critical thinking 101.1 - taylor swift & blake lively, or how to check your damn sources

[insert appropriate taylor swift lyric]

[This is #1 of an ongoing series about the tenets of critical thinking.]

(Image created by my prompts to AI)

We live in weird, warped times.

I am no mastermind of politics or journalism, just a creative writer with a Bachelor’s degree and impostor syndrome. And a side of intellectual arrogance. But I do care about truth. I care about where the world is heading. For that reason, of late, I care very deeply about critical thinking.

My undergrad arts degree, with its cultural theory and media literacy studies, helped to kickstart my critical thinking. This wasn’t a skill taught at my public high school, where we analysed texts without evaluating their context, and learned history only from the victors’ point of view. Still, one should not have to go to university to learn how to digest media and evaluate information. I’m not some genius, and I don’t think you have to be, to learn critical thinking.

Anyone can do it.

Thanks to that intellectual arrogance, I’ve decided that I need to school people on how to think - even though I’m not an expert. I’m still learning that skill, everyday. You can decide for yourself whether or not to listen to me, because critical thinking is all about finetuning your own judgement…and seeking truth.

(…AI tried.)

So, I have a story about Taylor Swift and Blake Lively that I want you to hear.

This isn’t the greatest example of ‘evaluating news’, because it concerns celebrity gossip, but it’s recent and it’s true.

At a friend’s birthday dinner, I had a long convo with a pleasant, intelligent woman. Then she told me about a ‘statement’ Taylor Swift had just released to the media - announcing the end of her friendship with actress Blake Lively*.

(*We were discussing the public legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, costars of It Ends With Us. I won’t get into the whole thing, but this woman was very invested. And very pro-Justin.)

Hmm, I thought to myself. A public statement just to denounce a female friend? From Taylor Swift, Ms. ‘Girl Squad’ herself?

It sounded ‘off’ to me.

So I thought about why. 1. My Prior Knowledge - I have seen a lot of paparazzi photos of the two women together. They seem tight. 2. Suspect the Sensational - It seems weird for anyone, let alone America’s sweetheart, to make a special announcement of “I’m no longer friends with this bitch”. 3. Bias of the Source - This woman, who I didn’t really know, had already admitted she was on Justin’s side. And 4. Murky Waters - This legal battle largely concerns PR narratives and media spin, making it difficult to judge what’s actually happening.

I discreetly searched the incident on Google when I got a chance: taylor swift end friendship blake lively. Familiar words began to fill my screen. ‘A source says…’ ‘someone close to…’ ‘An insider confirms…’

I saw reports backing up this woman’s story, mostly on celebrity gossip sites. I also saw a number of headlines proclaiming the opposite: Don’t Worry, Taylor Swift and Blake Lively are Still Besties. Clearly, there were conflicting narratives.

Lastly, I checked Taylor Swift’s social media, just to confirm. Yep, no posts about Blake.

There. I had my answer. Taylor Swift had not ‘put out a statement’ announcing this information. This information had not come from the horse’s mouth. It was a rumour.

Given it concerns a celebrity, I had no real way of knowing if this rumour was true. Celebrity ‘news’ is notoriously difficult to evaluate because tabloids depend on constant turnaround of rumours. ‘A source says’ could easily mean fuck-all, but one could argue it was an oblique way of getting the story out. Sometimes ‘a source says’ is a real tip. But I couldn’t call up T-Switty or her team to ask.

In any case, the woman I talked to was still incorrect. There were no reports that Taylor Swift herself had said these things.

This is a tiny example of a much bigger problem. The woman I was talking to seemed pretty smart, based on the rest of our conversation. I liked her! But, at least in this case, she didn’t know how to distinguish between a fact (something that was definitely said by someone) and a rumour (something ‘someone said’ someone else said). She read the story, and her mind made the leap that it had definitely happened. Either that, or she figured it was okay to exaggerate the truth of the statement. Similarly, she could not distinguish between a primary source (Taylor herself, or an incident with witnesses and/or proof) and a secondary source (online gossip magazines that could easily be referencing a planted PR story).

When I suggested to the woman that ‘a source says’ didn’t actually confirm Taylor Swift herself felt this way, she resisted this. She said things like ‘well, it’s probably true anyway. I’m pretty sure it’s true. Because…’

She was already on Justin Baldoni’s side. She already believed he was a good guy and the victim in the situation, so it was easy for her to accept that this story was true (this is called confirmation bias).

But I left it at that. She at least accepted that her story was not true in the way that she’d spoken about. And it was not my business to change her mind further, especially in such a low-stakes interaction. I don’t really care about Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, to be fair. All I wanted to do was offer her a thinking point.

Critical thinking should be for your own self improvement and self satisfaction. It may help you feel more confident when you communicate, and might spark critical thinking in someone else, but there will always be those who aren’t interested in it. It’s not your job to ‘fix’ them; fix your own thinking first.

