False Narrative                                   

by Kerby Anderson

For the last few months on my radio program, we have been talking about the need for discernment in our current news environment. We have even printed a booklet on media bias citing some of the studies and books documenting the need for us to exercise wise judgment.

A recent commentary by Rob Jenkins on “How to Know When the Narrative is False” provides another tool for your discernment toolbox. A narrative is a story that may be rooted in some reality but conditions the reporter and editor to only accept facts that support the narrative and to reject any facts that contradict it. He provides some examples from stories about police shootings and coverage of the pandemic. He then provides some clues that demonstrate when a narrative is false.

The first clue is vagueness. When the information provided is vague and imprecise, that may be an indication that the story is false. Watch for hedge words like “might” and “could” and “some” that are rarely supported by hard numbers.

A second clue is the presence of contradictions. Narrative spinners will sometimes contradict themselves. If this week’s story is different from last week’s story, you would expect acknowledgment of the contradiction. Often, news outlets hope you won’t notice.

A third clue is when they move the goalposts. We saw that during the pandemic when cases were emphasized over deaths, when no distinction was made between “dying with the virus” and “dying from the virus.”

One last clue is data manipulation. If you want a state dealing with the pandemic to look bad, use numbers of deaths. If you want to make another state look good, use the death rate per 100,000.

Discernment and a healthy dose of skepticism are necessary in our current media environment. Please use wise judgment in what you see, hear, and read.

https://pointofview.net/viewpoints/false-narrative/

FWIW

That is very interesting and not political. Any side can do this, as well any side can give honest reporting.  Is it intentional or just sloppy reporting?

Showtalk said...

That is very interesting and not political.

Well, it doesn't have to be political, but as with everything else... somebody will politicize it.

Showtalk said...

Any side can do this, as well any side can give honest reporting.

Except there's a big problem there. Both sides do it... the left's side is left unblocked on Twitter, Facebook and in the liberal news media where as the right is blocked, banned, doxed, called racist and any other name. And in the end, when you look at the main stream media... nothing the right stands for is printed.

And that folks... is where we're at today.

When one hides the honest truth and allows the blatant lies and propaganda to proliferate... then there is another problem.

Biggest problem is... how can we hold journalists accountable... regardless of which side they're on?

Next biggest problem is... how can we get Facebook, Twitter and other big tech sites from hiding the honest truth?

FWIW

Journalists are doing what they are rewarded for doing.  The people running the news outlets hold the keys.

Showtalk said...

Journalists are doing what they are rewarded for doing.  The people running the news outlets hold the keys.

Yes but they should be held accountable for what they print.

And if it's important for the general public to know about, what they hide as well!

FWIW

How do we do that when their culture says it’s not important?

Showtalk said...

How do we do that when their culture says it’s not important?

Important to the general public is important to the general public... their culture doesn't get to define what is important or not.

Hydroxychloroquin is not dangerous. But their culture determined it was and thus blasphemed it as dangerous.

I wonder just how many people COULD have gotten the Hydroxychloroquin mix but didn't because of their fake news and ended up dying!

FWIW

Hydroxy is given all over the world for malaria so how was it dangerous? That never made sense.

Showtalk said...

Hydroxy is given all over the world for malaria so how was it dangerous? That never made sense.

Yep, but all of the liberal news media as well as many Congressional Democrats were making up all kinds of lies and spewing out fake news that it was dangerous.

Like I said... I wonder how many it may have saved were they not so afraid to take it.

The only sense it makes is "to make Trump look bad". (i.e. No sense or nonsense BS!!!) It was just another false narrative.

FWIW

You also wonder how many took it but didn’t tell anyone.