Misinformation of the Audience Based on Not Valid Empirical Evidence in Media - Research Paper Example

? The Tyranny of Equally Represented Information The modern media landscape places a strong emphasis on ‘balanced’ coverage of issues (e.g., giving equal space to supporters and critics of a phenomenon), even when no such balance exists in the available evidence. Discuss from a cognitive perspective why it might be concerning when both arguments based on valid empirical evidence and flawed arguments with no evidence base are presented side-by-side to media consumers. Focus on how people process misinformation and how it affects their reasoning and behavior, using appropriate evidence. Introduction As scientific enquiry provides answers to longstanding questions about social and natural phenomena; it often raises controversies when the empirical data it uses disproves some item of social belief. Historical examples of this include mental illness being found responsible for behavior attributed to personal agency, or when astrological evidence decried the notion of the earth being the center of the universe. Although it is expected that modern media would discount unsubstantiated statements and emphasize those that are supported by facts; it is not usually the case (Chomsky, 2002). News agencies are concerned about maintaining objectivity, and thus, demand that journalists present a balanced piece that gives equal importance to all arguments on a topic. They believe that this would allow the audience to choose for itself, by being informed on both sides; and that this would be done without becoming embroiled in the controversy themselves (Harris, 2009). As this essay will demonstrate, providing a naive audience with a supposedly balanced perspective often leads to misinformation of that audience; as misinformation is processed by the mind in a similar fashion to a valid and factual argument (Chomsky, 2002). It is thus necessary to discuss the value of presenting false equivalencies to a naive audience. It may be concluded that it is also necessary to re-analyze the notion of what objective journalism for science entails. How people process information The human ability to process information has been an important part of understanding how people function in different situations, and why they behave the way they do (Gray, 2010). The last 50 years have seen rapid developments in the development of a theory of information processing which attempts to describe how a person assimilates new information. The information processing system includes the sensory registers, the short term memory and the long term memory. New information passes progressively through these stores and needs to be attended to in order to be retained (Gray, 2010). This approach makes four assumptions: People think about the information received. This process of thinking is what allows the stimuli to be processed and thus stored in memory. Stimuli are not passively encoded, but are analyzed for meaning. This enables the formation of a memory trace that shares associations with previously held knowledge. The analysis of stimuli involves encoding them for relationships with other material, strategization to identify the best fit for the new stimulus, generalization of the information from a specific event to a category of events and automatization of access to this information. An individual uses situational modification of a learning strategy by analyzing the similarities and differences between situations committed to memory and new situations in order to decide on a response. An individual evaluates the hindrances to problem solving and tries to find solutions to them. Thus, when a person receives misleading information, they may become confused and provide an incorrect response till they are able to intensify the fallacies they are faced with (Gray, 2010). Factors that affect information processing A number of factors affect the speed and quality of information processing. The number of choices that are available plays a significant role such that each choice reduces the weightage received by every other choice (Sternberg, 2009). The speed with which choices are presented also affects the ability of the individual to process all of them. The characteristics of the recipient of the message also play a significant role, since factors like age, sex, and experience are found to be associated with pre-existing attitudes and knowledge (Sternberg, 2009). The amount of information available and the amount of time that it is available for can also affect the extent to which it is processed, while anticipation that a particular choice will be available can prime the individual to respond more easily to that choice (Sternberg, 2009). Processing of misinformation Not all sides of every debate are equally well informed and based in empirical evidence. Often, the layman who has a less sophisticated understanding of how a scientific finding affects their daily life may fall prey to Misinformation. According to Lewandowsky, Ecker, Seifert, Schwarz and Cook (2012) misinformation spreads through four channels: Rumors and fiction: Word of mouth can distort the validity of the news communicated, and can lead to the development of unsubstantiated beliefs. Such beliefs can also arise from popular fiction. Governments and politicians: Politicians are often not well acquainted with how to interpret empirical facts from complex scientific domains. Thus, they are likely to misconstrue the facts and then transmit these misinformed opinions to their followers. Vested interests: Groups that have a vested interest in the public responses to an opinion or belief (e.g.: exhibiting a particular behavior or buying a product) are likely to promote misinformation, sometimes even in good faith. The media: While the media is responsible for informing the public, they may contribute to misinformation by over-simplifying facts or by providing emphasis to unsubstantiated voices in a debate (Lewandowsky et al., 2012). Lewandowsky et al. (2012) also suggest that the process of information processing strongly affects the accumulation and persistence of misinformation. Previously held beliefs can predict the extent to which the new information will be processed, and rumors that are in some way consistent with a person’s beliefs will be accepted even if proof is not offered. For example, an individual who believes in the existence of the Loch Ness monster is more likely to believe in reports of a sighting than others. Also, the extent to which the story fits into the context and the extent to which it explains the related phenomena - whether with the use of relevant of irrelevant data – can predict its acceptance (Lewandowsky et al., 2012). If a person believes the source of the data is an authentic one, or that it is accepted by significant others, they are more likely to believe the data provided and the supporting arguments. Misinformation can be as persistent as valid information once it has been assimilated (Lewandowsky et al., 2012). This phenomenon is explained by the mental models that describe how the brain stores and protects information. Once a memory trace is formed, it is relatively difficult to erase it. Also, when valid but contradicting information is later presented, people may encounter trouble in encoding it because this new information would be inconsistent with the pre-existing (mis)information (Sternberg, 2009; Lewandowsky et al., 2012). This is particularly so when the person has become conversant with the misinformation through repeated exposures, and is familiar with the arguments presented (Chomsky, 2002). It is also important to note that people do not like to be in situations that make them feel