It can be tough to see your Facebook friends sharing conspiracy theory stories, and tough to respond to them effectively. Pointing it out and saying “that’s a conspiracy theory” doesn’t seem to be effective. But there are certain writing patterns and tropes that are common within such articles that make them compelling to some people. Sometimes, just pointing out patterns and tropes helps people see them for what they are.
In my original news chart, I wrestled with the questions of what made news sources “good” and came up with some categories that generally resonated with people. I ranked sources on a vertical axis with those at the top ranked as “high quality” and those at the bottom as “low quality.” I characterized the sources, from top to bottom, in this order: Complex, Analytical, Meets High Standards, Basic, and Sensational/ Clickbait. This mostly works, because it results in sources regarded as high-brow or classy (e.g., The Atlantic, The Economist) being ranked high on the axis, and trashy sources (e.g., Addicting Info, Conservative Tribune) being ranked low, and most sophisticated news consumers agree with that. However, the vertical placements ended up causing me and others some consternation, because some of the placements relative to other outlets didn’t make sense. The most common questions I got were along these lines:
“Does FOX News really “meet high standards,” on par with something like the New York Times?” (I think no.)
“Is USA today really that bad?” (I think no.)
“Is Slate really “better” or “higher quality” than, say, AP or Reuters just because it is analytical?” (I think no.)
“Is CNN really that bad?” (I think yes.)
These questions and my instinctive responses to them made me want to reevaluate what makes news sources high or low quality.
I believe that answer to that question lies in what makes an individual article (or show/story/broadcast) high or low quality. Article quality can vary greatly even within the same news source. One should be able to rank an individual article on the chart in the same way one ranks a whole news source. So, what makes an article/story high or low quality? It’s hard to completely eliminate one’s own bias on that issue, but one way to try to do it consistently is to categorize and rate the actual sentences and words that make it up its headline and the article itself. In order to try to rank any article on the chart in a consistent, objective-as-possible manner, I started doing sentence-by-sentence analyses of different types of articles.
In analyzing what kind of sentences make up articles, it became apparent that most sentences fall into (or in-between) the categories of 1) fact, 2) analysis, or 3) opinion. Based on the percentages of these kinds of sentences in an article, articles themselves can be classified in categories of fact, analysis, and opinion as well. Helpfully, some print newspapers actually label articles as “analysis” or “opinion.” However, most news sources, especially on TV or the internet, do not. I set about analyzing stories that were not pre-labeled as “analysis” or “opinion” on a sentence-by-sentence basis. I discovered that my overall impression of the quality of an article was largely a function of the proportion of fact sentences to analysis sentences to opinion sentences. As a result, I classified stories into “fact-reporting,” “analysis,” and “opinion” stories. Ones with high proportions of “fact” sentences (e.g., 90% + fact statements) were what I refer to here as traditional “fact-reporting” news pieces. These are the kinds of stories that have historically been the basis of late 20th century-to-early-21st century journalism, and what people used to refer to exclusively as “news.” They are the “who,” “what,” “when,” and “where” pieces (not necessarily “why”). I classified ones with high proportions of “analysis” sentences (e.g., 30%-50% analytical statements) as “analysis” stories, which are the types of stories commonly found in publications like The Economist or websites such as Vox. I classified stories with high proportions of opinion sentences (e.g., 30%-50% opinion statements) as “opinion,” which are typically the types of stories found on websites such as Breitbart or Occupy Democrats.
(If you’ve made it this far, bless your heart for caring so much about the news you read.)
In the past, national evening news programs, local evening news programs, and the front pages of print newspapers were dominated by fact-reporting stories. Now, however, many sources people consider to be “news sources” are actually dominated by analysis and opinion pieces. This chart ranks media outlets that people consider to be, at some level “news sources,” even though many of them are comprised entirely of analysis and opinion pieces.
In my previous version of the chart, I had regarded analysis pieces as “higher quality” than the fact-reporting pieces because they took the facts and applied them to form well-supported conclusions. I like analytical writing, which is essentially critical thinking. However, analysis has a lot in common with opinion, and writing that is intended to be analytical often strays into opinion territory. (Note—I’m defining “analysis” as conclusions well supported by facts and “opinion” as conclusions poorly supported or unsupported by facts). Fact-reporting articles—true “scoops”—typically have the intent of just reporting the facts and typically have a very high percentage (e.g., 90%+) of fact-statement sentences, whereas both analysis and opinion articles have the intent of persuading an audience and often have a comparatively high percentage of analysis and opinion statement sentences (30%-50%). So, although I initially had the quality axis of “news” laid out top to bottom as:
That ranking is more reflective of the quality of writing rather than the quality of news sources. Good analysis is often written persuasively and well, fact-reporting is often written directly but well, and opinion writing is often (but not always) written poorly or is most easily discredited. I submit that given the confusion caused by the overwhelming number of organizations proclaiming to be (or which are commonly confused with) “news sources,” it is more important to rank the quality of news sources than the quality of writing. I further submit, for reasons outlined below, that the percentage of fact reporting articles and stories should be used as the most determinative factor by which a news source is ranked in quality on this chart.
Therefore, I believe a more relevant ranking of the quality of news sources would be:
I assert that one of the biggest problems with our current news media landscape is that there is too much analysis and opinion available in relation to factual reporting. New technologies have given more people more platforms to contribute analysis and opinion pieces, so many “news sources” have popped up to compete for readers’ attention. Unfortunately news consumers often do not recognize the difference between actual fact-reporting news and the analysis and opinion writing about that news. This increase in “news sources” has not corresponded with an increase in actual journalists or news reporting, though. Many local and national print news organizations have reduced their numbers of journalists, while many of the biggest ones have merely maintained similar numbers of journalists over the past 10 years or so.
Furthermore, primarily analytical news sources also have several downsides. One downside is that they can alienate news consumers by making what people consider “news sources” so complex or partisan that it is tiring to consume any “news.” For example, CNN, MSNBC and FOX News, which are primarily analysis and opinion-driven, can make news consumers too weary to pay attention to fact-based reporting from, say, AP or Reuters. Another problem with analysis and opinion-driven news sources is that it can be difficult for casual readers to differentiate between good analysis and pure opinion.
There are several good reasons why we should value fact-reporting sentences, fact-reporting articles, and fact-reporting news sources high on the quality scale of news, at least on this chart. For one, reported facts take a lot of work to obtain. They require journalists on the ground investigating and interviewing. Once a story is reported, dozens, hundreds, or thousands of other writers can chime in with their analysis or opinions of it. This is not to say analysis and opinion writing isn’t important. The critical thinking presented in analytical writing—especially good, complex analysis—is essential to public discourse. Our society’s best ideas are advanced by analytical articles. This piece you are reading now is analytical. But analysis in the news wouldn’t even exist without the underlying factual reporting.
For example, AP and Reuters have maintained around 2,000-2,500 journalists each over that time, while the New York Times and Washington Post have fluctuated in the 500-1000 range over the same period. The value of these organizations with large staffs of journalists, editors, and other newsroom employees is hard to overstate; not only do they provide a majority of the fact-reporting stories everyone else relies on, but they have the capacity to provide high-quality editorial review that stands up to industry scrutiny. In contrast, even some of the most popular analysis and opinion sites can be run with just a few dozen writers and staff; the number of these “news” websites, news aggregator websites, blogs, and podcasts has seemingly grown exponentially.
I believe improvements to our media landscape can be made if two things happen: 1) if news consumers start valuing factual reporting much more and analysis/opinion articles much less and 2) if news consumers become accustomed to differentiating articles in those categories.. Regarding point #2, I think it would be helpful if we narrowed the definition of “news” to only refer to fact reporting, and referred to everything else as “analysis” or “opinion.” It would be helpful if people could recognize the relative contributions of fact-reporting news organizations versus analysis and opinion sources. If people recognize just how much of what they read and watch is intended to persuade them, they may become more conscious and thoughtful about how much they allow themselves to be persuaded. One can hope.
