Our Role in
Understanding
Our media habits may disguise the disconnect between what we know and what we actually understand, so what is the path to understanding?
Does such a path even exist?
T his project has made a case for our lack of understanding, before identifying the news media habits that may foster such a shortcoming.
​
But what about an explanation as to how we can achieve understanding? In perhaps the biggest plot twist of the project (saved for the end, as it is in all good narratives), I'd ask you to consider this: Such an understanding is not possible.
​
That's right, despite an entire project devoted to arguing that our own understanding is lacking, as it turns out, the conclusion appears to be just as ominous.
Complete understanding may not even be within our reach.​
​
A bummer? Sure, but not as much as you may think. As it turns out, the power we wield from an absence of complete understanding, specifically the wisdom we derive from it, lies in the very awareness of the absence itself.
In recognition that we may never achieve full understanding of an issue, we place ourselves in a position to consume information more critically, intelligently, and humbly.
​
And wasn't that the goal all along?
If anything, this revelation allows us to shape our role as information consumers more effectively. Below, we'll explore how recognition of our own shortcomings in the context of understanding can actually empower, rather than inhibit, us. We'll then define the ideal balance between informativeness and understanding that will enable us to become smarter information consumers going forward.
​
​
Acknowledging Our Own Bias
​
​
Navigate the Project.
Our Role in Understanding
All actors involved in the production and consumption of information are responsible for some kind of bias.
Bias is practically inescapable. Just when we attempt to change our external environment (e.g. our social media newsfeed) to combat bias, we are faced with the truth that is our own inherent bias, pulling us toward content that speak to our own perspectives, beliefs, and "truths." So while we may not be able to leave bias behind, acknowledgement of the extent of our bias becomes the next best thing.
​
In short, there are three general ways that bias can present itself and influence our perception of information:
​
-
There is bias in the production of information . Bias laced in the content, structure, or tone of presented information often reflects the motivations of the information producer itself, capturing our attention and encouraging our acceptance of biased informed as neutral. I read a news article from a left-wing news source laced with bias, though perceive the information to be objectively neutral.
-
There is bias in the consumption of information . Our own personal bias, stemming from our own life experiences and beliefs, can influence our perception of what is true and what is false. I read a news article presenting objective information that favors right-wing ideologies, though presents no bias, and reject it as biased.
-
There is bias in the perception of the exchange as a whole .
​
Our biased approach to information consumption can reflect one of these three criteria, or any combination of the three. If anything, these criteria show that all actors involved in the production and consumption of information are responsible for some kind of biased action.
All actors involved in the production and consumption of information should be held accountable for wielding the influential power of bias.
​​
With this in mind, why is it that our bias hinders the acquisition of understanding?
​​
​​
​​
Re-visiting Understanding
​​
Before answering why bias may work against our own understanding, it may be best to re-visit this project's working definition of understanding, included below.
​
​
Having
Understanding
(uhn-der-stan-ding)
The ability to understand a phenomenon, to readily consider the greater context of an issue, including awareness of objective facts and acknowledgment of its various interpretations.
​
(see also: comprehension)
​
​
Per the definition above, we can conclude that understanding requires two components: awareness and acceptance. These two components provide a prerequisite foundation for the acquisition of understanding. Further, they also reveal why very few can achieve said understanding, specifically when considering our own media habits.
​
First, understanding is the awareness of multiple perspectives of an issue. That is, one cannot hold understanding of an issue if they only have information pertaining to one side of the issue (such a state would be defined as being informed, as discussed earlier). ​
​
So why is it that such an awareness is so hard to obtain? Consider the argument made in a previous section, The Flawed Social Newsfeed. The structure of the social media newsfeed, through which many individuals get their daily news, is biased in its creation of a "bubble that is vulnerable to collective misunderstanding or ignorance resulting from a lack perspective."
By strategically presenting news content that reflects the interests of the user and its network, the newsfeed hinders understanding by limiting the awareness the user has of other perspectives on an issue.
​
In addition to awareness, understanding also requires acceptance of multiple perspectives of an issue. Acceptance represents one step past awareness. To acquire understanding, an individual not only need to be aware of multiple perspectives, but further needs to acknowledge the fact that such perspectives have repercussions. That is, every perspective, no matter is degree of validity, has consequences that should be considered seriously, rather than just brushed off.
This acceptance is the crucial step in serious understanding, acknowledging a perspective's presence and potential impact. But why is acceptance, more often than not, seemingly out of reach? As noted in "Feeling" the News, information consumers are inherently drawn to information that reinforces their own truth, "yield[ing] one-sided understanding at most, but never full understanding."
​
We have a hard time seeing the reality behind opposing perspectives, particularly those that oppose our own truths, and thus limit our ability to accept such perspectives as "real."
​
So, if our media habits and inherent bias hinder us from achieving complete understanding, what is our role as information consumers?
​
​​
​​
Finding a Balance
​
​
We are responsible for making smarter decisions about what news we read, and the ways in which we choose to get our news.
While we may not have the burden of reaching full understanding of an issue, that doesn't mean we can sit back and consume information irresponsibly. We cannot assume our inability to completely understand presents any attempt as worthless.
