Gentle, short introductions to media literacy and information literacy
(I keep kvetching about the absence of media literacy and information literacy...and kvetching is useless.
Signal > Noise will be the tag I use for short, digestible intros to concepts in both media literacy and information literacy.
Asks are open if there are specific topics you want covered.)
Our discourse has gotten so ridiculous that we've mostly lost the ability to disagree constructively, think critically, or benefit from the work of smart people with whom we disagree.
We're so fractured and polarized that we routinely say stupid things like:
That source is biased, so it's not valid and nothing it says is true.
If everything is dismissed as bias, and bias is treated as dishonesty, then truth has nowhere to live - leaving us well and truly fucked.
Confusing bias with lying makes us cynical instead of smart. It turns healthy skepticism into hopeless nihilism
"All media is corrupt" isn't enlightenment - it's intellectual surrender and cowardice.
A perspective does not prevent a piece of information from being true or useful.
Bias is all but inevitable and unavoidable, even for those operating at the highest levels of journalistic integrity and discipline. It's baked into how we work.
Below are two paintings of Daniel in the Lion's Den. Same subject, radically different paintings. Is one of them more true? Is one of them less biased?
Maybe photography provides a better analogy. The angle, lighting, composition, saturation, brightness, contrast, and cropping all affect the final image. But the photo is still of a real object, isn't it? Is one of these six photos of the same man in the same room more valid than the other 5?
That's how all media works.
All media selects, frames, and focuses utilizing both conscious and unconscious biases.
That's not inherently deceptive - it's how all storytelling functions. Our brains are wired for narrative, it's how our minds work.
Cultural worldview (like Western vs. Eastern framing)
Political orientation (like left vs. right vs. authoritarian)
Institutional interest (like corporate vs. activist vs. governmental)
Professional constraints (like time limits, editorial priorities, sensationalism for clicks)
A liberal news outlet might cover climate change in terms of justice and inequality. A conservative outlet might instead focus on economic cost and individual freedoms.
Both might be factually accurate. Both are biased. Both have value.
A conservative media outlet may emphasize crime statistics.
A progressive media outlet may focus on police accountability.
A US media outlet might frame a Middle Eastern conflict through geopolitics
A local media outlet might highlight the conflict through individual suffering.
All may very well be reporting true facts, but they frame those facts differently.
If you see journalism without bias, let me know - because that's what I'll read when I need to be put to sleep without learning a single thing.
Lying is a completely different animal.
Lying goes well beyond having a perspective. Lying is a choice to mislead - an intentional, deliberate falsehood.
Humans can lie with all media: words, pictures, headlines, graphs, statistics...even silence can deceive.
The key ingredient is always intent. Lies are designed to obscure the truth.
Outright falsehoods: "Vaccines contain microchips."
Deceptive omissions: Leaving out exculpatory evidence to frame someone unfairly.
Fake sources or data: Citing studies that don’t exist, or misrepresenting real ones.
Image manipulation: Using photos or videos out of context, or editing them deceptively.
A biased report might emphasize some facts over others, but a deceptive one tries to convince you of something the producer of that media knows to be false.
Framing is one of the most common and most misunderstood forms of media bias.
It's not lying - It's the rhetorical and narrative choices that shape how every story is told.
Examples of framing in headlines:
"Unarmed man shot by police" vs. "Suspect neutralized in police operation"
"Protesters clash with police" vs. "Police attack peaceful demonstrators"
"Israel retaliates after attack" vs. "Israeli airstrikes kill civilians"
The facts might not be in dispute. Someone was shot, a protest occurred, airstrikes happened, etc - but how those facts are framed shapes how we interpret them.
Framing isn't necessarily dishonest. It reflects the values and assumptions of the writer or publication. Understanding framing is essential for media literacy. When you learn to spot frames, you can wring an additional layer of information from the story.
Since it's Unavoidable, Make Bias Work for You
Expecting media to be perfectly neutral is like expecting food to be completely flavorless. It's neither realistic nor desirable. Without a perspective and a framing, a story ceases to be storytelling and our brains...mostly stop processing it.
Every outlet has an editorial mission, an audience, a funding model, a history - so bias is always baked in. That doesn't mean you discard the source. It means you read it strategically, looking for and identifying those biases.
