Enlightening public opinion
Published Mon, Sep 8 2008 11:33 AM
“In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.” —George Washington
The Internet is a wonderful thing, allowing people of modest means to disseminate their opinions to the world. Bloggers know this even if, like me, they only reach a few dozen people a day. I check my site logs periodically, and I have visitors from all over the world. Email is another tool that people can use to share their opinions. People forward email that contains opinions they agree with all the time. The Internet also provides many free resources with useful information, such as the Library of Congress' web site, the National Archives web site, and various media outlets, including newspapers and other news organization sites.
Still, the Internet isn't exactly a reliable source of information at times. I believe I've remarked upon what appear to be the occasional deliberate distortion of information on Wikipedia in the past. I know that I've passed along some opinion pieces that were attributed to some famous people that later turned out not to have been originated by those people before, and I've owned up to it. Questions have come up occasionally about the bias of certain search engines, where sites with specific ideological points of view are censored from the results, or where the rankings are distorted by the infusion of money. There have been more than a few reports about Google censoring sites based upon user feedback — feedback that later turned out to be targeted and false. And of course, several content providers, search engines, and the like have censored the material they make available to satisfy the efforts of foreign governments to keep information from the masses.
Everything you read on the Internet you've really got to think about, at least if you want to base your opinions upon it. An opinion that isn't based upon facts and sound reasoning isn't worth the recycled electrons it's distributed with in most cases. Yes, some opinions, based upon faith and conviction are meaningful, but they aren't nearly as persuasive (at least to me) as opinions based upon solid information. This is one of the reasons why I tend to put links to source material into my posts (although I don't always do this). I think that it's useful to be able to go to the original source a person uses when stating their opinions and check what's being said. If I'm quoting a news article, there will be a link to it. If I have a block quote referencing a news article, another blog post, or a document, the <blockquote> tag will include the “cite” attribute, with the URL of the material I'm quoting. (I think a great enhancement to web browsers would be a tooltip that shows the value of the “cite” attribute on the <blockquote> tag, and allows you to optionally navigate to it. Currently the only way to do this is by viewing the page source.)
I wonder sometimes about how much value readers place on such references. When I look at my site logs, there are very seldom any out-clicks on the references I provide. That there are any at all seems to be pretty rare. This has got me thinking about the reliability of the information and opinions we read on the Internet, and how much we really care about it.
When you read something on the Internet how do you measure its reliability? If a blog post makes assertions of fact without any references at all, can you trust it? Do you? What if instead of a blog post it's a “news article”. Do you “consider the source”? If so, how far do you go? One level? Two? Is a news article more reliable than a blog post? Is an official government publication more or less reliable than a news article? How about a blog post that cites a news article or an official government publication? How about a news article that cites one or more blog posts? How reliable is a blog post that merely cites other blog posts? Earlier I used “scare quotes” around the term “news article”. Do you know why? Do you accept what you read, hear, or see in (or on) the news as “fact” because of the medium? How critically do you read or listen to it? Do you separate fact from opinion? How easy (or hard) is it for you to separate the information from the presentation?
I think that oftentimes when we read anything, whether it's a news article, a blog post, or a piece of email, we tend to rate its authority based upon whether we agree with the opinion or spin that is presented, how well we know the source, and whether or not there are any citations in it. As I remarked earlier though, I don't think that we tend to dig much deeper than that, at least based on the low out-click numbers on references in my own posts. I think that that's a problem. If we simply accept what we read without checking the references, we may be duped into believing a distortion by our own biases, whether the distortion is accidental or deliberate.
Yes, we do want to consider the source of the information we accept. So, perhaps giving more weight to the opinions and assertions made by people we trust is reasonable. The thing is, as bloggers, we are going to have people reading our posts that hold to a different ideology than we do. Those people aren't going to give us the benefit of the doubt if we get our facts wrong — they'll chew us up. That's one reason why it's important to cite reference material.
Simply citing reference material isn't enough though, if we want to be sure of supporting our arguments, or of informing our own opinions. It's also important to make sure that our reference material actually supports our viewpoints. Simply because a few sentences or paragraphs in the material we cite supports our viewpoints doesn't help our argument if we ignore the majority of it. It's all to easy to find a few pithy statements that support your argument while ignoring the larger context of your references, especially if your argument is driven by ideology. Those that oppose our ideological framework will pounce upon this sort of thing. I've seen this happen on a few blogs that I've participated in, and watched the arguments that result. It's not fun to watch a person who has a valid point be shot down because the references he cites don't support his argument, but instead run counter to it.
Sometimes, in an effort to be objective, we'll make mistakes. We might cite a table of figures, and even provide a link to the source document. When we do this, we've got to be especially careful if we want to make a point based on the data. If you're given a table of figures, look for gaps in the data. Look for transpositions. If we transcribe the table of figures by hand, we've got to make sure to double and even triple check our transcription, because the errors we make may cause us to make further errors.
Distortions will be caught, whether they're deliberate or not. If someone makes an assertion of fact don't simply accept it. If they provide reference material, check it, and compare it to the assertions they made, don't simply accept that the reference supports the assertions, even if you agree with the ideology the assertions appear to support.
Informed opinion is the best kind of opinion. Taking the extra time to weigh the sources of your information is worth the effort. Look at things with a critical eye, and don't even take the statements of your allies for granted. None of us is perfect, and we all make mistakes from time to time. I think it's a good idea to remember this. We will occasionally see cases of “real but inaccurate” information disseminated by our allies.
It's also a good idea to remember that to some people, ideology is more important than truth, and we've seen deliberate distortions of fact. “Fake but accurate” reference material is nothing to base an opinion or reputation on.
Always check your sources.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1238
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2008/9/8/1238.aspx
Post Saver - Website voting and saving system trackbacked with "Cite Bookmarks"
Bookmarked your page with keywords cite!
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
David responded with:
 | "Still, the Internet isn't exactly a reliable source of information at times. I believe I've remarked upon what appear to be the occasional deliberate distortion of information on Wikipedia in the past."
Indeed. Jerry Pournelle related his problem getting errors of fact in a Wikipedia article about him corrected--simple, checkable facts.
Fact checking? In the past I have often urged folks who read my opinions at twc to do their own homework. Those who do are rare, I fear.
As to "consider the source"... a slippery slope. Most folks don't know how to properly do that and instead simply dismiss assertions made by people whose viewpoint contradicts their own. The proper method is, as you often demonstrate, is to be aware of a bias but CHECK THE FACTS. Often, of course, an obviou bias can point one in a direction for checking facts, but just as often fact checking is just drudge work *heh* and work that requires thinking is just too haaaard for some folks. *heh* |
james responded with:
 | Careful what you say!
For example, Google has blocked posts on this site in its blog search ...
http://harrietharmansucks.blogspot.com/ |