|
The Idea: Facts are not analysis. Facts are not interpretation, expert or otherwise. Facts are not punditry or editorializing or commentary.
Why This Matters: Last week you read about how music and images can be used to helpfully influence or to harmfully manipulate. The same is true about analysis and interpretation of news. If you are like me, then learning and learning from others is an important way navigate this world I wish to be a leader in. News* is another method of learning. Unfortunately, much of which is labeled news is not that. Instead, it is... |
|
* I suggest a definition of "news" as reasonably factual, accurate, and complete reporting of current events, circumstances, etc.
...something meant to persuade or offer interpretation like essay, editorial, analysis, etc.
Interpretation is valuable. It makes raw facts meaningful and actionable. Interpretation answers questions like:
I am also not convinced much in this world is free of interpretation, assumptions, or preferred values. Still, I suggest that it is important that you try to get an answer to the question, "What is going on?" using raw facts (or as raw as possible and/or reasonable in the situation) before before trying to answer the other three questions. At least, that is important if the topic or issue matters to you.
Let's see what I mean using the example of the October 2019 theatrical release of Todd Phillip's controversial film "The Joker".
The Idea in Action: If you really dig almost all of the video and animated variations of the Batman mythos from the mid-90s onward, does that mean that you are a nerd? I am asking for a friend...and myself.
Whether you are that kind of nerd or not, maybe this interaction on Facebook will catch your interest. This is about "The Joker", that was released on October 4th of this year. This is a conversation between real friends of time. What do you notice about this discussion?
Interpretation is valuable. It makes raw facts meaningful and actionable. Interpretation answers questions like:
- "Why is this happening?" or
- "What should be happening?" or even
- "What can a leader (or anyone) do to make things better?"
I am also not convinced much in this world is free of interpretation, assumptions, or preferred values. Still, I suggest that it is important that you try to get an answer to the question, "What is going on?" using raw facts (or as raw as possible and/or reasonable in the situation) before before trying to answer the other three questions. At least, that is important if the topic or issue matters to you.
Let's see what I mean using the example of the October 2019 theatrical release of Todd Phillip's controversial film "The Joker".
The Idea in Action: If you really dig almost all of the video and animated variations of the Batman mythos from the mid-90s onward, does that mean that you are a nerd? I am asking for a friend...and myself.
Whether you are that kind of nerd or not, maybe this interaction on Facebook will catch your interest. This is about "The Joker", that was released on October 4th of this year. This is a conversation between real friends of time. What do you notice about this discussion?
|
|
Here are somethings I noticed:
So I attempted to find out.
Take a moment and scroll all the way back to the top of this post, and click on the image there. It will take you to an interactive media bias tool that a teacher of mine shared with me. I used this to guide my search for minimally interpreted facts (aka news) to help me answer the question "What is going on with this movie that is making so many folks afraid that this movie will cause people to do tragically harmful things?" Check it out before you go further. I will wait here.
- First, this discussion is happening BEFORE the movie was released. While I failed to capture the totality of the longer comments. Those comments, and the original post, are about the movie - a movie that none of them had seen.
- Second, the original post was meant to influence (it opened with a thesis statement). That post does the service of offering what I assume is a fact (about the Merchant of Venice) and then some additional assumptions.
- Third, for these folks at least, this film seemed to offer the promise to speak one way or another about a number of issues that are not bringing peace to our country, but instead are bringing a sword. These issues include privilege, populism, mental illness, gun regulation, entertainment, domestic terrorism, race, gender relations, and more. Meaningful stuff.
So I attempted to find out.
Take a moment and scroll all the way back to the top of this post, and click on the image there. It will take you to an interactive media bias tool that a teacher of mine shared with me. I used this to guide my search for minimally interpreted facts (aka news) to help me answer the question "What is going on with this movie that is making so many folks afraid that this movie will cause people to do tragically harmful things?" Check it out before you go further. I will wait here.
The Search
There seemed to be an assumption that this movie would hold up as heroic and righteous an abused and marginalized white male who lashes out violently in a way that causes anarchy and pain. The fear was that this would inspire folks with similar impressions of life to attempt the same destructive and tragic actions. To figure this out I located 8 sources of what I hope would meet my definition of "news". I used the media bias tool to give me some prospects to look at, but I also found some sources on my own with Google and the search function on the Apple Podcasts app on my phone.