It’s Smart to Say ‘I Don’t Know’

Sometimes we don’t have the resources to verify information. Especially when it concerns celebrities.

My end-response to learning about this ‘Taylor Swift’ information was not necessarily denial, but scepticism. It can be a hard thing to do, to avoid issuing a frank ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but settle on ‘people are apparently saying it, but I have not seen verifiable evidence that it happened.’

But that was the truth for me in that situation.

I did not know. I don’t know Taylor Swift. I don’t have endless hours to read every news report and all the pages of the lawsuit (frankly, I don’t care enough to). I simply do not have sufficient information to make up my mind.

My instincts say that it is not true that Taylor ended their friendship. I have been following the story somewhat, and the leaked texts between Justin Baldoni and his PR team plotting to ‘destroy’ Blake were verified. They are pretty damning. I know that Justin Baldoni used the same PR team that Johnny Depp did, and I think Johnny Depp is an abusive asshole, based on everything I’ve read about him. So based on the information I have so far, it looks to me as though Justin Baldoni is a fuckwit.

But I acknowledge that is my bias. There have been contradictory claims from Justin’s side. He has now released a shitload of his own texts. He’s the one suing Blake (but then again, Johnny Depp sued Amber Heard…)

Maybe no one is ‘in the right’. Maybe it’s a mighty clash of egos. I will still conclude with, ‘I don’t know, based on the current information I have. I don’t have all the information.’

Many of us already know to be wary of stories about celebrities. We are accustomed to celeb gossip that turns out to have no basis in fact.

But some of us seem to be unaware that this kind of scepticism should apply to news of any kind.

(Image created by my prompts to AI.)

To think critically, one must learn how to identify verifiable sources.

But first! One has to believe that verifiable sources exist.

Some people believe that no information is trustworthy these days. Conspiracy-like thinking has abounded over the past decade on the internet. It’s not a problem, to me, that conspiracists are sceptics. Being a sceptic is a good first step towards critical thinking. And scepticism about power systems is an important tool of critical thinking. Sometimes there are real cover-ups that the media is in on, especially in times of war and political unrest. But quality investigative journalism has always been an important checkpoint for systems of power. Being cynical about all media information turns you into a crackpot. Into someone who says ‘you can’t trust anyone, so why not trust the least trustworthy sources instead?’

Look, bro, I’m still going to trust a quality newspaper, with standards and ethics, over some random on YouTube. Just because someone mimics the actions of investigative journalism doesn’t mean they’ve done it properly. At least if a quality newspaper has gotten something wrong, they’ll usually release a retraction.

There are still ways to verify if something actually happened or not.

Anyone with fast typing hands and a little web design knowledge can create their own ‘publication’ online these days. Or start a YouTube, TikTok or podcast. So how can we fact-check our important, non-celebrity news, to ensure it’s true?

Here are some fact-checking links, and a 3-step guide to evaluating the resources you use to find information.

Helpful links.

All of these links are either fact-check sites or bias-weighing sites. You can search any publication for a rating. And you can even enter URLs to check individual sites and stories on some of them.

Media Bias Fact Check

Politifact

Snopes

Fact Check

All Sides

AP Fact Check

AdFontes Media

There are also extensions you can add to your browser to check for bias on any site, eg. Fact Checker for Chrome.

(Let’s all be like this AI bear.)

1. Did it Actually Happen?

Just because someone says something happened doesn’t mean it did. There are lots of liars out there, and lots of people with opinions.

The best way to verify an initial account is to check for other reports of the same information. If a bunch of reputable sources (see point 2.) are reporting an air collision, the crash likely happened. If it only pops up on a couple of murky fringe sites, or references a conspiracy theory, it’s likely fiction.

(And if the US President says the collision is because of efforts to hire diverse employees, that’s not a fact - it’s an opinion about a fact.)

The next best way is to look for evidence. When stuff actually happens, there’s usually a trail of evidence.

Yes, sometimes incidents between only a handful of people can be difficult to investigate. That’s why murders go unsolved. But if there was a global cabal of satanic child eating democrats, we’d have much more to go on than rumours. (This is where conspiracy theorists shine - putting together actual evidence to reach an insane conclusion.) Everything, even a cover-up, leaves a trace.

Accounts from individuals can be the most difficult to evaluate. But if it sounds really weird, or if it originated on social media - like, I don’t know, if one person posted on Facebook that Haitians are eating their animals, and Nazis are jumping on it, claiming it’s happening all over the place - it’s time to do more digging.

It’s also worth thinking about what’s at stake for the individual reporting the information. If a person has a lot to lose in revealing something, I’d lean towards believing them. If they have something major to gain, I’d take their claim with a grain of salt. But these aren’t always the right guidelines for individuals. There’s a lot to weigh up and it depends on the situation.

