We have all heard the expression “fake news” in the last few years. Who makes the assertion doesn’t really matter. The fact that it’s made at all tells us things must change.
If we are ever to return to sanity in the news, getting to the truth must be our goal, not ratings or doing a favor for someone. The following are some items I find overlooked or ignored regularly that prevent this from happening. A clear list of standards in determining truth is vital and must be established to assess the accuracy of any report and restore confidence that when we hear a report, it is fact, actual news.The ultimate guideline is laid out for us in the Bible itself. Here are at least two expressions of that standard.
Exodus 20:16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (which happens to be one of the 10 commandments).
Matt 18:16 "But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses."
So what must be done to help us get to the truth in the news arena?
*First we must distinguish between reporting facts and an op-ed i.e. An opinion piece or opinion editorial. The is very little actual true reporting today on both sides of the political spectrum. What is usually promoted most are opinion pieces.
Though opinion pieces have their place and value they don't always get to the facts. They interpret the meaning of certain events. They can be good to stimulate discussion in a healthier environment but in today's climate, it usually results in disagreement and division. True reporting is simply giving facts regarding an event, not some of them, or most of them but all of them. A good reporter will even say, "this is what we know so far...As more comes in we'll bring it to you here at XYZ News. Tune in tomorrow for the latest update..." This was commonly used as recently as 30 years ago. Not so much today, if at all.
*The best facts are those that can be substantiated by an eyewitness i.e. those who have 1st hand knowledge of the facts or better yet confirmed by the source itself - though even a source is not always reliable e.g. They may be coerced to say something that is not true to avoid a greater consequence than their "report" or "confession" - such as torture, bribery or some other threat.
Nevertheless, the best source for accuracy comes from the party involved in the event or action, coercion aside. It doesn't matter if this is a willful admission or unintentional. Documentation of an event either in writing, audibly or visually, acquired or disseminated by a 3rd party - e.g. WikiLeaks, or OMG (O'Keefe Media Group, formally with Project Veritas) - is still an admission by the party committing the act even if an unintentional admission.
*Reporting only some facts, not all of them - and often withholding other facts, can totally change the understanding of an event. What they share may be true as far as it goes but it doesn't cover everything relevant to the issue. Partial reporting of facts may give the appearance of being truthful, but is often the most subtle form of lying. This is what we call a “half-truth.” These kinds of reports usually contain information taken totally out of context. When you tell only part of the story, you can claim someone said pretty much anything you want to.
*A witness that openly and willingly identifies themselves is always far more reliable than an anonymous "source" whose identity or motive cannot be confirmed. A witness who openly identifies themselves has "skin in the game" i.e. Their reputation is on the line - or sometimes far more - making it far more likely they are telling the truth. If they're not willing to put their neck on the line, their testimony should carry far less weight if any at all.
*Multiple witnesses are far better than a single one. But they still must produce evidence for their reports/claims e.g. 10 liars are still liars. One person with hard evidence trumps (no pun intended) an unlimited number of liars. More liars in agreement in their report doesn't make it more true. Just because several are making a claim, without hard evidence we can't assume it's true. But this is often the method used today to mislead us.
*Facts are facts regardless of who reports them. Many good facts are being promoted by outlets or persons with opposing views, but are ignored simply because those outlets or persons have been discredited by their opposition or competition through false accusations and personal attacks. This results in others never considering the facts themselves. If all the facts are given, they stand on their own two feet regardless of who gives them. We should never be afraid of facts only cautious of the reporter.
*It helps to keep in mind that the "news" is also in the sales business. The more sensational the news the more viewers they draw which brings in more revenue from advertisement. I'm not saying advertisement in itself is necessarily bad as long as integrity is a priority. Strong advertisement revenues should be the fruit of doing a good job and not what drives the story.
In conclusion, I find it best to wait 48 hours after an initial report so it can be scrutinized more closely before I assess its accuracy. Those who rush to put out a story may be motivated to set and control the narrative. News stations wish to be the first out the gate with a story, but premature opinions on events, before all the facts are in and reviewed can have incredibly negative consequences and are highly irresponsible. When all the facts come out contrary to the early views pushed, it's too late. Misinformation that goes out first tends to stick as fact. The following clip of a police cam on the Floyd arrest is a recent example. Even if there is a retraction - which rarely happens - the damage has already been done. Worse yet the bad initial reports still circulate indefinitely even after the facts prove they were completely wrong. This happens way too often – especially with police-related matters - and is why many official news outlets have lost their credibility.
These are things I always look for when assessing any "news." These all may seem obvious and common sense but they are ignored regularly so I felt it was worth raising. Many things that are put forth today as facts do not pass a rigorous application of these tests, if they are applied at all.
Even the so-called fact-checkers often don't pass the "test" of this list. I have seen many reports by "official" news sources that turned out to be garbage after being scrutinized more closely. Long established outlets often depend on their "official” status as a reputable source or on self proclaimed "fact-checkers" instead of actual facts to persuade the public. As a result, they often do poor work… in many cases very harmful work.
Last, the above list should be something everyone agrees on regardless of your political bent. This is not a list that favors one side over another. It favors getting to the truth, which everyone should agree to and want. Truth is always better than lies.
For a discussion on the history behind fake news click here.
