Flame Wars, News Coverage, and Critical Thinking

by Sharon Kayne

I recently got into a flame war on Facebook with a total stranger over the ICE shooting in Minneapolis. I know, I know. Not a smart (or productive) thing to do. Interestingly, the whole thing reminded me of when I worked in the news media, so it resulted in a nice stroll down memory lane.

When you work in a newsroom and you take calls from readers and viewers, you get the distinct impression that, when some people consume news, they leave their critical thinking skills at the door. Of course, I didn’t know the people I took calls from, so it’s possible they simply have no critical thinking skills at all. I can only speak to the narrow frame though which I interacted with them.

I remember, back when I worked in TV news, the first time I took a call from someone who, wanting more information about a news story we had aired, referred to the story as a “commercial.” I thought, “Wow, that’s weird. This guy doesn’t know the difference between a news story and a paid advertisement.” Then, sometime later, I got another call about a different news story and, again, the caller referred to it as a “commercial.” And then I got another one. And another one. I didn’t keep track of how many viewers I spoke to who referred to news stories as commercials, but it was enough to scare me into a deep concern over the state of critical thinking in this country. Or, rather, the lack thereof.

Just so we’re clear: a news story is a factual account of a recent event, the purpose of which is to inform you of what’s going on in your community, state, nation, or world. The point of the news story is to explain the event—generally through information gathered from witnesses, government officials, experts, and sometimes analysts. While the witnesses, officials, experts, and analysts may well express their opinion about the event, neither the reporter nor the news outlet are supposed to express their opinion. Nor is it their job to influence yours. This is where your critical thinking skills come into play: the news gives you the facts; you come up with your own opinion. At least that’s how it’s supposed to work.

A commercial, on the other hand, is a paid advertisement with a very different purpose—that is to sell you a product or service. It is going to tell you how you should think—which, invariably, is that you want to buy the product or service. You can see the difference, right? It’s not really that murky. Anyone should be able to watch a news story and a commercial and—absent any other context—be able to tell the difference.

We all have personal biases, of course, and it’s virtually impossible to approach any news story as a reporter without them. Your biases can show up in what kinds of questions you ask and what kinds of words and visuals you use in your story. But, in my experience, most of the people working in news try to be as unbiased as possible. People who write ad copy, on the other hand, are very good at selecting words and images that will make consumers amenable to whatever they’re selling. They study this stuff and even focus-group it. Because influencing buyers means big money. Doing that in the news business, however, means losing your job. Or, at least, it should.

All of this brings me back to the guy I was in a flame war with on Facebook. He’d posted that Renee Good was a terrorist, which he “knew” because of a story he’d read here in the NY Post. After I’d replied that the NY Post was only marginally more credible as a news source than the National Enquirer, I read the piece in the Post. I didn’t have to get far before the story referred to the school Ms. Good’s child attended as “woke.” This was neither a quote nor was it attributed to a witness/official/expert/analyst. I pointed out to this guy that “woke” is not only an opinion, but it’s a talking point of the conservative machine and, therefore, does not belong in anything attempting to pass itself off as a credible news outlet.

Now, since I have critical thinking skills, I figured out right away that this blatant inserting of the reporter/editor/outlet’s opinion means the story is not terribly trustworthy. In other words, I’m pretty sure I can’t believe anything else they tell me. Again, it’s not really that murky.

My flame-war dude never replied to my comment so, either I effectively shut him up, or—most likely—he simply got tired of fighting with me and went on to stoke a flame war with someone else. I’d like to think I gave him pause and he thought, “Gosh, maybe I should get my news from a more credible source; one that’s not also pimping for the conservative party,” but I’m not terribly hopeful.

The whole conversation brought to mind several other things I’d learned about news consumers, but it was all too much to put into one blog, so I’ve saved the other stories for next week. Join me then, but don’t forget to wear your critical thinking cap.

Follow me on Facebook or Instagram, or sign up for my monthly newsletter (here) to be informed of my new posts. Also, please follow me on Amazon, Goodreads and BookBub.