How Do You Know If What You Are Reading Is True Or Useful? - A One Year Old Facebook Post

 How do we know whether what we are reading is true, or for that matter useful?

There are many journalists in the US today who are not only excellent writers, but are just good people. They are well informed, have the best intentions and are highly professional. 

I have to force myself to write, and it comes with great difficulty because I am blocked, and had little journalistic training. Without an editor I feel lost, and feel as though I want to rewrite everything or throw it out after I read it. Reading books and articles is my favorite hobby, and when I'm doing that I am in my happy place. 

As of now I have 30 News and Magazine sites bookmarked and I read them everyday as a routine. I usually read anywhere from 2-10 articles in each, depending upon what newsworthy events are breaking that day. Plus I have a number of books on history that I have going at any one time. This is no big accomplishment or unique, it's just how I occupy my time and is my form of work these days, usually reading about 5-8  hours a day on average. This has been my pattern for a long time. Martha is the same way, but she does more with documentaries and video than I. 

Because of the times we are in, I often wake up at 3 am, and start reading my favorite news sources. For some reason, lately I find that is the best time for me to write, because I'm not as blocked when I'm still half asleep. Does that make any sense? 

Anyway I'm rambling, and should get back to my subject. Journalists. I'm going out on a limb I think by saying this, but I believe that many people choose their careers because of something which occurred in their formative years. Children whose families have mental or physical health issues often want to become Doctors or Therapists. Military families are common, as are Police and Firemen following family tradition, like Farmers and teachers. Sometimes it's being inspired by others, and we want to follow in their footsteps. 

My point is that most people who decide on journalism have a reason which for them is a specific identity issue. They are passionate and insightful, and despite the culture of objectivity, are strong advocates of some beliefs and causes. Therefore, because they are human beings, they bring a great deal of themselves to their jobs. 

So, when news events happen, they see it through the lens of the pre-existing narrative in their heads which they use to interpret these events, and they consider how to relate this to others. As much as we want to stick with Dragnet's Sgt. Joe Friday's credo of "just the facts Ma'am", we are generally going to get a certain slant, spin, or ideological perspective on events. The best and most honest journalists, in my view, are those who are open about where they are coming from and don't pretend to be objective. That doesn't, of course preclude them from openly lying, but I'm addressing something different. 

I'm referring mainly to journalists who are somewhat  independent and not beholden to some Agency or Corporate Blob. These would be people genuinely committed to educating their readers, rather than playing to the prejudices of their own readership base by providing "click bait". 

Now, the big question for me in how I evaluate something is not to fact check what is written. I can understand what is written well enough, and find that I learn very little when I'm in that state of mind of paranoia, cynicism, and dubiousness, that the value of something written is contingent on myself vetting everything from top to bottom. What I look for in someone's writing is what they don't say, what they leave out. 

Many good writers, who try to interpret events based on their pre-existing narrative often suffer tunnel vision, and blind themselves to things which don't fit that narrative. There are things relevant and important which they don't see, without which they undercut or contradict their own arguments. 

When I read something, after I'm finished ingesting what is said, I ask myself what is missing. Often, the real importance and value of a story can get lost, so I try to fill in that blank spot and highlight it if I decide to make commentary. 

I don't do this out of "oneupsmanship". Its because I feel a responsibility to others to guide them through tumultuous or important events, like a guide on a Safari who tries to anticipate unseen dangers on the other side of a thicket or other obstacle. I've been through this forest before, and I know where the hazards are. I know that it is the things we don't see which are often the most important things, the most useful, or potentially the most dangerous. 

So, I force myself to write, which as I said is a challenge for me, for that reason. And I find it more useful to criticize writers that I like and are the better ones than to haul off and bash the ones who I consider to be sophists, liars and propagandists. I feel that criticizing the "bad guys" is just grabbing low hanging fruit, and doesn't do any good. 

On that note....That's about it from here, Happy Thanksgiving All!

"Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter"

-John Keats