50 Popular Beliefs That People Think Are True

by Harrison, Guy P.

  Finally, it's a minor point, but what is it with hurricanes? Why do reporters keep standing out in them? It might have been cool when Dan Rather did it in 1961, but at some point in the 1970s or 1980s that routine became a terrible cliché and an insult to higher forms of life. “Tonight we say farewell and thank you to Hank, our beloved meteorologist, who was struck in the head by a flying toilet seat while bravely reporting on Hurricane Hematoma in Louisiana. We'll miss you, buddy.”

  THEY AREN'T SHOWING YOU THE REAL WORLD

  The primary problem with most television news today is that it's just nowhere near the reflection of reality that most viewers probably assume it is. Much is said about conservative and liberal biases in the news, but political favoritism is a trivial concern compared to the irrational fears and warped perspectives that TV generates. Political leanings are not the biggest problems with Fox News and MSNBC. The primary problems are that they illogically prioritize news coverage, cover politics like sports events, present tremendous amounts of nonsense as important news, fail on competent science reporting, and stoke fears unnecessarily. Anyone who doesn't know how to assess television news for what it is and recognize the nonsense is likely to end up with a wildly inaccurate view of the world. Longtime skeptic investigator and journalist Benjamin Radford details many of the key problems with television news in his excellent book, Media Mythmakers: How Journalists, Activists, and Advertisers Mislead Us. He warns that sensationalism, predefining news, and selective news coverage have resulted in a “news bias” that leads viewers far astray from reality. Radford writes:

  Television, by its very nature, distorts the reality it claims to reflect and report on. Events are compressed, highlighted, sped up. Thus a person who occasionally watches sports highlights on TV will likely see more home runs and touchdowns than a person who attends local games regularly; television viewers are likely to see more murders than a police detective, more serious car crashes than a tow truck driver, and more plane crashes than a crash investigator.1

  Radford also points out that TV news viewers are given “wildly disproportionate” coverage of crime compared to the amount of crime actually occurring. He cites studies that found crime devoured nearly a third of air time while topics such as education and race relations were given 2 percent or less.2

  I've seen the problem of reality distortion from both sides of the television screen. For more than fifteen years I held a variety of jobs in journalism. Most of those years were in print journalism, but for a (mercifully) brief time I also worked in television news. Doing local TV reporting was fun, and I felt like it had some value to the community. But I was also one of those plastic-haired automatons who reads “news” from a teleprompter and pretends to be personally wounded while going through the laundry list of disasters and mayhem around the world. Of course the truth is that I was far too distracted by the challenge of correctly pronouncing the names of exotic countries and vowel-heavy dictators to think much about the true horror of the events. I also had to be ready to gear up for that cheery toss to the sports anchor. It was all incredibly shallow, but so was I at the time, so I suppose it was a nice fit. The good news is that this part of my journalism career was short and I moved on before the makeup soaked in and I became addicted to quasi-celebrity status.

  After the TV experience, I worked in various positions as a reporter, features writer, travel writer, sports editor, world news editor, and photographer for newspapers and magazines. It's been a fun ride, one that is still not over as I continue to write a newspaper column that focuses on human rights, science, and skepticism. Journalism is a great way to learn new things and meet interesting people you otherwise never would cross paths with. And it really is a vital source of important information that our world needs. So I stop well short of condemning it, of course, but it really does need improving because the news media as it exists now—especially television news—breeds far too much ignorance and confusion about the real world.

  My experience working in the news taught me how important it is as a news consumer to keep all those images, commentaries, and soundbites in proper perspective. I know better than to react too strongly to everything I see on a television news report because I know that I'm being presented with images selected specifically to get attention or deliver the greatest shock value. What we see on television is almost never a fair representation of what is really going on. I'm not suggesting that all reporters and videographers/photographers are being dishonest and intentionally fooling viewers. They are just doing their best to capture and present words and images that will catch the public's eye and make an impression. Nothing wrong with that—it's their job. We certainly can't expect journalists and photographers to seek out the most mundane quotes and to aim their cameras at average images.

  Journalists look for interesting people that stand out and say interesting things. Good photographers instinctively rush to the most eye-popping and powerful scene. Average or typical scenes repel them. I did it all the time. It's automatic; it's the job. In 1992, I roamed around Homestead, Florida, after category 5 Hurricane Andrew blew through. My cameraman and I sought out the most traumatized and emotional victims to interview because it made better TV. From everything they said on camera, we selected their most dramatic quotes to use in the final reports. For my on-camera stand-up bits, I blabbed away while posing in front of the most spectacular scenes of destruction we could find. I recall doing one stand-up in front of a gigantic tree that had been completely uprooted by the winds. It was great; it looked as though I could have been reporting on day three of the apocalypse or maybe a nuclear war. No attempt was made to present a balanced presentation of Homestead, Florida. We were not trying to be dishonest, but the fact is what we did was misleading to viewers who don't understand how television news works. As bad as Homestead was, I suspect many of my viewers were left thinking it was even worse. We weren't doing an academic research paper or a scientifically balanced assessment of a Florida town's destruction. We wanted to show the absolute worst for dramatic effect. We definitely were not concerned with the median experience of storm survivors. We felt no obligation to show a fair or random sampling of the broad spectrum of destruction. Some houses survived the storm very well. As I recall, however, we didn't shoot a single one of them. We made a conscious effort to show the most severe destruction we could find in order to impress our audience. Clearly our reporting was slanted to show the absolute worst of the event we covered. It was not reality.