To contribute to those goals, I’ve reordered the chart to value fact-reporting articles as the highest quality and everything else lower, even though there is some really excellent analysis out there. As a baseline, news consumers should understand when something is news (fact-reporting) and when it is not. On the new chart, the sources with the best analysis, but little reporting are at the top, but right under the sources that are comprised of high percentages of reporting articles. The most opinion-driven sources are at the bottom. There’s room for other things at the bottom below pure opinion, which can include sources that are sensationalist, clickbait, frequently factually incorrect, or which otherwise don’t meet recognized journalism standards.
On this version, I’ve included a number of different sources, mostly in the analysis and opinion categories, and left the most popular mainstream sources from the original chart, but have reordered some of them. Now, the rankings are more consistent with my initial answers to the example questions at the beginning of this post. Fox News is now ranked far lower than the New York Times for two main reasons; one, Fox News is dominated by opinion and analysis, and two, it has gotten precipitously worse in other measures (sensational chyrons, loss of experienced journalists, hyperbolic analysis by contributors, etc.) within the last six months. USA today, despite its basic nature, has been elevated because of its high percentage or fact-reporting stories. Slate, though it provides thoughtful, well-written analysis, is ranked lower than AP and Reuters, which better reflects their relative contributions to the news ecosystem. CNN still sucks, but it is clearer why now; CNN has the resources to provide twenty-four hours of news—it could provide Americans with a detailed global-to-local synopsis of the world—but instead it chooses to spend 5% of its time fact reporting a handful of stories, comprising mostly American political drama and maybe one violent leading world news story, and 95% on analysis and opinion ranging from the competent to the inane.
My analysis of news sources in the manner I’ve described herein has revealed that individual stories can and should be ranked on the chart in the same manner, and that individual stories can be placed in different places than the news sources in which they are published. I’ll be putting out individual story rankings and reasoning for those rankings from time to time for those that are interested. I’ll also take requests for rankings of sources and individual stories in the comments and on twitter. Thanks for reading and thinking.
The pro-confederate-statue side asks this question, likely in earnest, and it is worth grappling with the distinction. Indeed, since slavery is evil and horrible, as generally agreed by liberals and conservatives alike, and both men owned slaves, why is it preferable to take down the confederate statue and not the Washington statue?
This is not cut and dry, or “obvious” to everyone, and we shouldn’t treat it as such. It is a difficult task to distinguish between two things that are alike in some ways and different in others, so let’s look at the details and facts of these cases in order to distinguish, like courts do.
It is a general rule that we put up statues of good people and not bad ones, but this in itself is a hard rule to follow because no one person is all good or all bad. It’s a bit easier to distinguish with some people than others. MLK=almost all good and Hitler=almost all bad is not hard. I think it is legitimately closer with both George Washington and Robert E. Lee. I think the reason the argument comes down to GW=mostly good (despite slaves!) is because he is most known and respected for 1) fighting in the Revolutionary War for American independence, which modern Americans view as a righteous cause, and 2) being our first President. The argument comes down to Lee=mostly bad (plus slaves!) because he is most known for 1) fighting in the Civil War for the cause of keeping slaves, which most modern Americans view as a morally wrong cause.
The question of what they are most known for is an important one, because that is usually the same reason their statue was put up in the first place. When it comes to the question of whether to take one down, people tend to base their opinion on the questions on 1) what it meant when it was put up in the first place and 2) what it means now, in the context of history. With GW, it was put up because of his role in the Revolution and as President. With Lee, it was put up during an era of brutal reinforcement of white supremacy (see comments for link discussing this history) with a purpose of intimidating recently freed slaves. Today, in the context of history, GW’s statues are widely seen as a reflection of his leadership and role as a founder, not his role as a slave owner. Most people don’t go to a GW monument for the purpose of celebrating his slave ownership. Today, though, in the context of history, Lee’s statues are commonly given two negative meanings: First, they serve as a reminder of white supremacy to black people, and second, they serve as a rallying point for actual white supremacists. Yes, to many people, it may mean a “commemoration of Southern history” too, but if it’s 50% a brutal white supremacist reminder/rallying point and 50% Southern history commemoration, that’s enough to justify it being removed. We have made a moral decision as a society that its (even partial) role as a white supremacy beacon is not acceptable, in response to a particular flash point of a white supremacist resurgence. We have not made a similar decision about the Washington statues, because there has been no recent flash point around those.
However, I can’t actually morally justify Washington owning slaves, and that practice is indeed so reprehensible that it is valid to argue that if slavery is that wrong, then we should take down the statues of any slave holder, no matter how “good” they were otherwise. Joe Paterno’s statue was taken down because his biggest moral failing—protecting a child predator—outweighed the other good he had done. Perhaps the removal of Washington (slave owner) and Jefferson (slave owner and likely slave rapist) is the morally correct thing to do. We would likely remove the statues of contemporary heroes (say, MLK or Wayne Gretzky) if we suddenly found out they were rapists or owned slaves.
But there is a distinguishing factor between how we judge the actions of contemporaries compared to how we judge those of historical figures, and that is the factor of relative morality of a time in history compared to the present. Those who argue “slave owners weren’t all bad people” are inherently taking this factor into account. Yes, we all view slavery as evil now, but when it was a somewhat normalized aspect of society, it is plausible and even likely that many slave owners tried to live what they thought were upstanding moral lives in many ways. They may even have had moral dilemmas about slavery but felt that it was an intractable problem for them to solve, let alone forgo participation in. “Slave owners were not all bad people” ( a typically conservative argument) is a very similar argument to “George Washington’s statue should remain up because he did other good things, even though he owned slaves” (an argument liberals are currently making in relation to the confederate statue issue). “George Washington was not all bad,” essentially.
It seems that the right thing to do is to take down the Confederate statues because the of the bad things they were best known for (explicitly fighting for slavery), plus the reasons they were put up, plus the reasons they cause people pain now. But we must also admit that it would be logically consistent to remove other slave owners, even our founding fathers, if some contemporary flash point were to bring the issue of how bad slavery really is to the forefront. Perhaps it is a moral failing of our current time that we have not come to this realization yet. Perhaps future generations will come to the consensus that the founding fathers’ statues should be removed and hold it against our generations that we did not. Perhaps they will judge us harshly for tolerating other injustices, like unequal women’s rights and queer rights for so long. Societal morals evolve over time. In the near term, though, it is likely that the “contemporary, widely-held perception of the statues” factor and the “relative morality of the time of the person” factor saves the Washington and Jefferson statues now but not the Confederate statues. So down with the Confederate statues. And shame, at least, on the moral failings of those whose statues we leave in place.
A few people have asked me to post links to various file formats of this chart for their own use. Feel free to download and use them. There is a Creative Commons license on them which requests attribution and non-commercial use. They contain minor updates from recent versions. Most notably, The Economist has been moved to the left. I agree with commentators who pointed out that was an erroneous initial placement. Also, I changed the snarky designation “Basic AF” to “Basic” so that the chart’s use would be more appropriate in middle school and/or high school settings. (Note: the abbreviation “AF” stands for “as fuck,” which is text/internet slang for “very,” or “quite.” Sorry for any classroom snickers this may have caused for unsuspecting teachers.)
tl;dr: There are lots of reasons. Many are subjective. More data would make it better. I am not a media expert.
Since my News Quality graphic got widely shared, I have been asked what my inspiration, methodology, and process was for creating it. I note that I have been asked this question by academics, journalists, and laypersons that care about accuracy and quality. Unfortunately, a lot of people don’t care about accuracy and quality. And a lot of those same people don’t like to read.
Why I Created It
I am frustrated by the reality that people don’t like to read. I LOVE to read and write. I have an English degree and a law degree, and I read and write every day for work. As a hobby, I read the great articles that are out there on the topic of media bias and accuracy. All of you who are reading this know that there is an abundance of great journalism out there—truly more than ever. I have the pleasure and privilege of reading a lot of this stuff, as do you.
