In response to the wave of fake news that inundated last year’s US presidential election campaign, much attention has been devoted to those who produce or spread those stories. The assumption is that if news outlets were to report only the “facts,” readers and viewers would always reach the right conclusion about a given story.
However, this approach addresses only half of the equation. Yes, we need news organizations to deliver reliable information; but we also need those receiving it to be savvy consumers.
For decades, the US government has supported programs to foster independent media in authoritarian, resource-deprived, or dysfunctional countries. However, these programs tacitly assume that the US itself is immune to the problems people in other countries encounter when they create or consume information.
People in the US also assume that the US media, sustained by advertising, will continue to thrive, that independent journalism is the norm and that most people are capable of thinking critically and making sound judgements about the information they receive.
In fact, some of the lessons that we have learned while supporting vibrant information gathering and distribution abroad are equally relevant to the US.
In last year’s election, the personal beliefs that drove millions of voters’ decisions were based not only on each person’s experiences and the information they accessed, but also on how they processed those experiences and that information.
Voters’ own relationships with content producers, their motivation to believe or disbelieve facts and their critical thinking skills all determined how they interpreted and acted on information.
In the election, most mainstream pundits did not seem to “get” millions of Americans’ beliefs or viewpoints, so it is little wonder that those millions of Americans were turned off by the pundits’ incessant chatter.
To these voters, the pundits were simply information peddlers with no attachments to the issues that matter. Men and women talking in front of TV cameras are too far removed from the factories, offices, bars, churches, schools and hospitals where viewers form the relationships that determine how they process information.
The so-called digital revolution did not render superfluous the importance of human connection in shaping people’s interpretation and response to the information they receive.
Relationships are built on trust, which is essential to ensuring that consumers accept information that challenges their closely held beliefs.
However, according to Gallup, only 32 percent of Americans have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in traditional media outlets — an all-time low. That is deeply problematic, and it suggests that many people are throwing out the good information with the bad.
As with any other good, how information is consumed reflects economic and political opportunities, personal incentives and institutional or cultural norms.
Workers in Ohio whose wages have stagnated, or unemployed voters in Michigan whose jobs have migrated overseas, will consume information in a way that reflects their economic situation. Not surprisingly, they will often select sources — whether credible or not — that are critical of globalization and current fiscal and economic policies.
An ample supply of sound information is not sufficient to make good choices; news consumers need critical thinking skills. Information is much like the food we eat: We need to understand its ingredients and where and how it is produced and the effects of overconsumption.
It will probably take decades to rebuild trusting relationships between consumers and mainstream news media. Information consumers will always have biases and incentives to select one piece of information over another. Even so, we can improve critical thinking skills so that people know how to pick trustworthy sources and resist their own biases.
Cultivating critical thinking skills takes time and practice, which is why it is more important than ever to invest in education. Some of the models that have been used abroad may work in the US, too.
For example, in Ukraine, a recent initiative carried out by the International Research & Exchanges Board mobilized librarians in an effort to neutralize the detrimental effects of Kremlin-funded propaganda.
Fifteen thousand Ukrainians were taught concrete skills in avoiding emotional manipulation, verifying sources and credentials, detecting paid content and hate speech and debunking fake videos and photographs.
The results were impressive: participants improved their ability to distinguish trustworthy news from false news by 24 percent. Better yet, they then trained hundreds more people to detect disinformation, thus multiplying the initiative’s overall impact.
With a rather modest investment, we can make teaching these skills a standard practice in school curricula. Philanthropists can also create or support grassroots organizations that work with citizens to strengthen their ability to consume information critically.
Accurate information and critical thinking skills are indispensable to democracy. We cannot take them for granted, even in the US. That is how fake news wins.
Aleksander Dardeli is executive vice president of the International Research & Exchanges Board, a global nonprofit organization that works to strengthen good governance and access to quality information and education.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS