In a time when widespread disinformation appears to be overtaking widespread misinformation, you would do well to read and edit cautiously and skeptically. Here are some guidelines.
AREAS REQUIRING CAUTION ABOUT ACCURACY
Names: Persons and places, formal titles, job descriptions.
Numbers: Percentages, averages, rates, ratios, polling data.
Chronology: Comprehensible sequence of events, reader’s orientation in place and time.
Sources: Credibility, bias, independent confirmation.
Superlatives: First, only, biggest, oldest.
Photographs: Genuine or altered.
Links: Veracity of other sites.
Inconsistencies: Not only in factual details, but also in vocabulary, syntax, or tone.
Legal issues: Assertions of illegal or illicit actions. Evidence?
Headlines: Accurate? Oversimplified? Slanted?
SELF-EXAMINATION
Confirmation bias: Reading selectively to focus on data confirming what we already think.
Backfire effect: Strong reaction to challenges to deeply held beliefs or opinions, with the effect of reinforcing them.
Biased assimilation: Interpreting new information to make it fit existing beliefs.
Motivated reasoning: Finding persuasive what already fits existing beliefs and reserving criticism for contradictory details and evidence.
Group polarization: Tendency in discussion to be pulled toward the people expressing the strongest views.
DEVIL’S ADVOCATE QUESTIONS
What is the source/evidence? Reliable? Independently confirmed?
What is the history of the persons and entities involved?
Who else is saying this?
What need does it fit?
What is the motivation?
Does it meet our standards?
How do we add value?
DANGER AREAS
Story is too good. Factual details and quotes are perfect, fitting all expectations.
Publishing in haste. Shortcutting the questioning to get the story out ahead of everyone else.
Writer is a star. Privileged employee exempted from strong questioning and challenges.
Everyone is on board. Consensus can be hard to challenge.
No comments:
Post a Comment