But I know that the medium of a well-written article just doesn’t reach people who don’t read long things. In this post, I refer to such people as “non-readers” or “infrequent readers.” I am fully aware that the website MediaBiasFactCheck, and the organization Pew Research, and media research departments at many universities have large sets of empirical data available to review, and that those sources are more reputable than *just me*. But non/infrequent readers don’t read those sources. What do they read? Memes, which are often just two juxtaposed pictures with a pithy, terrible, one-sentence argument placed on top in large white letters. Tweets in which arguments are limited to 140 characters. They also prefer to watch videos, like YouTube “documentaries,” no matter how deceptively edited or spun.
Memes and tweets and YouTube videos spread quickly. They don’t take any effort to read, and people are convinced by them. They base their viewpoints upon them IN PLACE of basing their opinions upon long written pieces. To the extent that infrequent readers read, they prefer short articles that confirm their biases. Because they read very little, their comprehension skills and ability to distinguish good writing from bad writing is low. This is true for infrequent readers across the political spectrum. All of this is extremely disturbing to me.
Many non/infrequent-readers prefer easily digestible, visual information. I wanted to take the landscape of news sources that I was highly familiar with and put it into an easily digestible, visual format. I wanted it to be easily shareable, and more substantive than a meme, but less substantive than an article. I cite the fact that it has been shared over 20,000 times on Facebook (that I know of) and viewed 3 million times on Imgur as evidence that I accomplished the goal of it being shareable. In contrast, maybe one-one millionth the amount of people will read this boring-ass article about my methodology behind it.
Many non/infrequent readers are quite bad at distinguishing between decent news sources and terrible news sources. I wanted to make this chart in the hopes that if non/infrequent readers saw it, they could use it to avoid trash. For those of you who can discern between the partisan leanings of The Economist and the Wall Street Journal, I have to say this chart was not primarily made for your benefit. You are already good at reading and distinguishing news sources.
The fact that the chart is shareable does not necessarily make it TRUE. Having heard feedback from all corners of the internet, I know that many people disagree with my placements of news sources upon it. However, even people who disagree with the placements find the taxonomy helpful, because it provides a baseline for a discussion about media sources, which are inherently difficult to classify. Often, verbal and written discussions about news sources are limited to descriptions of sources as “good” and “bad,” and “biased” and “unbiased.” This chart allows for a few more dimensions to the conversation. However, as discussed below, there are many metrics on which to evaluate and classify media, and this chart doesn’t include them all.
In creating the chart, I had to make (mostly) subjective decisions regarding four particular aspects, explained below.
Choosing the Vertical Categories
First, I considered what makes a news source generally “high quality” or “low quality.” “Quality” itself is an incredibly subjective metric. I figured a good middle category to start with would be journalism that regularly meets recognized ethics standards the profession, such as those set by the Society of Professional Journalists. http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp. Above and beyond that, I determined that factors that can make a particular article or broadcast “higher quality” include 1) a high level of detail, 2) the presence of analysis, and 3) a discussion of implications and/or complexity. So I created the categories of “Analytical” for sources that have 1) detail and 2) analysis, and “Complex” for sources that regularly have the discussions of 3) implications and/or complexity. To read the “Complex” and “Analytical” sources, you often have to be familiar with facts learned from sources ranked lower on the vertical axis. However, complexity is not always a good thing. Sometimes, real issues get obscured with complex writing.
Then, I considered what makes a news source “lower quality.” One of the factors is simplicity. Simplicity CAN lead to “low quality” if a deep issue is only covered at a very surface level. Simplicity is fine for stories like “a man robbed a liquor store,” but it’s often bad for, say, coverage of a complex bill being considered by your state legislature. There are sources that cover complex stories (e.g, Hillary e-mail stories, Trump foundation stories, and really, most political stories) in a VERY simple format, and I think that decreases civic literacy. Therefore, I created a below-average quality category called “Basic AF.” However, simplicity is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes you need “just the story.”
I have strong feelings about what factors really lower the quality of a source, and those are 1) sensationalism and 2) self-promotion in the form of “clickbait” headlines. Sources that engage in these actions are often geared toward attracting the attention of the non/infrequent reader. Sensationalism plays upon the worst emotions in us, such as fear and anger. Clickbait online articles have headlines that are rife with hyperbole. Then, the content of the articles themselves are loaded with adjectives (e.g., “clearly,” “obviously,” “desperately,” “amazing,” “terrific”) that are hallmarks of poor persuasive writing. That category definitely went at the bottom.
Few people quibble with the vertical categories as I have selected them, but as stated above, “complex” is not necessarily good and “basic” is not necessarily bad. Therefore, the “journalistic quality” arrow does not correlate perfectly with the vertical categories, and as a result, I myself find it to be an imperfect way to rank journalistic quality. However, they correlate enough that the ranking still makes sense, minus a few outliers. In particular, USA Today and CNN get pretty harsh vertical rankings due to my categories. I think USA Today is a pretty high quality publication, even though most of its stories are basic.
Note that the vertical categories do not take into consideration the presence of “truth” in a source. For example, the Wall Street Journal near the top, and CNN near the bottom, both generally report on things that are “true.” The vertical categories also do not differentiate between whether sources are more fact or opinion based. For example, both The National Review (near the top) and The Blaze (at the bottom) write very opinionated pieces.
Choosing the Horizontal Categories
Sorting sources based on partisan bias was a bit more straightforward, but I wanted to differentiate between the level of partisan bias. The categories are fairly self-explanatory. They are also the most highly debatable. Good arguments can be made as to whether a source is minimally partisan, “skews” partisan, or is “hyper” partisan. The “Utter Garbage/Conspiracy Theories” category is for those sources that “report” things that are demonstrably false and for which no apology or retraction is issued in the wake of publishing such a false story. These stories may include, for example, how the Obamas’ children were stolen from another family (on the right), or that the government is purposely poisoning us and changing the weather with chemtrails from airplanes (on the left). For the most part, even the “hyper-partisan” sites try to base their stories on truth (e.g., Occupy Democrats, Red State), and are held to account if they publish something demonstrably false. Generally, the closer a source is to the middle on this chart, the more they are taken to task by their peers for publishing or reporting something false.
The categorization of a source in the hyper-partisan or even utter garbage category does not mean that every story published there is false. Many articles may just be very opinionated versions of the truth, or half-truths. And occasionally, sometimes a hyper-partisan or garbage site will stumble upon an actual scoop, due to their willingness to publish stories that haven’t been sourced or verified. Their classification in these categories is mainly because they are widely recognized by other journalists as regularly falling short of standard journalism ethics and practices.
Lots of people have a problem with the category of “mainstream/minimally partisan.” To clarify, the category is called “minimally partisan,” not “non-partisan.” Because journalists are human people, they have opinions, and these opinions can make their way into their reporting. However, they also have professional standards and are held to account by their peers. Further, one can police one’s own biases to a certain extent if one is cognizant of them. The difference between “minimally partisan” and “skews partisan” is easily distinguishable by the intent of the organization. If they mean to be objective, that counts as minimally partisan here. If they mean to present a progressive point of view (MSNBC), or mean to present a conservative point of view (FOX News) that’s at least skewing partisan.
Choosing the News Sources to Include
The sources I initially chose include those I read most often and those I am exposed to most often through aggregators or other sources. They also include sources which I have reason to believe many others are exposed to most often. For people who get their news on the internet, their default browser home page is often a starting point for where to find news, and these home pages are often news aggregators. Yahoo, MSN, and the Microsoft Windows Edge Browser home page all present particular news sources. Many people also get their news sources from Facebook and Twitter (an alarming number, 40%, as I have seen in a recent survey, ONLY get their news from Facebook). Another aggregator is the Apple News App. Between these sources, I selected some of the most popular, making sure to include some in each category, and an approximately equal number of left and right partisan sources.
Note that I did not quantitatively determine how many sites are out there on each partisan side. Some people object to this and believe there are far more trash websites on one side or the other. I do not have the time or resources to conduct such a quantitative measure, so I did not conduct one. Some believe that because this measure is omitted, I am promoting a false equivalency between the sides. This may be true, if there is truly one partisan side that has significantly more garbage news sources. However, I believe there is value in presenting partisan balance within the chart so that more people across the spectrum are willing to take it seriously.
Many sources are not on here. That’s because there are hundreds of them. I could add twice as many easily, but then it would lose its readability. Remember, some people don’t like to read. For many, the words on the chart were too much.
