Coronavirus "news" under the magnifying glass of critical thinking

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Viktor Mut'ev is a senior lecturer at SPbGIK, developer of author's courses on media communications and news analysis.

Critical thinking in media consumption

Our perception of the world is shrouded in a complex mosaic information veil. The data we receive, most often haphazardly, change our attitude to global and local processes and have not always obvious effects on behavioral habits.

How not to lose self-control and not fall into the millstones of information chaos? Here are some good questions to ask yourself. My work is related to the methodology and techniques of the analysis of texts of different genres. By the nature of my professional activity, I look for scientific and applied answers to these questions every day.

Professional methods and technologies, for example, discourse analysis, intent analysis, information monitoring are difficult to use in daily practices of media consumption, but applied tools of critical thinking will help here. By critical thinking, we mean a set of algorithms and procedures used when using media content. They can be used by anyone who consumes media content every day.

Let's look at three specific techniques using the text "Coronavirus: How We Deceive Ourselves" as an example. We will work with text, not with the subject area itself, so we will not act as experts on viral diseases. This is the task of the relevant scientific areas, not critical thinking.

Checking the text using the 5W + H method

The first technique is a formula that assumes consistent answers to the questions: Who? What? Where? Why? What for? How? In English, this technique is called "5W + H", where w and h stand for the first letters of special questions.

Who? The author is I. S. Pestov. It is difficult to analyze his individual biography, since the author is not a media person, and the collection of additional information goes beyond the scope of critical thinking. We are talking about an applied methodology, so we will use the information that we have at our disposal at the moment.

The author owns a series of publications on various topics on Habré. A person is not an expert on viral diseases, but can be a professional analyst.

Profile of the author of the article "Coronavirus: how we deceive ourselves" on "Habré"

What? The subject of the text is the coronavirus, and the title promises us an exposure. In general, the following narration corresponds to the stated theme - from this point of view, the text is quite complete.

Where? This question must be answered in two dimensions: the resource on which the text is published, and the location of the events.

Resource. The text is published on "Habré". It is a collective blog renowned for insights, fact sheets, independent reviews and research. The site lacks classic editorial mechanisms. The elimination of classic editorial procedures adds independence, but carries interpretive risks - a subjective assessment, not a balanced analysis.

Scene. In our case, events take place all over the world, mainly in Italy.

Why? This question explains why these events are happening. On the one hand, we have the author's interpretation, on the other, we have a large number of links. For example, to the World Health Organization, the authoritative portal Statista, while all links work.

According to formal criteria, the author's opinion can be considered verified. Explaining why the existing fears are exaggerated will formally be correct.

When? Here you need to figure out: when the events take place and when the material was written.

The author published the text on March 18. The material is relevant, since it was written in the footsteps of the events taking place at that moment, but we cannot evaluate it from the position of today. The data that was opened by authoritative sources at the time of writing is correct.

At the same time, the author claims to be a forecast. He suggests that fears are overestimated, since there are no death numbers from the coronavirus. There are still no adequate calculations, in this the material is fair. At the same time, from the position of today, we see that the author cannot be 100% right.

How? The last question explains how the author arrived at his conclusions. The answer to this question can be seen from the structure of the material. The text is complete, consists of headings and paragraphs that consistently reveal the existing situation.

Moreover, the material has signs of selective selection of information. Selective selection carries subjectivity. Here, the author chose experts, examines the Italian case, refutes other Habr's material about the Diamond Princess, which analyzes the situation in a really absurd and unrepresentative manner.

On the Diamond Princess cruise ship in Japan, coronavirus was detected in several passengers. There were 3,711 people on board, including 1,045 crew members. 712 people fell ill with the coronavirus, 10 died. The case on the liner became the largest congestion of cases of a new type of virus outside China. The author of the article on Diamond Princess made a prediction of the spread of the virus and mortality throughout the world based on data on board.

The author suggests not blindly believing the exhibitors and charts, but referring to the official data of the WHO, which says that the flu is spreading faster than the coronavirus.

The author came to the results convincingly, consistently, with an evidence base, statistical calculations and links to authoritative sources. On the other hand, the author worked selectively with the evidence. He did not include different points of view, but backed up his own arguments. Therefore, the material will be ambiguous: can we trust the results of this analysis or not?

Let's draw a conclusion using the first method. The text took place as an independent phenomenon. This is a fairly holistic material, but with some flaws and ambiguities.

We check sources using the IMVAIN method

The second technique - IMVAIN - helps to verify the sources. If the source is not independent, not verified, not cited or named, then the materials can be considered unreliable from the point of view of the source base.

Independence - independence. We do not analyze the author's biography, but based on the data of the text, there is an impression that the author is independent. The platform is also famous for this. We cannot make any claims regarding external independence.

