MORE at RESISTANCE BIBLE STUDY 
 
“… and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”  John 8:32, NRSV

In the gospel of John, there is a long conversation in the Temple in Jerusalem between Jesus and his Pharisee detractors (John 8: 12-59).  Long, because they spent so much time arguing about their initial assumptions.  It ended badly, with the Pharisees taking up stones to kill him.

To read it is to be reminded of the spats that spoil the vibe at so many family holiday dinners in America these days.  It is tough to have a respectful discussion, much less a real argument, when people can’t start from the recognition of a shared reality.  In this era where the phrase “alternative facts” is not an oxymoron for a lot of Americans, conversations about matters political has become especially fraught.

In the Temple, the Pharisees were alternately offended and baffled by Jesus’ declarations:  “I am the light of the world.”  “You are from below, I am from above.”  “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”  But why should they believe his claims of truth, when there were no witnesses to it except him? –  the Pharisees asked.  Jesus claimed that his Father was the other witness, but because the Pharisees had abandoned God as their Father and acted as children of the devil, they were unable to witness God’s witness.

That airtight, circular argument might sound very familiar at a family gathering of Democrats and Trumpublicans in America today.  “Why do you believe what the President says?”  “Because it was reported on Fox News.”  “Where did Fox News get the information?”  “From the President.”  “And where did the President get the information?”  “From Fox!  If you watched Fox, you’d know what was really going on!”

If we cannot agree on what is true, and can’t agree on which sources of information are reliable in delivering it, democracy is in deep trouble.  At one level, we are hard-pressed to weigh meaningfully the outcomes of different public policy choices when we cannot even agree on the essential facts.  At another, much more serious level, the survival of our democracy is seriously endangered.  Democracy depends not only on the principle of equality in voting – one person, one vote – but also on equality of access to the information needed to make voting choices.  When so much information is a noxious smog of fictions dressed up as facts, and it is difficult to sort out the reliability of proliferating media outlets, this essential foundation for democracy crumbles.  People are literally throwing up their hands and despairing of being able to know the truth at all.  Then, the loudest and most insistent voice is the one that is believed, and democracy is lost.

I recall a chat I had a few months ago with a Trump supporter who explained her views with a litany of bizarre but commonly-held conspiracy theories.  When I suggested that none of the theories had any basis in reality, and offered her factual counter-narratives, she just cut me off by saying “I have my sources!”  She clearly revelled in her belief that she had special insider information that I did not.  And that satisfaction drives so many people to listen to the lies of so many right-wing podcasts, commentators, and bloggers.   I have my sources, she has hers, and they don’t converge – so, end of discussion.  We heard exactly the same kind of non-conversation in the course of the impeachment hearings in Congress recently.  It was painful to see members of Congress inhabiting two separate universes of information.

So how do we stay free, if we can’t agree on what is true?

Let us start with a simple rubric for evaluating a source of information:
 
1. Does it uphold scientific consensus?
 
Science is a discipline that comes up with theories, tests them empirically, and confirms or discredits them.  It is a global structure for seeking facts.  So let’s pick one realm of science in which there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence and agreement:  human-caused climate change.  Among scientists for decades, there has been no substantial debate about the fact that human beings are putting so much carbon into the atmosphere that, if not halted and reversed, catastrophic effects are inevitable.  There is plenty of scientific uncertainty about exactly how those effects will manifest, but barely any doubt among scientists around the world about the sources, scope, and seriousness of this climate change.  If an outlet of news or commentary denies or sows doubt about this consensus on climate change, it would be fair to question the validity of anything else it reports.  Human-caused climate change is not debatable, so any outlet that suggests that it is debatable is lying.  And that, in one sweep, eliminates most right-wing media outlets for consideration as worthy sources of information.
 
2. Does it correct its mistakes?
 

Another element of the rubric is whether or not the media outlet admits and corrects its mistakes.  All media sources make mistakes or say things that are not true, at least occasionally.  But not all of them come clean when mistakes or falsehoods are revealed.  Look for the “errata” section in a newspaper and listen for corrections on screen media.  If they are missing, distrust of the source is appropriate.
 
3. Does it separate factual reporting from opinion? 

What is the level and nature of its bias?  How is the bias expressed?
 
A responsible media outlet will make a clear distinction between factual reporting and editorial opinion.  It will delineate the two in the print or screen layout.  Irresponsible outlets will mix the two and deny that they are doing so.  It is impossible to expect any media outlet, however well-intentioned, to avoid injecting a certain level of opinion into reporting.  The mere act of choosing which news items to report is an editorial decision reflecting a particular worldview. Some news outlets are devoted to factual reporting, but in a confrontational manner  – “talking heads” arguing with each other loudly in a manner that distracts from the salient information.  This glues ears and eyeballs to the source, but it makes reliable information appear unreliable!  So it is important to know the nature and the degree of the bias in a news or information outlet, and to look critically at the way this bias is expressed.  Bias can take very many forms, which may or may not correspond to the political divisions in the United States.

Let us apply this rubric to a number of information outlets:

Reliable sources of information  (yes to all three questions):

National Public Radio, Public Broadcasting Service, BBC:  Extremely careful to avoid bias in reporting and avoid overly confrontational commentary.

Economist Magazine (weekly):  Up-front about its bias in favor of British-style “liberal” policies (free markets with strong public social safety nets and personal liberty), while offering long-form, in-depth factual reporting.

The Los Angeles Times and the New York Times:  Have a moderately liberal bias (by the American definition).   Wall Street Journal:  Has a conservative bias (It is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox News).

Reliable but confrontational: 

CNN and MSNBC:  Liberal bias, with factual reporting.  The reporting style, and the structure of commentary, is often highly confrontational.
 
Unreliable and confrontational sources of information  (no to at least one question):

Fox News: 1)  Consistently suggests that human-caused climate change is debatable, and regularly denies or sows doubt about many other matters of established fact.  2)  Never formally corrected its years of airing the question of whether or not President Obama was born in the US.  3)  Blends opinion with reporting, with a strongly conservative bias and a confrontational style.

Breitbard:  It propagates unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

Podcasts, blogs, talk radio, Instagram posts, etc:  Very many of these sources are unreliable.  Evaluate carefully!

Smartphone news apps:  They are handy but fraught with peril, because they seldom make any distinctions of reliability among the sources from which they cull news flashes.  Just because something is shown on Flipboard doesn’t mean it is worthy information.  Get the apps for the Economist Magazine – which is read by the global business and government elite (people whose jobs require them to know the facts about what is going on in the world) – and also for the LA Times or the New York Times, and you’ll be on top of the news from excellent sources.

I hope you’ll share this rubric widely, particularly with young people who are falling prey to poor information sources on their smartphones.  We can learn from the negative example in the scripture story of Jesus in the Temple with the Pharisees, examining sources of information as a starting point for discourse.  Hopefully, then we can find a way to agree on what is truth – and let the truth keep us free!

Rev. Jim Burklo, Associate Dean of Religious Life, USC
Website: MINDFULCHRISTIANITY.ORG  Follow me on twitter: @jtburklo
See the GUIDE to my articles and books
Associate Dean of Religious Life, University of Southern California