The development of the internet has allowed the public greater access to the world of information and mis-information. It is now very easy to find reports on a topic, to read commentary from journalists on an issue, and scan the wide range of blogs that have blossomed and tweets from organisations and individuals.
But and it’s a big but, how do we assess and evaluate all of these sources? It’s a bit of a ‘catch 22’ dilemma – you need to know something about the subject to decide how relevant and useful it is.
So, some illumination!
The sources
Academia – in theory these should be the most evidence based sources, yet when we come to economics or housing in particular we have to bear in mind that institutions often follow a certain line, supporting and promoting a specific theory. So its important to see what line the institution is following. For example, Paul Cheshire at the LSE supports the view that lack of supply is the cause of increasing house prices! Other factors are ignored so this line is a contestable approach.
Think tanks
Think tanks are frequently cited when they produce reports, briefings etc. But here it’s a case of looking at their background - what are their objectives, who funds them, who is running them. There are a number of pro free market organisations that promote the idea that freeing up the market is the answer to any problem. Hence on the topic of housing it’s all about removing elements of planning and simply building more houses.
Political parties
The main aim of political parties is to gain and use power. In theory they seek to improve peoples lives, but in reality what constitutes improvement is determined by their political ideology. Currently, there is a consensus about most policies; in the area of economics this means an acceptance of a neo-liberal ideology.
Political parties when in power can use the civil service to provide evidence for a policy. When out of power there is a tendency to rely on the output of think tanks. In both cases, there is always the issue of reliance on dominant discourses and theory.
Obviously political parties need and work to get electors to vote for them. There is increasing reliance on short, snappy, simple sound bites to get messages across, yet these are not appropriate for setting out the assumptions, caveats and intricacies of policy.
Media
Despite the growth of social media, traditional media – newspapers, TV and radio still inform, influence and guide public opinion. They act as gatekeepers – filtering information and news - guiding people in certain directions. They are not necessarily biased but unqualified about specific subjects. People generally accept that different media outlets take a particular line on issues. Sometimes this is political with a small ‘p’, but very often a media outlet will adopt an approach to issues, which determine how a news item is reported.
There is another problem with the veracity of news reports and programmes, which relates to the skills and expertise of the journalists and presenters involved and those asked to comment on a particular issue or item. To be able to effectively do this, both journalists and presenters need to be sufficiently knowledgeable about a subject. If we take the BBC as an example, there are journalists who have the requisite skills and experience to discuss a subject. Others do not. This is a particular problem when generalists or those in one area comment on topics, which are outside their area of expertise. The danger is that people will assume they have expertise in this area.
There is also a question about the commentators and guests who are invited to talk about a subject. Sometimes these do have expertise in a particular field, yet too often the BBC resorts to a small coterie of experts, people with a particular view or interest, rather than someone who has a good understanding of the subject.
What to do?
A check list for reports
Who wrote it?
Which organisation published it?
Who funds the organisation?
What sources does it quote?
Is it just repeating other reports rather than presenting new evidence?
Does it exclude alternative narratives or data?
Don’t get fooled by lots of impressive looking graphs - they may not present the full picture.
Of course, just because a report is flawed in part does not mean that some of the points lack validity.
It’s a case of going through the check list, looking at the sources used, seeing what is left out as well as included and assessing the information.
A check list to assess media commentators
Who do they represent?
Is the topic they are discussing something they have expertise in or are their comments largely opinions?
A check list to assess TV and radio presenters
Are they just presenting or offering opinions?
Are they just repeating commonly held views or perceptions?
Are they commenting on a subject outside of their knowledge comfort zone?
Conclusion
The world of information is a confusing one, full of misinformation, assumptions and perceptions where the dominant discourse supported by various groups and unquestioned by the gatekeepers may be flawed.
The answer is to critically examine the information presented, check out the sources and evidence and see if there are alternative (but valid options).
Enjoy!
Comments