Intelligence officers’ bread and butter is, among many things, the ability to assess information integrity — to sort real news from junk. This discipline is the cornerstone of important national security products that you have heard of in the news, like the president’s daily brief, in which I published pieces as a CIA analyst many moons ago.
In fluid, high-stakes situations, like in Ukraine, this skillset is all the more crucial to developing an accurate understanding of events and projecting possible outcomes (and their likely significance).
Outside the intelligence world, the art form is known as “media literacy.” It has broad application beyond today’s crisis in Europe, to include evaluation of news about significant domestic events (such as national elections) and even local developments here in Hawaii. (For the theologically inclined, hermeneutics relies on many of the same principles and tools.)
“So how do we know that we are getting ‘real news,’” you ask. Frankly speaking, reading Not Real News by The Associated Press, featured Saturdays right here in the Tribune-Herald, is a great way to start honing discernment skills. The next step? Build an observer’s tool box, a media literacy kit, starting with your approach to information providers.
“What do you mean?” Well, when we consume a piece of information, and we want to weigh its integrity, we first need to consider the known biases and historical reliability of the platform from which we received the information. Is, for example, the outlet known for a centrist political view and consistently accurate, verified journalism, or does it rank “high” in bias and “mixed” in factual reporting? Is the outlet funded by nonobjective sources — a government, an activist group, or a political entity?
Whether we are reading a news article online or in a paper magazine, listening to a podcast or radio program, or watching traditional television or social media video snippets, we can run a quick health check on the outlet that is publishing a given story.
This can be accomplished easily and cost-free with an array of online tools that track the historical performance of information sources, such as mediabiasfactcheck.com, adfontesmedia.com, or allsides.com. Separately, a quick search engine query can often, but not always, shed light on the money behind the messaging.
Next, we need to ascertain the audience of the information and the motive for sharing the information. Is the piece written largely for members of a particular demographic — a certain age group (such as Boomers), ethnic group (like Pacific Islanders), advocacy group (Americans supporting Ukraine or Hawaiian homeland protectors), or voters for a particular political party?
We can often evaluate the intended audience by the presence of references to cultural touchstones, world events, social issues, and time periods that resonate with a given group. As far as motive goes, does the content suggest an effort to influence as much as inform? Is there more opinion than fact? Are the words chosen to convey the story emotional or neutral? Does it advocate one side of an issue or provide various perspectives?
Trying to get a handle on intended audience and motivation can be more challenging than a quick check on the bias and past accuracy of a platform, but there are free online educational resources to help us sharpen these skills too, such as The News Literacy Project (news lit.org ) or the video series, Media Literacy, by Crash Course (the crashcourse.com ), which is particularly good for younger information consumers, but instructive for all ages.
Let’s pause here and catch our breath. This 101-level introduction to the art of judging information integrity will get you started along a journey to build your media literacy and assess situations like the Ukraine conflict, and things closer to home, in a better informed and more productive manner.
Next month, in the 201-level installment, we will address the difference between misinformation and disinformation, talk about evaluating photographs, delve into the nuances of white, gray and black propaganda, and explore how these things affect our understanding of events in Ukraine and closer to home.
J.P. Atwell is a former senior CIA operations officer. His two-decade career began as an intelligence analyst and took him to every continent, save Antarctica. He now calls Hawaii Island home. He welcomes your comments at island.intelligencer@gmail.com.