 Our next speaker is is Sharon Hill the lovely Sharon Hill. She is doing a talk called the honest broker of doubtful news She is a geologist. She of course runs the great news blog doubtful news She's one of the few geologists that tuned into my podcast the geologic podcast thinking it was about geology And now she stuck around which is very nice Her talk like I said is called the honest broker of doubtful news her haiku is a geologist Walks out of a bar and says make mine on the rocks Please welcome Sharon Hill I did think it was a geologic podcast This is a talk about positive skepticism about feeling compelled to do things that hopefully make a difference and if not Yeah, at least I learned a little bit along the way. So back in August of 2011 I started the doubtful news website to tackle weird news stories from a skeptical angle And my goal for the project was to have a one-stop site for those who liked me like me loved weird and strange news stories and wanted to keep up on the latest pseudoscience and Paranormal and hoaxed information that was flying across the web. I'd already been following weird news sites But not one captured all the interesting stories and more importantly provided a forum to Discuss them or to discover if they were actually valid and we could all go wow, that's amazing So when I envisioned the the doubtful news project DN, I'll call it I saw it as an alternative to credulous or mystery mongering media sites When I see a paranormal or anomaly story, I'm curious about what actually happened Not many news outlets bother to explore that angle They hardly ever follow up on like what some mysterious phenomenon turned out to be like for example when when a UFO Turns out to be Chinese lanterns or hoax. I Try to do that. I try to find out what really happened and sometimes I can sometimes I can't So with one faithful co-editor editor, thanks T who incidentally I met here at TAM and A few others who volunteered their assistance supporters who spread the word and we're very encouraging and A lot of dedication and work to seek out this information day after day the site topped a million page views about a year later and We're on track to hit 4,500 posts at about the two-year mark, which is about six posts on average per day Thanks So it's always been an experiment and a valuable learning experience And there's there's always more to the story Then we're given in the media and it's not just about facts It's about people their perception Interpretation and about how the media packages this for the public And I learned how others of opposing view Look at these stories and and how they're packaged for the public and and I learned interacting with them I discovered the importance of effectively communicating a message and I'm not saying I always do it right But I understand some best practices and the message of this talk is that it's it's it's personal because our own Experiences are personal and complicated and I hope you take away. Whatever lessons are meaningful for you so DN thoughtful news is a news critique site as well as an aggregator and it's where you can go to find critical thinking take on these New stories where the readers can consider What is being presented in the news story and ask what might be wrong misleading intriguing or important about it? I'm not a journalist. I'm more like a content analyst media critic science advocate And in highlighting a news story on DN I often add supplementary information from reliable sources and The official news story often leaves leaves out that kind of information and sometimes I have contradictory information Or I have a say about how good or bad the piece is compared to what the rest of the evidence Suggests and how this particular portrayal might influence the public's perception When you begin a project along with having some clear goals and methods in mind You should think about the values you wish to promote. What are you advocating for? Why even do this project? I? value scientific skepticism and I didn't want to be misguided on that idea. So I researched it to get a handle on the concept and With the cooperation of several knowledgeable people. I ended up producing the Media guide to skepticism which spells it out in an easy grab easy to grasp language in a two-page takeaway And I encourage you to check that out. It's at the document at the top menu of doubtful news calm take it home Make it yours good for a handout if you had meetings or if you have a public event Feel free to use it however you wish and another thing I valued was to reach the public That's the audience I was going for I mean it comes with this own set of Considerations for one I couldn't just promote it in the skeptosphere That's a start but to expand I had to do more than just appeal to this circle So I looked for and connected with other populations such as the paranormal crowd and For the general web surfer I maximized best practices for search engines and my idea was that when people interested in any aspect of the story Googled it perhaps they came across the DN version of the story that provided additional information and unique angles that they Wouldn't see in the mainstream piece And I've heard from people to whom that has actually happened So that's rewarding like I'll put a link to science-based medicine in there And they'll actually click on the link and and go there to find out more about the subject and another important aspect I value is Civility and respect for people in the discussion so with the diverse audience the public It was necessary to keep an even tone not use derogatory words to describe people unless they actually Were convicted of fraud or exposed as an ethical and somewhere So I have this strict policy that states DN is not a forum for angry debate it is a discussion where knowledgeable input is requested and by the way the comments on the site are often spectacular because They are by people who are part of the news story or experts in the subject who find the site and come on to comment And the comments are also safe to read. They're not infuriating or nasty. So I'm proud of that When it was time to upgrade to DN 2.0, I Conducted a survey of my readers because feedback is important. Are you doing this right? Is there anything you can make better? And most of the people said they liked the way it was with a bit of commentary Not hard-hitting debunking but an understanding tone and some people thought I was too skeptical or too critical And others thought I was too soft So this led to some confusion like what what side was I on am I a skeptic and do I believe this stuff? You know, I'm I'm big bigfoot fans. So I like to talk about it a lot, but it's complicated When you're in between what looks like feuding factions say skeptics and believers not quite fitting in either place That's not necessarily a bad