Using the tool I considered two centrist sources of higher quality (ABC and NPR), two left leaning sources of different quality (The Atlantic and BuzzFeed News) and two right leaning sources - one of quality (The National Review) and one of more dubious credibility (Daily Wire). Without using the tool I also found an entertainment source (Vanity Fair) and a fan podcast (Suicide Squadcast Network episodes 230 and 231). I have linked all of my sources in the sentences above.
There seemed to be an assumption that this movie would hold up as heroic and righteous an abused and marginalized white male who lashes out violently in a way that causes anarchy and pain. The fear was that this would inspire folks with similar impressions of life to attempt the same destructive and tragic actions. To figure this out I located 8 sources of what I hope would meet my definition of "news". I used the media bias tool to give me some prospects to look at, but I also found some sources on my own with Google and the search function on the Apple Podcasts app on my phone.
Using the tool I considered two centrist sources of higher quality (ABC and NPR), two left leaning sources of different quality (The Atlantic and BuzzFeed News) and two right leaning sources - one of quality (The National Review) and one of more dubious credibility (Daily Wire). Without using the tool I also found an entertainment source (Vanity Fair) and a fan podcast (Suicide Squadcast Network episodes 230 and 231). I have linked all of my sources in the sentences above.
Not Exhaustive, But Useful
I do not claim that my search was exhaustive. It was informative.
Simple observations first. Right leaning sources seem to have an opinion that this film's portrayal of the Joker could not possibly inspire anyone, even people who are ill, to do violence. The DailyWire also took the opportunity to attack “the left” and “political correctness” to say that there is not a problem. Much more left leaning BuzzFeed pointed at “incels” (assumed to be right leaning, white, women-hating males) as likely to suspect to do violence inspired by this film. The NPR source just got to know the composer of the movie’s theme for the main character and the Vanity Fair source talked about psychology.
Second, there actually was not much “news” among these sources (again, based on my suggested definition above). The fan podcast does report some news by sharing box office numbers and stats on the diversity of the audience. The ABC source is about an event and thus is news – victim families pre-emptively asking for Warner Brothers to donate to gun control causes because of the mass gun violence they assumed was in the movie. Everything else was pretty much commentary and interpretation of how people were feeling.
Third, the controversy seemed to be fueled about assumptions of what was in the movie, versus what was actually in this movie. For better or worse, the fictional character of the Joker has a long history, and folks drew from that past when making assumptions about what would be in this film. Those assumptions took the place of a more informed answer to the "What is happening?" question.
I suggest that this is what fueled the Facebook post above. Even the victims and victim families that protested Warner Brothers assumed that the shooter in their tragedy was inspired by the Joker, when it seems the shooter picked a Joker-centric Batman movie to attack because of the number of people that were in the theater that day. It is easy to assume portrayals of violence in movies or games cause gun violence; it is so much more complicated than that.
I think my third point is most important for this essay. I had a difficult time finding facts about The Joker movie when looking for news. People seem to be reacting to assumptions or fears. This included the folks being reported on and the folks doing the reporting. Interpretation and commentary are fine things (I have to believe that to even be writing this post), but they are not facts. If you treat them like facts, then you are not learning or being influenced or constructively answering the interpretive questions I offered above - you are simply being manipulated.
I do not claim that my search was exhaustive. It was informative.
Simple observations first. Right leaning sources seem to have an opinion that this film's portrayal of the Joker could not possibly inspire anyone, even people who are ill, to do violence. The DailyWire also took the opportunity to attack “the left” and “political correctness” to say that there is not a problem. Much more left leaning BuzzFeed pointed at “incels” (assumed to be right leaning, white, women-hating males) as likely to suspect to do violence inspired by this film. The NPR source just got to know the composer of the movie’s theme for the main character and the Vanity Fair source talked about psychology.
