information

The concept of cherry-picking refers to the practice of selectively choosing data or facts that support one’s argument while ignoring those that may contradict it. This method is widely recognized not just as a logical fallacy but also as a technique commonly employed in the dissemination of disinformation. Cherry-picking can significantly impact the way information is understood and can influence political ideology, public opinion, and policy making.

Cherry-picking and disinformation

Disinformation, broadly defined, is false or misleading information that is spread deliberately, often to deceive or mislead the public. Cherry-picking plays a crucial role in the creation and propagation of disinformation.

By focusing only on certain pieces of evidence while excluding others, individuals or entities can create a skewed or entirely false narrative. This manipulation of facts is particularly effective because the information presented can be entirely true in isolation, making the deceit harder to detect. In the realm of disinformation, cherry-picking is a tool to shape perceptions, create false equivalencies, and undermine credible sources of information.

The role of cherry-picking in political ideology

Political ideologies are comprehensive sets of ethical ideals, principles, doctrines, myths, or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explains how society should work. Cherry-picking can significantly influence political ideologies by providing a biased view of facts that aligns with specific beliefs or policies.

This biased information can reinforce existing beliefs, creating echo chambers where individuals are exposed only to viewpoints similar to their own. The practice can deepen political divisions, making it more challenging for individuals with differing viewpoints to find common ground or engage in constructive dialogue.

Counteracting cherry-picking

Identifying and countering cherry-picking requires a critical approach to information consumption and sharing. Here are several strategies:

  1. Diversify Information Sources: One of the most effective ways to recognize cherry-picking is by consuming information from a wide range of sources. This diversity of trustworthy sources helps in comparing different viewpoints and identifying when certain facts are being omitted or overly emphasized.
  2. Fact-Checking and Research: Before accepting or sharing information, it’s essential to verify the facts. Use reputable fact-checking organizations and consult multiple sources to get a fuller picture of the issue at hand.
  3. Critical Thinking: Develop the habit of critically assessing the information you come across. Ask yourself whether the evidence supports the conclusion, what might be missing, and whether the sources are credible.
  4. Educate About Logical Fallacies: Understanding and educating others about logical fallacies, like cherry-picking, can help people recognize when they’re being manipulated. This knowledge can foster healthier public discourse and empower individuals to demand more from their information sources.
  5. Promote Media Literacy: Advocating for media literacy education can equip people with the skills needed to critically evaluate information sources, understand media messages, and recognize bias and manipulation, including cherry-picking.
  6. Encourage Open Dialogue: Encouraging open, respectful dialogue between individuals with differing viewpoints can help combat the effects of cherry-picking. By engaging in conversations that consider multiple perspectives, individuals can bridge the gap between divergent ideologies and find common ground.
  7. Support Transparent Reporting: Advocating for and supporting media outlets that prioritize transparency, accountability, and comprehensive reporting can help reduce the impact of cherry-picking. Encourage media consumers to support organizations that make their sources and methodologies clear.

Cherry-picking is a powerful tool in the dissemination of disinformation and in shaping political ideologies. Its ability to subtly manipulate perceptions makes it a significant challenge to open, informed public discourse.

By promoting critical thinking, media literacy, and the consumption of a diverse range of information, individuals can become more adept at identifying and countering cherry-picked information. The fight against disinformation and the promotion of a well-informed public require vigilance, education, and a commitment to truth and transparency.

Read more

I try to be choosy about my news as well as reading widely. I make it a habit to routinely consult sources outside the US, know the ethics of the outlets I most rely on, and try to mix up the types of media ownership and format (newspaper, TV, podcast, website, radio, etc.) to avoid a monolithic class or other point of view on any particular subject or issue. Some of the media sources I trust for valuable perspectives are in the table below.

Other habits: trying to corroborate stories amongst multiple publications; evaluate the credibility of authors and references; read source material; do my own calculations; consult public data when available; go back further into history to understand the trajectory of preceding events; keep listening for new information on the subject. Adjust my views based on new incoming information, if warranted. Keep an eye out for disinformation or other skewed presentations of fact.

Good journalism matters

Having worked in media for most of my career, I have a lot of practice evaluating the quality and veracity of reporting. Cross-referencing comes second nature. I’ve studied the media industry as a professional imperative and understand a bit about its ownership structures and its history, both technical and economic. As a political philosophy buff, I’m aware of the great importance of a free press to our democratic republic.

I appreciate a tight headline, a profound topic, and bold investigation as well as imaginative prose and pithy information. We need the intrepid courage of the press, particularly in these times of demagoguery, kleptocracy, hucksterism, and Zucksterism. The fourth estate has helped us find our better angels in the past, and there’s no reason to think it can’t assist us once again to get better transparency into the bigger picture and big histories behind today’s otherwise chaotic and overwhelming political landscape.

