Thoughts on the Current Information Landscape

I think the information landscape has been going through massive changes–changes that I sense vaguely, but don’t really fully understand. I plan to use this space to think out loud, as a way to gain a better understanding.

Older info landscape:

  • Less info overload;
  • Institutions relatively strong and viewed as authoritative by large numbers of people with varying political views;
  • Standards and effective consequences for not adhering to standards, at least for those who biggest platforms (e.g. newspapers, magazines, TV, etc.);
  • In discourse between average citizens, social sanctioning for violating standards and norms effective and efficient.

Within this information environment, being good critical thinkers, getting info from a variety of news sources would be a reasonable and practical approach for individuals. Within this information environment, providing facts and letting individuals make their own decisions would be a reasonable approach by the press and other institutions. That is, the press need not do as much analysis and processing of the information; they can put the burden on individuals to do this.

New info landscape

  • info glut;
  • Weak or inadequate institutions and tools for individuals to sort and analyze the information.
  • Information sources either don’t have, accept, and/or enforce standards for news and information that is critical for citizens in a democracy. Yet, the authority of these sources of information can be equal to more established news outlets, at least for some people;
  • In online political discourse, individual participants as well as host sites have great difficulty administering consequences to individuals and groups that break important ground rules for civil, thoughtful discourse.

In new info environment, individuals are overwhelmed. Institutions like the press are weakened, in terms of resources and authority. The older approach used by the press and other institutions don’t work in new info environment. Tools and processes have slightly different objectives and have to function differently. We may need completely new institutions and novel means to address the problem. (Problem: See Neil Postman.)

Dependence on the Elite

I’ve been thinking a lot about the knowledge an individual has of current events and politics. My sense is that we can group an individual’s understanding into two categories:

1. Understanding based on direct knowledge by the individual or through scrutiny, analysis, and vetting by the individual;
2. Understanding based on trusted sources. Here, the individual doesn’t really have a good understanding, but relies on trusted sources, like New York Times, political party leaders, or well-respected academics, etc. Additionally, this type of understanding is often based on various cues and short-cuts. For example, if the major newspapers all have similar headlines for a relatively long period of time, an individual would conclude that information in the headlines is a) true, and b) important. The information one receives in this way is superficial, and sometimes unreliable; and one probably shouldn’t have a lot of confidence in this type of understanding.

In my view, the political understanding of every individual is a combination of both types. Those who are the most knowledgeable and wise depend less on #2, but even their understanding is based on this second type, at least to some degree, in some areas. For those who aren’t well-informed about politics and don’t follow the news closely–a very large group of people–I think they rely heavily on the second approach. This is the group I really worry about, and here are few reasons why:

1. We’re losing sources of information that are trusted by large numbers of both the left and right. The result is confusion for those who don’t follow the news closely. If we don’t have very many sources of information that the left and right both trust, and the sources of information are highly partisan–i.e., the left says they’ve got the truth and the right are lying–and vice-versa–then this will confuse these people who aren’t well-informed and don’t follow the news closely. They won’t know who to believe and what’s true.

2. Trump, some prominent Republicans, and conservative pundits are pushing the idea that the mainstream press is “fake news”–that they’re dishonest and make things up. Trump seems to be moving to the point where he wants people to believe that he speaks the truth, while the press lies. Roughly a third of the nation will believe him, the other third will not, while the remaining third may be confused. That’s a dangerous situation in my view.

Next: Thoughts on Solving this Problem.


14 thoughts on “Thoughts on the Current Information Landscape

  1. This is the Moment All of Trumps’s Anti-Media Rhetoric Has Been Working Towards is a WaPo op-ed by Margaret Sullivan. Essentially, Sullivan and others have been arguing that Trump has been attacking the media–and the truth–undermining both so that when the press reveals information that poses an existential threat to the Trump presidency many Americans will either be confused or won’t believe it. The accusation is audacious and if it were made to a politician several years ago, I would have scoffed. But I’m not scoffing now. I do think this is an actual possibility.

    Why is this happening? Besides Trump’s brazen authoritarian behavior*, I think the failure on the part of the individuals, institutions, and any other mechanism/process that would communicate Trump’s attempts, its significance, and danger is a big reason for this. Part of a successful process involves a) effectively sifting through the information glut, and b) having the authority that all sides recognize.