thing You avoid group think Let's call it a unique voice and I look at lots of views and That I think is the under the key to understanding a subject. You have to see all sides There's not just two. There's usually more than two and I'm okay with being in the middle ground I'm sympathetic to people who believe in stuff that perhaps I don't believe in so I'll come back to voice and of Why it's of great importance in activism, but first I'd like to address objectivity We all think that's a great thing, but it can go wrong in the 19th century the idea of Objective news caught on stories from the big media sources became less biased and more neutral in order to track new readers and Advertisers you can imagine that when there's this limited set of viewers And choices this makes sense because it's best the product not be controversial and opinionated news was facts and history Was very straightforward. Well times have changed Today, there's so much choice and so many viewers that it makes sense to actually tailor your feed to certain niches and News is now more entertainment and punditry emotional outbursts controversy sensationalism cells and We have this polarized media in the US liberal and conservative for example And we have these media sources that often only present their discreet view and because of this polarization We often lack the opportunity to actually consider the issue fully from all sides So objectivity was a clever business move back in the day and it became easy and cheaper as in-depth Investigations look like bias So just give the facts as you find them and then you the reader decide Problem with you decide is that you can only choose based on what is given and Asking the audience to decide is only fair if all the options are represented honestly and completely And this is hard to do in the space of today's media Landscape because such such a time constraint of a TV show For example, it's and it's deliberately not done if the aim is towards pleasing an audience with a specific ideology so the you decide gambit is Sounds great, but it's it's not all that great and it can be played using false balance as well Which is giving equal weight to things that don't really have Equal supporting evidence. So you decide is viewed as democratic and empowering, but it's often a manipulative ploy You're given speculative or dramatic information to spark reaction or outrage I ever noticed how attack political attack ads end with do you want so-and-so running your whatever you decide You know after they've just bombarded you with very skewed presentation of information you decide based on what you're just given So we know that emotion can distort a message, but Objectivity can surprisingly potentially distort as well A tacit objectivity can slide into sloppy thinking or non-thinking and You know, we've all read articles where the author has taken his source at face value Just repeated the quote no explanation no verification or worse these days news outlets are reprinting press releases word for word This is what was said no counter no critique is given I could do that too. It'd be a lot less work But it would also be boring and pointless relating to my goals So objectivity is a good premise most of the time just like scientific skepticism It keeps us out of trouble, but when we talk about inspiring change, which is what activism is You can't be positive or negative if you wish if you're neutral You don't move forward very fast sitting in neutral. You have to put it in gear and give it some gas So for my purposes Objectivity is used with regards to the evidence, but being objective without adding content Context and color commentary Would not be a force for change Although some people would like to see DN just give the facts and point out errors in the news that's presented That's not my vision My aim is to get people thinking and hopefully to change minds about harmful things are nonsense And this is really important people need to know what you are saying and why they should care You can gather all the facts and information in the world But if no one is going to get the message or pay attention to it, you might as well not have bothered I mean if I tell the facts about vaccination rates going down without any context That doesn't grab the average person The human element the emotion of parents who have faced their child's illness or death is the gripping part of the story It's the dramatic consequence The vehement anti-vaccinationists grasp this concept the anti-science lobbyists Effectively use emotion often in place of good evidence and they certainly don't keep their opinions to themselves They are raving and passionate and you can find thousands of examples every day of news stories that pander to the way people feel and To their fears because it's effective and Skeptical thinking is void of sensationalism and that's commendable But the unfortunate outcome may be a less than gripping presentation of pretty serious stuff that may not reach the people it needs to reach When objectivity ends up looking like apathy readers may completely miss the point Or misinterpret the message if you help the audience see what's important to them They are more likely to follow along with the idea you are attempting to put across So use your values to enhance the message Because if I'm gonna put this much effort into a project I want people to find it and pay attention if I just wrote objective facts that be dull and people would pass it by So this is where the voice of my site comes in now because of my personal interest in subject area I already which is like the paranormal I already curate DN in a particular way. It already has a lean to it The default take on extraordinary claims is is not going to be one of hype and mystery mongering It's going to be doubt with emphasis on the evidence and what it tells us Like I said, I'm okay with people's beliefs even if they're odd as long as they don't affect others But I do feel humans would benefit if we were less credulous About the world within reason, but I don't want to bash people over the head with this concept I try to convey the message that I wanted people to come to the site and talk to contact me tell me what they think We can have a civil discussion. It can happen I've had many discussions with paranormal believers and those still on the proverbial fence and I think it's critical to engage with those of different views and I deliberately reached out to the Paranormal sites asking them to come to my site Share it and see what their readers thought Some of them came and someone liked it There were some disputes intense moments but I thought I was making progress and I tried to maintain the site voice as one of openness and curiosity getting to the bottom of the mystery Or question and I made inroads with some pro-paranormal people who saw