Poisoning the Well: Self-Censorship in the Digital Age

Part Three of Information in the Digital Age: Surveillance and Censorship

Photo by Hartono Creative Studio on Unsplash

News Sources, Social Media, and Self-Censorship

Censorship comes in many forms. While we often think of it as government suppression of speech or online content, there is another form that is just as insidious: self-censorship. This occurs when individuals consciously or unconsciously limit what they say or believe due to social pressure, media bias, or the fact that some issues are just complex.

Modern society itself is complicated, and politicians frequently make decisions that seem self-serving, reckless, or short-sighted. Many people assume that only the other side is influenced by money and special interests. The reality is that both major political parties in the United States benefit from vast networks of dark money, soft money, and well-funded special interest groups. These financial influences shape public opinion and drive political narratives, with the cynical goals of generating votes and maintaining power.

Trying to map out these financial connections leads to a tangled web of transactions between political action committees (PACs), think tanks, and special-interest groups. Each side funds its own information campaigns, and then presents selective facts that align with their agendas. The electorate is left ever more polarized, and the truth becomes an afterthought.

The Role of Media in Shaping Beliefs

Consider climate change as an example. Climate science involves complex physics and mathematical modeling, topics that can be difficult for the average person to grasp. Instead of engaging with the science directly, many people default to the positions espoused by their preferred politicians and media outlets. Special interest groups are aware of this tendency and use it to their advantage. On one side, energy companies and super PACs funnel millions into think tanks like The Heartland Institute, which then work to cast doubt on climate science. On the other side, similarly structured networks of funding and advocacy shape public discourse in ways that align with their own policy goals.

News Sources and Bias

Given these dynamics, it is no surprise that so many people find themselves trapped in echo chambers and seeking confirmation bias. Many news organizations, like political parties, have clear ideological leanings. Consuming news exclusively from one side reinforces biases, leading individuals to reject stories outright based on the source rather than the content—a cognitive pitfall known as poisoning the well.

To counteract this, it is essential to seek information from diverse sources and to critically evaluate claims rather than accepting them at face value. Understanding the mechanisms behind media bias and political influence allows us to navigate the modern information landscape with greater discernment. After evaluating as many sources as possible you might end up right back where you started, but at least you will be better able to defend your beliefs and opinions.

A Multitude of Sources

A good starting list of news sources might include the following organizations:

• The Associated Press

• Reuters

• BBC World News

• National Review

• Wired

• ProPublica

• Ground News

• AllSides

• Fox News

• Bellingcat

• Newsweek

• The Free Press

• The NY Times

• Guardian

These sites are useful for fact-checking:

• Media Bias/Fact Check

• Factcheck.org

• Politifact

• Washington Post Fact Checker

• Snopes

• NPR Fact Check

These are not comprehensive lists, but should give readers a wide range of viewpoints from both inside and outside the United States. Individual readers may have their own preferred sources. Here is a link to a chart of news source biases from Allsides:

And here is another one from harvard.edu:

Social Media

Social media is one of the most unreliable sources of factual information. Some sites employ fact checkers, but they are inconsistent and may be influenced by biases. Because of this, the best practice is to compare multiple social media sites. Twitter (X), Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook are probably the best known sites, but there are alternatives. Bluesky is a decentralized alternative to X. Threads, part of Meta, is another competitor of X. Mastadon, part of the "Fediverse," is an open-source distributed social media model that encourages free speech. Reddit is for forums and more structured discussions. Some platforms, like Truth Social and Parler, cater to primarily conservative audiences. Others, like Gab and Telegram are privacy-focused, but can also home to some extremist ideologies.

It should be kept in mind that anyone can claim anything on Social Media, usually with no consequences. For example, a 2020 story circulating on social media falsely claimed that the CDC had issued a report that said most people infected with COVID-19 "always" wore masks. The claim resulted from a misinterpretation of published CDC information and was amplified by major public figures, including Donald Trump, who repeated it during a town hall meeting.

The lesson here is clear: if a social media post can not be traced to a legitimate source or makes claims that seem questionable, defy common sense, or are contrary to established evidence, it is likely misinformation or disinformation. Also, many posts are generated by bots which can be used to create realistic looking posts, or by foreign actors such as Russian, Chinese, or North Korean influence operations trying to influence American politics or sway public opinion.

Conclusion

In this era where misinformation and disinformation can go viral faster than ever, critical thinking skills and verification are essential when evaluating news and information found in news sources or posted on social media.

Sources

https://libguides.lib.cwu.edu/c.php?g=625394&p=4391900

ChatGPT was used for proofreading and clarity.