Stranger in the mirror by Ananya (Instagram)
It is incredibly difficult to summarise really complicated subjects into a sentence.
Or more specifically, a headline.
As you will see shortly, I have tried to do this.
Now many might find this contentious and ‘belittling’ of serious issues, but I promise you, why I have done this should also become clear and it’s important. Almost as important as all the clickbait you get hooked into.
With that incredibly vague intro. Let’s begin with this weeks topic, how biases colour our worldview.
America spelled backwards is Nacirema
If you haven’t come across ‘Nacirema’ before, welcome. You are about to enter the wonderful world of anthropology.
This concept was introduced by Horace Miner in 1956 with a paper published in the American Anthropologist called, ‘Body Ritual among the Nacirema’. See where I’m going with this yet? Maybe re-read the heading, it’s a dead giveaway.
Here’s a taster of the paper,
“The Nacirema have an almost pathological horror and fascination with the mouth, the condition of which is believed to have a supernatural influence on all social relationships. Were it not for the rituals of the mouth, they believe that their teeth would fall out, their gums bleed, their jaws shrink, their friends desert them, and their lovers reject them.”
And for those of you still confused, in his paper Miner examines American culture from an outsider’s perspective, as if it were a newly discovered tribe. Essentially, trying to make American’s ‘foreign’ or ‘exotic’ sounding.
In doing so, hopefully, we begin to realise that when we look at other cultures, or even anything unfamiliar to us, we so easily jump to conclusions. Misunderstanding and misrepresenting one another.
This ‘outsider’s’ perspective becomes a rather handy way to look at the world. To not only begin to understand our own bias and assumptions, but to also see how others represent and engage.
While Miner is more satirical than truly objective in his paper of the Nacirema. I would like to see what could happen if we did take an objective view of the world. Getting rid of our very comfortable and easily applied subjective lenses. Even for just a moment.
And what better to test this out on, than some very sensationalised, and rather emotive words we see every day.
The news.
Shall we?
Different Lenses by Ananya (Instagram)
6 News Items in Feb 2024 Rewritten
For 719 days a big country has been creating disruptions in a smaller country. The latest approach has been for the bigger country to fly small metal objects that drop explosive material over the smaller country they are claiming as theirs.
Any guesses as to what this refers to? How about the following,
Popular woman sells one of her modes of transport. Woman had two private means of traveling by air. Now she has one.
A big country suggests a piece of land should be theirs. A country with desirable resources is having to be watchful of their neighbour who is beginning to suggest they would like to take over some of their land. Using force.
Two men are the most likely applicants for upcoming competition. One is aging the other is facing legal problems. The winning prize is to be the leader of a large country.
Another, different country suggests a piece of land should be theirs. The leaders of a country are looking to use extreme force to take control of an area of land outside their territory, 1.5 million people live there.
Country’s leader orders changes to how the country runs. Some people of their country don’t agree with their leader and are walking the streets to voice this. Others do agree.
Now before I get too ahead of myself, I would like to reiterate that the purpose of this exercise is not to devalue the complexity of most of these quite serious, global issues.
Rather, it is a tool to see how a different lens and very little context can tell us about how media outlets can sway news articles to favour one point of view. While I have attempted to be objective, one lesson I learned from anthropology, tells me that it is very, very, very, veeerry hard to be truly, 100% objective. If you want to understand why, you can jump down that rabbit hole here.
For those of you still with me, lets take a closer look at one of these examples.
For 719 days a big country has been creating disruptions in a smaller country.
Some other ways to say this,
719 days with very little progress - a little ambiguous? Who is making no progress? It could be the little or big country.
719 days on and the little country is still under attack - political & emotional sway towards little country
719 days and more to go as big country keeps progressing forward. - political & emotional sway towards big country
And what does my original 719 days headline refer to? The Russia and Ukraine war. Reference used.
There are many ways to convey information, the tricky part, as I mentioned earlier is to do so without bias.
