Don't let yourselves be fooled by your brains' desires to believe what you already want (aka confirmation bias). Here's a checklist, with an emphasis on scientific articles, you can use until you get the hang of spotting journalistic red flags.
- Does the article mention specific names and dates when referencing scientific studies? Articles that refer to everything as "studies" and "scientists" aren't being forthcoming with their information because they likely have none. Articles that try to use science to justify their own beliefs often use this tactic to keep you from performing investigative work, hoping you'll just take their word for it... don't! Example: Studies Prove How Human Emotions Shape Physical Reality
- Are there citations at the end of the article or within the article? If not, move on... articles that don't site their references likely either have no references or are hiding their questionable references. Also, are their references recent? Sometimes the same pseudoscience gets repeated over and over regardless of whether or not the experimental results were ever repeated or verified. Example: Energetic Anatomy: A Complete Guide to the Human Energy Fields and Etheric Bodies
- Do their in-text links work? Do they go to single-page websites? Credible sources cite other credible sources. This applies to all news, science or otherwise.
- Is this reported by multiple sources? Do a quick search, does anything else come up that can confirm their findings? Is their claim so sensational that no other reporting makes sense? This applies to all news, science or otherwise. Example:Uncensored Interview Reveals Lord Monckton Involved In Chemtrails/Geoengineering Cover Up
- Are there tons of ads on the website? Websites that exist solely through ad revenue are likely not telling the whole story. They are telling a version that is good click-bait to keep themselves in business. This applies to all news, science or otherwise.
- Is there sensational/emotional language? Lines like "defies the laws of physics" or "scientists were so shocked" and "they couldn't believe what they found" or any using of "prove"... all red flags. Real studies report strong correlations, they will show but rarely prove. Also be aware of articles that tell you how to feel about what they're going to reveal with sentences that begin "Surprisingly", "Shockingly", "Sadly". Most sensationalized reporting looooooves adjectives and descriptors of all kinds because they help elicit emotional responses in readers. Using emotional language is a tactic to help cover-up lack of scientific/investigative rigor. Reporting is meant to be information-giving, not emotion-sharing. This applies to all news, science or otherwise. Example: Truth - The Earth Is Flat
- Is there inflammatory/derogatory language? Any time you see inflammatory or derogatory language describing the study or scientists, just navigate off. If they're using language that is aggressive or contains fear-mongering buzzwords: socialist bureaucrats, mainstream media, anti-___ agenda, nazi-era, ____ zealots... that are aimed at making you believe that some conspiracy exists. Those people are not reporting information, they're sharing their opinions. If you want opinions on science, look to other scientists. If you want opinions on foreign policy or the economy, look to experts (hint: journalists aren't experts on everything). Another super obvious one is if they group together news and opinions on their website! This applies to all news, science or otherwise. Example: DATA INDICATE THERE’S NO NEED TO PANIC ABOUT RISING SEAS
- Do you have to click through page after page to read the article in small chunks? This is another tactic of websites that need ad revenue. Websites that exist solely through ad revenue are likely not telling the whole story. They are telling a version that is good click-bait to keep themselves in business. This applies to all news, science or otherwise.
- Are there a lot of spelling and grammatical errors? Real writers have editors. This applies to all news, science or otherwise.
- Is the source website pushing an agenda or conspiracy theory? You won't find real information on any website promoting fringe causes. This one can be tougher to flesh out because many institutions use science to help form their goals. It all goes back to the type of language they use. Are their other writings inflammatory/extremist/conspiracy based? Examples: Myths and Facts About Wild Horses and Burros
- Is the source religious/spiritual or do they reference religious/spiritual material? If your source references the Bible or other religious texts, Buddha or other religious figures, chakras or other spiritual phenomena then it is not scientific. Period. Example: The Creation Museum
- Is the source from Facebook or another social media outlet and cannot be found in an online search? If you cannot perform a quick search and find multiple articles reporting on the same story, it's not credible. This applies to all news, science or otherwise.
Please be more aware of what you share and think critically about what news you choose to consume. As far as weeding out bias from specific news outlets, this chart is helpful
Like it or not, we are simple beings who are easily influenced by the world around us. Even the smartest humans are susceptible to the strong forces of culture. Now that we live in the technological age, where the main drivers of our cultural beliefs and values can be bought and sold, we must be more thoughtful about our information sources. How are the people in power using information to influence our behavior... and is that what we want?
Comments