by Jason McKnight
Grace Fellowship Church

At this point in 2020, you might feel like me, and wish for help in figuring out how to take news in. So much conjecture, so much agenda, so much spin… and we are dealing with really big issues:

This Spring we’ve had to wrestle with Covid, racial questions, and protests. As the Fall comes we face presidential politics.

It’s more important than ever that we remind ourselves how to digest the headlines, stories, information, data, and feelings that come at us like so many inter-continental ballistic missiles.

Ben Hendrix and I covered the topic on the Daily Grace podcast several weeks ago. Watch it here.

This article is to help us as believers remain judicious in what we take in, level-headed in what we share, and mature in handling the news cycles, stories and spin.

5 Steps to being a savvy news hound, plus 3 quick tips at the end.

First, there’s a difference between reporting and commentary
There’s News and there’s Opinion. Events and Editorials. Reporters and Commentators. This distinction is crucial: a quality news organization keeps reporters and opinion writers separate. Though they both report to the Top Dog, they are in distinct silos in their organizations.

Or at least they ought to be. Here’s why.

Let’s say a warehouse burned down last night. The news article is this: “There was a fire today at the abandoned warehouse on Front St. It damaged 12 homes neighboring it. Two of them were destroyed. The warehouse is owned by Mr Smith who lives in Colorado.” Relaying of events and facts. Informing. Reporting.

The Op-Ed piece could be this: “the fire yesterday shows again why we need to have local ownership, and must change regulations for absentee landlords.” Notice they are saying what is good or bad, and what should be done to bring about change. These are opinions (ie., someone might suggest a different solution). But an Editorial board attempts to shape opinion of its readers, and that’s their job.

Reporting and commentary. News or opinion. Events or editorials.

Why stress this? Two reasons.

TV news (cable or broadcast) can hardly ever separate commentary from reporting. Just watch it for 20 minutes, and you’ll see the mix of events and editorials. Of relaying facts and of shaping opinion.

Also, this is a live battle right now in written media too: over the past 2 months, we have seen at both the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal a rising up by reporters against what was published on the Op-Ed pages. In the case of the NYT, an editor lost his job when he published a piece by a sitting US Senator that the reporters didn’t like. The silos are being blurred at the Gray Lady! In the case of the WSJ, the Top Editor received a letter from 280 reporters/news workers demanding changes on the Op-Ed pages; he said no – the two silos are separate and always will be.

Friends, be cautious of TV news. It’s a lot of commentary masquerading as reporting.

Second, no one reports without bias
You just can’t be 100% free of a starting viewpoint. There’s no such thing out there as total objectivity. This is not a fault, it’s a fact.

You can report with fairness, but you can’t pretend you have absolutely no stance on what you are reporting.

It seems to me, then, that those sources that own their vantage point can help me better. If a news source says “we’re totally objective” it indicates they aren’t in touch with reality, or they are being overly optimistic about their own abilities.

However, when a news source says “we are left-leaning—we think collective solutions are more equitable; proudly liberal” – then I can grid their stuff as I read it. Or, “we are conservative—we think the individuals should have more freedom to make their decisions” – then I can grid their stuff as I read it.

If a news group says: “CNN and FOX are out to lunch… we are the only ones who are totally objective…” well, be dubious. The humility to own your starting point allows me to know what dance we’re dancing as I read your stuff.

Third, you need to know your own preferred home
Where are you most at home on the political spectrum? Why do you land there? And where can you find careful thought that reflects your home.

I have friends and family who are gladly to the left of center. Ron Sider and Sojourners stuff—which is the evangelical left. It’s thoughtful and helpful.

As a Canadian, many in ENC think my natural political outlook is left of center. But actually, I’m more to the right of things: I think Free Market enterprise has brought more prosperity to more people than any other way of structuring society.

But it’s not perfect, is it? While I think individuals ought to have the freedom to make their own decisions, I also grieve for the children whose parents make sinful decisions. And wonder how we can help (thankfully, I also belong to an active and sacrificial body of Believers who reach out in compassion to help “the least of these”).

Fourth: You need to admit the deficiencies in your own home stance
See the previous paragraph! There is no perfect way to view the world—in a political outlook, based on our limited right & left continuum. The Christian Right and the Christian Left do not have it all together by themselves.

I remember old Snoopy and Woodstock… Snoopy is writing a book on Theology. He’s come up with the perfect title: “Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong?”

What was once true in theological debates, Is now true in political debates: There’s such a dogmatic ethos right now, that there seems no ability to hold in tension what you think and that others may have good reasons for disagreeing with you. The humility to say even your solutions aren’t perfect is needed.

Fifth: you need to purposely listen to viewpoints that differ
And this is crucial. Once you know your natural home and live there on purpose… it’s important to hear careful voices that you disagree with and respect.

Do you remember that old phrase: “I respectfully disagree”? We never hear it anymore: now the person who disagrees with you is a jerk or an idiot. Thus, why would I listen to their viewpoint; I’ve already diagnosed their failure.

One of the biggest dangers in our days is TRIBALISM: where we only interact with people of our own tribe who speak in our terms, agree with our conclusions, and demonize all opponents. Why so dangerous? Because we end up more radicalized if we only hear what we agree with than if we consistently hear (and strive to understand) those who disagree with us. Others call it the online echo chamber.

Read this helpful piece from David French: https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/theres-a-question-my-confederate

As thinking Christians, who want to engage the world as it really is… we need to know our own home, but then make sure we are still considering thoughtful people who don’t share our home. We will definitely have a more well-rounded outlook. So, though I gladly tend to the right, I love to listen to NPR here and there as I’m driving.

Summary of the five points:
-There’s a difference between reporting and opinion
-No one reports without bias
-Know your own home outlook, and own it.
-Admit deficiencies there too.
-Listen to other viewpoints.

Three quick tips to protect yourself from going down the Rabbit-hole of silliness, falsehoods and conspiracies in the news world (social media, print and TV).

Never click a click-bait headline
Avoid stories and sites where the headline attempts to arouse an emotional response. That’s what Click-bait is: pulling you into outrage by their headline.

Always check the source and the date of the story
If you’re going to post or forward something on Facebook or Insta doublecheck that it’s fresh and that it’s not fake. So many things are 2-3 years old, and circle back again on FB engendering fear or disgust. That said: If it’s good enough to share, at least write in your blurb, “this is a little old, but still worth reading.”

Trump is the litmus test for how serious a news source is
Any source that treats Trump with unqualified disdain or unqualified support is not worth my time. That source is out of touch with reality. He has done some good things and some bad things.

Donald Trump as President is neither SATAN nor the SAVIOR. A news organization must critique the things needing critique, and also they ought to commend the things worth commending.

He is the most polarizing person in high office in our lifetimes. How a news source handles his successes and failures, his goods and bads, helps me grasp how worthy they are of my readership/viewership.

I hope this has been helpful, and can strengthen your ability to navigate news and sources with confidence and shrewdness.

———