he pulled troops from Afghanistan. The Taliban has killed more people on US soil than Communism has ever done.
With the 25% evangelicals that believe in the QAnon theories, I wish the PRRI research had broken down who exactly comprises these evangelicals. Are they regular churchgoers? What stripe of evangelicalism do they adhere to? From my anecdotal experiences with QAnon folks who claim to be evangelicals, most do not attend church but see their Christian faith within a rugged individualistic prism. What’s more, the vast majority of those I’ve met came from Pentecostal backgrounds. Evangelicalism for the vast majority of Americans is considered more of a political conservative lobbying group that embraces identity politics rather than something that is described more theologically (i.e. Bebbington’s Quadrilateral of evangelicalism by identifying its four distinguishing marks: conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism)
[Joel Shaffer]With the 25% evangelicals that believe in the QAnon theories, I wish the PRRI research had broken down who exactly comprises these evangelicals. Are they regular churchgoers? What stripe of evangelicalism do they adhere to? From my anecdotal experiences with QAnon folks who claim to be evangelicals, most do not attend church but see their Christian faith within a rugged individualistic prism. What’s more, the vast majority of those I’ve met came from Pentecostal backgrounds. Evangelicalism for the vast majority of Americans is considered more of a political conservative lobbying group that embraces identity politics rather than something that is described more theologically (i.e. Bebbington’s Quadrilateral of evangelicalism by identifying its four distinguishing marks: conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism)
Yeah I don’t think that we will ever get to that level. White Evangelicals is a broad group of self-identified people. They are going to go across all stripes. I live in a very affluent area, go to an affluent SBC church that is conservative, and there are a decent amount of people that attend/members that believe a lot of these fringe items. Including things like microchips in the vaccines. They are out there and it isn’t just rural areas, pentacostals…..
Not that it excuses fundagelical Christian gullibility, but it is worth noting that a significant portion of QAnon and the like are not Christians at all, but rather almost neo-pagans.
It is cold comfort that “our tribes” are not the only blithering idiots out there, but we are not alone.
But for many Christians, the QAnon bunch is “our tribe.”… as someone pointed out. I think this phenomenon illustrates the fact that what we’re seeing is a new kind of worldliness. Historically, fundamentalists have associated “worldliness” mostly with entertainment choices and clothing styles. But in Scripture it has to do with thinking and valuing as those under the cosmos do… those who don’t know what life is really all about.
Anyway, we have a large segment of conservative evangelicalism/fundamentalism that in many ways thinks just like the godless about these issues… in particular the devaluing of objective truth (in favor of using claims as weapons, regardless of their accuracy) and the embracing of pragmatic moral reasoning.
Sorry, as long as Democrats aren’t raising the roof on this one, the only sane conclusion I can come to is that there is indeed a strong portion of Democrats who really don’t think Cuban communism is all that bad.
Most probably don’t think it’s all that bad. This is not the same thing as being in favor of it. What people forget is that the left is human just like the right, so often they take position in reaction to what they’re rejecting. They overcorrect or over-position to make their identity as “not them” more clear. Hence polarization. When it all becomes about what tribe you’re in rather than about truth, everybody wants to be distinct from Them. So you have a lot of democrats etc. that aren’t enthusiastic about communisim but they don’t want to identify with what they see as obsessed anti-comms on the right.
It’s always been a good idea to apply critical thinking in equal measure to both right and left, but having passed a pivotal threshold in our socio-political polarization, it’s an absolute must now. The right is going to exaggerate nearly everything in order to keep the base fired up and bolster their identity as Not One of Them. The left has long done and will continue to do the same. As a society we are truly at war ideologically, and somebody has correctly pointed out that in war truth is the first casualty.
We have to look at issues with that in mind. Almost nothing as it is represented to be by its detractors.
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.
No, but there are a lot of midpoints where one can make one’s displeasure with the Cuban regime known while avoiding war. Kennedy and Reagan both managed this, no? Reagan of course also gave the Warsaw Pact a nice nudge to oblivion at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, and it’s worth noting that there are statues of the Gipper all over Eastern Europe, because those countries’ refusal to cooperate with East German and Soviet authorities had a lot to do with the notion that the U.S. did, to a degree, have their back.
One can start by accepting refugees and by speaking forcefully against the Cuban regime, making clear that jailing dissidents is not how modern societies ought to work.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]One can start by accepting refugees and by speaking forcefully against the Cuban regime, making clear that jailing dissidents is not how modern societies ought to work.
Really the narrative around Cuba is one that is perpetuated from the far right. They look for ways that they can differentiate themselves, that resonates with their base and they poke it. Then you see all of these people come out of the woodwork talking about Cuba. Cuba has been the same regime and been behaving the same way since 1959. Republicans, Democrats and everyone else hasn’t put any dent into the communist regime there. The refuge stance that Biden took is no different at all, than what Trump took. In fact, Trump was even harsher on accepting refuges as part of his border control that resonated so strongly with his base. I feel that the Republicans spend more time defining themselves in contrast to the Democrats than actually creating a real platform. Biden has come out strongly stating his opposition to what is taking place in Cuba and is putting in place sanctions later today.
Cuba is being used by the Republicans as a narrative to point out how the Democrats secretly want a communist regime in the US. Which is nonsense. Republicans have sat by the wayside, just as much as Democrats for the last 80 years. If we are honest. Some had stronger tones than others and some sat by the sidelines. But in the end, there was never any substantial movement by either part. What is really sad is that Cuba just becomes a political tool from both parties to either court the Cuban vote in the US, or stick a knife in the other party. In the end, there is no interest to actually make substantive changes to Cuba or define a real foreign policy around it.
