I recently spoke at a high school about how to avoid falling for disinformation. A student stood up and proudly announced, “Don’t worry — we don’t believe anything we see online. Literally. Not a word.”
And an unexpected chill crawled down my spine.
Skepticism is healthy. Smart. Necessary, even. … But cynicism is dangerous. Democracy demands that we elect our own advocates. So, when voters don’t know who to trust — or worse, decide to trust no one — democracy collapses. And opportunists (I bet you can picture him) exploit the vacuum.
Nobody wants a government of, by, and for the ignorant. If knowledge is power, then we need trustworthy sources! And here’s the secret to finding them:
Always consider motivation. When you come upon information, ask how the source benefits if you believe it.
Your favorite podcast host, that Ivy-educated TikTok star, even your Uncle Bob may have a strong point of view that makes a lotta dang sense when they lay it out for you. But what’s driving their arguments? Is it sponsorship? Religious beliefs? A deep-seated need to sound smart? (Sorry, Bob, just truth-tellin’ here.)
When I need facts confirmed, I look to established news outlets such as The New York Times, Associated Press, BBC, and Reuters — because over more than a century, their motivation has been clear and consistent: to ensure an informed public.
You may think I’m just saying this because I’m a journalist myself (good skepticism!). But the reverse is actually true: I’m a journalist because I’m not interested in reading bullshit — and I’m even less interested in writing it. Like you, I want to know what’s real. So, when I’m curious, confused, or dubious, I look to sources whose primary goal is not to get anyone elected, nor to sell me a sense of security nor to please shareholders. It’s simply to prevent idiot voters.
Look, when a doctor tells you something, you may seek a second opinion, but you don’t assume they’re outright lying. Because … why would they? What’s in it for them? Doctors take an oath to act in patients’ best interests, and we generally trust that though they sometimes screw up, misdirection is not their goal.
Journalists have a code of ethics as well, and shoddy reporters are fired for flouting those professional standards. Look for evidence of these ethics when you scroll a news story:
- Accountability: Do the stories have bylines, i.e., name the person who wrote them? When the organization gets a fact wrong, do they print a correction? For example, “An earlier version of this story misstated Roshell’s title; she’s the Truth Fairy.”
- Fairness: Do they include multiple perspectives and diverse voices? If someone is criticized, are they invited to respond?
- Transparency and independence: Do they disclose when a story involves their own organization’s leaders or sponsors? You hear this on NPR all the time: “And, full transparency: Delta Airlines is a supporter of NPR.”
- Objectivity: Is the language factual and unbiased? Do they clearly label news versus opinion? Note: You’re currently reading an opinion column! It’s packed with facts, but it aims to craft an argument around a particular point of view.
But understand this: Journalistic ethics don’t exist for highbrow or noble reasons — but for financial ones. A news outlet that’s not trustworthy has zero value. It’s like a car wash that doesn’t get your Camry clean; it’s useless and will go out of business before consumers can say “hard pass.”
Being a business does mean that news orgs have to work to keep eyeballs focused on them in a competitive landscape. And some do skew in one political direction or another. For those reasons, even journalism may offer us a filtered view of reality. We’ll dive into that in a future column. For now, let’s just commit to pondering the motivation of sources — and finding a few whose intent we trust.
Because as historian Hannah Arendt once said, a people that no longer believes anything cannot think for itself. “And with such a people,” she warned, “you can then do what you please.”