Instead of asking, "Is this source biased?" know in advance that it definitely is.
Instead of asking yourself "should I read this news outlet and regard everything it presents as objective truth"...know that it definitely doesn't, you definitely shouldn't.
Instead, ask yourself questions like:
What kinds of stories does this outlet consistently choose to tell?
Who does the outlet consider trustworthy or quotable?
What kind of loaded language does this outlet use for different groups or events?
Who funds this outlet? Who is its audience? What agenda are they likely to have based on that funding model and target audience?
Bias isn't a disqualifier. It's a clue which tells you more about what you're reading.
Use Biased Sources Without Getting Played
You don't need to trust a source completely to learn something from it. In fact, the most valuable sources are often obviously biased.
Before even reading, know what kind of outlet you're dealing with. Look at its about page, ownership, funding/revenue model, recurring columnists, and core audience. Does it lean left? Right? Is it globalist? Nationalist? Religious? Secular?
Knowing this lets you anticipate the angle and spot distortions more easily. The more you do it, the easier it gets. After a little practice, you'll see clearly (for example) the huge right wing bias of the Jerusalem Post, the huge left wing bias of Ha'aretz, and how The Times of Israel is mostly pretty disciplined (in their news gathering and framing) about minimizing left/right political biases.
None of these three is perfect, but seeing their usual, institutional biases lets you read them against each other.
Biased outlets often highlight stories others avoid or ignore. Fox News may underplay climate change but overplay immigration crime. Al Jazeera will underplay Hamas human rights abuses but spotlight in depth the most embarrassing moments in Israeli politics. The Jerusalem Post will underplay corruption charges against Netanyahu and spotlight the most depraved behaviors committed in the name of Hamas.
Use this to your advantage. Compare coverage across ideological lines. The contrast tells you volumes about outfit AND audience.
Don't quote the adjectives. Quote the data. What happened? When? Where? Who said it? What did the video actually show?
Stop taking an analyst's word as truth - see it as a lens to try on at look at the facts through. If the lens helps it make sense, put it in your back pocket for later use.
Strip away the spin, extract the structure.
4. Cross-Reference Across Angles
Treat each biased source as one side of a triangle. To understand the shape of a thing, you need multiple sides. Balance a left-wing story with a right-wing one. Add an international perspective. Compare them.
Over time, you start seeing the shape of the event instead of the biases of each outfit.
(If you're anything like me, you never want to see or hear another advertisement for Ground News...but still use it sometimes to do exactly this.)
Bias turns into lying when it refuses to admit its own existence or crosses into manipulation. You're dealing with deceptive bias when:
It claims neutrality while advancing a clear agenda
It actively suppresses or distorts opposing views
It refuses to promptly issue corrections or acknowledge errors
It flattens complexity into false binaries like good guys vs. bad guys
It consistently omits key information that would challenge its narrative
It's part of a disinformation campaign (state media, bad actors, bots)
Ask yourself these questions:
Does the outlet ever challenge its own side?
Does it interview or quote those it disagrees with...without distortion?
Does it foster critical thinking or does it push tribal loyalty?
Thesl answers will let you see lying much more quickly.
When evaluating a media claim, ask:
Does this trigger a strong emotional reaction? Was that the goal?
Does this match the tone of propaganda? (overly simplified, emotionally charged, black-and-white framing?)
Is this story meant to inform...or to rally?
And perhaps most importantly:
Do I want this to be true because it confirms something I already believe?
Recognizing your own bias is more critical than spotting it in others. We are all vulnerable to confirmation bias, and most of us seek out what feels good while avoiding what challenges us.
Practice pausing. Breathe a few times between the click and the share. (Confirmation bias will be the topic of a future Signal > Noise.)
To understand a complex world, you need inputs from multiple angles.
If you only get your information from one side, you're not informed - you're enlisted.
Real media literacy is not about being neutral. It's about navigating bias with awareness, curiosity, and courage.
Across formats (print, visual, audio)
It's not always fun, it takes some time, but it's essential and cwn dramatically reduce your susceptibility to propaganda -
...so go read smart, articulate people you disagree with!
Instead of avoiding bias, learn to read it. Recognize it. Use it. Balance it. Counter it. Triangulate past it.
And when you find actual deception? Name it and reject it.