NameCountryFundingYear foundedAgeLink
The GuardianUKPrivate1821203https://www.theguardian.com/
The EconomistUKPrivate1843181https://www.economist.com/
Scientific AmericanUSPrivate1845179https://www.nature.com/
Associated PressUSNonprofit1846178https://apnews.com/
The New York TimesUSPrivate1851173https://www.nytimes.com/
ReutersUSPrivate1851173https://www.reuters.com/
The Daily TelegraphUKPrivate1855169https://www.telegraph.co.uk/
The AtlanticUSPrivate1857167https://www.theatlantic.com/
NatureUSPrivate1869155https://www.nature.com/
The Washington PostUSPrivate1877147https://www.washingtonpost.com/
LA TimesUSPrivate1881143https://www.latimes.com/
Financial TimesUKPrivate1888136https://www.ft.com/
The New RepublicUSPrivate1914110https://newrepublic.com/
BBCUKPublic1922102https://www.bbc.com/news
TimeUSPrivate1923101https://time.com/
The New YorkerUSPrivate192599https://www.newyorker.com/
CBCCanadaPublic193688https://www.cbc.ca/news/world
SpiegelEUPrivate194777https://www.spiegel.de/international/
Radio Free EuropeEUPublic194975https://www.rferl.org/
New ScientistUKPrivate195668https://www.newscientist.com/
Rolling StoneUSPrivate196757https://www.rollingstone.com/
PBSUSPublic196955https://www.pbs.org/
Foreign PolicyUSPrivate197054https://www.euronews.com/
NPRUSPublic197054https://www.npr.org/
Greg PalastUSIndependent197648https://www.gregpalast.com/
C-SPANUSPublic197945https://www.c-span.org/
CNNUSPrivate198044https://www.cnn.com/
The IndependentUKPrivate198638https://www.independent.co.uk/us
Sky NewsUKPrivate198638https://news.sky.com/
EuronewsEUPrivate199331https://www.euronews.com/
MSNBCUSPrivate199628https://www.msnbc.com/
International Consortium of Investigative JournalistsUSNonprofit199727https://icij.org
VoxUSPrivate200519https://www.vox.com/
PoliticoUSPrivate200717https://www.politico.com/
BellingcatEUIndependent201410https://www.bellingcat.com/
Gaslit NationUSCrowdfunding20159https://www.patreon.com/m/1844970/posts
AxiosUSPrivate20177https://www.axios.com/
Just SecurityUSAcademic20177https://www.justsecurity.org/
The ConversationalistUSNonprofit20195https://conversationalist.org/
Read more

When usability pioneers have All the Feels about the nature of our creeping technological dystopia, how we got here, and what we might need to do to right the ship, it’s wise to pay attention. Don Norman’s preaching resonated with my choir, and they’ve asked me to sing a summary song of our people in bulleted list format:

  • What seemed like a virtuous thing at the time — building the internet with an ethos of trust and openness — has led to a travesty via lack of security, because no one took bad actors into account.
  • Google, Facebook, et al didn’t have the advertising business model in mind a priori, but sort of stumbled into it and got carried away giving advertisers what they wanted — more information about users — without really taking into consideration the boundary violations of appropriating people’s information. (see Shoshana Zuboff’s definitive new book on Surveillance Capitalism for a lot more on this topic)
  • Tech companies have mined the psychological sciences for techniques that — especially at scale — border on mass manipulation of fundamental human drives to be informed and to belong. Beyond the creepy Orwellian slant of information appropriation and emotional manipulation, the loss of productivity and mental focus from years of constant interruptions takes a toll on society at large.
  • We sign an interminable series of EULAs, ToS’s and other lengthy legalese-ridden agreements just to access the now basic utilities that enable our lives. Experts refer to these as “contracts of adhesion” or “click-wrap,” as a way of connoting the “obvious lack of meaningful consent.” (Zuboff)
  • The “bubble effect” — the internet allows one to surround oneself completely with like-minded opinions and avoid ever being exposed to alternative points of view. This has existential implications for being able to inhabit a shared reality, as well as a deleterious effect on public discourse, civility, and the democratic process itself.
  • The extreme commercialization of almost all of our information sources is problematic, especially in the age of the “Milton Friedman-ification” of the economic world and the skewing of values away from communities and individuals, towards a myopic view of shareholder value and all the attendant perverse incentives that accompany this philosophical business shift over the past 50 years. He notes that the original public-spiritedness of new communication technologies has historically been co-opted by corporate lobbyists via regulatory capture — a subject Tim Wu explores in-depth in his excellent 2011 book, “The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires.“

Is it all bleak, Don?! His answer is clear: “yes, maybe, no.” He demurs on positing a definitive answer to all of these issues, but he doesn’t really mince words about a “hunch” that it may in fact involve burning it all down and starting over again.

Pointing to evolution, Norman notes that we cannot eke radical innovation out of incremental changes — and that when radical change does happen it is often imposed unexpectedly from the outside in the form of catastrophic events. Perhaps if we can’t manage to Marie Kondo our way to a more joyful internet, we’ll have to pray for Armageddon soon…?! 😱

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCEeAn6_QJo
Read more