Non-Critical Thinking, False Equivalencies and the Media

The current pandemic is, by every measure, one of historic proportions and peril. A virus that is remarkably contagious yet carries a lethal punch, Covid-19 has demonstrated its destructive capabilities in a remarkably brief time, transforming the world and dominating every facet of society… and yet, some in the media wish to downplay its potency and to argue that we — as a nation and as an economy — have created far more damage in our reaction to it than the virus would itself.

This provides us with a critical example of non-critical thinking, the irrelevancy of facts, and the need to understand motivations as they create false context.

Over several blog posts and articles, I’ve addressed the dangers inherent in giving power to isolated facts. I’ve demonstrated how facts can be used to support opposing sides of the same argument; how underlying context can be manipulated to distort an argument. There is a current example that can serve as an excellent example of this mechanism while allowing a reflection on the motivations of the perpetrators.

Pandemic is not Particularly Dangerous

In some parts of the conservative media, a narrative has been promoted to varying degrees for some time: that the pandemic is not particularly dangerous, and that the financial trauma and individual hardships that we are enduring are a vast, protracted overreaction. There is a reasonable discussion to be had, where one side argues that the economic collapse that seems indicated was a greater tragedy than the loss of many American lives… the other side could counter that preventing a massive loss of life was worth the temporary sacrifice of economic security. Instead, these media representatives have determined to use an obviously false equivalency, comparing the deaths incurred from the virus to those of other impacts such as the more common strains of the flu, or heart disease, or traffic accidents, and in so doing they demonstrate a willingness to suggest a false conclusion through intentional deceit. They use accurate facts to create that falsehood, so as to redirect the discussion to a place where they can hold the appearance of a conclusion, knowing full well that in a more equitable context they would have no such opportunity.

Let’s take on the most popular variant: a contrast with the flu. It has often been stated that in 2017, the more common strains that we together consider “the flu” caused the loss of 61,000 American lives. Contrasted against the present projections of 60,000 lives, there appears to be an equivalency: “…how can we justify ruining our economy over a disease that has such a common outcome?” The argument contends “… we don’t shut down our economy, hide in our homes for weeks, and deprive our citizenry of their freedoms for the flu!”

The key to understanding this argument is to first understand the absolute lack of consistency in the two contexts. In its most simple form, we have the obvious: that we lost 61,000 lives to the flu (a high watermark, but that’s unimportant) despite taking no other measures to reduce its damage. In the Covid-19 context, we are projected to lose 60,000 lives if, and only if, we continue to take the draconian steps of mitigation, including the societal distancing, the extreme confinement, and the closing of schools and businesses. The more relevant equation might be if we use the projections for the Covid-19 virus had we behaved exactly as we did in 2017, going about our business as if the virus did not exist… those models are readily available and have been generally consistent for many weeks across multiple sourcing. The deaths without mitigation? Estimates range from a low of 1.5 million to numbers in the several million. So, in order to fairly compare the figures, we have to accept that the present figure of the Covid-19 pandemic is a minor derivative of millions of deaths, and only so constricted by all of the dramatically altered behavior that is the source of the complaint.

Compare the Figures

To compare the figures as is being done — 61,000 versus 60,000 — is similar to comparing the amount of rain that falls in a bucket, where one bucket is out in an open field, and the other is under a shelter. If those two buckets yielded the same amount of rainwater, it would be fair to assume that you had measured one drizzle and one monsoon.

The falseness of this comparison is too obvious to assume that it has escaped the notice of these pundits and their superiors; there has to be some other explanation for the intentional deception. It is here that we find the true value of critical thinking — the isolation of motivation from the argument, and the exposure of the role that it plays in the falsehood. For these media figures, their commentary is clearly intended to bring their audience to a shared conclusion: that the mediation programs should be ended (or at least substantially compromised) and the economy allowed to return quickly to its previous status. This objective could not be achieved if the contrast was 61,000 versus a million or more lives… in order to achieve a consensus, the false equivalency and aligned deception is required.

In the convoluted media world that we live in, there is little or no accountability for falsehood or error. Various stations and other media create false narratives both frequently and with impunity, selling their chosen position to an audience that is predisposed to accept it at face value. This practice exists across the ideological spectrum, but among certain figures, it has become the standard rather than the exception. Therefore, vigilance is a requirement, and critical thought essential, for any person wishing to truly understand their world, their chosen representation, and their lives… and when we discover repeated practitioners of intentional disinformation, it is fair to brand them as untrustworthy and to reject them as potential sources of important information.