Multiplicity - plurality. The author tried: he uses materials from the Index mundi, Statista portal, data from Italian experts, specific names of specialists. This gives rise to a feeling of multiple confirmation of the stated theses.

Verification - verifiability, verifiability. This is a weak point, it is connected with the very theme of the material. The author himself says in the text that so far we do not have complete data on mortality, and still existing studies are based on a small sample. At the same time, he frames his conclusions as the only correct result. For example, that the proof of fallacy is less popular and asks to shove your opinion into oblivion. All this tells us that the author is confident in his conclusions. Links to sources are verifiable, they are valid - that's good.

The author's judgments about the call to follow the Italian script and the request to the "Facebook experts" indicate that the author is confident in his conclusions

Authoritativeness - authority. The people referred to by the author can be considered authoritative in the given subject area, but one cannot be sure of the author.

Named sources - name. All sources are named. The text is not anonymous, it is possible to establish who the given opinions and arguments belong to - this is good.

Let's make a conclusion about the reliability of the sources. According to the IMVAIN method, we have two problems: verifiability and authoritativeness of the author in a given subject area. There are still no major comments.

Applying lexical analysis

The last technique, according to which there will be the largest number of comments, is the technique of lexical analysis. In its simplest form, this is a consistent identification of the techniques of speech aggression, distortion of information and analysis of the structure of the text. For example, evaluative vocabulary, stylistically reduced vocabulary, linguistic demagogy. We'll talk about those we meet.

The title promises that we will see the revelations that the author is trying to reasonably present to us in the course of the text.

The first thing we see is a link to the WHO, which actually wrote about the general mortality rate, but how much lower the death rate will be at the moment is unknown to us. The coefficient may be lower by 0.1%, then the argument will immediately become not so significant.

The author makes a forecast based on WHO statistics, but we cannot be sure of its accuracy. Further in the text, the author does not explain the term "proxy values", but gives a link to an example of their comparison with general and natural mortality

Assessment vocabulary. This is acceptable for journalistic material, but should be avoided in news or scientific information. Material involving argumentation and scientific exposure should be non-judgmental. For example, that most people never go deep into methodology is the author's assessment.

Rhetorical devices. In particular, the author writes: "A person infected with a coronavirus who jumped out of a window or died of stage IV cancer, millions of our planet's inhabitants will unknowingly be considered a victim of a terrible epidemic." Such images distract us from factuality. From this point of view, the text begins to arouse suspicion.

Intentional use of terminology. The author uses technical terms that may not be obvious to everyone, for example, "proxy values". In some places, reference is made to the explanation, as with the term "base interest". This is good.

Judgments instead of facts. For example, the author writes: "While within China's borders, the coronavirus worried significantly fewer people." Most likely, this is the opinion of the author, and not an objective fact.

Another example of judgment: "I remind you that the coronavirus is not the true cause of death." We do not know how reliable this is. In continuation there is an assessment of the author and an unverified fact: "Irresponsible stupidity, the risk of mortal danger is multiply overestimated."

The contradiction in the presentation of the material. Below the first graph, we can see that the high mortality rate of infected Italians is due to the age factor. This is proven. Then the author writes: "In Korea, for example, the main group of infected people is between the ages of 20 and 29 years - 29% of cases of the total." In this part of the text, first there is a story about deaths, and then about cases of infection. The subsequent argument does not support the previous thesis, but is an independent judgment and slightly violates the logic of the story.

The author cites Statista data on the age of those infected with the virus in Italy, and then violates the logic of the narrative with data on the infected in Korea

Stylistically reduced vocabulary. The author writes: "Calls to follow the Italian script should be despised", "I ask all Facebook and other experts to shove their opinions into oblivion." All this does not work in favor of the text.

Expert introduction. The introduction of an expert adds credibility to the material itself, but the question that every media consumer should have is: "Are there other experts and other data?" A good text should be balanced, contain different points of view, or transparently explain why they were not taken into account in this analysis. The author did not do either one or the other.

Positive points. The author gives a good example of a previous inconsistent study of the Diamond Princess. Weighted reasoned judgments, for example, that we cannot determine even an approximate mortality rate of infection, we do not know how correct the sample is, are positive features of this text.

Conclusions on the credibility of the article

For each of the methods, we identified some controversial theses, but in general, the material is quite complete and does not have obvious distortions. Lexical analysis allows you to think about how objective the author is.

We analyzed one text using specific convenient techniques. Even this example shows that the main thing in modern realities is to develop a restrained balanced position. In practice, it is important to strike a balance. Be honest, transparent in your thoughts, judgments and selection of facts of reality. This is what critical thinking techniques and educational programs that these techniques broadcast should be oriented towards.