Factors for Placing the News Sources on the Chart
I could have taken a number of empirical and quantitative approaches, but as stated earlier, but I did not set out to first conduct such a wide ranging study and then publish the results thereof. I just wanted to visually present a concept that many of us already hold in our heads. I am not affiliated with any research organizations that do this kind of work. I was actually very surprised that this chart was so widely shared, because I am not an authority on this subject, and literally nothing I have ever written or drawn has attracted so much attention and scrutiny.
I am, however, experienced in defending my positions with facts and arguments, and I place value on the notion that assertions must be supported. I have outlined my support for these placements below.
One way to analyze sets of complex facts is the approach used in our courts. There are some legal questions to which our courts have determined the best way to answer is through a multi-factor test. These multi-factor tests are appropriate for factual scenarios where there are many considerations to weigh. For example, in trademark law, to determine whether consumers are likely to be confused by competing trademarks, there is a 13- factor test. In patent law, to determine a reasonable amount of royalties to be paid for patent infringement, there is a 15-factor test. As a lawyer, I am comfortable with this multi-factor test approach, so I created one and applied it.
Given the popularity of this chart, though, I think it would be valuable to take my taxonomy and multi-factor test for placement and use it as a starting point for an actual study. A good empirical, data-driven study would probably look like a large panel of well-regarded journalists, writers, academics, and media observers poring over voluminous amounts of writing, spanning tens of thousands of articles and at least thousands of individual news sources, with the help of research assistants. It would probably use software to count and categorize words used in these articles and require cross-checking for verification of facts. As noted below in my list of factors, some just require a yes or no answer, but some are truly measurable and quantifiable. For each of the factors that are quantifiable here, I note that in my own evaluation, I only quantified these factors very generally, based on my observation and reading of headlines and articles. That is, I did not precisely count everything that could be measured. A real study could precisely quantify each of these factors, which would result in more precise placement of news sources. However, even in a quantitative study, certain aspects to placement will still be subjective; namely, the weight given to a particular factor in determining the ultimate ranking. It appears that any high-quality study of media sources requires both subjective and objective aspects, given that it is an analysis of written and spoken words.
Here are the factors I considered for each source, in no particular order. Below each factor is a note regarding what categories the factor weighted a source toward, and why. The notes also indicate whether a factor is quantifiable and could be more precisely measured in a future study for a future version of the chart
- Whether it exists in print
A “yes” answer weighted sources heavily toward “mainstream/minimal partisan bias” for several reasons. Print publication costs much more money, time, and effort to build than an internet one. Most print publications have significant numbers of staff members, including professional journalists. In order to have built a successful print publication, an organization will have had to spend time and effort building credibility among a significant audience. Reputation is necessary in order to have people buy newspapers for the purposes of getting the news. As a result of the above reasons, most print publications have longevity.
2. Whether it exists on TV, and if so, whether it existed before cable
A “yes” answer weighted sources heavily toward “mainstream/minimal partisan bias” for similar reasons factor #1 (print). Cable lowered barriers to entry for radio broadcast news.
3. Whether it exists on radio, and if so, whether it existed before satellite radio
A “yes” answer weighted sources heavily toward “mainstream/minimal partisan bias” for similar reasons factors 1 (print) and 2 (TV). Satellite radio lowered barriers to entry for radio broadcast news.
4. Length of time established
Greater longevity weighted sources somewhat toward “mainstream/minimal partisan bias.” Longevity allows for the establishment of reputation (even a changing one) over time. However, newer sources can still be reputable and high-quality.
This is a quantifiable factor. Greater readership and viewership weighted heavily toward “mainstream/minimal partisan bias” and somewhat toward the middle category of “meets high standards.”
6. Reputation for a partisan point of view among other news sources
“Reputation” is a highly subjective term, just like “quality.” Reputation varies and is fuzzy, but no one denies that it exists. Reputation testimony is admissible in court as evidence, so I included a few specific kinds of reputation as valid factors here. Other news sources talk about each other. If a large, established newspaper calls an internet website “left-wing,” or “right-wing,” and if these same internet websites call the large, established newspaper “the mainstream media,” they are in agreement as to each other’s partisan point of view.
7. Whether the source actively differentiates between opinion and reporting pieces
A “yes” answer weighted sources heavily toward “mainstream/minimal partisan bias” and was a determinative factor in whether the source was categorized at least in part as “mainstream” or fell completely into “skews partisan.” For example, the Washington Post, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal all have labeled opinion sections, while MSNBC, FOX, and Vox do not.
8. Proportion of opinion pieces to reporting pieces
This measure is also quantifiable. Greater percentages of reporting pieces weighted heavily toward “mainstream” and somewhat toward the middle category of “meets high standards.
9.Proportion of world news coverage to American political coverage
This measure is also quantifiable. Greater international news coverage weighted sources heavily upward. However, this measure is also subjective. I am of the opinion that if a source spends more time on world news, that indicates that it views itself as responsible for delivering all major news, rather than just focusing on ones that drive website traffic, like political gossip.
10. Repetition of same news stories
High repetition, in view of the medium, weighted sources heavily into the lowest vertical category for sensationalism. This was a main reason for CNN’s ranking toward sensationalism.
11. Reputation for a partisan point of view among my peers on social media
This factor sounds the most biased and subjective of all the factors, and it probably is. It is also typically the MAIN criteria upon which most people would rank these sources on the chart. There is some validity to using this measure; if your known conservative friend likes a source, it likely has a conservative point of view, and if your known liberal friend likes a source, it likely has a liberal point of view. There are obvious drawbacks to using this measure given the “echo chamber” nature of our social media feeds. If most of your friends have the same viewpoint as you, and you are all ideologically very partisan, then if they call a particular partisan source credible, that impacts one’s impartiality.
This factor was somewhat determinative of the placement of sources along the partisan spectrum, and hardly determinative of placement vertically.
12. Party affiliation of regular contributors/interviewees
This factor is also quantifiable. A balance of party affiliation weighted somewhat toward mainstream, and imbalance weighed to the partisan sides proportionally.
13. Presence of hyperbole in titles of articles
This factor is also quantifiable. The presence of hyperbole weighted heavily away from the center for partisanship, and weighted heavily downward for quality. I correlated more hyperbole with more partisanship and less quality.
14. Presence of adjectives in persuasive writing
This factor is also quantifiable. The presence of many adjectives weighted heavily away from the center for partisanship, and weighted heavily downward for quality. I correlated more adjectives with more partisanship and less quality.
15. Quality of grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and font size
Mistakes in grammar, spelling, punctuation weighted sources heavily downward for quality. Improper capitalization also weighted sources heavily downward for quality. Excessive capitalization (e.g., all caps) and excessive font size weighted heavily horizontally for partisanship and somewhat downward for quality. For example, the enormous, daily, all caps top headline on HuffPo pushed it well into the hyper-partisan category, but only down a little for quality.
16. Presence of an ideological reference or party affiliation in the title of the publication
Presence of reference or affiliation weighted sources heavily to the edges for partisanship and downward for quality (e.g., Occupy Democrats, Red State).
17. Effects of trying to actively control for my own known bias
I tried to evaluate my own bias and take it into account by first defining what my bias is and then making adjustments to correct for it. This exercise is difficult but crucial. It is imprecise and highly subjective. However, anyone who tries to make placements on this chart should engage in it.
I submit that a first way to evaluate your partisan bias is to categorize yourself on a number of political issues upon which there is consensus of what constitutes left, right, and center. Therefore, I started by evaluating my own views on what I think is “correct” and “true” on the issues of civil rights, taxes, business regulation, and the role of government in general. I am pretty adamant about civil rights and equality for all, especially for people of color, women, immigrants, and the LGBTQ community. I believe that places me in a somewhat left-of center category. On taxes and business regulation, I believe that neither “the government” nor “corporations” are all good or all bad. On the whole, I believe government does good things about 70-90% of the time and messes things up 10-30% of the time. I believe corporations do good things about 70-90% of the time and mess things up 10-30% of the time. As a result, I fall quite squarely in the middle, ideologically, on issues of taxes, business regulation, and the role of government.