foolish – as they would when they have to accept that the views held by them are incorrect. Thus, once accepted, it can become difficult to replace misinformation (Lewandowsky et al., 2012). News media and ‘Balanced arguments’ This understanding of how the human mind processes information as well as misinformation helps establish that it is necessary to reduce the opportunities for the lay man to be misinformed. It cannot be expected that every individual will have the expertise to identify the validity and the meaning of each new piece of information; and thus the responsibility is on news reporters to ensure that only valid information reaches the recipients of their propaganda (Giles, 2010). But in most cases, information and misinformation is presented side-by-side to the audience, and they are expected to choose the opinions that they wish to subscribe to. Stocking and Holstein (2009) have tried to classify the ways in which then news media presents conflicting opinions. According to them, a journalist may take on the role of a Disseminator – an individual who provides the facts or opinions for each side lucidly, but without according any preference to a particular side based on its credibility or status. He/she may act in an Interpretive/Investigative capacity and thus may be able to provide context to the facts presented. The journalist is also required to make some interpretations or draw conclusions on the topic. The journalist may also play the role of a Populist Mobilizer who focuses on the elements of the debate that are of maximum importance and interest to the recipients of the news. Finally, the journalist may play an Adversarial role and challenge the motivations of the different groups being represented (Stocking & Holstein, 2009). Across all roles, the journalist may be challenged by a lack of in-depth knowledge of the politics or science being discussed, and may be unable to show preference to any particular opinion (Mooney, 2004). Also, they may be pressured by superiors to maintain a politically correct image for the media house by acknowledging each voice in a debate, and often lack the time required to familiarize themselves with the opinions being discussed. According to Mooney (2004), journalists should ‘treat fringe … claims with considerable skepticism, and find out what major [experts] have to say about them’. But to the different challenges faced by journalists, this rarely occurs. The problem with Equivalence The way a news article s framed will affect the perceptions that are formed by the audience (Giles, 2010). In an attempt to be fair to all sides by providing a balanced platform, the news agencies often create false equivalencies between different perspectives even when no such equivalence exists in real empirical evidence (Harris, 2009; Mooney, 2004). A false equivalency occurs when all sides are considered to carry equal weightage in an argument even though a few are substantiated by facts and others are not. Naive recipients of such a ‘balanced’ perspective often make the mistake of believing that scientific opinion equally supports each side of the argument, even when this is not the case (Harris, 2009). As suggested by the information processing approach, people tend to use a number of cues to estimate the validity of an argument when faced with a number of possibilities. People consider the amount of attention that is given to a particular notion during its presentation, and the coherence of the argument. When an unsubstantiated argument is given as much air-time or column space as one that is verified by real data; the audience mistakenly presumes that empirical data possibly supports both claims (Harris, 2009, Giles, 2010). Also, agreements presenting misinformation also use at least a flimsy form of evidence to support their claims. Although this evidence is usually weak and a misrepresentation of facts (or an inaccurate use of analytical tools); constant exposure to it can confuse an audience (Lewandowsky et al., 2012; Zaana, 1991). This is particularly true when the audience does not have access to the same facts that are being discussed, or when they do not have the ability to interpret the evidence independently. Thus, often the presenter for each argument is concerned that the audience would be swayed against them on the basis of how the argument is presented to them (Zaana, 1991). Recipients also take into account their past experiences and knowledge and they consider the beliefs of significant others. Shen (2004) found that the way a unit of political news was framed activated interpretations and attitudes that the individual associates with the frame itself; but these interpretations are moderated heavily by the way that individual perceives the issues as well. This suggests that personal opinions and schemas about issues need to be factored in when analyzing the effects of how information is framed. Thus, when an audience has already been primed to receive misinformation, they are more likely to accept it as compared to a valid argument (Harris, 2009). Conclusion Based on the literature reviewed, it seems that journalists have a greater responsibility than previously supposed. A scientifically naive audience can be led to believe arguments that are not empirically supported if these arguments are presented in a coherent and credible fashion by a trusted speaker who can demonstrate some form of evidence for his/her claims (Lewandowsky et al., 2012). Presenting such arguments alongside genuine scientific opinions can create the illusion that each is an equally valid explanation of events, and thus, a valid unit of information (Harris, 2009; Giles, 2010). Such misrepresentation can cause an audience to attend to chance phenomena that are not normative, or to accept explanations that are based in belief and not fact. Once this misinformation is accepted, it can be difficult to replace it, as it can become resistant to change. Thus, journalists need to re-evaluate the need to create these false equivalencies by accepting their responsibilities to their audience. It is proposed that arguments should be provided with weightage equivalent to their scientific validity when engaging them on a single platform, so that the audience has an indication of which perspectives are based of empirical evidence and which are not. Alternately, a journalist could emphasize the factual basis for each argument rather than focusing on the emotional impact, thus helping the audience makes an informed choice (Mooney, 2004, Giles, 2010). References Chomsky, N. (2002). Media control. New York: Seven Stories Press. Gray, P. (2010). Psychology (6th ed.). New York: Worth press. Giles, D. (2010). Psychology of the Media. London: Palgrave McMillan. Harris, R. J. (2009). A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication (5th ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M. Schwarz, N. & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131. Mooney, C. (2004). Blinded by Science: How 'Balanced' Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality. Columbia Journalism Review 43(4), 26-35. Shen, F. (2004). Effects of News Frames and Schemas on Individuals' Issue Interpretations and Attitudes. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 400-416. doi:10.1177/107769900408100211 Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Cognitive Psychology (5th ed.). Belmont: Cengage Learning. Stocking, H. & Holstein, L. (2009) Manufacturing doubt: journalists' roles and the construction of ignorance in a scientific controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 23-42. Zaana, M. P. (1991). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology: Volume 24. California: Academic Press. Read More