​
Instead, the responsibility that comes with such an awareness encourages us to make smarter decisions about what news we read, and the ways in which we choose to get our news.
Consider the following questions as an information consumer, equipped with the knowledge of your own capacity for understanding:
​
​
1. Where should I be getting my information?
​
We've considered the bias of a social media newsfeed, and its subsequent hindrance of our understanding. And while one may argue that social media should be avoided at all costs for the purpose of news gathering, the reality is a bit more, well, realistic. While the use of social media for news consumption may not decrease in the coming years, the recognition of a biased newsfeed may be enough to point us toward more nuanced considerations:
​
Consider three ways in which you may be exposed to news:
-
Your Facebook friend posts a sentence or two about their reaction to a recent development in climate change research, and links a headline to an article supporting their reaction.
-
A recent post from The New York Times, a news organization you follow on Facebook, including a link to a recently published op-ed, authored by an individual who has been following climate change research over the past year.
-
A recent article written by a scientist who has been studying and providing commentary on climate change for over two decades, and is commenting on the significance of a recent discovery.
​
Which of those three scenarios would you rather get your news from? Technically, I'd argue that there are two answers to this question.
The first? Look to the expert's opinion, as represented in the article authored by the climate change scientist. First, given arguments against the social newsfeed, consuming news exclusively posted by Facebook friends is sure to throw you into a cycle of personal bias. As for the op-ed columnist, while he may be able to lend an interesting perspective, he is first and foremost a writer, not an expert on climate change. The expert in this case is the scientist, someone who has been heavily involved in the research herself, as well as discussions surrounding multiple perspectives.
​
With that said, I'd argue that a second explanation below is actually more useful, and realistic, in analyzing our own information consumption habits.
​
The second? There is no objective expert. Every individual, no matter their expertise, approaches information with some inherent subjectivity and bias. Of course one's perspective may be more valid than the other, but it doesn't necessarily mean the the others are spreading misinformation.
There is a caveat, however. While it is okay to get news from any of the information agents above, the question then becomes, how much stake are you putting in the perspective of those from whom you are getting the information? Your answer may be your best guide to navigating information that yields the best possible degree of potential understanding.
​
Everyone is subjective, as there is no such thing as objective news.
Therefore, as consumers of information, we need to ask ourselves whose subjectivity is most worthy of our trust.
Those individuals will bring us as close to understanding as possible, with the rest of the way dependent on our awareness of our own bias.
​
​
How much stake are you putting in the perspective of those from whom you get your news?
​
The answer may be your best guide to identifying information that yields the best possible degree of understanding.
​
​
2. What information should I be reading?
​
The answer to this question lies in the arguments made in "Feeling" the News, specifically that "If social media provides a platform for how we get our news, the news we choose to read often reflects a desire to confirm our own beliefs." To ensure that we are achieving the largest degree of understanding possible, it is important that we expose ourselves to content that challenges our own attitudes and beliefs, in addition to those that perhaps align with our beliefs.
​
In other words, the answer does not lie in choosing one over the other. It is found in actively pursuing a healthy balance.
​
Consider two possible ways to achieve such a balance, including news to pursue and news to avoid. Hopefully, such a balance will make us, as information consumers, more attune to the awareness and acceptance that can lead us beyond being informed and as close to having understanding.
​
​
Look for...
​
Information that presents a perspective different from your own
​
Recognize that, while the information presented may not align with your emotional stance, the perspective at hand may carry the same emotional effect for someone else, as it does for you in another perspective.
​
Then, evaluate whether the information itself is credible. While a diversity of emotions are valid, they should never be placed in opposition to the truth, even if they do align with your own attitudes and personal beliefs.
​
Avoid...
​
Information that utilizes
fearmongering or over-
emotional tactics
​
The immediacy with which we instinctively judge a headline, in just a few short seconds, is a key characteristic of news in a digital age. As such, many headlines evoke a strong emotional pull, whether positive or negative (i.e. fear-inducing), to take advantage of that instinct.
​
Before opening a news story, ask yourself if you are reading to understand, or rather to seek out how the information may speak to your "truth." If its the latter, read with care and caution.
​
​
​
​
Where do we go from here?
​
Successful information consumption is smart information consumption.
​
We will never have all the facts, or the ability to look at information objectively. Our own life experiences and connections are the very things that lend us our unique perspective, though such a perspective is not without its shortcomings. Specifically, those weaknesses manifest in our tendency to circulate information in such a way that favors our own attitudes, all while engaging with news that immediately pulls at our own "truths,"and, even worse, shields us from
"the truth" itself.
​
And oddly enough, it is perhaps this awareness that will serve as our best weapon when opposing the threat of misinformation. In the end, it will not be the consumption of more headlines. Instead, we will thrive in an age of "information overload" by choosing an active approach over a passive one.
We will equip ourselves with a wealth of information that builds a more open, nuanced perspective of our world, rather than one meant to reinforce a brick wall around us.
If we can work to both embrace our own media intelligence while shielding ourselves from the tactics of biased news media (as well as the awareness that those tactics are alive and well), we can achieve the greatest understanding our circumstances allow.
​
​
​
Return to
Home
​
​
​
​