In view of these evaluations, it would be fair to call me a left-leaning moderate.
To correct for this bias, I had to consider that there is a decent chance I am just wrong on what “the truth” or “the correct answer” is on one or more (or all) political issues. The likelihood that any one of us is completely right on all the issues is quite low. I have to acknowledge that there exists consensus about certain issues to the right of where I stand on them. That is, because approximately 46% of voters consider FOX News reputable and conservative principles acceptable, I cannot simply discount their likelihood of being right on the bet that I am right and they are wrong. As a result, I ranked Fox News higher on quality and less extreme on partisanship than I probably would have otherwise. I also ranked hyper-partisan left wing sites lower on the quality scale than I would have otherwise, and ranked complex/analytical conservative sources more centrally and higher than I would have otherwise.
Questions of bias, truth, and whether there is a center get philosophical and existential very quickly. All any of us can do is try to recognize and control for our biases.
Overall, this factor pushed conservative sources up and to the center, and liberal sources down and to the left in relation to where I might have ranked them purely on my ideological stances. It also pushed the sources into a relative balance that some argue does not exist.
A future study would benefit from having an somewhat equal number of left-leaning and right-leaning moderates arriving at a consensus to control for bias.
Factors Not Considered
I did not weigh the role of money from advertisers, ownership of sources, or corporate structure as factors in any meaningful way. I believe those factors are more closely related to the issue of media focus as opposed to media partisanship and journalistic quality. This chart was about partisanship and quality. It intersects with the topic of media focus only tangentially. I think the factors of money from advertisers, ownership of sources, and corporate structure can and do influence the topics that media sources focus upon.
Complaints about mainstream media focus are valid, but this is a whole complex topic in and of itself. Examples of these complaints include “why did it take so long to get mainstream coverage of the Standing Rock/Dakota Access Pipeline protests?” “Why did it take so long to get mainstream coverage about Bernie Sanders?” Why all the obsession with Hillary’s e-mails?” “Why the all-consuming coverage of all things Trump?” People point to money from advertisers, ownership of sources, and corporate structure as the root of these problems of misplaced focus, but I think it is more complex than that. Factors related to human psychology and attention, as well as modern technology likely play a role. Therefore, I left out the factors of money and corporations because it is an altogether different inquiry, and not necessary to resolve now in order to rank sources according to partisanship and quality. I believe factors 1-17 are sufficient to meaningfully place news sources along the continuum of this particular chart.
Edits, Arguments, and Future Versions
Based on thoughtful and legitimate feedback, I would likely make some edits on placement in my original chart. These include moving the Economist to the left of the midline, and splitting CNN into TV and Internet versions, and ranking the CNN Internet version in the middle circle while leaving the CNN TV version where it is. I would consider moving the Washington Post A LITTLE to the left, but I’d like to engage in a discussion about that.
I would be happy to have arguments about each of the listed factors above, and would entertain suggestions for other factors. I am also considering suggestions for future versions.
If others are inclined to take on the work of gathering data for the factors identified as quantifiable, I would be interested in supporting such work in some way.
Thanks for reading and thinking.
We are living in a time where we have more information available to each of us than ever before in history. However, we are not all proficient at distinguishing between good information and bad information. This is true for liberal, moderate, and conservative people. I submit that these two circumstances are highly related to why our country is so politically polarized at the moment.
Why is it that I can have such different views on the same subject or topic as someone else who lives in the same country? Take the polarizing example of people’s opinions on Hillary. Why do I think she is qualified and inspiring but others think she is literally evil incarnate? I don’t know her personally. And neither do you. We must both admit that our opinions of her are informed by the news sources we read and believe. And news sources vary widely in what they report.
Which news sources should we believe, when there are so many to choose from, and each one is telling you not to believe another one? I put together this chart of which news sources I think you should use and which ones you should not. If you value my opinion as someone who both is reasonable and well-informed, you may find it helpful. If you don’t really care what I think, it will be useless to you. These are my subjective opinions based on having read many news stories from each of the listed sites. The only credibility or authority I can claim in this regard is that I read and write analytically for a living.
Before you look at the chart, I’d like to address the fact that many people object to media sources on the basis that they are “mainstream.” They say “I don’t believe the mainstream media! They are owned by big corporations and do things for money!” But where did they get that idea? From another media source. Remember that each media source has their own incentives (like monetary ones) to get people to listen to them and not to someone else. You have to evaluate media based on something other than the fact that one source told you not to listen to another source.
Remember that journalism is a professional and academic field with a set of agreed-upon standards. People get degrees in it and people who are really good at it get jobs in it at good organizations. Peer review helps ensure mainstream sources adhere to standards; if a story doesn’t meet those standards, other news outlets report on that. Not believing the mainstream media just because it is mainstream is like not believing a mainstream doctor or a mainstream lawyer. Sure, you should question and rate the quality of what the newspaper, doctor, or lawyer says, but you shouldn’t dismiss them out of hand because the paper is big, the doctor works at a hospital, or the lawyer works at a firm.
The chart is pretty self-explanatory. Here are some caveats and reasons for my rankings:
-I am operating out of the assumption that the less blatantly partisan the source is, the more accurate it is.
-I understand that individual reporters, even at the most reputable news sources, have their own personal biases and opinions. The rankings are an overall ranking of each site.
-“Sensational” means the article have titles like “So and so DESTROYS so and so with THIS response!”
-“Clickbait” means the articles have titles like “She walked into a meeting. What happened next will shock you!”
-“Conspiracy theories” means shit that is just made up. Like National Enquirer type stories.
-I’m sure this will offend some people that typically agree with me politically. Sorry.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
I. Why Guns are Not Like Spoons
“If guns kill people, then spoons make people fat.” That’s a favorite analogy of pro-gun folks to ostensibly make the point that it is bad decisions, and not the inanimate tools themselves that cause undesirable results from the use of the tools. This is a bad analogy, but it is not surprising that bad analogies sound perfectly logical to people predisposed to agree with them, because many such people are terrible at analogies. Unfortunately, most people who disagree with the analogy have a general sense that it is wrong, but can’t point out exactly why. That’s because people who disagree are, also, mostly terrible at analogies. Liberals and conservatives alike may unite in being bad at analogies. Remember that section of the SATs?
It brings up bad memories for most people. The temptation is to read that question as “tree is to leaf as book is to ____” and then rely on sense or intuition to inform the answer. However, the best way to find the answer is to create as highly accurate a description of the relationship between the first two words as possible, then plug in the other words into the description to see what fits best. So, plugging in a simple relationship: e.g., “Trees need leaves” isn’t very good because you can also easily say “Books need covers,” as well as “Books need pages.” A highly accurate description describing what leaves are in relation to trees would be:
“Leaves are the smallest but still very important individual components of a tree, which typically has high numbers of them.”
The only answer that fits “books” in the above sentence is “pages.” What makes a good, strong analogy is when the relationships between two sets of words are very highly similar and the differences are minimal.
Let’s walk through this exercise with Guns:Kill People::Spoons:Make People Fat.
Guns:Kill People::Spoons: _______
In this analogy, “make people fat” is an inaccurate answer. What is a highly accurate description of the relationship between “guns” and “kill people?” It is “the primary purpose of a gun is to kill people.” Does this work for the other set? “The primary purpose of a spoon is to make people fat?” No, that is not true. A more accurate answer is “The primary purpose of a spoon is to feed people.” We can word it in other highly accurate but less stark terms while maintaining a good analogy. An alternative example is Guns:Fire Bullets::Spoon:Shovel Food. “A gun can be used to fire bullets , and a spoon can be used to shovel food.”
The correct analogy is not “If guns kill people, then spoons make people fat;” rather, it is “If guns kill people, then spoons feed people.”
Looking at it the reverse way, the relationship between a spoon and making people fat is “if a person uses a spoon for a long period of time, and makes bad decisions of what to use the spoon for, then in conjunction with other factors, some unrelated to spoons, a person gets fat.” That is not the relationship between a gun and killing people. If a person uses a gun correctly, one time, for its intended purpose, it kills a person immediately.