2. Check The Author’s Credentials.

Check out any content creator, or author, on Google and LinkedIn. Especially if their claims sound sensational or questionable. Media is always made by human beings, and is going to be coloured by the human being who made it. (One could argue that even AI-generated media is still made, originally, by human hands.)

Some people are very good at sounding knowledgeable. But if they’re quoting statistics, are they the final word, or are they cherry-picked? Are there conflicting statistics out there?

Be wary of what’s fact and what’s an opinion.

For example, let’s pick something ‘controversial’: an immigrant committing a murder. The murder happening is a fact. But if the piece of media reporting it descends into an examination of how many immigrants have committed murders that year, and suggests we should consider deporting them, and blames them for other societal issues - all of that is the writer or presenter’s opinion.

You may find yourself agreeing with them. Maybe they quoted a statistic: how many immigrants have committed murders so far this year. But what percentage of total immigrants have committed murder? Is it higher than the statistic for non-immigrants? If so, could there be societal inequalities influencing that? And if, in the end, you decide immigrants are committing more murders, are you forming a bias? Will you keep that bias now, every time you hear anything about immigrants?

It’s important to really weigh up all of the other possible causes of flow-on bad stuff mentioned in news, rather than simply take a persuasive piece of media at its word.

But that’s up to you. Being able to distinguish between information and opinion is a very important first step, and it starts with evaluating the person behind the media item.

Tips:
Be generally sceptical of commentators - YouTubers, TikTokkers, radio hosts, and social media influencers.
Be sceptical of anyone who is selling some kind of ‘system’ to change you. - A ‘holistic wellness expert’, for example, may not be a great source of info about vaccines.

Important Questions:
-Is the writer or presenter specialised in the field that their work is concerned with? Or just…someone who has a lot of opinions?
-Do they currently work in that field, or have they been discredited?
-They might have a PHD or impressive sounding credentials, but are they well-respected by their peers?
-Are they biased - heavily religious, or affiliated with a certain political group? Do they own or have a financial stake in the thing they’re trying to sell you on?
-If they’re a ‘personality’ who has outside ‘experts’ on their show, are the credentials of their experts solid?

Even if someone has written for a reputable publication, I still often google their credentials to look at what kind of person they are. I also look at what kind of articles they’ve written before.

And if it’s an opinion piece, well, it’s an opinion piece. It might draw upon news, but it’s not news in and of itself.

3. Check Out The Publication.

Recently, a guy argued with me in a comments section, citing a news story he’d read. He posted a screenshot of the article (not showing the url, not showing me what the publication was.) All the screenshot showed was a headline, photo and opening paragraph. He expected me to take it at face value, as he had.

I checked where the article originated by typing the headline into Google. I found the post, with the matching photo. And it was published by….Sputnik Globe. I know Sputnik Globe. It’s a publication ostensibly run by the Russian Government. So, yeah…a media story Vladimir Putin planted? Probs gonna be approaching that with scepticism. There were some facts in that article, but they were mixed with unverifiable facts, rumours and opinion.

Here’s what came up on the Media Bias Fact Check website for Sputnik Globe:

Important Questions:
-Is it an actual news site or a gossipy, broad-topic site eg. Pedestrian.TV?
-Is it from a country with a heavily biased media landscape?
-Does the site have an ‘about’ section or outline its standards anywhere? (For example, the New York Times has its Handbook of Values and Practices clearly available on its website.)
-Is the publication politically biased, or does its owner have political and financial interests that may colour the tone of the publication? (I’ll never trust The Courier Mail as a primary source, for example, because its owned by the Murdochs. Whose media empire also includes Fox News).
-Does it publish news with an objective tone, or is it flinging judgements in its headlines? (News headlines should not be things like ‘If The Republicans Get In, We’re All Fucked’. That’s an opinion editorial, aka an op-ed, and should not be on the front page.)

In conclusion

Judge. Hard. Put the ‘critical’ in critical thinking.

If what you're reading seems too weird, too good to be true, or too sensational, second guess it. Be a sceptic, even towards your best friends.

A friend told me, earnestly about some ‘recent news’ last year. About how the EU had decided, essentially, that English should be turned slowly into the German language. I questioned where he’d heard the news; it was from an Instagram post. I googled a few key words. It turned out to be a linguistics joke; when I googled, it had been posted on Reddit ten years ago.

That example hits on a lot of important factors; it was sensational and hard to believe, it wasn’t from a verified source, and it was out-of-date. News can expire, just like cheese.

There are courses and articles you can read about critical thinking that will teach you much better than I can. But if you embrace being a sceptic (not a cynic), you’ll get better at evaluating news.

Love,

A non-qualified non-expert in critical thinking