Fake news and skepticism

Fake news has been in the news of late. As if it were something new.

Misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, yellow journalism. They have been with us through the ages. Whether for political or military advantage, religious supremacy, commercial gain, or just malicious gossip, distortion of the truth has a long, sad human history.

In those olden days, the creators and disseminators of widespread untruthful information tended to be state actors or large organizations simply because of the cost of such an endeavor. Gutenberg’s printing press lowered the cost barrier, but it remained relatively high.

More recently but pre-internet, we relied on the reporting and editorial prowess of respected news organizations to gather, proctor, authenticate, and disseminate our news. We knew to trust the news arms of CBS, NBC, and ABC. The New York Times was beyond reproach. For nearby news, our local newspapers provided the same service.

But these brick and mortar news organizations, with reporters and editors, correspondents and investigators, newsrooms and presses, cost money. A lot of money. These costs need be paid by advertising or subscriptions or both.

What is different now is the existence of the internet, social media, and the wild proliferation of smart phones. We can consume news twenty four hours a day, share it, comment on it, be thrilled or repelled by it, and all this for free. (Well, not counting the cost of our phone and wireless bill).

But it is a basic dictum that accurate information is at once valuable and expensive. Free information is not always false and expensive information is not always true, but the odds are very much in favor.

Today, with the wonder of the internet, anyone can publish “news” at his or her whim. And with a modicum of skill, can even create a Facebook page or website which appears to be an authentic replica of a trusted news source.

What is an earnest seeker of truth to do?

The first is to recognize that the major news organizations all have a presence on the internet and still provide that valuable service of authentication. They are not perfectly unbiased, but tend to cluster within center-left to center-right views.  The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are not likely to outright lie to you, but they will each have their own partisan tilt. A well-informed reader might read them both. (Subscriptions could be an expensive problem which a visit to your local library might solve).

Outside of well-known sources, our next best defense is a healthy sense of skepticism. Particularly alluring are stories which pander to our own biases. It is with these that we must be most skeptical. Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring in a pizzeria? Donald Trump was a member of the KKK? Really?

The more your personal vibes are pleasantly resonating with this kind of news, the more the need for skepticism. Don’t “like,” don’t share, don’t comment, until you’ve confirmed the report from a trusted, mainstream source.

And please realize that your favorite sites, the ones that always resonate with your belief system, are not likely to be unbiased. Breitbart and ThinkProgress are guaranteed to each have their own strong partisan slant. Depending on your politics, you will likely love one and hate the other. But neither are giving you a balanced view of the facts.

Here is another litmus test. If your news source doesn’t occasionally make you a bit uncomfortable, if it always panders to your worldview, then you are most likely not getting straight news.

Become a savvy internet user. Websites and Facebook pages can be made to look like an authentic news site, with page names or URLs which are not-quite-right. In this age of disintermediation, we must all become our own fact checkers. Be skeptical, don’t believe everything you see.

And finally, seek out viewpoints that make you a bit uncomfortable, and try to understand them. That is how we grow.

Now go forth and conquer!

A long and winding road to marriage equality

Life, all life, obeys a fundamental tenet – the propagation of its genetic material. It is a mandate which shapes the behavior of amoebas and turtles and elephants and all of us.

This is often recognized as two subsidiary goals: survival of the individual and survival of the species.  Over and over again in nature we can see this in action as prey strives to escape predator and predator strives to devour prey – all in a constant battle to survive.  Heroic efforts to produce and feed and nurture offspring are observed in the labor of Emperor penguins and Canada geese and stockbrokers and soccer moms.  Life demands perpetuation and procreation.  It is embedded in our genes, imprinted on our DNA.  This monumental struggle can no more be denied than the urge to draw that next sweet breath of air.

According to Thomas Hobbes, the “life of man (is), solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”  An appropriate description of primitive life, for an aged Neanderthal likely died in his thirties. The survival rate of children was atrocious, with perhaps only one of three surviving past the age of six. Even in the Middle Ages, it was unusual to live past forty-five.  It is only in the last century that human lifespan regularly exceeded 70 years.   The discoveries of antibiotics and vaccines, fresh and waste water treatment, and the science of nutrition are largely responsible for this remarkable advance.

Throughout history, humankind has been preoccupied with the procreation of our species. Evolutionary pressures have established that, at least for humans, a family unit is the preferred method for maximizing both individual and species survival.  Where procreation was the goal, a combination of a pair of adult parents with the resultant offspring offered the greatest opportunity for individual and collective survival.

As humans evolved and looked with wonder upon their world, they invented theories and myths to explain what they saw, and to provide comfort. Native Americans created a Great Spirit, just as the ancient Greeks and Romans described a panoply of gods.

It should not be surprising that as religions developed, the strategies that enhanced individual and species survival were enshrined.  Marriage of man and woman became the basis of social organization, with the primary goal being perpetuation of the species via the survival of offspring.  As human populations grew, this strengthened society and, by rule of numbers, the predominant religions.

But by the modern age, things had changed enormously.  No longer was the day spent almost wholly focused on procuring today’s sustenance.  The survival rate of children is now measured in the high 99^th percentile, a far cry from the disastrous effects of predation and influenza and dysentery of prior ages.  A complex society has evolved to overproduce food, shelter, and clothing to the extent that delivers an almost embarrassing surplus.

Our political and religious structures have continued to recognize the value of the familial unit that contributed mightily to our attainment of this nirvana.  But things have, indeed, changed.  Survival of the individual, while still threatened by carjackers and heart disease and other unpleasant things, is largely guaranteed by our booming economies and generous social programs.  Procreation of the species can be achieved via traditional methods or by a number of sophisticated fertility techniques.  Almost any couple can now bear children, and those who cannot may adopt. The strict imperative of male/female bonding for species propagation has been relaxed by a combination of factors.

The original purpose of marriage, between a man and a woman, has long been fulfilled.  We have survived, we have bloomed, and matured. Religious constraints, created during times of disease and duress, are now free to evolve.

The Supreme Court is correct. There is no longer a justification for denying like-gendered couples the societal benefits of marriage. It does no harm to our specie’s survival and adds to the store of human happiness.

That’s an easy case to argue.