I’ve been struck recently by the tenacity of the misinformed and seemingly illiterate, Fox News watching, Obama hating, conservatives who comment in public discussion forums. There is a massive, negative response to their posts by the more well-informed and thoughtful, yet mostly average internet denizens. But no matter how well argued and articulated the points against these immovable objects are, I continue to see the same arguments from the same people, issue after issue, article after article, blog after blog. It’s as though they stop reading as soon as information, no matter how credible and/or factual, turns them off as soon as it offends their “densibilities.”
A huge argument that rears its head like an indestructible cockroach in your otherwise clean kitchen (granted, your apartment is above a one-man Mediterranean pizza joint), is that ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and C-SPAN are liberal news sources, just as much as Fox News is conservative. In fact, the argument goes, in this sea of liberally biased news sources, any criticism of Fox News is dismissible hypocrisy.
And you don’t [take pro-Obama news as gospel] when it’s cnn, nbc, abc and cbs?? Come on….
But for us it’s not the source of the information that matters, it’s how well the information compares to reality. If CNN is reporting that Obama is training a Frog Army to invade our homes and eat our small pets, the source doesn’t matter because that just doesn’t make sense. If several sources are reporting it, then my curiosity is piqued and I want to know why this crazy thing is being reported. When Obama comes on and denies the rumor, explaining that the Frog Army is here to protect our Victory Gardens from insects, then it is confirmed, in my mind, that a Frog Army is not as ridiculous as it sounded and I start scouring other sources for more information. How are these frogs produced? How are they controlled? What can they be used for? Why have I never heard of the science behind this? I go to the library, read science journals, scour news sources and elevate the ones that adhere to the facts above the ones who resort to scare tactics. After all, my kitty’s life could be on the line here!
Unfortunately for all of us, when it comes to a lot of what these people believe, the only sources they can turn to are the opinion shapers weaved into the fabric of their funny little information ecosystem that is tainted with lies, paranoia, and a groupthink agenda. Glenn Beck floats an accusation, “is the CDC maintaining internment camps? I can’t debunk the rumors…” World Net Daily reports on it as fact and cites Glenn Beck, a trusted guy on TV who couldn’t have a job in television news if he was a liar. Digg commenters submit the stories and rush over to FreeRepublic to get the “Freepers” to raid Digg and simulate a groundswell of support for ideas that are being “suppressed by the Mainstream MSM Media!”
Conversely, it’s a rare occasion that I turn to CNN, ABC, CBS, or MSNBC for the detailed information I need to form an opinion. They just don’t offer much beyond what will interest the broadest set of viewers. A recent example was the Balloon Boy story. The major outlets were the only good source of information. Granted, the cynic in me saw a few facts (the family was recently on Wife Swap, the reality show for the least talented of the reality show attention whore hoards, the balloon didn’t look like it was carrying anything more than itself as it tossed about in the wind, and they, themselves, had informed their local TV news station — before, it turns out, they even contacted 911) in the story that had the word “hoax” on the tip of my tongue.
But the conservative sheep need to know, if I don’t get my information from cable, how on earth can I call myself well-informed?
So where do you get your information from?
Let me begin with a list of the RSS feeds I subscribe to for you. This is my first stop for a rundown on what’s going on in the world each morning (and these are just the feeds in my ‘Politics’ folder):
Fark headlines: http://www.fark.com/politics/fark.rss
Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/rss/top.rss
Reuters: http://www.microsite.reuters.com/rss/ElectionCover …
Salon: http://feeds.salon.com/salon/index
Slate: http://www.slate.com/rss/
Christian Post: http://www.christianpost.com/services/rss/feed/
Media Matters: http://feeds.mediamatters.org/mediamatters/latest
538: http://feeds.feedburner.com/538dotcom?format=xml
Reason Mag: http://feeds.feedburner.com/reason/AllArticles
Crooks and Liars: http://www.crooksandliars.com/rss.xml
As you can see, I have a mix of liberal, conservative, non-partisan, and libertarian feeds. I look for headlines that interest me, compare what each source has to say, and try to find out why there are differences, if there are any. For that, I use the following:
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org
Snopes: http://snopes.com
FactCheck: http://factcheck.org
Politifact:
http://politifact.com
And a whole lot of google.com and news.google.com. Another great source of information is actually the comments sections of many of the sites I listed above. In fact, I would be comfortable saying that I crowdsource my information gathering.
If an article I read cites sources, I will read the source and then find out what I can about the publisher of that information. Like sometimes people will cite an article on the Center For Consumer Freedom’s website. I have, through the steps listed above, discovered that this is a front group for major corporations whose agenda is to conflate consumer freedom with corporate interests (although, in this case Wikipedia’s open edit policy has failed me!). They want to strike down laws that protect consumers against, for example, unhealthy food additives. But they advocate for the issue by redefining the purpose of the government’s intervention to say that the government wants to take away your freedom to eat food with unhealthy additives. And all they’re interested in is protecting your freedom (to buy their products).
They also like to cite each other. If an article cites sources that cite other sources that then cite no one or they cite other parts of their own site or they cite their own research, I dismiss the article as a partisan lie.
So, yeah. CNN, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC have very little to do with my information gathering. But there’s a lot more to it than that and I think that’s where the divide comes in. Uninformed people criticizing somewhat-informed people, not for being uninformed, but for coming down on the opposite side of the uninformed debate from them. They get all of their information from Fox News and then believe that they are informed.
At least Fox News is fair and balanced!
And because they believe that a cable news station is all they need to be well informed, they also believe that all of the rest of us depend on MSNBC to similarly inform us. It’s like they’re blindly playing Marco-Polo in a crowded public pool. They assume everyone they bump into is the one they heard shouting “Marco!” But it wasn’t. It was Glenn Beck and he’s sitting in a comfy chair two thousand miles away.
Click an icon to submit this story to your favorite bookmarking site: