Five questions to ask yourself when reading a news story
Context is crucial when learning how to understand all angles of an article
We’ve already established the difference between misinformation, disinformation and malinformation in the first post, but with most news stories it is crucial to understand the context before deciding what to take away from it.
For this, I’m going to use an example of a famous story from a couple of years ago that caused quite a bit of confusion and fear among consumers. The version I’m using is The New York Times, but there are plenty of other examples out there.
The headline was: “Aspartame Is a Possible Cause of Cancer in Humans, a W.H.O Agency Says”
Now, it’s not incorrect, but I would say it veers into the territory of clickbait and fearmongering over responsible journalism. Let’s break it down using my five questions to ask yourself every time you read a news story.
Who benefits if I believe this story?
Every news story exists within an ecosystem of competing interests. Does that make it wrong? No. But it does make it crucial to understanding the nuance behind the story better.
In the aspartame story, you’ve got the World Health Organisation and its International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), whose reputation depends on being taken seriously as scientific authorities. There’s the FDA, which is defending decades-old safety approvals and regulatory credibility. There’s the soft drinks industry, which risks a steep drop in revenue from lucrative diet drinks if people buy in. Then there are consumer advocacy groups, which will feel vindicated after years of lobbying for safety concerns.
This question works for any story and it’s important to understand everyone’s agendas (not just the publication you’re reading, since that one’s quite simple - for you to keep reading their paper/website).
It’s not about dismissing a story simply because people have agendas or someone benefits from you reading this information, but to understand the full landscape of interests that shape how the information ends up being presented.
What’s actually being claimed versus what the headline suggests?
It’s a sad fact that many people rarely read beyond the headline. Headlines are created to grab your attention in as little time as possible. They do not convey the nuance that every story inevitably has. You can only get to the bottom of a story if you actually read to the bottom of the story, which very few do. But this is where misinformation often takes root.
Again, if we look at the aspartame article, the headline makes it sound scary and far more definitive than the findings suggest. While the IARC classification was indeed “possibly carcinogenic”, this is their third-tier warning and indicates that there is limited evidence to prove it does. The story also tells us (in the second paragraph) that a separate WHO committee maintained aspartame is generally safe at current consumption levels (up to about 12 cans a day for a person weighing 150 pounds). The ruling is also based on evidence from just three observational studies that couldn’t rule out other factors.
If you apply this question to other stories, particularly those based on what a study “shows”, you’ll often find it showed little to nothing if you read on. Ask yourself: What does this study actually show? Who did it? How many people were included? How definitive were the results? Could any factors have muddied the results?
You will often find the answers to these questions in a good story on a subject - they’re often just buried towards the end.
What is missing from this story?
Similar to above, we need to understand what is buried or straight-up missing from the story. Most news stories present only a snapshot, although, as I said, most responsible media should at least cover every angle even if it is low down. But, the fact of the matter is journalists often have limited space and/or time, so important context can often get compressed into a bite-sized, digestible sentence or omitted entirely.
So, what wasn’t mentioned in the aspartame story? For example, the fact that IARC’s classification of “possibly carcinogenic” also includes Ginkgo biloba and working night shifts. The American Cancer Society also noted that avoiding tobacco, alcohol and processed meat offer far clearer cancer prevention benefits than actively avoiding diet drinks. Historically, this debate has gone on for years and very little has been proven definitively. And again, I reiterate, two WHO committees came to different conclusions.
When we consider it this way, was it even a story? If we take away the desire to catch readers’ attention on a minute-by-minute basis, I’d argue that it wasn’t.
How is this story making me feel, and is that intentional?
This one is so important, because emotion-baiting these days is overutilised and very powerful. Fear, outrage, hope and belonging are powerful drivers of engagement, and smart publishers know this. They want you to feel [insert emotion here] because you’re more likely to comment on or share their story, which drives more eyeballs onto it, which ultimately gets them more money.
Again, that doesn’t mean you need to discount the news altogether, but understanding what they want you to feel is important when trying to remain neutral in order to better understand the story, as emotions cloud judgement.
In the case of the aspartame story, it could easily trigger health anxiety in people, particularly in a society that is becoming increasingly obsessed with health and prevention. Claiming a commonly consumed substance can “possibly” cause cancer, doesn’t quite have the same emotional overtones to it than “if you drink a dozen diet drinks a day, then you might possibly be at a higher risk of getting cancer”.
This context is crucial for so many stories. Political coverage, for example, will often lean into outrage and tribal thinking. Health stories thrive on fear and hope. Technology stories really play into the whole dystopia versus utopia debate that Black Mirror was so good at highlighting.
There’s nothing wrong with feeling an emotion over a story, but we just need to make sure it doesn’t stop us from thinking critically about what we’re reading.
What else do I need to read to better understand the story?
I’m not saying you have to independently verify every story you read from now on, but sometimes even considering this question can help. It’s useful to understand the difference between claims that you can verify and claims you have to take on faith.
For example, after reading the news summary on the aspartame story, you could read the actual IARC report. You could get to know what “limited evidence” means in scientific terms. You could look at the original three studies cited. You could check if any other major health agencies or credible medical professionals have weighed in (more on what constitutes “credible” coming soon). You could look at funding sources for the research.
For other stories, can you find the actual quote elsewhere? Can you find the underlying data cited? What do other credible sources say?
You don’t need to fact-check everything (unless you want to, of course), but asking this question can help you decide which facts are worth paying attention to and which to take with a pinch of salt.
In conclusion…
The goal here isn’t to make cynics out of you all, but to bring clarity. We’re all drowning in information and most - if not all - of us have been duped by misinformation or disinformation at some point.
These five questions will give helpful context to a story and allow you to navigate the increasingly complex media landscape in this age of AI, deepfakes and public mistrust.