Sure, you can use a gun for other things. Like killing animals, “merely” injuring people, scaring people away by firing shots, target practice, scaring people by waving it around, collecting it and hanging it on a wall, or hitting someone with blunt end. You could even eat with it—dip the butt in some nacho cheese or something. You can use a spoon for other things. Like hanging on your nose, storing in your drawer, collecting and hanging it on a wall. You could even kill someone with it. Stab someone super hard, or something.
However, these other uses aren’t really the gun’s or spoon’s primary purpose, and they aren’t super important for alternative uses. One really buys a gun because it is especially designed for killing one or several people at a time from some distance. And one really buys a spoon to eat things like soup and cereal.
II. Why Comparing Guns with Other Inanimate Objects Matters
The distinction of the fact that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill people is relevant because as a society, we tend to regulate physical items themselves based on a combination of a few things, including 1) their primary purpose (i.e., benefit) and 2) their lethality. Guns and other weapons are different from other items because their primary purpose/benefit and their lethality are one and the same. Another common comparison gun advocates make is “well, heart disease kills way more people a year—600,000–why don’t people focus on regulating cheeseburgers?” or “cars kill 30,000 people a year too–why don’t we get rid of all cars?” The answer is that we do regulate cars and cheeseburgers and try to prevent their related deaths, but we do it with a logical relationship to their primary purpose and their immediate lethality. I assert that as Americans, we regulate guns in an illogical manner as compared to everything else we regulate.
(Warning: generalizations are forthcoming. As I have previously written, generalizations are a useful language construct for the purpose of summarizing many underlying details. The body of literature and studies on each concept discussed herein is vast. See links for supporting facts and sources. For example, this link to the CDC’s Annual Fatal Injury Report. The most comprehensive book I have read on the subject of violence is
“The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined” by Steven Pinker. Some of my thoughts about human nature and violence derive from that book, which I highly recommend. I’d be happy to further discuss my reasoning behind any of my broad assertions. Additionally, I characterize of different kinds of death as worse than others. This characterization is subjective, but based on my observations of how people tend to react to them, such as how they are reported in the news.)
We (humans, Americans) tend to regulate most physical items based on many factors. In addition to the factors of primary purpose and lethality, we also take into consideration (often subconsciously), several other factors. We do consider the absolute number of deaths per year from a given cause, (e.g., 600,000 from heart disease, 480,000 from smoking, 30,000 from car accidents, 33,000 from guns) but that alone isn’t a determinative factor for how we regulate a particular item.
Much of all human endeavor is related to preventing and/or delaying death, and we have made many improvements in these endeavors over time. The most compelling evidence of our success are our drastically increased life expectancies around the world, especially in the last 100 years. We generally view all deaths as sad, but since all people die eventually, we tend to focus our efforts on preventing and delaying the kinds of death that most seem the most preventable; that is, those deaths that seem most atrocious, heart-wrenching, and/or unnecessary. But what factors inform how we view different causes of death in these ways, and how usually go about preventing and delaying death through laws and policies?
For one, we consider the directness of causality of a given cause of death. Heart disease kills over 600,000 per year, but it does not have one direct cause (e.g., one cheeseburger), but rather many cumulative, far-removed causes (e.g., thousands of cheeseburgers, pizzas, beers, and fried foods, combined with a lack of exercise, genetic factors, etc.). This is why no one would have been horrified if a stranger came and gave out 100 cheeseburgers to concert-goers in Las Vegas a few days ago. We consider direct causes generally worse and more preventable than indirect causes. The distinction between the level of directness of a cause is an important one, not only conceptually, but legally as well—liability or guilt of any offense in court usually requires a direct, or at least, proximate causation. We do regulate unhealthy things like food, but only a little bit because of its indirectness of causality to death.
Similarly, we consider immediacy of a cause of death. We all know that smoking will likely kill you, but not for a long time. If it does, it will likely do so in the form of illness somewhat later in life. We consider immediately-caused deaths to be generally worse than deaths caused over a long period of time. However, we still regulate cigarettes heavily even though death is not immediate, because its cause is direct. Notably, our most restrictive laws regarding cigarettes pertain to a smoker’s ability to smoke near others who do not want to inhale smoke.
Our heavy regulation of second-hand smoking is due to the fact that we also consider whether a cause of death is something self-inflicted or done by others. We object very much when someone else’s actions kill us. Prescription and illegal drug overdoses kill about 50,000 people a year. Like unhealthy food and smoking, drug use is primarily self-inflicted. Because we value our own autonomy and the ability to make our own decisions (even bad ones) ourselves, we consider deaths inflicted by others to be generally worse than ones that are self-inflicted. Still, even though they are self-inflicted, we consider the epidemic of these deaths to be tragic and a crisis—one that the medical community, private businesses and the government are actively trying to address. Drugs are highly regulated and/or illegal, and we actively try to prevent people from harming themselves through their regulation.
Another consideration is whether a cause of death is accidental or intentional. Most deaths occurring because of a vehicle crash are accidental. However, they are direct, immediate, and caused both by one’s self and others, making them especially painful to those they impact. As a result, government, business, individuals, and other organizations have made drastic, concerted efforts to reduce the rate of vehicle accidents over time. There are numerous testing and licensing requirements, entire codes of traffic laws, traffic infrastructure designed to reduce deaths, and ever-improving car safety technology. As a society, we have been remarkably effective at reducing auto fatalities over the last 60 or so years, and we are likely to see a precipitous drop from the current level of around 30,000 in the next few years due to the rapid development of crash-prevention technology. Once bright spot about causes of death that are direct, immediate, and inflicted by others, like auto accidents, is that they are easier to identify and therefore the most preventable through concerted effort—hence, the effectiveness of regulations.
Guns are used to inflict 11,000 deaths per year directly, immediately, by others, and worst of all, intentionally; these alone are the number of gun homicides. There about 33,000 total gun deaths—roughly the same number as deaths from car accidents—but approximately 20,000 of those are from suicides and a little less than a thousand are from accidents. If we just take the approximately 11,000 gun homicides per year (out of a total of 14,000-ish homicides), those are the ones that it would seem we would spend the most regulatory and societal effort to prevent, precisely because they are easily identifiable and therefore preventable. The suicides and accidents would also seem to be a target of legislation at least on par with the level of regulations on cars, given that they are still caused directly and immediately. However, there are very few regulations on guns at all. By “few,” I don’t mean that they are non-existent; it’s just that they pale in comparison to those surrounding the next most comparably lethal item: cars. And extreme resistance to even the most mundane laws and policies prevents progress in reducing these very preventable deaths.
When it comes to guns and other weapons, though, not all guns and weapons are equal in their lethality. Two additional factors come into consideration when we regulate weapons in general, which include 1) how many people can be killed by them at once and 2) from how far away. It makes intuitive sense that the more people can be killed from farther away, the more deadly a weapon is. Before turning to the lethality of guns, let’s address knives. Knives a bit unique in that their primary purposes range from “spreading butter” to “stabbing” (e.g., a military grade knife), so their primary purpose/benefit is sometimes, but not usually, the ability to kill itself. But because of its shape, it can be classified and used as a weapon. By the measures of “how many/how far away” it can kill people when used as a weapon, its lethality is relatively lower than that of guns. About 1,700 homicides a year are committed with knives—about 15% the number of gun homicides. Based on the wide range of primary purposes of knives, and their lower lethality, we can see why knives are moderately regulated. For example, they are prohibited on planes, in many business establishments, and sporting venues.
Just within the subset of “guns that are legal”, there is a wide range of lethality based on the criteria of “how many” and “how far away.” For example, shotguns and hunting rifles, though capable of killing humans, are primarily designed to kill animals. There are a wide variety of just this subset of guns, but certain features make them relatively less deadly against people than other guns (debatable). For example, shotgun ammunition is comprised of shot, which are small pellets that spray diffusely, so as to kill smaller animals like birds. Such ammunition is loaded often one at a time, or through a small magazine typically holding five or less shells. Many hunting rifles are designed for larger caliber bullets, for killing larger animals, but are also typically loaded through smaller magazines of ten or fewer rounds (bullets).