  This news media habit of presenting the extreme at every opportunity would not be so much of a problem if viewers understood it and processed what they see accordingly. But too many people think television news mirrors the real world in some vaguely accurate way when the truth is that it does not. For example, when people watch a cable news report about some disgruntled shoe salesman who dyed his pet ferret's fur green, ate his iPod, and then set his wife's hair on fire, they tremble in fear and then head to Walmart to buy more ammunition. They fail to consider the fact that about seven billion other people made it through the day without doing those things.

  Any perception of the world based on TV news is bound to be horribly distorted. For example, try asking Americans who regularly watch TV news to name five of the most violent places in the world today. I have done this on a few occasions and found that their answers invariably match TV news coverage as opposed to reality. I hear Iraq and Afghanistan, of course. The “Middle East” always comes up. But then the answers become inconsistent and delivered without much confidence. Colombia sometimes comes up because of drug violence and, thanks to George Clooney, Darfur might get a mention. One guy said Detroit.

  What is interesting is that every time I have asked people to list the world's most violent places, I never once got the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) for an answer. But how can this be when this central African country has been suffering death and destruction far beyond anything seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, Colombia, or even Detroit? P
recise statistics are impossible, but war in the DRC has claimed anywhere from three million to seven million lives over the last several years. It is likely the most deadly conflict since World War II. But few Americans know anything about it. They think Jerusalem is a more violent place. Why is this? Why does the DRC war draw a blank in the minds of so many Americans? I suspect the primary reason is because TV news doesn't cover it anywhere near as intensely and consistently as they do other hot spots. If a few terrorist attacks in a particularly bad month kill fifty or a hundred people in Israel, for example, it will be all over CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS news. They will devote hours and hours of coverage, day after day, to it. But if fifty thousand people, half of them children, are killed in the DRC that same month, it probably wouldn't get much more than thirty seconds. The problem is that there are not scores of major network journalists and camera crews roaming central Africa looking for stories. No video, no TV time. News media people defend this by saying it's too expensive to send reporters everywhere. But shouldn't combat correspondents be sent to where the death and destruction are greatest? Assuming that human lives are equally valid, shouldn't an ongoing conflict that already has claimed a death toll in the millions top every news organization's list of priorities?

  BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID

  There is no denying that television news breeds irrational fear. Consider the example of terrorism. Americans have been on high alert since the 9/11 attacks in 2001, mostly because of the way TV has thoughtlessly catered to politicians who exploited the danger in order to consolidate power and win votes. Repeatedly watching images of buildings blowing up and falling down, the constant stream of soundbites about terrorism threats turned America into a nation of very scared people. But was the level of fear justified by the reality? The RAND-MIPT terrorism database shows 14,790 deaths due to terrorism worldwide from 1968 through April 2007. That equates to an average annual death toll of 379.3 Not good, of course, but compare this to the more than 40,000 people killed in automobile accidents each year in America. Heart disease is a far greater threat to American lives than al Qaeda. In his book, The Science of Fear, Daniel Gardner compares that figure of 379 terrorism deaths to other death rates. In 2003, in the United States alone, 497 people accidently suffocated to death in bed; 396 were accidently electrocuted; 515 drowned in swimming pools; and 16,503 Americans were killed by criminals who were not terrorists. Gardner also points out that the 397 terrorism deaths per year figure overstates the risk for Americans because most deaths from international terrorism occur in places like Kashmir and Pakistan, not in the United States. Between 1968 and 2007 in North America, 3,765 people have been killed by international terrorism. And that number includes the 9/11 attacks that took 2,977 lives. This death toll over nearly forty years is only slightly more than the number of Americans killed riding motor cycles in one single year. Another interesting revelation in Gardner's book is that if you remove the Middle East and South Asia from the equation, there has been a worldwide decline in terrorism since the early 1990s.4 Based on television news coverage of the terrorism threat, however, one might think al Qaeda is everywhere, killing Americans and everyone else by the thousands. The TV news media sells fear. The good news is that you don't have to buy it. If you want to, you really can choose to keep your mind in the real world.