    What’s overvalued in this scenario is the critical thinking of individuals. For one thing, there are large groups of people who don’t possess this, and/or don’t have the time, energy, or motivation to do sort through the information. These vast majority of people need help, or else they just won’t get this information. And the great critical thinkers who also happen to be super knowledgeable also need help as well.

    By the way, Republican leaders and prominent conservative pundits could also serve at helpers. If they joined Democrats and liberal pundits to renounce Trump’s actions, this would serve as the type of filter I’m talking about.


    * I actually think having authoritarian actors like Trump and perhaps even more sophisticated ones like Russia and others that will emulate them, is a big deal. They pollute and manipulate the information space, and the entities that manage and keep this space functional for a democracy (like the press) don’t know how to respond.

    One related problem: Trump and Putin brazenly lie and make up stuff, and there’s no consequence; there doesn’t seem to be a mechanism to administer consequences. If Republicans and Democrats united and vociferously pushed back against this–or if Americans united and pushed back hard against this–that would be a way. But partisanship and maybe corruption (possibly linked to a country like Russia) prevent Republican leaders from doing this. As for the people pushing back, a third of the public is probably confused or unaware of what’s going on and another third support the authoritarians. Additionally, when a significant part of the public square occurs online, providing consequences to those who lie brazenly can be difficult as well.

  2. Even smart people have trouble knowing what’s true and real:

    Sipher is a former CIA. This is not to mock Sipher. I didn’t know the shot of Trudeau was from 2017–I thought it was from today. Sipher isn’t the only one who made this mistake as well.

    (Note: I don’t even know if the correction is actually correct.)

    1. The issue above gave me an idea, which isn’t original. The idea is to create a twitter handle that goes around fact-checking the most tweeted claims, particularly with regard to political discourse. Think of it as a snopes on social media. They would have to act fast and also be seen as a trustworthy evaluator from both the left and right.

      I would love if they had a website where you could check claims (like the one above).

      I sort of see this entity as a kind of custodian of the public square that is based online, particularly social media. Think of those tow trucks that are on the freeway during peak traffic hours, ready to remove stalled vehicles to keep traffic following.

  3. Thread on why we should be wary when telecommunications companies purchase and control media outlets.

  4. In the original post, I had a section called, “Dependence on the Elites,” and I recently read an interview transcript between Chris Hayes and David Roberts that touched on a similar idea, and I want to quote and comment on parts of the interview. “Assessing America’s information crisis” was the subject of the interview. In my original post, I mention two ways people gain knowledge and understanding about politics–one that involves scrutiny and evaluation by the individual and the other involving trusting other people, institutions, or processes. Hayes and Roberts characterize the second approach as a social process, going so far as saying “trust relationships are the building blocks of how we form knowledge about the world.” When it comes to political matters, I especially think this is true. I like the way they talk about this in the following passage:

    In Western culture, particularly American culture, we sort of adopted from science, our view of what epistemology is, i.e. you gather evidence, and you sift through it, and you reason from evidence to conclusions. But as you say, from your anecdote about the world being round, the vast, vast, vast bulk of what we say we know, we know based on trust, we know based on someone told us, and we believe them. So really, when it about knowledge and how to know things, it’s much less about the sort of individual process of inquiry or gathering evidence or sifting through it, and much more about, who do we trust, and how do we maintain that trust, and how is that trust vouchsafed, and what happens when that trust crumbles?

    (emphasis added)
    They don’t really touch on this, but I want to reiterate and make a few points about the people and institutions people choose to trust:
    1. Large segments of the population, which should include people on left, right, and center, should trust these entities. If the left decides certain sources are trustworthy, but the right believes the opposite, I our democracy would be risk;
    2. Trust of these entities should be rooted in Enlightenment principles. Facts, empiricism, and reason fundamentally guide their work, and the trust of individuals and groups should be based on the degree to which these entities utilize these principles.
    In my opinion, building and/or strengthening entities like this is one of the biggest challenges we face as a society. If we succeed, I think we can strengthen and preserve our democracy as well as protect from nefarious actors who engage in information warfare.
    There are many challenges to accomplish this, but the conceptual misunderstanding about knowledge and understanding is a really important one to grasp. If we keep thinking that the vast majority of our political knowledge depends primarily on the critical thinking and effort of the individual, then that will likely lead to the wrong solutions.

