How to Consume Media Critically

In this day and age, our understanding of the world around us and the many complicated relationships - political or otherwise - at play within it is, in no small part, informed by the media we consume. Fortunately, the internet age allows us an unprecedented degree of choice with regard to the media we consume - this, however, is a double-edged sword since the sheer volume of competing viewpoints and the phenomenon of "fake news" gives way to an incredible amount of misinformation and agenda-driven reporting. Thus, in order to be accurately informed, one must be acutely aware of the existence of media bias and develop the skills necessary to think critically, to recognize propaganda, and to extract information from pieces determined to be overtly biased. This guide provides a basic framework for the critical consumption of media and highlights the importance of research and skepticism.

Part 1

Part 1 of 2:

Examining the Piece

1
Make note of the publisher, and the identities of the author and any other contributors. This includes any experts, officials or other individuals quoted in the article. Compile your notes in a single, organized document - treat your analysis as an official investigation and document your findings and thoughts as they arise.
- It is recommended to do this electronically such that information can be easily reorganized and expanded.
$How.com.vn English: Step 2 Locate any hyperlinks contained within the article, and/or any references to other pieces or academic studies.$
Expand upon the document started in the first step by noting the titles, authors, and publishers of all external references/hyperlinks. Oftentimes, pieces published in major media outlets amount to little more than summaries (of varying quality) of more rigorous work - carefully reading and understanding the original work informing a piece can help one to identify inaccuracies, generalizations, or political spins present in the piece.
3
Investigate any commercial interests at play. The most credible reporters will be forward about any commercial interests related to the subject at hand, but credibility cannot be expected. Even if disclaimers are present and transparency is apparent, it is crucial to independently confirm an author's claims. Referring to the information documented in previous steps, use the internet to determine any corporate interests with stakes in the publication and any commercial or institutional affiliations held by the author and other contributors. This includes identifying the sources of funding for academic studies.
- Be aware that publications often place serious limitations on what a contributor can or cannot say. Make notes of the information in the growing document.
- At this stage, some level of bias may start to become apparent.
4
Analyze the formatting, style, and tone of the piece. The phrasing and formatting of a piece can be extremely informative about the intent and integrity of an author. As always, make note of any thoughts and/or concerns.
- Does the author present factual information in an overtly opinionated manner?
- Is the story formatted in a professional manner, void of blatant errors in spelling or grammar - or does it appear to be rushed and sloppy?
- Does the author justify opinions and conclusions with relevant references and/or quotations - or does the piece make bold assertions without providing evidence?
5
Consider the country where the piece was published. Research the political and socio-economic conditions in that country.
- What is the political position of the ruling party?
- Is the ruling party democratically elected or is it authoritarian? Have there been public concerns about corruption?
- What social issues face the country? Is there a culture of extreme poverty? What are labor conditions like? Does political equality exists and to what extent?
Especially where politics is concerned, it is near impossible to write impartially. Thus, the author's personal ethics and opinions play an enormous role in the ultimate tone of the piece. For example, one cannot reasonably expect a homophobic writer to produce an impartial piece on LGBT+ rights. If a biography is available then this is a good place to start, but keep in mind that the author thereof likely harbors some bias. Make sure to also assess a selection of the author's prior work, especially where the subject matter is related to the article being critiqued.
A writer coming from a background of extreme wealth and privilege probably doesn’t have the greatest handle on working-class struggles. A writer with strong ties to the Catholic church might not paint LGBT+ activism in the best light. A writer who belongs to either the Republican or Democratic party likely cannot produce an impartial piece concerning either of them. Once more, biographies and selections of an author's portfolio are invaluable for accomplishing this.
Advertisement

Part 2

Part 2 of 2:

Forming Conclusions and Taking Action

One may or may not agree with the stance of the author, but regardless, it is important to understand any counterpoints or different interpretations which exist. Compile a list of published pieces which approach the subject from different angles.
Keep in mind the article which you are criticizing and attempt to identify specific points where either the data or anecdote or interpretation/explanation varies among authors. Make notes of each observed deviation in the document.
3
Determine audience and agenda. Employing all the information gathered, consider who the intended audience is and what the author’s agenda is. Ideally, the piece in question is good old fashioned investigative journalism, intended to break a story rather than to push an agenda. When determining if there's another agenda, ask questions like:
- Are they pushing a political platform?
- Are they spreading awareness about a social justice issue?
- Is the piece reacting against political or social progress?
- Perhaps the piece is merely clever advertising? Or protecting a corporate interest?
At first glance, the piece seems innocuous, but after further investigation, it seems to be agenda-motivated. Discuss your concerns with friends and/or family, bring it up in class or with coworkers. Perhaps others agree – maybe there’s even a cause for organization!
If something’s inaccurate, or worse, intentionally misleading – don’t be silent! Engage on the discussion board for the piece, and voice your concerns to the author, editor or publication. Share it on social media and engage others!
Advertisement

Expert Q&A

Search

Add New Question

Ask a Question

200 characters left

Include your email address to get a message when this question is answered.

Submit

Tips

For a better understanding of how media conglomerates control and censor the rhetoric encountered in mass media to maximize profitability and influence the progression of culture, consider reading Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman's Manufacturing Consent.
Thanks
Helpful0 Not Helpful0