I’ll bet you didn’t hear about this in the mainstream media. There was recently an event that occurred of a rather important nature. This incident is heavily tied into my partisan perception. If it had been reported on, it would support my specific political narrative, but it wasn’t reported on. Not one word from mainstream media. Why? Because it doesn’t fit the narrative being pushed by the liberal media! Not only does the event itself confirm what I believe, but the media silence also supports my perception that the media is biased and crooked!
If you’ve ever been on social media, you’ve probably seen some variety of this in a meme or infographic. The problem: it’s not true. This is a common piece of propaganda pushing a very specific narrative. It preys on the confirmation bias, echo chambers, media illiteracy and faulty media consumption of the individual.
Media Blackout
Noting the common rumor meme touting media silence on various events, media blackout is a real, although uncommon, thing. Common in countries with totalitarian regimes, the press is controlled with the intention of pushing nationalistic ideologies. Historically, though in free countries, blackouts have been used in times of conflict, much to the same goal: to push nationalistic ideology and generate backing for the military efforts. Today, however, the story is much different.
Today, media blackouts are often used only in hostage situations, especially in terms of terrorism. In these situations, media blackouts are designed to protect the victims. Journalists will self censor in order to protect identities and sensitive details and sometimes to prevent extremist propaganda from spreading. In addition, when information pertains to matters of national security, selective information will be released to the media from national entities after classified information has been sifted from that which is publicly available. They will be reporting incomplete information, but that is the nature of national security-not a flaw in journalistic practices.
Digital Journalism
The primary problem with both media blackout and rumors of media silence is that we live in the age of digital journalism. In her paper “Information Verification in the Age of Digital Journalism,” Nora Martin writes:
“In today’s broadcast media environment when news breaks, it is usually on Twitter. The first photos are not from mainstream media outlets or agencies; they are tweeted or posted to Instagram by eyewitnesses. In effect, anyone with a smartphone can become an extension of the news gathering operation” (Martin, 2014).
In essence, there is an outsourcing of information gathering that precedes news publication. The origin of news stories has shifted away from the journalist. Martin calls this “interactive information sharing” (Martin, 2014). Because news information is increasingly drawn to non-journalistic, social media origins, and because breaking news is often situationally outsourced to eye-witness accounts, media blackouts are near impossible to enforce.
Truth Bias and Social Media
Now that we have established the real nature of media blackouts, lets delve into the nature of cognitive biases and media silence rumors.
Studies have shown that individuals when given information exhibit what is known as a “truth bias” (Rubin & Conroy, 2012). We naturally think we are being told the truth. This affects our ability to distinguish the difference between real and fabricated information which is then exacerbated by the fact that we are more likely to trust our friends than a stranger (Rubin, 2017). Individuals who rely on social media for their news have a much harder time distinguishing the difference between real information and fake news, myths or hoaxes (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017).
When the nature of human trust biases are combined with social media, the problems start to become apparent when rumors of media silence pop up. Relying on social media for one’s news pushes the individual into the realm of journalistic populism. One does not see the spectrum of what is actually being reported, but only what their friends think is important. This creates a thriving environment for a propagandist.
How the Meme Spreads
So what happens is an individual is innocently scrolling through their news feed when they see a post that looks something like this:
They see that their friend shared it. They trust their friend and their judgement so they think its accurate (truth bias). Their confirmation bias might also kick in. They probably already think the media is biased and they don’t want to be perceived as not supportive of the troops. Everything fits their preconceived notions and worldview. Everything adds up, so they share it and the meme spreads further. Memes that play on the individual’s confirmation bias spread further and faster than other material.
This thought process is rapid and the share button is hit before any critical thinking skills can set in. The individual doesn’t think to check the dates. Is it really the 42nd anniversary? Or is this a recycled meme from a while back? They didn’t see anyone else sharing stories about the anniversary, but they probably didn’t check any media outlets for news headlines.
These are the important questions to ask before hitting like/share: Did it happen? Are the dates current? Did the news report on it?
How to Verify
When encountering media silence rumors, it’s very easy to verify. I’m going to use the very recent event of a terror attack in London. Emotionally charged events like terror attacks and shootings have a tendency to stir up rumors of media silence, as do issues pertaining to religious or nationalistic identity. Here’s how to go about finding out:
First, you need a basic google search. Above is a screenshot of the search terms “terror attack London.” Take notice of the time stamps to know when they were published. Some media silence rumors pivot around how long it took reporters to take notice, which is then further reinforced by confusing the concept of when it was reported vs when the person found out about it. Also note that the news spread was rapid, even Wikipedia had an established page available on the subject content within hours.
Afterwards, click on google’s news facet, pictured below. This will filter your search content to only include news articles.
You can then go down the list to see which news outlets have chosen to cover the story and you will notice that this particular story is being heavily covered by a wide range of outlets. But, depending on your particular digital echo chamber and how much you rely on social media for your news consumption, you may not be exposed to this story without actively seeking it out.
The Propagandist
The process of verification in media silence rumors is easy and quick, but it is not as quick as the cognitive biases already active in your brain. Our biases kick in almost instantly when encountering any form of information. Critical thinking and the desire to verify have to be an intentional thought process. This is exactly what propagandists are hoping you wont take notice of. They hope the emotional, knee jerk reaction is enough to get you to hit like or share before thinking about the content. The more you engage in propaganda, the more exposure you get and the more susceptible you become.
Kicking in the critical thinking, even for little things like this, will have an important ripple effect in how you engage with information.
References
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
Blackouts: A brief history. Retrieved on 2018, 8 15, from http://casestudies.journalism.ryerson.ca/the-ethics-of-media-blackouts-two-kidnappings/blackouts-a-brief-history/
Martin, N. (2014). Information verification in the age of digital journalism. Retrieved from https://www.sla.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Information-Verification.pdf
Rubin, V.L. (2017). Deception detection and rumor debunking for social media. In Sloan, L. & Quan-Haase, A. (Eds.) (2017) The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods, London: SAGE. https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the-sage-handbook-of-social-media-research-methods/books245370
Rubin, V. L., & Conroy, N. (2012). Discerning truth from deception: Human judgments and automation efforts. First Monday, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v17i3.3933