    Now, I want to be absolutely clear here: I think critical thinking is very important, and we should definitely encourage it. But thinking is the key to solving the information glut problem is a big mistake in my view.
    The Knowledge of Very Smart People Also Depend Heavily on Trusting Sources of information
    Hayes and Roberts also discuss an attitudinal obstacles that I want to address:

    HAYES:…Knowledge is a product of trust, and social relationships. That’s how we know things about the world, and that’s one thing I want to make clear here. That’s true for everyone, there’s things we’re going to talk about in this conversation that are about a certain segment of the American population, but it’s also important to realize, you high minded, enlightened, liberal listener, right now, this is true of you.
    ROBERTS: Yes. And the fact that it’s taken on a weird negative connotation, such that you have to use those sort of caveats, is sort of like evidence of what we’re talking about. Like there’s no reason that should be viewed as a bad thing that you accept most knowledge on trust, it’s just absolutely intrinsic to the human project, but it’s sort of taken on this sort of connotation is like, groupthink, or you’re passive, or you’re just sort of accepting what your told. You know?

    (emphasis added)
    I think Roberts is really on to something. My sense is that well-educated individuals, especially those interested in politics, want to believe that their knowledge is based on their intellectual capacity, critical thinking, and effort. And that is understandable, but it also seems like a big obstacle to addressing the problem.
    Wanting the press to simply present the facts, allowing individuals to make up their own minds, is another expression of this. They do not want the journalist’s opinions, as that seems to indicate they are too feeble to think for themselves. On some level, I find this thinking strange. Journalists including their opinion doesn’t prevent a smart person from critically examining the news. In any event

    1. In any event…?

      I think you and he are both skimming over part of the process: trust is not simply something to be given. Trust itself is based partially on intellectual capacity, critical thinking, and effort. I don’t examine everything Chuck Todd says for its objectivity and soundness before I agree (or disagree). I trust Chuck Todd (a man without a college degree, it’s worth pointing out) because over the years, I’ve found his reporting to be responsible and his reasoning sound. In interviews where he is the subject (and not the interviewer), I’ve found him to be thoughtful, introspective, vulnerable, and witty, qualities that make me more likely to trust a person.

      And if my more conservative friends don’t trust Chuck Todd, that’s okay too. I hope the people they trust are as clear about facts and analysis as I think Chuck Todd is.

      Your last paragraph is sound, but I think you misunderstand my position. I want the press simply to present the facts in a news story. In an opinion piece, anything goes if you ask me. And in an “analysis” piece, as long as it’s clearly meant to be analysis and not news, I’m okay with that too. As I mentioned to you a year or so ago, I try to read the news, and I try to limit my reading of opinion and analysis to a couple of pieces a day. It’s dangerous when a piece that’s meant to report the facts also throws in analysis or opinion; it leads to confusion about objectivity and facts.

      You and I have disagreed about this for going on twenty years. When reporters (that is, newswriters) let certain words slip into news articles — words like “surprisingly” — they’re letting their bias seep into the facts, and the facts should be without bias. In an analysis piece? Sure. Say a certain fact is surprising, but then say why. In an opinion piece? I don’t even care. Say it’s surprising all you want because it’s an opinion piece and I’ll decide whether or not I agree with the opinionator that it’s surprising.

      A few years ago, a local news broadcast, just before going to commercial, said something like, “Tomorrow, this station will air mayor Mufi Hanneman’s final State of the City address. So-and-so will join us when we return to share what we can look forward to.”

      The mayor was still only midway through his second term. He had not announced that he would run for governor. The station (whoever wrote the teaser or the broadcaster herself) was inserting an opinion without facts: the mayor would not still be mayor within a year. I immediately sent the station a message on twitter: “Why did she say it’s the mayor’s last state of the city address? Does (station name) know something we don’t?” The station replied, “No, the newscaster misspoke.”

      Yet there was no on-air correction. I was furious. Do you see why? Stirring up rumors about which incumbent is running or not running is opinion. It can even be analysis. But slyly (or carelessly, depending on who you believe) slipping it in as fact where it was clearly not a fact blurs the new/analysis/opinion line and we (the consumers) need to be vigilant about this. Or we get idiots elected to the fricking presidency.