Again, the vast majority of Lemmings are just taking their cue from Hannity, or some other NewsMax personality, and have no realy concept of Cuba at the end of the day. Where are all the Republicans getting mad about Trump pulling out the military and the bloodshed that is now taking place in Afghanistan as the Taliban take over broad swaths of the country. At least we had control of that situation, unlike the Cuba situation. Ohh, wait! That doesn’t fit the Republican narrative. It doesn’t play into Trump’s base. So we will ignore it. Let’s focus on Cuba (for whatever reason) because we can really stick it to Bernie and AOC now.
….and knowing a bit about the regime, and why 15% of people have left, risking being shot by Cuban machine guns, it’s not just about a political narrative. It’s about little things like freedom of speech, free enterprise, freedom of religion, and the like.
I vividly remember sentiments just like yours back in the late 1980s, David, addressed at the situation in Europe. Thank God that Reagan ignored them.
Update: here’s a bit from Cal Thomas that makes the point as well. Folks, this is not normal or right.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Update: here’s a bit from Cal Thomas that makes the point as well. Folks, this is not normal or right.
And this proves Aaron’s point. An article taken from a Right leaning questionably factual site that reinforces your belief and narrative. What is the competing side that when looked at together provides a more balanced view:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/jewish-world-review/
Just reading it is difficult. Of course it brings up AOC as the poster child of the entire Democratic Party (which she is not). I am not saying the issues aren’t real, but guess what. 9 months ago, the same issues were real (Innocent Cuban people were oppressed by an domineering Communist regime) and Trump was silent like crickets, as was the rest of the Republican party. Should they have been? No. But this is not a Democrat vs. Republican thing. It just fits the narrative today.
The article you linked to starts out,
People on the far left have become so predictable that their statements are no longer “breaking news.” They would be hilarious if they weren’t outrageous or if they didn’t contribute to the undermining of human rights and freedom in other countries.
If that isn’t starting the article out with a very biased narrative, I am not sure how much further you would need to go to in the English language.
Just to balance this out a bit, here is a factual story on Trump’s actual stated policy and stance on Cuba. Guess what, that was hailed by Trump and the Republican as Trump being tough on immigration. Such a double standard.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-07-30/trump-deports-cubans-…
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2020/11/09/un…
David, maybe argue against the fact that Cuba has sky high incarceration, and per Valladares (you should read his work if you have not), a lot of those are political prisoners? Maybe address the video evidence of freedom advocates being taken away by Cuban secret police on Spanish television?
Regarding your appraisal of JWR, the site is a grouping of syndicated columnists, and the author here is Cal Thomas. He’s undoubtedly conservative, but again, aren’t we supposed to go on facts instead of reputations? Maybe eschew the ad hominem and guilt by association fallacies? Thomas has a deservedly good reputation, and if you’re going to do “guilt by association” because of Thomas, one simultaneously can do the same to noted arch-conservative Garrison Keillor…..um, wait a minute here.
Reality is that along with JWR, the Washington Times, and Fox, Thomas is also syndicated by the Tribune Company, MSN, and the like.
So perhaps we ought to say that the “broad brush fact checkers” need to bone up on the guilt by association fallacy, to put it mildly.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Here is the difference between what mediabiasfactcheck.com writes about the NY Times and WSJ:
NYT: “Overall, we rate the New York Times Left-Center biased based on word and story selection that moderately favors the left but highly factual and considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well-respected journalists/editors. The failed fact checks that occurred were on Op-Ed’s and not straight news reporting.”
WSJ: “Overall, we rate the Wall Street Journal Right-Center biased due to low biased news reporting combined with a strong right biased editorial stance. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to anti-climate, anti-science stances, and occasional misleading editorials.”
Note the difference in how editorials are considered, and the fact that the supposedly unbiased fact checker doesn’t like the “stances” of the WSJ, so it lowered the factualness rating (regardless of the actual facts). The WSJ does not get the same credit as the NY Times on its “straight news reporting.”
Thus I rate mediatbiasfactcheck.com as left-biased rather than unbiased due to the dishonest way in which failed fact checks are treated as less serious in left-leaning publications. The ratings of this site will no longer be considered as any way authoritative or correct, so if you submit their ratings as evidence, I’ll consider it right up there with Wikipedia or Snopes for biased political information (i.e., I can safely ignore it, or at a minimum, take information from this site with a pound or two of salt).
Dave Barnhart
[dcbii]Thus I rate mediatbiasfactcheck.com as left-biased rather than unbiased due to the dishonest way in which failed fact checks are treated as less serious in left-leaning publications.
First, I don’t disagree with there comments on anti-climate, anti-science. With that said, they were not dishonest as you stated above. They articulated why they rated something a certain way and it is up to you to make the final call. They are a single data point in a discussion. Not the only data point or the perfect data point. With that said, that is why I used a quote from the article, as you can definitely see from the very first sentence the entire article was premised by a serious bias. The author didn’t even hide it.
You are all trying to find something to poke at. The purpose of these is to lay out data, provide transparency around how they came up with that data, and articulate the methodology that they use. Which mediabiasfactcheck does. As all of us have already said, everything has bias to it, including every site. The key is to understand the bias and use that into your thought process. The point that Aaron was making is that too many people are oblivious to the bias. Many Christians view FoxNews as a factual non-bias news site. crazy.
Discussion