Second, there actually was not much “news” among these sources (again, based on my suggested definition above). The fan podcast does report some news by sharing box office numbers and stats on the diversity of the audience. The ABC source is about an event and thus is news – victim families pre-emptively asking for Warner Brothers to donate to gun control causes because of the mass gun violence they assumed was in the movie. Everything else was pretty much commentary and interpretation of how people were feeling.
Third, the controversy seemed to be fueled about assumptions of what was in the movie, versus what was actually in this movie. For better or worse, the fictional character of the Joker has a long history, and folks drew from that past when making assumptions about what would be in this film. Those assumptions took the place of a more informed answer to the "What is happening?" question.
I suggest that this is what fueled the Facebook post above. Even the victims and victim families that protested Warner Brothers assumed that the shooter in their tragedy was inspired by the Joker, when it seems the shooter picked a Joker-centric Batman movie to attack because of the number of people that were in the theater that day. It is easy to assume portrayals of violence in movies or games cause gun violence; it is so much more complicated than that.
I think my third point is most important for this essay. I had a difficult time finding facts about The Joker movie when looking for news. People seem to be reacting to assumptions or fears. This included the folks being reported on and the folks doing the reporting. Interpretation and commentary are fine things (I have to believe that to even be writing this post), but they are not facts. If you treat them like facts, then you are not learning or being influenced or constructively answering the interpretive questions I offered above - you are simply being manipulated.
Experiment With This Valuable Practice
Digging up multiple sources. Exploring and validating (or not) a media bias tool. Cutting through the emotion and care (and propaganda). This sounds like a lot of work to understand the dynamic around a movie. True, but it mattered to me; and, I certainly do not do this for all current events that strike my interest. I was asked by the same teacher who directed me to the media bias tool above to give this a try though. It made me smarter about the media I consume, and I recommend that you try it also.
Take an issue or event that you have interacted with and see how news media sources have covered it. Try to get at least one audio, one video, and one print source, and be intentional about picking sources across the spectrum of quality and values. If you are feeling generous, please share what you explored and what you learned in the comments below. This will help all of us grow.
Peace,
Sterling Lynk
P.S. - I have borrowed and adapted the four questions "What is going on?", "Why is this happening?", "What should be happening", and "What can I do to make things better?" from Practical Theology by Richard Osmer. I recommend it, and the practice of using those questions, to all leaders (link not sponsored).
P.P.S. - Maybe you have read this far and have been wondering what I thought of the movie. It moved me, disturbed me, and still is making me think a month later. Doing the research helped me watch this film thoughtfully and without an overly-simple framing, and to appreciate it for what it was. I did experience some fallout from some the press/commentary about this film; my partner had to leave her purse in the car and we both had to go through extra security before entering the auditorium where "The Joker" was going to play. No other film had these precautions. It seemed that Marcus Theatres was also worried about weapons and violence, but only during the feature itself.
Digging up multiple sources. Exploring and validating (or not) a media bias tool. Cutting through the emotion and care (and propaganda). This sounds like a lot of work to understand the dynamic around a movie. True, but it mattered to me; and, I certainly do not do this for all current events that strike my interest. I was asked by the same teacher who directed me to the media bias tool above to give this a try though. It made me smarter about the media I consume, and I recommend that you try it also.
Take an issue or event that you have interacted with and see how news media sources have covered it. Try to get at least one audio, one video, and one print source, and be intentional about picking sources across the spectrum of quality and values. If you are feeling generous, please share what you explored and what you learned in the comments below. This will help all of us grow.
Peace,
Sterling Lynk
P.S. - I have borrowed and adapted the four questions "What is going on?", "Why is this happening?", "What should be happening", and "What can I do to make things better?" from Practical Theology by Richard Osmer. I recommend it, and the practice of using those questions, to all leaders (link not sponsored).
P.P.S. - Maybe you have read this far and have been wondering what I thought of the movie. It moved me, disturbed me, and still is making me think a month later. Doing the research helped me watch this film thoughtfully and without an overly-simple framing, and to appreciate it for what it was. I did experience some fallout from some the press/commentary about this film; my partner had to leave her purse in the car and we both had to go through extra security before entering the auditorium where "The Joker" was going to play. No other film had these precautions. It seemed that Marcus Theatres was also worried about weapons and violence, but only during the feature itself.