      I do not discount the role trust plays in all of this.

      1. In any event…?

        Shoot! I wrote the post a few weeks ago, and I tried to complete it, but clearly didn’t do a good job! At this point, I’m not entirely sure what I was going to say next. I could probably figure it out, but I prefer responding to your other points.

        I think you and he are both skimming over part of the process: trust is not simply something to be given. Trust itself is based partially on intellectual capacity, critical thinking, and effort.

        I think the key word here is “partially.” And I agree that trust does depend on, to some degree, scrutiny of the source. But I also think social factors–e.g., the reputation of the source, the extent to which the source belongs to one’s political and social tribe–play a big role–likely a bigger role. Before exploring why this might be, I wonder if you would agree with that.

        And if my more conservative friends don’t trust Chuck Todd, that’s okay too. I hope the people they trust are as clear about facts and analysis as I think Chuck Todd is.

        That last bit is crucial. I would be fine if people of different political persuasions have different sources of information and news if this resulted in an agreement about the key facts from all these groups

        Your last paragraph is sound, but I think you misunderstand my position. I want the press simply to present the facts in a news story.

        I think making the distinction between wanting opinions out of news stories, relegating them to op-eds and analysis is valid one. But I think that’s a separate issue from what Hayes and Roberts is talking about. The issue is the extent to which a person’s knowledge is based on social factors, like the sources of information one trusts, versus the intellectual scrutiny and analysis that one makes. Just giving people facts isn’t the way people discover what is true. I would add that simply providing facts won’t lead to better understanding of an issue as well. I think this is what they’re talking about.

        You and I have disagreed about this for going on twenty years. When reporters (that is, newswriters) let certain words slip into news articles — words like “surprisingly” — they’re letting their bias seep into the facts, and the facts should be without bias

        But you say this as if preventing bias or subjectivity is possible—I don’t think it is. (If you disagree, the next time you find an example of this, let me know.) From the decisions about word choice to the information to include or exclude, to emphasize or ignore—these decisions aren’t objective or factual. For example, you object to the use of the word “surprisingly” in news pieces. But aren’t the stories journalists cover, and the degree to which they emphasize them, functions of the journalists’ ideas about what is important, novel, interesting, and even surprising. What’s the difference?

        Yet there was no on-air correction. I was furious. Do you see why? Stirring up rumors about which incumbent is running or not running is opinion. It can even be analysis. But slyly (or carelessly, depending on who you believe) slipping it in as fact where it was clearly not a fact blurs the new/analysis/opinion line and we (the consumers) need to be vigilant about this.

        I see this, and I think this is valid. What is not clear to me is why this problem is worse than others—such as misleading headlines (that are factually correct), leaving out important contextual information, he said/she said journalism, difficulty with finding trusted sources of information. To me, these things lead to more confusion and misunderstanding than bias creeping into the news.

        I do not discount the role trust plays in all of this.

        How big of a role does it play in your opinion?

    2. This thread supports the notion that individuals don’t put in a lot of time and effort to inform themselves, and underscores the importance of good sources of news and information (that both people of all political persuasions trust.

      To summarize: The thread asserts that Americans, in general, were never prodigious consumers of news, especially in long form. The individual who read four newspapers a day was a rarity, if not a chimera.

      I would conclude that the way to having an informed citizenry won’t be through better education, although we should definitely strive for that goal. Instead, the extent to which we’re informed and the extent to which we have a healthy democracy will depend heavily on the quality of the elites and gatekeepers in our society. And a broad group of citizens must view them as trustworthy. But this is not an either/or situation. My point is that we really need good sources of information that everyone trusts, and we can’t heavily depend on the efforts and critical thinking of individuals.

  5. Draft: What Can Be Done?

    I know I’ve written about this before, but I believe the posts are on the old site. So I’m going to start again, riffing on ideas about how to deal with the problems I’ve been talking relating to the current information landscape. Here we go.

    Listing and reaffirming Enlightenment principles.

    I think like a discussion identifying and reaffirming important principles for a healthy democracy should be the first step for citizens in liberal democracies. This will provide a foundation for dealing with the challenges relating to the information landscape. Off the top of my head, here are some of the principles, which relate primarily to claims and arguments in political discourse.

