Toward a More Skeptical Media

I want to talk about "Krystal and Saagar: NASCAR, police poisoning hoaxes show media MUST be more skeptical." It's worth watching. The main point is right here in the title - the media must be more skeptical.

They (correctly) point out confirmation bias. I would suggest that their characterization of Bubba Wallace shows that while they are aware of confirmation bias, they are not aware of the Fundamental Attribution Error. But that is another article.

What I want to focus on is the idea that the media should be more skeptical. I do agree. But only to a point. We do want that from our media sources. But even more than that we want a free press and a free market. In such conditions, if one media source eschews that enraging unconfirmed story, another will provide it if the market wants it.

Further, with the democratization of media we can all be publishers. I am doing it right now. But we do not all have the editorial boards and institutional norms that used (ideally at least) provide some checks against bias and inaccuracy. We are now our own editors. And again, the market rewards the sensational story that activates our emotional responses.

I have compared internet memes to viruses. They exploit our system 1 thinking to evade our cognitive defenses of critical thought, and reproduce at the expense our rational discourse. But this suggests another comparison -- these memes and these salacious stories are like addictive drugs:

• They create biochemical rewards in our brains
• These biochemical rewards cause us to seek more, typically in larger and larger doses
• Any "War on Memes" akin to a "War on Drugs" will fail if it only looks at reducing supply
• To be successful, a "War on Memes" needs to look at our own addictive behaviors and reduce demand.

This is your brain. This is your brain on memes. Any questions?