How to become a better news reader in 2016

“We are told about the world before we see it. We imagine most things before we experience them. And those preconceptions, unless education has made us acutely aware, govern deeply the whole process of perception.” – Walter Lippmann

In a large society, democratic or otherwise, the public necessarily relies on the media to get useful information. These information are consumed and processed by news consumers, and in this facilitation of information, the media shapes public perception on current issues and personalities.

If once in a while, we as news consumers erred in our judgement, that may be a random error. But if we erred in our judgement quite often, something else might be an issue. Is it the media? Does some information got tweaked during the facilitation of information from the news source to media, and from media to public? Is it the news consumers?

If the media is prone to having its own biases, and if news consumers cannot escape from relying on the media for information, the least we can do is to educate ourselves to be a better news reader/consumer.

"When your method of learning about the world is biased, learning more may not help. Acquiring more data can even consistently worsen a biased prediction." - Rob Bensinger

Reading more news is not the answer when the way we read news is biased. The reader’s tasks are then to assess the way he or she reads and consumes the news, and to confront and be more aware of his/her own biases.

Click the article, go beyond the headlines

How often does you see a comment from someone who goes on a tirade about a news article and conclude from his or her comment that this person clearly only reads the headline?

We live in the fast lane, and many of us consume news rapidly. Sometimes, too rapidly. We read and judge based on sound-bite journalism and captivating headlines, preferably as provocative as possible.

As news outlets compete for our attention, they tend to stretch a particular quote to reflect a more engaging, controversial and provocative headline. This is nearly unavoidable and would continue to persist. So as news consumers, we have to learn to read beyond the headline, which is often a stretch from what a person really said.

Skip everything else, but read the quotes

If you have 30 seconds to read a news article, you may skim or skip everything else but make sure to read the quotes. Detecting the quotes is an easy task. “The implementation of GST is going to affect the inflation rate for the year 2016”, said the minister. 

Now that’s a quote. Regardless of everything else that is written on the article, the quote is the source from which the reporter has to write the news article. The reporter or news outlet may write an attention-grabbing headline e.g. “Minister admits GST is going to be catastrophic for the nation’s economy and inflation”. 

Can it be a justifiable stretch from what the minister said? Maybe, because we know the implied consequences are negative. Is it the same thing as what the minister. No.

When reading a quote, be wary of paragraphs which may be primed to influence you to form a particular judgement. In what context was the quote said? What was asked by the reporter?

Did Datuk Ahmad Maslan suggest everyone to take up two jobs to cope with rising cost? Or did he say “It's not wrong to have two jobs in Malaysia, though we have regulations but it is still one way to address the rising cost of living ?”

We are especially prone to form premature judgment when something we read confirms our bias or preconceived notions. It is not the dissenting opinions that we should be worried about. We should be particularly vigilant of reading about people who agree with us, and be wary of anything that conforms to our views, lest we jump the gun.

Look at the source of information

Where does the reporter get quote from? What is the source of the data cited? Are there references about the source? In other words, ask yourself, “How is this article made?”

A news article must be based on something, a source. An anonymous source, a blogger (no matter how popular), a Facebook post (no matter how viral), a new NGO with dubious claim of membership, or random websites with no proven credibility? Articles based on those sources must be read with a grain of salt.

You can create a news article by interviewing two to three shopkeepers about the impact of slow economy growth and whether government policies are adequate to address rising cost of living. This would provide the article with an in-depth and personalised look, thus “giving a face/name to the story”. In my opinion, this often results in a good read because such method produces an article that is narrative in nature.

However, is the article representative? Of course not. The stories of two to three shopkeepers, no matter how praiseworthy or critical, are not and should not be considered as conclusive evidence to form a judgement. As news readers, we should be aware of the source and method through which the article is made.

Breaking our own stereotypes

“The systems of stereotypes may be the core of our personal tradition, the defences of our position in society. They are an ordered more or less consistent picture of the world, to which our habits, our tastes, our capacities, our comforts and our hopes have adjusted themselves. They may not be a complete picture of the world, but they are a picture of a possible world to which we are adapted. In that world, people and things have their well-known places, and do certain expected things. We feel at home there. We fit in. We are members.” – Walter Lippman

Forget momentarily about other people’s stereotypes. What is or are your own stereotype(s)? When you read news articles about the “red shirt” rally, do you conclude that a) the participants are paid? b) they are all ferried from the rural areas? c) they are all misled by the extreme right-wing groups?

After GE13, did you sigh at the “stupidity” of the 48% and lamented how they didn’t know what is best for themselves and the country? Why they didn’t “do the right thing”? 

Don’t you pause and think that they may have legitimate grievances and anxiety that are yet to be addressed? Do you think everyone has, and should has, the same concerns and priorities that you do?

We are what we look for. If we want to look for the devil in everything, we find things when there are none. The “cross” in Langkawi reflects less about the houses and builders than it does about the people who make a fuss out of it.

Similarly, what we get out of news is a reflection of our character. Knowing that the media has its own biases and that we will continue to consume news from it, the least we can do is to educate and empower ourselves to become a better news reader in 2016 and the years that follow. – January 2, 2016.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.