    • We can identify and agree upon critical facts for issues and arguments.
    • Claims and arguments should be based on facts.
    • Claims and arguments should reasonable and logical.
    • We can have widespread agreement upon what is reasonable.
    • Subjectivity–or intersubjectivity–the idea that a large group of people can agree upon standards and criteria relating to what constitutes sound and reasonable arguments–is just as important as objective facts in political discourse.
    • The bar for accepting conspiracy theories should be very high. Part of this should involve rigorous deductive reasoning. For example, conspiracy theories can be accepted if no other plausible explanation can be identified, and/or overwhelming evidence and compelling arguments support the conspiracy theory.

    We should have a national conversation about this, lead by leaders on the left, right, and center. I think some ceremony or act to express a strong commitment to these principles would be a good thing.

    The Press Moving Away From Balanced Coverage

    My sense is that the press resorts to balanced for a variety of reasons, and a way of proving its impartiality is one of the most important ones. The approach works if both political parties are relatively equivalent–in terms of good faith, truth telling, etc. When an asymmetry exists between the two parties, the approach doesn’t work and actually fails to serve the public interest. (This is essentially the argument made by media studies professor, Jay Rosen.)

    If the press abandons balanced coverage, as a means to earn the public’s trust, what will replace it? Before I answer that, I want to reiterate the importance of the press–specifically, a few major outlets–gaining the public’s trust from a broad group of Americans. Without these outlets, agreeing upon key facts and claims will be very difficult, if not impossible, which is the direction we seem headed in now. To reverse this, we need a few well-respected news outlets that most people on the left, right, and center trust and find reliable.

    I want to suggest several ways to achieve that. I also think these suggestions could help filter information in a way that makes understanding easier and efficient.

    1. Create a team of journalists, representing the left, right, and center, and have this team work to identify areas of consensus around the key facts, sound and reasonable arguments, versus unsound and unreasonable arguments. Instead of simply reporting, claims made by either side, journalist would sift through and identify fact-based claims and logical and reasonable arguments, as well claims and arguments that violate the Enlightenment principles above.

    2. Create a scorecard for politicians, pundits, and the press. The team would also track the claims and arguments made by politicians, pundits and the press. They could create a profile, expressed in a chart or table, which would be used to track claims and arguments made by these individuals. Notice that journalists and news outlets would also be tracked as well. Tracking and filling in the chart should reveal a picture about who is reliable and who isn’t.

    2. Present competing claims in a chart or table, and update periodically. For example, for Trump, one claim might be that he is is budding authoritarian who has possibly colluded with Russia to win the election. The other claim would be that Trump is a great businessman who the establishment, due to hatred, is now attempting to undermine, if not remove him from office. Similar to the profiles above, as reporters gather information, they can fill in these charts and anyone looking at the charts and tables should be able to see which claims and theories are compelling, and which wasn’t aren’t.

    Because an ideological diverse group of journalists will oversee #2 and #3, if and when their work points to favorable or unfavorable outcomes for politicians and positions, these outcomes should carry more weight and be harder to dismiss because of political bias.

    1. Addendum to List of Enlightenment Principles: Discussion and Reaffirmation and Re-commitment to Rule of Law and Liberal Democratic Values

      Off the top of my head:

      • We affirm a society and government based on rules, not men. The wealthy, and powerful, including political leaders like the president, are subject to laws, too. They are never (or never should be) above the law.
      • We acknowledge that one individual or group gaining too much or all of the power leads to a tyranny. Therefore we affirm our commitment to separation of powers and a system of checks and balances to prevent that. We support and applaud politicians and government workers who are committed to this, and we opposed any who are not.
      • We strongly believe in the freedom of the speech, freedom of religion, and a strong free press. (I feel like I’m missing something.)
      • We believe that one’s rights should not be violated on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, sex, age, etc.
      • We also believe that being an American–one’s “American-ness”–is not dependent on one’s religion, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, sex, age, etc.
    2. Critical Questions the Bi-Partisan Team of Journalists Could Effectively Address

      1. Is there compelling evidence that Trump and key members of his administration pose a serious national security threat to the nation? Related: Is there compelling evidence that Trump may be compromised by Russia and acting in their interests?