Handguns, in contrast, are designed for killing people and have features such as being compact and holding bullets sufficient to kill or injure a human from relatively close range. They are designed to kill only a few at a time at most, due to their round capacity. Many hold 5-15 rounds. Again, there are a wide variety of this subset, some more lethal than others.
The deadlier types of legal guns include popular semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. What characterizes them as semi-automatic is that they can fire one bullet per trigger pull without the need for re-cocking (handguns may be semi-automatic as well). These are designed to kill many people at once, given the design features of semi-automatic firing and the magazine capacity (magazines holding 10, 20 or 30 rounds are common). Other features make this type of rifle more accurate over a longer distance than a handgun (e.g., the long barrel, a sight, firing velocity, and a buttstock for holding the rifle in place on one’s shoulder). There are a wide variety of semi-automatic guns of this subset as well.
Above this level of lethality, weapons are highly regulated and prohibited. For example, fully automatic guns (some known as machine guns) are illegal. These can fire even more bullets at a faster pace because depressing the finger once, continuously, will cause bullets to keep firing. Bombs, land mines, grenades, and other explosives are generally illegal under state and federal laws. Rocket launchers are illegal. Obviously fighter planes and missiles are illegal. Nuclear bombs are the most lethal weapons available, and can kill so many people from so far away that entire countries are prohibited from having them. The prohibition on American citizens on having any of these kinds of weapons is pretty non-controversial.
There are of course, many reasons why there is so much resistance to gun laws and policies in America, including the fact that our Constitution provides a right to bear arms that is open to wide interpretation, and that gun enthusiasts display a unique devotion to these items themselves (similar to the kind of devotion that motorcycle and car enthusiasts display for those items, but with a more fervent bent). However, if we simply compare the level of regulation that we normally apply to items based on their lethality, both to items that are less lethal and more lethal than legal guns, we can see how our level of regulation of guns is out of step with our otherwise logical approach to regulating harmful things.
Below is a list of identifiable items (some non-lethal ones chosen at random) ranked by level of lethality. The ranking includes a consideration of the above-mentioned factors of primary purpose, directness, immediacy, whether self-inflicted or not, and whether resulting death is accidental or not. For items that are actually designed for the purpose of killing, two additional factors of “how many” and “from how far away” are also included. Next to each item is a characterization of the level of regulation applied to the item. There are higher regulations on guns in some states than others, but there are glaring holes in regulation (such as the fact that you can legally buy a gun without a background check or sometimes without identification at a gun show or online) such that the regulations can be easily rendered non-existent. Such gaps in regulation do not exist with regard to, for example, cars. Cars must be at least licensed and registered in every state and for every purchase.
1. Broccoli None
2. Spoons None
3. Cheeseburgers Minimal
4. Alcohol Medium
5. Drugs High
6. Cigarettes High
7. Cars High
8. Knives Low
9. Sporting Guns Low to Medium
10. Handguns Low to Medium
11. Semi-automatic Rifles Low to Medium
12. Automatic Guns High/ Generally Prohibited
13. Bombs/Explosives High/ Generally Prohibited
14. Rocket Launchers Prohibited
15. Fighter Planes Prohibited
16. Nuclear Bombs Prohibited
Based on how we otherwise logically address the lethality of items, the fact that we regulate guns any less than we regulate cars doesn’t make much sense. The fact that there are low regulations on semi-automatic rifles, but that automatic guns are prohibited, is equally nonsensical. If we are going to regulate the safety of items on a comparative basis, we should do so in a proportional manner.
When comparing any item to guns, we should take care to evaluate exactly how they are similar and dissimilar. The farther removed the similarities are, the less effective the comparison. Saying that “anything can be used to kill someone” just dismisses everything we logically understand about physical objects, and is not persuasive regarding non-regulation of guns. If we were to apply our normal rationale to gun regulation, we would regulate sporting guns at least as much as cars, handguns quite a bit more, and semi-automatic rifles quite heavily. To do otherwise is to ignore every rational thought we have about how to reduce death and improve safety.
We have been so successful at extending our lifespans and reducing death and danger in the face of so many potential harms by applying reason, studies, and cause-and-effect relationships. We can apply these same tools to reducing deaths by guns as well. In doing so, if we are going to make comparisons between guns and other things, let’s scrutinize the validity of those comparisons. We may find that it is most productive not to make comparisons or analogies at all, but to evaluate causes and effects of gun deaths solely in view of the attributes of guns alone.
I’ve noticed certain trends in FB arguing over the past few months, primarily revolving around Hillary vs. Bernie and Trump vs. anti-Trump. I’ve seen a wide range of the quality of discourse in the Hillary vs. Bernie arguments from very low to very high. Typically the arguments, regardless of quality, receive a high level of engagement (lots of comments). But the discourse around Trump vs. anti-Trump has primarily been limited to memes/videos from pro-Trump, and utter dismissiveness (“just unfriend me if you are voting for Trump”) from anti-Trump, and a pretty low level of engagement—that is, most such posts don’t result in an argument.
If you share just one political view with me, which is that Trump should not be President, whether you identify as pro-Hillary, pro-Bernie, pro-third party, or Repub/Dem-who-can’t-stand-Hillary-but-also-don’t-want-racism/ higher-chance-of-apocalypse-in-the-White-House, I urge you to engage this election cycle as effectively as possible. I am of the mind that people can be influenced, and there are more and less effective ways to influence them. Therefore, I urge you not to automatically unfriend all your FB acquaintances who are Trump supporters. I do think it is critical that we learn to engage with them and change the minds of those who can be changed. I believe that many people who have been convinced to support him on the basis of weak arguments can be convinced to change their minds based on stronger arguments.
I’d like to suggest the following strategies for being more effective when talking specifically with people who disagree with you. I do not claim all these ideas as my own; they are derived from a combination of books and articles I have read, seminars I have attended, and my own experiences:
1) Pick your battles. I’m not suggesting that you pick fights with people who post angry, illogical rants, or post things that are overtly racist or abusive. Chances are, you have rid yourself of those people already. Not everyone has to be convinced not to vote for Trump. Some people simply cannot be convinced. However, there are some people in your universe—your uncle, your former business associate—that you like on some level, and who, despite their support for Trump, do have other redeeming qualities. They probably like you on some level as well, and can be positively influenced by what you think.
2) Attack ideas—don’t attack appearances. The quickest way to devalue your argument in the mind of your opponent is to include attacks on personal appearances. It may sound funny to you to say Ted Cruz has an ugly face, or make fun of Trump’s hair, spray-tan, or fingers, but those attacks are absolutely unpersuasive to his supporters. They even create more sympathy in their minds because they are so unfair, in the same way that attacks on Hillary’s voice or outfits or Bernie’s hair or suits are unfair. Late-night comedians are especially guilty of this and it takes the power out of their argument every time. They do it for laughs from a group that already agrees with them. But have you ever heard someone tell you a joke that you thought was not funny at all, but rather mean? It makes you dislike the joke-teller.
3) Avoid calling people idiots for what they believe. Also, avoid just flatly telling people they are wrong without support. No one believes that they personally are an idiot. And starting out with an accusation that they are wrong tends to make them dig in their heels at the outset. Even if you prove people wrong eventually, they are unlikely to admit it. Democrats have been, um, bad at not calling each other wrong idiots recently.
4) Share personal stories. This is usually the most powerful way to make your point without attacking someone. It is hard to explain to someone that they are racist for supporting him. It is easier for them to see that they are hurting actual Hispanic and Muslim people by supporting him when you share stories. I know legal immigrants who are afraid their status might be revoked and their families broken up. I know Hispanic and Muslim Americans who have been shouted at in public to “go home.” These stories are heartbreaking and compelling.
5) Ask questions to understand what their arguments are. You can’t know if you are being effective if you don’t understand where they are coming from. You may think there is no good imaginable reason under the sun why anyone would support him, but just because you can’t imagine it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist to them.
