The problem with opinions in a time of misinformation
And some other thoughts on thoughts
The last few weeks, I’ve been trying to convince you that the Johnny Depp / Amber Heard defamation trial isn’t worth your time. However, this whole saga has offered up a look into something that is pretty foundational in the media today - and something we need to talk about:
It’s time we all move past opinions, hot takes and overall ‘hackery’ - and think for ourselves.
During this trial, we’ve heard countless stories from both parties, about who did what in the relationship, and who the good or bad person might be. But do you all know what the trial is actually about? Defamation.
Amber Heard in 2018 published an op-ed in the Washington Post that made some sweeping allegations against actor Johnny Depp, including “Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.”
That statement, and the headline itself, were just proven false by a jury. That’s right. A major newspaper in this country published a story that they themselves could not say was true. That seems, uh, problematic.
At the very least, choosing to publish this op-ed is negligent or lazy. But this feels worse, bordering on journalistic malpractice. But opinions get viewers, viewers bring advertisers, advertisers bring money, so on and so forth.
The problem I have with opinion pieces is that they masquerade as factual stories, mixing in alongside factual news stories with you know, fact checking. Sure, most of these pieces are labeled with “opinion” or “analysis,” but that just muddies the waters. Ask yourself honestly, ‘Are you always sure what type of story you’re reading?’ ‘When you or someone you know shares info they read from an article, do you know if that was a news article or a column?’
The issue with the Washington Post’s choice to publish Amber Heard’s now-defamatory op-ed is that there doesn’t seem to be fact-checking involved with the piece. If I, as a journalist, were to make the same claims Heard did in her op-ed, I would have to prove those claims with evidence. No proof, no story.
Yet, for some reason, opinion authors are protected from the same scrutiny traditional journalists go through. Fox News was able to get a defamation lawsuit dropped because its lawyers convinced a judge that “no reasonable viewer” would take star Tucker Carlson seriously.
Why do we allow this? Shouldn’t opinion pieces work the same way as factual news stories? Without the same set of verified facts and information, columnists are unable to present an honest opinion of the issues at hand. Without the same set of guidelines, we’re all just screaming at each other, hoping you’ll join our side.
Can we at least agree that if you engage in opinion, you aren’t a journalist and shouldn’t call yourself one?
As a working reporter, I do understand how hard it can be to verify anything 100%, even with the best intentions. But, what if the author or publication doesn’t have the best intentions?
Case in point: Taylor Lorenz, and once again, the Washington Post.
Last week, internet culture columnist Taylor Lorenz wrote how some online influencers are making money from covering the Depp / Heard trial. But, there was a problem with that story, as described in this correction.
Lorenz simply lied about her attempts to reach out to these folks. Here is a response on Twitter from “ThatUmbrellaGuy.” Click for the full thread.
I understand that some facts can be hard to understand, or maybe some important context is missing in a story and a correction is needed. But, if you’re lying about something as simple as reaching out for comment, what else are you lying about? It’s really bad form, and in my view, a fireable offense (I mean, how hard is it to send an email?!?).
And a quick aside: I didn’t know Lorenz was even a columnist until writing this newsletter. Up to this point, she has been a reporter covering internet issues. These are small, yet important distinctions to draw when evaluating what to trust, or distinguishing between fact and opinion.
I wish I could say this was the end. The Washington Post had to then add an editor’s note to the story after some major blowback on social media.
Lorentz lied. The Post essentially tried to cover up that fact. And once people called them out on it, they had to finally admit to it. Not a great look for what many see as one of the nation’s strongest newspapers.
The fact is, we’re often misled when it comes to this kind of thing. Look at the term “analysis.” In the news media, analysis can sometimes mean “explanation,” like breaking down what’s in a big legislative package. However, there is no universal definition of what constitutes analysis, no set standard that all outlets have to follow. Analysis is then often used as a synonym for “projection,” like breaking down what a bill’s passage might mean for a politician’s re-election chances.
Many times, “analysis” is simply “opinion-lite.”
You can stay alert to these fakers though. Look for facts over opinion. Look at actions over words. And if you do find yourself engaging with opinion, ask yourself why that opinion is being shared publicly. Is there a financial or personal gain to be had?
Let’s break that down with these two headlines.
That’s JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, and Tesla CEO Elon Musk.
If you quickly look at the headlines here, you might think, ‘Oh no. The economy isn’t looking good. These experts are saying so.’ You wouldn’t be wrong to think this way, but let me offer an alternative.
Do you think Jamie Dimon is an altruistic man who wants people to prepare financially? That doesn’t really help his business interests. If people are safe with money, they don’t need as many credit cards, or maybe can pay off debt faster. He would just have to be a truly nice guy to share this opinion.
Or, do you think it might be more plausible that the CEO of Chase wants you to think the economy will drop, so you’ll sell your stocks? That would lower stock prices, so Chase could acquire more money and influence. It could also benefit the bank if they were short-selling any stocks out there.
As for Musk, his motivations seem pretty obvious. He wants to cut jobs at Tesla (says so right there in the headline). It’s easier and more palatable to the general public to say you’re cutting jobs because of the economy, not because you’re a capitalist creep. He’s since had to walk that back, amid concerns over Tesla’s stock prices.
To finish, let’s recap some key points.
Facts are better than opinions. Any and all opinion pieces need fact-checking.
Watch out for “opinion” and “analysis” tags, as those can signal unverified information.
Ask why someone might be motivated to share their opinion publicly.
Look, I know I can be opinionated in this newsletter, so let me make my motivations clear to you. My goal with Higher Thinking is to not only better my own writing, but to help people like you see the world from a new perspective, one that can hopefully better life today, and foster meaningful conversations that replace bitter division.
And if I ever veer from those goals, I’m counting on all of you to keep me accountable.
Rose / Thorn / Bud
What has caught my attention this week
Rose (the good)
Plastics could be out at National Parks!
Thorn (the bad)
Not much to add here. Yikes.
Bud (what I’m looking ahead to)
Last month, Congress held its first public hearing into UFOs in more than 50 years! I’ll have more on this in the coming weeks. It’ll be interesting to see what comes from all of this.
Weekly Recommendation
We talked a little about economics today, and one of my favorite places to read up on the subject is through Noah Smith’s newsletter, Noahpinion. This is a dude who does actual analysis, and uses evidence and facts…what a concept!
Thank You!
Thanks for reading. Send ideas, tips, thoughts to higherthinking@substack.com. Follow me on twitter @imnoahglick. And if you want to support this work, feel free to venmo or paypal me a couple bucks to keep the coffee flowing.
Let’s be better to each other!
Cheers,
Noah