Media Manipulation: Finding Truth Amidst Skewed Narratives in Social Media & the News

Jasmine’s morning routine was like clockwork. Alarm at 6:30, a five-minute snooze, and then she’d reach for her phone on the nightstand. She began her day by skimming through headlines, social media updates, and the latest viral videos.

One particular morning, two articles caught her eye. Both were about the same event but told such contrasting tales that she could barely believe they were covering the same incident. Her mind buzzed with questions: “Which one is right? Are they both bending the truth? How many times have I unknowingly accepted a skewed narrative?”

Like Jasmine, many of us grapple with the stories the media feeds us daily, often unsure of what’s genuine and what’s crafted. I’d also like to clarify that this applies to social media, too - the world of traditional media has very much converged with social media. This article aims to shed light on those crafting techniques, helping you navigate the murky waters of media manipulation.

1. Framing

Tactic: Highlighting certain elements of a story while downplaying others, guiding the audience’s interpretation.

Example: Two reports on a demonstration; one headline: “Peaceful Protest for Equality” while another says “Downtown Disruption by Activists.”

2. Agenda Setting

Tactic: Choosing which stories to spotlight, influencing public priorities.

Example: If media outlets consistently emphasize celebrity news over global crises, the public may perceive the former as more significant.

3. Use of Emotive Language

Tactic: Leveraging emotionally charged words to influence sentiment.

Example: Labeling an activist group as “radical” versus “progressive” shapes public perceptions of their motives.

4. Gatekeeping

Tactic: Controlling the influx of information by deciding what gets published.

Example: A news site consistently highlights one political party’s achievements while sidelining the other’s.

5. Omission

Tactic: Excluding vital information, resulting in a skewed narrative.

Example: Reporting on a city’s booming economy but omitting rising inequality rates.

6. Selective Use of Experts

Tactic: Featuring experts who back a specific viewpoint, sidelining contrary opinions.

Example: A discussion on vaccinations might solely feature anti-vax doctors, neglecting the vast majority who advocate for vaccines.

7. Spinning

Tactic: Tweaking information to back a particular perspective.

Example: After a public figure’s controversial remarks, one outlet might term it “straight-talking,” another “offensive.”

8. Pseudo-Events

Tactic: Staging events mainly for media coverage.

Example: A celebrity’s “casual” outing that’s meticulously planned for paparazzi capture.

9. Saturation

Tactic: Overwhelming coverage of a particular story, magnifying its perceived importance.

Example: Continuous updates on a minor royal scandal overshadowing more pressing news.

10. Use of Visuals

Tactic: Choosing visuals that support a certain narrative.

Example: A protest scene focusing solely on a small violent act, even if the majority was peaceful.

11. Confirmation Bias

Tactic: Reinforcing the audience’s existing beliefs.

Example: A conservative or liberal outlet primarily presenting news that aligns with their audience’s views.

12. Bandwagon Effect

Tactic: Portraying a view as majority-held to persuade individuals.

Example: “Everyone is talking about X movie.” The hype makes you want to watch it too.

13. Sensationalism

Tactic: Prioritizing shocking or emotional stories.

Example: Hours of coverage on a celebrity feud, sidelining a major policy change.

14. Native Advertising

Tactic: Sponsored content camouflaged as regular news.

Example: An article on a product’s benefits subtly marked as “promoted.”

15. Echo Chambers

Tactic: Circulating similar views, reinforcing pre-existing beliefs.

Example: On a social media feed, you only see posts that align with your political or social views due to algorithmic sorting.

Conclusion

Contrary to what I said in part 1 — that we don’t always intently manipulate others — I believe the media always intends to do so. Be it for their personal narrative or market pressures, unbiased media is a thing of the past (I know some people would question if it existed at all).

So, for us as consumers, it’s up to us to cross-reference, question, and consume various sources. I follow Andrew Bustamante’s, a former CIA spy, advice. Check the sources of opposing media channels and look for similarities in the story. The rest is bipartisan garbage.

It annoys me to put the responsibility of being informed solely on an individual since it’s impossible to be aware of everything all at once. We evolved to keep up with our tribe, not the entire world.

Due to the sheer volume of information, our brains cannot analyze it logically. What we’re left with is emotional decision-making, aka this story fits my worldview the most, so I’m choosing to believe it. Should we even have to know about everything that’s going on? I’ll leave this thought for a future article.

Also published here.