Seasoned writers love to share advice to those just starting out in the world wielding the mighty pen and there is no shortage of style manuals or how-to books on the subject of writing; even Stephen King, the master of horror, wrote a tome dedicated to the topic.
And, I do mean a door-stopper of a tome that is every bit as lengthy as King’s post-1985 works.
While there are reams of material published on how to become a successful writer, I believe a much more helpful set of information would address the matter of how to read what is being presented and be able to differentiate between a writer whose goal is to inform or educate and what we now call “fake news.”
I am not being condescending. Generally, if people are paying a subscription fee to a news service, they are fairly astute and know the difference between there, their and they’re. In fact, as a writer, I find that a significant number among our subscribers are “grammar nazis,” quick to add a cheeky comment when a writer’s error makes it past the editors.
Rather, the attempt here is to arm the reader with the inside dope when it comes to the clever devices that all writers employ, to help a reader discern between solidly researched information and what is really nothing more than a thinly viewed attempt at propaganda using someone else’s bias-driven talking points.
Speaking of bias, every writer is biased. We show our bias when determining which established facts are most important, and which are least germane to the topic. I have long observed that if you send five writers to the same one-hour-long meeting, they will issue similar recaps, but the order in which facts are presented, from most to least important, will vary wildly.
I used to say that writers are not robots; however, we are beginning to discover that even artificial intelligence develops its own form of bias, among other human-like characteristics.
When we discuss bias, we are generally talking about political bias, and most credible journalists, whether they identify as liberal or conservative, are wed to the ideal that truth can only be presented in its most basic form, free from proven misinformation with all viewpoints represented and research material properly cited.
That, however, is an ideal.
While reporters may strive to remain stoically non-partisan, news organizations themselves tend to wear their biases on their sleeves. This is why we say that if a person’s news intake comes from a single source, such as MSNBC or Fox News, then that person is ignorant to all facts minus what the editors of that particular news outlet want them to know.
Generally, I find the “low information” readers to be among those who spew the loudest opinions, which means that if a reader intends to ever cite the article in conversation, then it is their responsibility to read the entire piece to the end.
A 2024 study by Penn State University analyzed 35 million public posts in which an article was shared on social media and found that 75% of the time, the person shared the article without even clicking on it and reading it first. In other words, all it took was the headline to convince the social media user they were sharing accurate information.
Speaking of statistics, if they are used in an article, remember the source of the statistic is every bit as important as the statistic itself. In the earlier paragraph I cited Penn State, which has the reputation of conducting empirical research. However, an unscrupulous writer will cite Quora or some other internet site to back up their statistics, and they should be avoided like Ebola.
Ignorant people will read and then regurgitate a statistic without knowing if the figure arrived at was put through the rigorous routine of examination, the use of controlled versus uncontrolled subjects and the like. Also keep in mind that some, if not most, statistics can be twisted like taffy to mean whatever the writer wants it to mean and all too often, the lazy reader will buy it hook, line and sinker.
The citation of polls is a completely different matter and you should always be wary about polls. While companies like Gallup do a very good job, it is tough for a poll to be conducted to scientific standards, and a cynical “researcher” can also arrive at the conclusion they desire by posing questions in a certain manner.
As proof of this, I will cite Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” that occurred during the 2008 presidential election cycle, where he persuaded members of his audience to participate in polls acting like they were registered Democrats. As a result, polls conducted by so-called reputable sources such as CNN and ABC News all ran with the results showing Hillary Clinton as the frontrunner against her opponent, Barack Obama.
According to The Hill newspaper, the poll results helped Clinton win the Indiana primary in a squeaker and Limbaugh took glee that his little ruse worked. The bottom line is that polls are generally worthless and a good writer should be aware of that fact, those that don’t or know it but wryly include them anyway should be ignored.
An informed reader will look for the overuse of adjectives. It was Mark Twain that said, “If you discover an adjective, make every attempt to kill it.” As a writer and a reader, I have learned that the overabundance of adjectives means that the writer, and that person’s editor, feel the need to enhance the language to prove what they are writing is the clear, uncontested, unvarnished, overwhelming, God’s honest truth.
Meanwhile, if an opinion writer claims something to the effect of, “I did this research so that you don’t have to,” then run away as fast as you can. This is true condescension, the writer thinks you should simply accept their propaganda without a second thought.
No, if you have more than just a passing interest on any given subject, don’t leave it to one writer or article to be the sole basis for your knowledge.
People of today moan about the mainstream media, the right-wing media, the left-wing media and the “drive by” media as if the insertion of bias or the term “misinformation” is a new thing. The media and the basic art of writing has not changed. What has changed is the sheer amount of information that bombards us daily.
Scott Hudson is the Senior Investigative Reporter, Editorial Page Editor and weekly columnist for The Augusta Press. Reach him at scott@theaugustapress.com