      2. Are there serious reasons to believe that Trump may be acting in his own self-interest rather than the country’s?

      3. What is the evidence for and against the claim that the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt?

      4. What is the evidence relating to the credibility and trustworthiness of Trump versus the mainstream media?

      I’m sure I’m missing some other critical questions, but I’ll stop here.

      I believe there is sufficient, and in some cases overwhelming, evidence that a reasonable and fair-minded person could arrive at clear and definite answers to these questions. The problem is too much information and a lack of one or more news agencies (or some other group) that everyone across the political spectrum trusts. Additionally, none of the groups as far as I know have put in the effort and resources to really try to answer these questions in a definitive way. Some possible examples of what I have in mind would involve a special news special or a documentary that would answer these questions. Another approach could be creating charts, tables and other tools to make visualizing the examination of these questions a lot easier and clearer.

      I would love if one of the major news outlets did this, but even if they did, there doesn’t seem to be a news source that everyone trusts. The bi-partisan team that I mentioned above is designed to address this (and I can’t see why it wouldn’t).


      Another question:

      5. In terms of behaving in a principled versus political way and acting in good faith, are Democrats and Republicans more or less equivalent, or is one significantly better or worse than the other?

      6. Is Fox News essentially like other mainstream news outlets, adhering to existing journalistic norms and standards, or do they operate more like a propaganda outlet?

      7. What is the evidence that Trump speaks, thinks, and governs more like a dictator than an executive of a liberal democracy?

      By the way, there are many claims made by the left and right–from politicians, pundits, journalists, and academics. I would task this bi-partisan group to analyze and track the claims and the people who make them. The results should be posted in a way to easily visualize. In my view, there is a big problem with individuals and groups making claims without very little accountability. This would be a way to address that problem.

  6. I’m really frustrated by Trump and his supporters; use of disinformation, specifically in the way they’re responding to the Ukraine scandal. I want to write some thoughts about this, and how it relates to the current information landscape. But here’s a tweet to set this up:

    Adam Schiff had a problem: how do you counter Republican disinformation on Ukraine without amplifying it further? His committee’s report adopts strategies recommended by disinformation researchers and social scientists.— Quinta "Pro Quo" Jurecic (@qjurecic) December 8, 2019

    Also, an excerpt from the lawfare post linked above:

    Writing in BuzzFeed News, reporter Ryan Broderick argued that that House Intelligence Committee hearings were really two hearings at once—one Democratic hearing focused on establishing the facts of the Ukraine scandal, and one Republican hearing “seek[ing] to create not just a counternarrative but a completely separate reality,” designed to produce “bite-size Facebook posts” and clips for Fox News. Broderick explains how that “separate reality” depended on asking the witnesses questions designed to give airtime to discredited theories prominent in the far-right press, like the idea that the Black Ledger was falsified and released in order to discredit Manafort and thus the Trump campaign. The most prominent of these theories—and perhaps the most absurd—involves the notion, referenced by Trump in his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, that the Democratic National Committee server hacked by the Russian government in 2016 is a physical server that was removed to Ukraine in an effort to hide from the FBI the fact that Russia did not actually attack the DNC, because Crowdstrike—the cybersecurity company that initially investigated the hacking—is owned by a Ukrainian. None of these assertions is true.


    What was true then is true now: Nunes and his colleagues’ arguments are more about generating distrust and confusion than they are about exonerating the president or proving wrongdoing by his enemies. Focusing on debunking a specific claim risks playing into this dynamic by giving the falsehood additional attention that prolongs its lifespan in the news cycle.

    Here’s my position: If Trump, Nunes, and other Trump supporters are acting to generate distrust and confusion, then this is the story–not the claims they’re making. Who cares about their claims, if we can reasonably conclude that they’re intentionally trying to confuse the public and distrust the press? The press shouldn’t move to taking their claims seriously before knowing that Trump and his supporters are behaving in a reasonable fashion.

    (It should be noted that what is reasonable is not something clear-cut or objective. Democrats will not always act in good faith; they will spin, and even lie, for mostly political reasons. Politicians can do this in a way that is acceptable, but there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed. For example, one proven to fabricate accusations or smears–repeatedly–that is a line. Again, this isn’t always clear cut.)

    More later…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *