Navigating Truth in the Digital Age
Recently, I've found myself bombarded with questions about distinguishing truth from fake news. It appears that due to my background as an intelligence professional, people believe I possess an innate ability to detect lies and extract the truth effortlessly.
Regrettably, I must clarify that I'm not a human lie detector (please, don't spill the beans to my kids), and there's no magical formula I employ to unveil the absolute truth. Just like everyone else, I've fallen victim to meticulously crafted articles, videos, and deceitful people. There exist individuals who are exceedingly skilled at deceit, and some even make a living out of it.
In our present digital culture, we are inundated with vast amounts of data, an endless stream of videos, and news from every corner of the globe. If anything, we may be the most information-saturated generation in history. Our information is often tailored to our preferences, sometimes without our awareness. Virtually every online source of information is designed to persuade consumers to buy a product or service. Given that the primary motive behind info producers is to influence my purchasing decisions, how can I distinguish between what's genuine and what's merely a carefully constructed advertisement?
As an intelligence professional, my responsibility is to identify reliable sources of information for analyzing threats and predicting potential outcomes, a process known as predictive analysis. The underlying idea is to collect information and compare it with historical events, assuming that history repeats itself irrespective of the current time or culture.
Predicting future events based on historical data involves numerous assumptions, and if the information source isn't accurate, my analysis may lead to recommendations lacking value for my clients. The stakes are often high, with lives hanging in the balance. Therefore, accurate information is paramount to ensuring people's safety.
My initial step in evaluating information is to search for corroborating sources that can validate it. For instance, if I'm reading a news article about a political event that could impact a coup in a foreign nation, I seek other sources to lend credibility to the information. However, this can be challenging, especially when the Associated Press releases a story that is disseminated verbatim to thousands of global news outlets. Relying solely on news media for verification may still leave me with a single source. Hence, I must trace the article's source back to the author to ascertain its reliability.
The subsequent step involves checking my own biases. We all possess biases, and information producers are well aware of this, often exploiting what's known as confirmation bias. The algorithms behind the information pushed into my feed understand my biases better than I do and aim to present the version most likely to lead to a purchase at the heart of the story. Therefore, I make an effort to explore sources with differing perspectives, even if they don't align with my preconceived notions (think FOX vs. CNN). While their spin may not match my preferences, I can still extract facts from their articles, aiding me in separating opinions from facts. Often, the contrasting perspectives make the facts stand out.
There are additional measures I take to validate a source. I frequently examine the organizational structure and leadership of the information producer to gauge its trustworthiness. If the research I'm sifting through was conducted by a think tank comprised of former politicians all belonging to the same political party, I must consider this bias. I don't entirely dismiss the information, but I may seek out opposing research to balance the perspective.
It's also prudent to scrutinize the funding sources behind an information producer. Most organizations generating information cater to their investors. If the information source receives substantial funding from a large corporation or even a government entity, I must factor that into the credibility I assign to the source. I don't disregard the information outright, but I'm alert to any hidden agendas.
I also need to expedite source validation. With the proliferation of "experts" on social media, this can be a laborious task. Many have asked me if I rely on social media platforms' verification processes to identify fake news producers. Again, it's crucial to consider the platform. Social media companies also depend on advertising revenue, and more clicks translate to higher profits. Consequently, an individual might be verified solely based on their follower count.
This holds true for the latest trend on social media platforms. The “fact-checkers”. In my view, depending on individuals vetted by platforms catering to their most profitable clientele isn't advisable. Fact-checkers are also susceptible to bias. In the past, we all served as our own fact-checkers; we simply need to be willing to put in the effort to stay informed. Unless I've conducted my own due diligence on the fact-checkers themselves, I typically don't rely on their footnotes to lend credibility to a source.
The stark reality is that I seldom attain the complete truth. If I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with every word in an article or video, I hit the brakes and evaluate my biases (that pesky confirmation bias). By validating my sources and factoring them into the information I consume, I can piece together a clearer picture, enabling me to decide whether to use or disregard the information. I gather enough puzzle pieces to discern the image I'm looking at, but rarely complete the puzzle.
Validating sources isn't challenging once you comprehend the motivations behind the information you're consuming. If I ever reach a point where I unquestioningly agree with everyone around me about a source without conducting my own due diligence, I'm likely to make decisions that could jeopardize my career. It's essential to conduct your own research, act as your own fact-checker, and there's one more thing—were you able to identify the true reason I penned this article?
Peter L Morton CPP
I am the Principal Consultant at Morton Executive Decisions, and a seasoned analytical intelligence and security consultant with 20+ years of experience in government, commercial, and non-profit security. I started my career in early 2001 as a US Army enlisted infantry Soldier, eventually commissioning as an Intelligence Officer. After sixteen years of service, I transitioned to corporate security where I worked for ten years with large security and intelligence teams at Amazon, JP Morgan, and General Dynamics. My success in both the government and commercial sectors has culminated in my ability to currently do what I love the most. Working as an independent consultant with humanitarians globally to ensure aid gets to the riskiest regions in the world.