Distrust Everywhere

Distrust Everywhere
 
Science, academia and journalism are critical to a functioning democracy.  But each seems more distrusted than ever by a large portion of Americans.  The common complaints fall into a handful of categories.
 

• Science: pay offs from business interests, ideological bias, pressure from department, lies
• Academia: ideological bias, pressure from department, lies
• Journalism: ideological bias, pressure from organization, lies

 
Let's look at these in isolation.

1. Pay offs from business interests is a thing, and in some fields more than others.  It can take the form of direct payment for research or paying for special conferences or workshops.  Different fields have ethics codes about this but sometimes they aren't followed.  In peer reviewed journals it is standard practice to make a statement up front if any such conflicts of interest are present, and the results are weighed accordingly.
2. Ideological bias affects us all.  This can be difficult to determine and can usually be inferred from similar themes in past research, or a particular theoretical framework adopted.  However, the quality of research should override any such agenda.  This is why the peer review process is so important, as it provides a built-in venue for others with similar expertise to analyze the study for weaknesses.  Also, ideology doesn't equate to truth or falsity.  We all have ideologies, and our best standard of truth it to do the research and put it through a rigorous criterion for quality.  The hope is that any ideological bias won't withstand proper scrutiny.
3. Pressure from departments or organizations can also exist, and is probably most common in the form of "group think" - where an institution or organization attracts/hires people of a particular ideological bent.  This can be avoided through academic tenure, where a researcher does not have to worry about employment repercussions of academic work that is looked down upon in that institution.  The quality of work, however, should not be allowed to be undermined by tenure.  Most academic institutions have publishing requirements, and if work is being accepted by peer review, then the question of quality is being addressed. 
4. Lies might be the most rare form of institutional corruption.  While they have always occurred, the reputation of peer review publications and media outlets depends on a standard of honesty.  Quality news outlets employ editors and fact checkers to provide an extra level of scrutiny.  When falsehoods or discrepancies are discovered, they are investigated and retractions occur, with resultant penalty to the particular researcher or journalist's career (see: Andrew Wakefield, Stephen Glass, etc.).  In addition, journalists and researchers, as part of their investigative mission, compete to find evidence and truth.  A falsified story or study is a prime opportunity for someone else to come along and provide better work that refutes or adds further truth to a subject.

 
While no system is perfect, the scientific method and open journalism are bedrocks of democracy and a properly informed public.  While falsehoods can and do slip through the cracks, there is no better alternative.  While you can dismiss a particular researcher, or sometimes an institution if it shows a clear pattern of continued publishing of incorrect information, the basic system of ethics guidelines and enforcement, peer review, and retractions cannot be thrown out.
 
Unfortunately, as distrust of institutions is epidemic, many people decide (or are exhorted) to "do their own research", which may be the worst possible way of getting at the truth.  Unless you have a particular expertise in a subject, you are unable to properly assess the validity of a scientific or academic paper.  Unless you know the personal details of a story, you are unable to verify if the reporting is incorrect.  For most of us, with most subjects, this means we must rely upon institutional systems to provide for us what is true and what is false.  If we forgo these systems of authority, we are left with a dangerously poor epistemology.  We are then relying on outlier opinions who either have no expertise in the relevant subject material or are presenting perspectives whom the majority of their peers find lacking. 
 
How can we expect ourselves to be better judge of a subject's intricacies than hundreds or even tens of thousands of actual experts who have spent countless hours immersing themselves in the relevant knowledge required to parse what is true from false?  Or we are relying on media institutions who have lower standards for integrity, who do not employ fact-checking procedures or publish retractions.  For the most part, in these scenarios what we are mainly operating from is our own ideological preferences and biases about what makes us feel good because it aligns with our prior assumptions.  In academic institutions this is much less of a problem, as they are far less dependent on income determined by what they publish. However, in media, it is common for an organization to have its income directly related to the type of content it offers.  Ethical guidelines, along with a commitment to fairness and accuracy, as well as a general ideology that places factual reporting above all else, go a long way towards rooting out falsehoods or misrepresentation. However, it is unfortunately the case that many do not follow these standards of objectivity. 
 
Bias is generally most problematic for what it leaves out rather than what it leaves in.  It is very rare for a journalist to outright lie about a source or an event.  However, it is quite common for a story to leave out relevant details or context.  At reputable outlets, this is usually a case not of willful misdirection, but simply the reporter's own biases that lead them to preference some details more than others. 
 
This is a problem that, apart from trying to give what authority we must to the institution (and its reporter's accountability), we have many tools of critical thought at our disposal to deal with.  The first thing we can do is read about a story from multiple outlets, who provide different accounts and angles.  We can also read up on the historical context of an event.  In 2023, we can go even further and access particular experts who post content on social media or blogs.   Though, we must be cautious in this regard, and keep in mind that this is only one source, and the information - while authoritative with respect to the author's credentials and reputation - will not have gone through the more rigorous process required of a published article or study.
 
Finally, we must be self-critical.  We must be aware of our own biases and level of knowledge in a subject.  How much do we know about its history and context?  How much do the findings align with our own beliefs and biases?  If we find ourselves in agreement, is that because it is easier to believe?  Or if we disagree, how much of that is because it is hard to believe?  How aware are we of the different perspectives of the debate around the issue?  Can we provide a good faith account of what the other side might say? 
 
When the internet was in its infancy, I like many others was somewhat drawn to the hope that more information, more sources, fewer gatekeepers would provide a democratizing force in our lives.  We would become more informed citizens.  But after two decades, the internet has taken on an uglier hue.  Misinformation and disinformation have proliferated in many ways.  It has become easier to make any content appear reputable.  Easier access to reporting and information has diluted the ability of smaller, more local news organizations to survive financially.  They have had to lay off reporters or close entirely, meaning an overall decrease in critical information.  Social media and podcasts have celebritized bad actors, many of whose motivations are the age-old confidence grift. 
 
A vicious cycle has arisen in which misinformed or disinformed consumers have increased the demand for more bad actors, often helped along by algorithms that have reinforced their titillated consumption and offered monetization for anyone who can feed their increased appetite.  To be a conscientious, critical information consumer today feels like an almost constant struggle to decipher what is real from what is false.  Previously, most critical information was often dry and required a high response effort to consume, anchored as it was to a more limited number of institutions with real ethical and institutional constraints that "kept them honest".  Consuming the news was like eating your vegetables, while other entertainment options were salty and sweet.  Today's consumer has access to a plethora of options for low-quality, factually challenged "edutainment", which presents itself as containing all the nutritional content of vegetables but in reality, is an appetizing snack with few essential nutrients - or even toxic substances that do damage to one's body of knowledge.   The result is millions of people thinking they are well-informed, but fact have developed worldviews based on corrupted epistemologies.  Their knowledge has not been peer-reviewed, fact-checked, or edited by experts acting in good faith and trying to present the truth.  Instead, it has been delivered by people without expertise, with no process for rigorous quality inspection, on platforms which pay no reputational price for falsehoods as long as it is delivering content that aligns with the priors of the consumers who are paying for its content.