Arm wrestling with narratives

A few nights ago, I was having a nighttime snack while looking through a newsfeed on my phone and this headline in The Atlantic caught my eye: “I’m afraid that I cannot be a journalist anymore.”

For obvious reasons, I clicked on the headline and the very first thing that caught my attention when the page loaded was, of course, the illustration: a black silhouette of a fountain pen tip against a bright red background. I generally enjoy The Atlantic’s illustrations, but I immediately dismissed this as lazy. It screamed clipart, the pieces easily found on stock vector sites. Then I noticed something peculiar. The gap between the two halves of the pen tip (where the ink collects) was not a solid line but barbed wire. Now I was interested. Very.

It’s said that barbed wire is what tamed the west. Until barbed wire (invented right down in Sycamore when a man twisted two of his wife’s bobby pins together and sharpened the ends to points) cattle and other livestock roamed free and had to continuously be herded, corralled, and watched. Barbed wire kept these beasts in place.

So what was it doing on a pen in a story about journalism. The implication was a little terrifying to someone dedicated to upholding the Freedom of Speech because barbed wire is the antithesis of freedom. It’s meant to trap, contain, limit.

I read on.

The story is about the Hong Kong journalist Ronson Chan and his continued efforts to maintain freedom of speech in China’s government-controlled media environment, where regularly journalists and editors and news organizations that try to report unfiltered news are fined, arrested, shutdown, and/or jailed.

Despite the obvious risk Chan takes every day (and the risks ARE great), I praised this journalist for his efforts and bravery. My own news organization has very few rules, but I’ve always demanded that MHN and MSDN reporters maintain an unbiased vantage point when reporting. It’s a prerequisite, and I have absolutely zero tolerance for anything otherwise (unless, of course, it’s labeled an opinion piece from a columnist or letter to the editor—but that, again, is Freedom of Speech and our First Amendment in action).

While reading The Atlantic’s piece by Timothy McLaughlin, I found myself oddly relating to Chan (and I think many journalists and news outlets, especially small ones, would say the same). No, I’m not under threat of arrest or being jailed for the words we print in MHN and MSDN, but we are under intense scrutiny and do get called out for every “misstep” we make. And there in lies the problem and reason for my ability to relate (at least on a minor level) to Ronson Chan.

Because what is a misstep or “misinformation?”

Nowadays, many people out there accuse others of spreading misinformation when what’s being said doesn’t fit their personal narrative. And if that personal narrative happens to be the most popular narrative, those who speak against it or have a differing opinion are labeled “fringe,” “detractors,” “dissidents” and are made outcast.

And, I guess, maybe there could be a case for this ousting…if those doing the ousting were one-hundred-precent correct and that fringe narrative was a genuine threat to public safety, let’s say, but after 20-plus years of speaking to people in a news setting I’ve come to learn that most information exists in a grey area and motive is the chief deciding factor in almost every action.

And what I’m seeing more and more the chief motivating factor is fear of reprisal, whatever that reprisal may be, of which I am and this news company are not immune.

At the beginning of the pandemic, a Sun City resident approached us with a rather impressive investigation into a particular COVID mitigation strategy that they (pronoun used intentionally for anonymity) argued was ineffective. I wrote just a second ago about motive. It was clear this resident’s motives were of genuine concern for their community members. And I took her seriously. The problem was that their argument was considered “fringe” and way outside the popular narrative on this particular measure. Still, I investigated it myself and confirmed the findings that were provided. Only I couldn’t get third-party confirmation because no one would speak to us on the matter. We were shutdown by every person we approached. As much as I personally thought they were correct, we couldn’t write a story because we couldn’t get this resident’s claims verified, resulting in a lopsided investigation.

In short, we were censored.

Two years later into the pandemic, and everything this resident approached us with has now been verified as true by experts and other larger media outlets because it is now popularly accepted as “true.”

Had we ran the story without fully substantiating the claims, we would have been accused of spreading misinformation and publicly fined and/or jailed in a social setting. Additionally, no matter how right our resident’s argument was, it wouldn’t have helped because not many people would have listened. It would have been mostly rejected.

Alongside The Atlantic piece on Chan, my wife happened to read about what could be considered a phenomenon of thinking that explains how popular narratives form, no matter how incorrect.

According to some critical-thinking experts, most people would say that when presented with new information, they first listen, then assess, and finally look for evidence to support this information before developing their “belief” in said information. But statistically that’s not how people assess new info. In reality, most people apparently hear the new information and immediately jump to how it fits into their beliefs, and if it fits, they then look for evidence to support that belief and reject any evidence to the contrary.

Basically, it’s bad science. And bad journalism.

But that’s how a lot of scientists make a name for themselves and how many news outlets appeal to their millions of readers. Fox News and The New York Times are huge proponents of this strategy. They give their readers what they want not always what is true.

I don’t often make it my business to spout advice because I never actually am certain anything I know is true. Or if I know it’s true, I always think it may only be true for me. But in light of the Ronson Chan story and what the Chinese government is not seeing (and anyone who opposes someone else’s arguments just because they don’t like what the other is saying) I could impart one thing that may help. Or maybe not help but…well…whatever. It might do something.

When I was in college, I had an oral-com teacher demonstrate how hard it was to change people’s beliefs and/or opinions on something by arm wrestling with a student. Only in this match, they were wrestling with the backsides of their hands pressed against each other. If you can’t imagine it, don’t worry, because it’s impossible to arm wrestle this way and that’s the point. It’s week, it’s ineffective, your arms don’t work that way, and it’s a lot of effort to go nowhere.

Instead, when approached with someone of differing views, go at it palm to palm. Face each other, join hands, come prepared with facts, and I bet you’ll find that while it may be a struggle and tiring, you’ll find you only get stronger.

---