We are humans after all, and we tend to bring our emotions, feelings, ideas and philosophical alignments into the picture (even unknowingly) with the words we use and the way we use them. We even do this with when we choose what to information to share.
The Media Bias
A study in 2023 led by Jiebo Luo from the University of Rochester found that news media outlets in the US are incorporating ideological biases into their news articles more and more. There might be numerous reasons for this, such as the pressure to post news more quickly to stay relevant and the rapid timeframes of news events themselves.
The impact of this can be problematic, to say the least. News organisations and journalists might intentionally or unintentionally shape how news events are presented and understood. Aka, the media bias.
And that can’t be good.
Why?
When different media sources favour a political party, for instance, they end up attracting an audience who shares the same beliefs and supports them as a credible source, thereby disengaging the other side of the audience who no longer perceives them as a reliable source of information.
And if we begin to follow and read only news from sources that align with the political party we favour we get an,
Echo Chamber
Where we only read and engage with information that reinforces our opinion and tells us what we want to hear.
Fall into an echo chamber and it becomes incredibly difficult to acknowledge and accept different perspectives.
And there are many, many opportunities to get stuck in an echo chamber on the internet. Nearly everyone can easily connect with similar-minded individuals and viewpoints online, through online groups, social media channels, news websites…and the list goes on. I haven’t even mentioned the significance of algorithms either, which is a different rabbit hole for another time.
It’s not just the news we consume that we need to be aware of, its everything we consume. From books, to movies, to those never ending posts from the latest Facebook group you signed up to.
Which leads me to,
✨Tips to get yourself out of the echo chamber. BONUS: Become more aware of what on earth you are consuming.✨
Consume widely.
Stop scrolling, and start reading or listening or watching to a range of different perspectives. Pick a topic that you would like to learn more about. And find cross-cultural and cross-discipline sources to learn from. Some places to start (news): Aljazeera, The Flip Side, The Guardian, The New York Times, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, The Times of India, Channel NewsAsiaSeek out those people you usually argue with, and actually listen to them.
No ums, no buts. It’s time to take notes. If only to rip them up when you do your fact check later. The key here, is learning how to let another person talk without coming up with a response in your head. Hear them out, try to understand what they are saying, why they might be saying it and how they are framing it.Still scrolling? Look for other people to follow.
If you can’t get off TikTok, you may as well use it to your advantage. Follow thinkers, influencers, and organisations that challenge your current viewpoints. This doesn't mean seeking out extreme or hateful views, but rather those that respectfully offer alternative perspectives.
FACT CHECK
Now as easy as it would be to claim everything you say is cross your heart, swear to it, truth. It’s not. We all know it. You just come across looking like a fool. And no one wants to be a fool. So maybe give it a google before you click share, see who else can back up that claim. And while you’re at it, see if you can track down the original source. Who said it first?
Be wary of clickbait
Its very hard to escape the urge to click on an article titled, ‘You Won't Believe What Happened Next!’ I get it. We want to know, it’s an emotive headline specifically designed to attract clicks and views. But more often than not, the content is rubbish and usually uses our existing biases to hook us in. Even better click on the article and write down exactly what in the post/article is fact. Straight-forward unbiased fact. Then use that fact (if there are any) and use it to rewrite the headline. Would you have clicked on it then?
Missing anything? Let me know!
Ok from the top, what were my ‘6 News Items in Feb 2024’ referring to?
The Russia and Ukraine war. Reference used.
Taylor Swift selling one of her private planes. Reference used
Venezuela military build up on the Guyana border. Reference used
The 2024 US election candidates. Reference used
Israeli forces target Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. Reference used
Major economic reforms being pushed by Argentina's President Javier Milei. Reference used
Additional sources used for this post:
Effect of Media Bias on Credibility of Political
News, https://www.exhibit.xavier.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=xjur
https://pressbooks.pub/mediastudies/chapter/media-bias/
Until next time,
If you found this interesting and are curious to know what I will write about next (myself included), subscribe.
I’m always open to ideas too. Send them through!