  PRESENTING BOTH SIDES OF A ONE-SIDED STORY

  Another major problem with news is that most journalists try to be fair. This is not necessarily because they are exceptionally fair-minded people. In most cases it's probably for no other reason than they don't want their bosses or the public accusing them of being biased—supposedly a mortal sin in journalism. Being fair and presenting both sides of an issue may sound like a no-brainer, but it's not that simple.

  Fairness, defined as an even split of words or air time, is overrated and can be the worst possible objective in many instances. Attempts by journalists to be fair often leaves them with a warped view of reality just like their customers. For example, the controversy between modern biology and creationism/intelligent design in the United States is usually reported on as though it is a clash between two rival, but equally valid, scientific theories. But nothing could be further from the truth. Evolution and intelligent design are not equally valid scientific theories, and that should be made clear in the reporting. As any credible biologist can explain, creationism and intelligent design are not based on real science, have no compelling evidence, and offer no competent theories. I understand the social controversy and the need for balance if the story is about that particular aspect of the issue. But otherwise there is no place for the “other side of the story.” Look at it this way: Should journalists give equal time for comments from Holocaust deniers every time they report on the Holocaust? Should medical journalists give psychics and tarot card readers equal time with neuroscientists when reporting on brain issues? Should reporters check in with astrologers every time they cover a NASA launch? Some topics do not warrant a “fair” hearing from multiple interests simply because some sides have not earned their way onto the playing field. Good journalists should be educated enough, honest enough, and brave enough to know this and report accordingly.

  IS MISLEADING NEWS BETTER THAN NO NEWS?

  Despite my problems with it, I'm not calling for the end of television journalism. I understand that it does play a valuable role and I appreciate the many brilliant and brave people who report on important and dangerous events that are happening near and far. If not for the light they help shine, we would all be worse off. But is this really the best the industry can do?

  For another view I sought out a veteran television news reporter and anchor whom I have known for years and respect a great deal. I asked her about what I see as TV news' misrepresentation of the world. She readily agreed that TV news is not a perfect reflection of reality. “I think that news by its very nature cannot provide an accurate view of the world,” she explained. “It can provide snapshots of reality, but in and of itself, it can't be your guide. The parts of life that are least newsworthy make up the majority of our days, and that is the way it is supposed to be. News is supposed to be about the aberrations, the extremes, the unusual.”

  Fair enough, but the cable news stories that fill the hours these days are usually not important aberrations or events. Lindsay Lohan's troubles with the police may qualify as aberrations or extreme events, but are they more important than the malaria crisis in the developing world or the James Webb telescope? I would say no, yet millions of TV news viewers might be led to think otherwise, based on the way air time is allocated by news producers. It's reasonable to describe TV news as “snapshots of reality” and therefore incapable of comprehensibly showing the world as it really is. But there is still the problem of too many snapshots of the wrong subjects as well as too much gossip, entertainment, and fearmongering packaged as important news.

  For all its faults, television news is still immensely valuable. I'm honest enough to admit that a sensationalist, entertainment-based, and income-driven news media is better than no news media. Imperfect as it is, I wouldn't want it to go away. Imagine how much worse the world could be if those in power never had to worry about how their evil deeds would play on CNN and the BBC. I simply wish more people would recognize television news for the exaggerated, distorted, and misleading view of the world that it is and not be so easily pulled down paths of fear and distortion. I also wish that the people who run major news broadcasting corporations could figure out a way to make their profits while also producing news that is intelligent and socially valuable.

  So what is the solution for those who would like to avoid ending up with an abused mind that has been dimmed and misled by cable news? I don't recommend a total news blackout because then you become one of those scary people who stumble around not knowing anything about anything. I do, however, advise cutting way back on daily TV news consumption because too much of it is simply mindless fodder that exists primarily to fill time until t
he next commercial. I still make sure to skim newspaper headlines and browse a few reputable news sites online every day. But I spend as little time as possible doing this. If something is obviously important, then I read the article, otherwise my eyes keep moving. I avoid giving significant chunks of my days to TV news, opting to check it only sporadically to make sure World War III didn't kick off while I was cleaning the garage. I only watch TV news for extended periods when there is a major breaking news event or I feel the need to check in on the industry that almost stole my soul. What do I do with the time I save? I mostly read articles in science magazines. News and current events are more than the talking points of political parties and which celebrities are divorcing or languishing in rehab. News and current events also include the discovery of a new species or exoplanet. I love wading into new issues of Scientific American, National Geographic, New Scientist and Discover. In my view, the information I find in those publications is no less important, relevant, and entertaining as anything I might find in mainstream news. For example, I could be wrong, but I feel I'm much better off reading about a new breakthrough in primate studies than I am watching CNN's in-depth coverage of congressional blustering and presidential soundbite deliveries.