Why do you support Trump? Do you agree that he should build a wall? Do you agree that we should ban all Muslims from entering the US? Do you think that freedom of the press should be limited? Do you think we should no longer have free trade with many other foreign countries? Your response is going to be different depending on if they say “yes we should build a wall,” or “I don’t agree, but I don’t think he is really going to do it.” Asking that question first is better than starting out by stating “building a wall along the Mexican border is the most idiotic and racist idea I have ever heard of.” They might already agree.
On the flip side, don’t ask questions that are unlikely to solicit a productive answer. If you ask someone “Is there anything Trump could say or do that would make you not support him?” the answer will almost certainly be “No.” That’s like asking someone “why are you wrong?” They can’t imagine the answer to that.
6) Be prepared to rebut their arguments. There are lots of good rebuttals to Trump’s arguments, and if you are an active newsreader, you have come across them. Many of Trump’s supporters may not read the same articles you read (or any at all!) and therefore may not have ever heard a good, reasoned rebuttal before. They might be convinced if they hear one.
For example, you say “why do you want to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S.?” They will probably say what Trump says, which is “well, somebody has to do something about terrorism!” To this, you could lay out a multi-point reasoned argument, like: 1) our police, military, CIA, and government leaders are always, constantly “doing something” about terrorism, which is why they are exceedingly rare; 2) doing “something” is not an answer if that “something” is unconstitutional, racist, and ineffective. The President can’t do those kinds of things.
They have other arguments, like “he’s a good businessman” and “he’s a good negotiator,” both of which can be effectively challenged. They can be more complex too, and be related to how they disagree with Democrats and don’t want to vote Democratic. I think the mistake we are making as anti-Trump citizens is that we are not even asking his supporters why they support him. It is so clear to us why he is unacceptable that we cannot even entertain the idea that other people have reasons, because the reasons seem unimaginable. Let us find those reasons out and do battle with them.
7) Don’t be discouraged if at the end of the conversation, no one tells you “hey, you’re right! I’m wrong!” This is unlikely to happen ever. Most people won’t admit defeat but many will soften their positions, especially over time. And people are more likely to “change their minds in the face of new information” than “admit they are wrong.”
I’ve noticed a meme circulating in some of my conservative friends’ social media posts that is clearly intended to mock the plight of transgender people in view of transgender rights being in the news. It goes something like this:
“I’m Transfinancial. It means I am a rich person in a poor person’s body. Give me money to fix my disorder!!
I’d like to point out why this is a bad analogy for arguing that trans people either 1) shouldn’t have the right to be themselves like everyone else or 2) are pretending to be something they are not.*
The premise of this analogy is that being rich or poor is an identity in the same way that being a man or a woman is an identity. It’s not, but for the purposes of this argument, let’s say that being rich or poor IS an identity on par with one’s gender identity. Here are a few reasons why the analogy is not applicable:
1) You are born identified as rich or poor at birth. However, no one will suggest to you that you shouldn’t be able to change this.
2) If you identify and know yourself to be a rich person and work to align yourself with this identity instead of what society had assigned to you at birth—“being a poor person”–society will not generally mock you for doing so. You are very unlikely to be hated, beaten or killed by others for doing so.
3) If you work toward transitioning from poor to rich, the government will not take official action to intimidate you or to make it more difficult for you to do so. States will not make laws mandating that you stand in a poor person’s line at the bank your whole life so that others may see that you were born poor.
4) Some may see a poor person working to align their deep and personal understanding of themselves as a rich person as “pretending,” but among entrepreneurs, this kind of pretense is actively encouraged, and not shamed. Sometimes you feel that you ARE something inside that has not yet manifested outwardly. If you aren’t harming anyone, what is the problem with pursuing your truth? It is not the whole world’s business how rich or poor you are—it is only the business of yourself and people who are directly interacting with your finances.
5) People born poor who try to become rich will experience different outcomes in the world. Some may have an easier time than others, and once they are rich, no one may ever know that they were otherwise. Some people assigned poor at birth have a harder time aligning themselves with society’s expectations of what it means to look and be rich due to a number of circumstances, but that doesn’t change the truth within their hearts.
Another problem with this meme is the premise that transgender people are asking others to bear some personal burden in allowing them to exist as in the world as people. But they are not asking for money or special rights, or even for positive acknowledgement. They only ask to be able to peacefully exist in the world like everyone else.
And as I asserted previously, being rich or poor is not an identity in the same way as being one’s gender is an identity. In our society, we tend to hold as “identities” things that are somewhat inseparable from our own minds and bodies, such as our skin color, our religion, our gender, and our sexuality. We do also classify ourselves by the outer things we have or do, such as how much money we have, our professions, or our hobbies. Certainly we can “identify” as rich people, as physicists, or as golfers, but what we tend to hold most dear to ourselves, and protect in the form of rights in our country, are our mind/body identities. It doesn’t even matter if our identities are those we are born with or if they can change as a result of choice. You can change your religion as a result of choice and we protect the shit out of that. So comparing someone’s gender identity to someone being rich or poor misses the point of people’s rights being affected by their very identities.
Finally, please everyone stop using bumper-sticker-length arguments to be assholes to other people.
*Note to those already well-read on LGBT issues: I realize that the existence of this meme and my discussion of it is not the most consequential piece of writing on the subject of transphobia; a much bigger problem than the bad meme is the great danger transphobia poses in the actual lives of trans people. However, when bad logic is used to promote hateful ideology, I think it is helpful to deconstruct the bad logic to reduce its power, and that is one way I can contribute. Also, I realize my discussion of trans identity here is cursory and rudimentary, but I believe that most people who would entertain the validity of this meme have an understanding of trans identity that is cursory or rudimentary at best and non-existent or harmful at worst.
We should make an effort to differentiate between marching, civil disobedience, and looting. They are different things, in the same way that admirable policing and excessive force are different things. After all, our arguments are only as strong as our ability to distinguish and analyze facts, instead of lumping generalizations together. To complain about marching, civil disobedience (i.e., blocking traffic) and looting all in one breath is imprecise.
Most would agree that peacefully marching in designated areas is appropriate and sometimes effective, because no one is breaking the law and sometimes people in power listen to marchers. Most would agree that looting is inappropriate because it is breaking the law, specifically committing an intentional tort or crime against another individual, and nobody listens to looters (because they are not asking for anything, and they have no credibility regarding laws).
Non-violent civil disobedience is a bit more controversial. It usually involves breaking the law or at least societal rules. Examples include 1) blocking traffic, 2) placing yourself where authorities say you should not be, 3) boycotting segregated busses, 4) sitting-in in a segregated restaurant. However, civil disobedience does not involve an intentional tort or crime against an individual. Civil disobedience does involve inconveniencing others. A current complaint I hear about protesters blocking streets is that it inconveniences white and black people alike. The inconveniences are often frustrating. Sometimes, they have serious consequences. A black or white person stuck in traffic on a blocked road could be late to work and get fired. An emergency responder might be delayed from responding to a black or white person’s medical emergencies. These consequences are real. They are also unintentional. But people bring up these consequences and say, “see, your civil disobedience is not helping. You’re hurting your own people and your own cause.” This sentiment ignores the fact that the very reason people are protesting right now is because of widespread, deeply felt injustices that result in systematic oppression and an epidemic of deaths in black communities.
Even if you don’t think racism is a problem, enough people do that they will stand on the freeway and risk arrest, tear gas, and death themselves to tell others that it is a problem, so maybe we should listen. During the Montgomery bus boycott, which went on for months, many black people complained, Many lost jobs. Many were harassed on the streets as they walked. Many yelled at their leaders and said they should quit. When protesters staged sit-ins at segregated restaurants, it was all kinds of inconvenient to black and white people. It increased racial tensions a lot. People got hurt and died. However, large groups of people decided then that it was important to interrupt the day-to-day lives of white and black people in an inconvenient way to call attention to the enormous problem of racism that is largely ignored by those who don’t suffer its consequences.
Though looting has never produced any societal changes, civil disobedience has produced just about ALL of the societal change for people who are in positions of low power. To say that protestors should not march in or block the streets because a large number of them ARE experiencing oppression, injury, and death, just because a few people MIGHT indirectly suffer unintended consequences really ignores the legitimate concerns of the oppressed.