It’s a common human trait: we all get things wrong sometimes. Misunderstandings, misremembering, and believing things that aren’t true are part of the human experience. Perhaps you’re overly optimistic about a TV show’s future, or your memory of past events is a little hazy. However, in the realm of sharing information, especially online, accuracy becomes paramount. As a journalist, rigorous training in what we call Bullshit Prevention Protocol (BPP) is crucial for ensuring accuracy in reporting.
In today’s digital age, we’re all publishers. Sharing a news article, opinion, or even a meme with your social network isn’t just talking – it’s broadcasting. And spreading misinformation, or “bullshit,” can have serious consequences. It muddies the waters, making it harder for everyone to distinguish between credible news and fabricated nonsense, real crises and manufactured outrage.
While no system is completely foolproof, BPP, honed over generations by journalists committed to truth, significantly reduces the risk of spreading inaccurate information.
This is why everyone needs to adopt Bullshit Prevention Protocol before they hit ‘share’ or ‘post.’ You don’t need any prior experience to use BPP. While the nuances of BPP can be debated endlessly (and media literacy initiatives rightly encourage in-depth study), the core principles, presented in this handy, portable, and yes, free Pocket Guide format, are straightforward and easy to implement.
Here’s how to use your pocket guide to BPP in practice:
Your 5-Step Pocket Guide to Bullshit Prevention
This pocket guide breaks down Bullshit Prevention Protocol into five actionable steps. Keep these questions in mind whenever you encounter information online, and you’ll be well-equipped to navigate the digital landscape with greater discernment.
1. Who is telling me this?
The first step in your pocket guide is source evaluation. Specifically, identify the author and the publication. What is the credibility of the publication? What potential biases might they have?
Consider the example of a piece of misinformation that circulated online a few years ago. The UK’s Daily Mail published a striking image of a sunrise projected onto a large outdoor screen. The headline, penned by James Nye, claimed, “China starts televising the sunrise on giant TV screens because Beijing is so clouded in smog.”
Even if you’re unfamiliar with the Daily Mail, a quick glance at some of their headlines – sensationalist stories and clickbait – might raise a red flag. It’s fair to assume, for BPP purposes, that their priority might be web traffic over strict factual accuracy.
2. How does he or she know this?
Next, consider the source’s evidence. How did the author obtain this information? In the Daily Mail example, a quick search reveals that James Nye is based in Brooklyn. It’s unlikely he witnessed these screens firsthand in Beijing.
While the article included a photo, the context is unclear. Where was it taken? What’s outside the frame? Does the headline accurately represent the image? We rely on reporters to verify these details, and in this case, it seems unlikely that on-the-ground reporting was done. Further investigation into James Nye reveals a Poynter Institute blog post, a reputable media watchdog, accusing him of fabricating courtroom details in another Daily Mail article. This further diminishes the credibility of the source.
3. Given #1 and #2, is it possible that she or he is wrong? Or lying?
Based on your source and evidence evaluation, consider the likelihood of inaccuracy. In the Beijing sunrise case, the author writes for a publication known for prioritizing viral content and likely wasn’t in Beijing. The answer is a resounding “yes,” it’s quite possible the information is wrong.
4. If the answer to #3 is “yes,” find another, unrelated source.
Verification is key in your pocket guide. Reputable news outlets like Time and CBS News also picked up the Beijing sunrise story. However, a closer look reveals they simply cited the Daily Mail, lacking any independent reporting. These are not unrelated sources; they are essentially echoing the same potentially flawed source. You need to dig deeper.
5. Repeat until the answer to #3 is “pretty f-ing unlikely.”
The final step in your pocket guide is iterative verification. For the Beijing story, thorough fact-checking would involve finding the original photographer. Even photographer confirmation isn’t definitive, as they too might have incentives to sensationalize. Ideally, you’d seek confirmation from someone on the ground in Beijing, a trusted contact who could verify the screens and their purpose. This person would need local language skills and connections to investigate thoroughly. This process begins to resemble the work of a journalist.
BPP in Action: The Beijing Sunrise Debunked
Preventing the spread of misinformation takes time and effort. Thorough fact-checking can be painstaking. This is why many choose to share content primarily from trusted sources – personal networks, known journalists, and reputable publications.
In the Beijing sunrise example, instead of personally chasing down photographers or Beijing contacts, one could wait for professional journalists to investigate. Beijing-based journalist Paul Bischoff, writing for the tech publication Tech in Asia, which has a stated ethical code, soon debunked the Daily Mail story as false. Bischoff’s report revealed the screen was displaying a tourism commercial with rotating images, one of which was a sunrise – not a smog-related broadcast.
Bischoff criticized the Daily Mail and other international media for their lack of due diligence:
Yes, Beijing is polluted, as we at Tech in Asia have also been critical of, but this story is complete bullshit. International media should be embarrassed for not taking even a moment to second guess the Daily Mail, one of the least reputable news sources in the UK.
Using your pocket guide to Bullshit Prevention Protocol could have saved you from sharing this misinformation.
Conclusion: Your Responsibility in the Digital Age
By using this pocket guide to Bullshit Prevention Protocol, you’re equipped to be a more responsible digital citizen. It’s a valuable tool for defending truth and accuracy online. While there’s no superhero cape in the mail, you now possess a powerful tool: critical thinking and a systematic approach to evaluating information. Share this pocket guide with your network and empower others to prevent the spread of bullshit online.
