A case for one type of discrimination
legitimate sources v opinions
This column is my analysis, if you somehow missed that. I don’t have all the answers to the problems befuddling our world. I write about how things look to me, grateful for those of you who read it. But, my modest goal of trying to expand conversation is just that: modest. And I never pretend otherwise.
How did we lose sight of the difference between opinion and fact? I read that “influencers” might be wrong in advocating arising early in the morning to get more done because arising at 0500 may leave a person more tired earlier in the day, especially if the person did not sleep 7 hours the previous night.
Why ever listen to an “influencer” as opposed to a physician about the topic? Who CARES what some “influencer” says? Why would one defer to anyone without basic knowledge based on education, a verifiable indicator of the validity of one’s prescriptions (or criticisms, for that matter). I provide citations, wherever possible, because why else should you believe my columns?
Influencers, on the other, apparently base the validity, if not legitimacy, of their work on the number of followers each has. If that isn’t a road to perdition, I don’t know what is because someone repeating gibberish is still and eternally repeating gibberish.
Over the past thirty years we began to abandon reject expertise. The lawyer nominated for the head of Health & Human Services cited blogs yesterday in confirmation testimony in response to Louisiana Republican Senator and physician Bill Cassidy provided published, refereed medical evidence on vaccine safety. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between blogs (personal writing, like this) and a publication vetted by professionals to validate coherence, proof, and methodology of the arguments.
Yes, in our hyperspecialized world, some scholars determine the identity of authors, pick at those they dislike personally for whatever reason, then proceed to reject submissions; it happens. Yes, papers have been retracted in science and medicine when malfeasance on the part of the author becomes public. But the process, painful and extended as it may be (submitting an article to a top tier journal can take well over a year), the process is still one of nitpicking within the overall expertise of a community.
Blogs are generally opinions unless they provide evidence you and I can follow to see the legitimacy of the basic sources and the author’s expertise. That matters for credibility. Similarly, op-ed’s are opinions with some sort of basic knowledge at the base of the author’s work, I would hope. If I were to write on financial planning, it would be purely preferences and fears as I have no expertise on the subject.
Similarly, letters to the editor are opinion. That does not invalidate the opinion but the scrutiny involved is at a far lower level of scrutiny. Plus, many Americans feel entitled by their First Amendment rights to say whatever they want (I think those are still in effect these days) so they become irate at the idea their views won’t circulate.
That doesn’t mean opinions aren’t valuable. But that does not make anyone’s views true for anyone other than themselves, at best. Some things are flat out wrong: one cannot under any circumstances lose weight over the long term but ingesting more calories than one burns, no matter who says it, where it’s said, or anything else. It’s a law of physics, like it or not.
So, beyond merely kvetching about what I see as a troubling habit, what is my solution? The long-running joke “but I read it on the internet so it’s true, right” but is sadly, not apparently a joke to too many people. A couple of reminders I use on sources. (Same rules apply to disinformation but that’s become a beast of its own.)
Why would this author know more about a subject than anyone else? I have decades experience gaining (sadly) and losing weight but it’s anecdotal so does my solution apply to everyone? Probably not. I similarly have thirty years teaching national security strategy at the finest joint and international program so I probably have better credentials on that subject. But do consider credentials. Seems basic but too often ignored in the shade of a sexy, desirable argument. Otherwise, I may fall prey to the famous 1960s tv line, “Danger, Will Robinson, danger!!”
Many use the term “main stream media” with disdain but I reframe the question as to what journalistic training does a writer have? While it’s appealing to slam the media, those with schooling are likely to have a higher ethical bar because it’s drummed into them. Even though I don’t like some of what I read, that doesn’t mean it’s untrue. Nor does it mean someone without an editor factchecking is providing anything other than personal views, if not outright propaganda. I find it naive to say traditional mainline news sources lie or that non-verified sources are more trustworthy . At a minimum, see if googling the topic reveals reporting by those sources, especially the PBS NewsHour.
Does the topic have other sources you can check if you’re willing to take the time? Many of us religiously explore reviews for equipment or stores online but do we trust the reviews by the store above those of “independent” verifiers like the BetterBusinessBureau.org, Trustpilot.org or some other source besides someone who might be incentivized to laud or pan a product? From what little I understand, influencers often promote because—gulp—they benefit from promoting.
How many supporting arguments can you find for the author’s position? History is replete with groupthink (I just finished a book on women struggling to get into medicine in the 19th century when men overwhelmingly believed women’s could hormones prevented clear thinking—talk about groupthink) but the web provides us access to so much validated information as well as garbage. No, you don’t have to spend a day on every single topic but you can see whether an article is a single crank idea or whether those endorsing it have any credentials associated with expertise.
Does something sound too crazy to be true? Use common sense.
Slow down. We seek “the right answer” but we have the power to pare back on the volume of stimuli. I awoke to hundreds of email messages about the National Airport tragedy, politics, Marianne Faithfull’s death, bazillions of notes from three chat rooms, and cat videos from friends (never too many of those, of course). First thing this morning, I told the one moderator to suspend my participation and I deleted message subscriptions that might be nice to have but only that. My husband took this step two years ago, only to find his days much more manageable—and the sun still rises in the east each morning. If you decide you can’t live without your influencer email messages, you an always return.
We are in an information overload world right now. You may find my entire note irrelevant or preachy today but I worry we are conflating too much opinion with actual evidence on so much in our daily lives. That is paralyzing some of us while motivating others to embrace ridiculous, if not dangerous thinking. In the end, each of us is responsible for our own actions, beliefs, and sources but I wonder if the overwhelming nature of the internet world isn’t drowning all of us day by day. I prefer to keep afloat today.
Thank you for reading Actions today or any other day; I do not take for granted the time you invest. I look forward to all feedback on this or any column. I also appreciate your suggestions. Thank you especially to the subscribers who put resources up to support this effort.
I am in lovely Southern California for a conference this weekend. I was reinvigorated by 0715 by the colors I saw walking to get coffee so I hope to infuse some color into your day as you look to the weekend.
Be well and be safe. FIN