Years from now, when history has broadened our perspective on the COVID-19 epidemic, one of the greatest residuals of the event will be a broad rejection of science and expertise through platforms that promote and encourage conspiracies to refute unpleasant truths.
If you have spent any time at all on social media over the last few years, you recognize this by a simple phrase: “Do you own research!” or its companion, “Google it.”
In almost every case, these are the phrases you hear from those who are inclined to be suspicious of authorities, especially when the information runs counter to their own preferences or biases.
For every situation, a conspiracy theory emerges to provide a more palatable explanation.
COVID was a conspiracy theorist’s gold mine – touching everything from how the virus began, why it began, how it could be treated, how measures to slow the spread were really an attack on personal freedom, etc., etc. etc. U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker said research showed that children who wore masks were in danger of facial deformities. Yes, an actual U.S. senator said this.
Any effort to dismiss these absurdities were challenged. “Do your own research!” or “Google it!”
Over time, the strategy used by COVID conspirators has grown to muddy the waters on almost every emerging issue. As we speak, there are those who believe the government can create hurricanes and target them at their enemies or that FEMA, under the direction of the current administration, is withholding resources in areas that vote Republican.
I see no end to it.
Thirty years ago, doing your own research meant going to the library. Google didn’t exist. That meant the emergence and spread of conspiracy theories were fewer and less frequent. But in the current age of the internet, you can find almost anything to support almost any idea, and often our ability to discern truth from propaganda drowns in a sea of misinformation.
Even those who make at least a token effort to verify information through internet search engines like Google before they repeat it are often misled.
Google, as with all search engines, most certainly will pull up Fox News or MSNBC first if its algorithms show that your previous search history and selections have gravitated toward them. That’s the danger of “doing your own research.” Search engines are designed to recognize a person’s preferences and feed the searcher more of that.
That’s not to say that internet searches have no use. You just have to be cognizant of your own biases and pull from a variety of legitimate (peer-reviewed, recognized objective news sites, etc.) sources. Social media is one of the most biased and dangerous ways to gather info. Unfortunately, it is becoming the go-to way most people inform themselves.
Beyond that, there is a failure to recognize and trust reliable sources of information and no one has taken a greater hit than traditional newspapers and television networks, often denigrated by terms like “legacy media” or “mainstream media.” These are made-up terms meant to cast doubt on media that has, for generations, proven their credibility, often when it was unpopular to do so.
Daily newspapers, in particular, have proven to be a reliable source of information, something the Founding Fathers immediately recognized. That is why they provided explicit protection for the press in the First Amendment.
Only recently has the practice of a partisan press emerged, initiated by the arrival of Fox News, which stated from the start that it was a partisan, conservative news outlet. Other networks may be perceived to be oriented left or right. Fox News is the first network to admit bias. It’s written into their mission. That should have been, and should remain, a red flag.
Some newspaper editorial staffs have always been left or right leaning, but it’s a fundamental principle that news coverage itself should be reported without fear or favor.
With few exceptions, newspapers report the news as accurately and fairly as possible.
But if you don’t believe that, the question emerges: Who can you trust? Why? What has established their credibility and over what length of time? Do you trust them because they reliably tell you what you want to hear? If so, you confuse news with propaganda. Experience should tell us that a source where all the news is news we like cannot be trusted.
One thing I am sure of, though. If the so-called “legacy” and “mainstream” media were to suddenly disappear, every citizen would come to regret it, and sooner rather than later.
Questioning what we are told is not a bad thing, certainly. But when evidence based on irrefutable facts and science is rejected simply because we don’t like what it’s telling us, that’s not a virtue. It is making an enemy of truth.
Do your own research? Fine. But do it honestly. Google it? OK, but if you are sincere, dig deep. Go beyond where the algorithms take you.
Slim Smith is a columnist and feature writer for The Dispatch. His email address is [email protected].
Slim Smith is a columnist and feature writer for The Dispatch. His email address is [email protected].
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 31 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.