me as the hey, you're okay kind of reasonable skeptic and if I like their stuff I Cross referenced it. I cross promoted some of their sites as well and I Didn't view DN as a competitor to them, but more like complimentary No, one site was like mine. So I thought no harm no foul. I'm just a different perspective yet The strong man of skepticism made an appearance blatant prejudice against the stereotypical idea of skepticism is rampant in the paranormal community So the tint of skepticism no matter how slight Was enough for a doubtful news to be pigeonholed as a skeptic blog And this is partially my fault. It's the way I marketed it for a while. It's even mirrored on skeptic comm But I like the big tent. I have room for all I'm trying to expand my audience not narrow it and I hope the paranormal crowd will feel the same way Maybe we can have this cross pollination and some discussion. It's challenging. Yes to engage with opposite views But it's usually pretty rewarding and enlightening When DN started to become more popular Where references to my site were side-by-side with their sites and I was commenting on their sites with additional information I had Contrary to their information Trouble began DN wasn't being promoted on some paranormal sites anymore They criticized the site as being a skeptic site capital S as if that's a bad word. I Clearly intruded on their turf and they weren't happy about that Hey, guess what? Not everybody interested in these subjects really wants to know the truth about their pet subject area Many just want validation of what they believe is true They'd rather live with their beloved ideas intact than pick them apart as I get that I understand I knew this about the public in general, but it can be considerably worse for those who consider themselves Experts are knowledgeable and they're invested in it They actually lack a huge chunk of knowledge the the skeptical literature that don't read it and Sadly, they revel in that ignorance at times and I think that's a shame You know if you really want an answer that that feels intellectually dishonest to me Some paranormalists, you know the ghost hunters and the Bigfoot chasers came right out and told me Why don't you skeptics go cure cancer or something? Leave us alone? Yeah, I don't think so I Realized two important things about this particular population niche that the paranormal crowd one They aren't used to or comfortable with people Knowledgeably engaging them face-to-face about problems with their findings or philosophy, you know, I got a question about this What are you talking about? To there is no discreet middle to occupy in some of these areas. It's curious It's a sliding scale not two sides with the fence in the middle and people move across that scale depending upon the subject area Paranormalist love when you advocate against alt med and bad consumer products They hate when you tell them to stop it with the pseudoscience and produce some real evidence and For as irritated as I get when they tell me how to do science They get peeved when I tell them I have an alternate explanation for the phenomenon and you're likely mistaken So there was some drama and and I was making some paranormal people angry by calling them out on stuff And and I was going through a phase where I was feeling frustrated with them and perhaps I was poking the dragon a bit But drama happens So what life goes on live and learn don't get bogged down in the drama But the drama prompted me to evaluate what I wanted Did I want to continue the effort to be on good terms with both sides? Because it was draining It's difficult. Did I want to be a popular site? Or did I want to stick to my original task and was that those two things exclusive? I didn't want to compromise me or my original goals And I wasn't going to conform to what others wanted because it would be impossible to please everyone. I Was going to be myself They can engage with me or not whatever they wanted and that's what I decided and in short order the prickly portion of my Audience fell away. That's okay You know, it's worthwhile to listen to constructive criticism and adjust your actions accordingly But I can only go so far So this brings me to two very important concepts that I learned that really helped me understand information and communication The first is worldview Worldview is important to remember when you're talking to another person about a disputed subjects Realize that their vision of the world is very different than yours Depending on the journey to get to where they are right now Information we get every day is just bits and pieces often it has no context no meaning to you or anyone else unless you give it meaning and Think about how we can have the same exact data set and give it to two different people And they come up with different conclusions about it depending on many personal factors biases Experience training values, you know, etc We saw this happen with climate data with parapsychology results and in this case with sonar data because I see a log and The tourists both both caps captain sees the Loch Ness monster But we take this information we get and fit it into our worldview and our preconceptions And that's how we make sense of it and if it doesn't fit we usually discard it and the experts at this are conspiracy theorists So here's an example an interesting example that reflects the media behavior as well as a worldview There was a news story not too long ago about a Chinese plane that experienced this sudden thud at 26,000 feet in The air and the pilots were having trouble at that point They made an emergency landing to find that the nose of the plane was pushed in As if they ran into something but they didn't see anything at the time and there was no indication of what could have hit the plane So the ever-vigilant tabloids knew a great story when they saw it and filled in the knowledge gap with the extraordinary The plane had an encounter with the UFO That became the story air China plane hits UFO Since UFO automatically translates as alien spacecraft. Oh my gosh, there airspace is unsafe. They're attacking our planes It was a plane with a dent. I Reminded people it was a plane with a dent. It's an interesting story and unsolved mystery. Yes Let's find out what happened not jumped to unwarranted conclusions But for those who have room in their worldview for alien spacecraft This story can be placed right in and taken the way it was delivered without any critical thought now It bolsters their worldview another piece in their puzzle And I can't be thinking back to what I find to be a slightly disturbing quote by Darwin who said how odd is it that? Anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any surface It'd be nice to think that at least some observations are objective, but are they really I mean? Observations are made by people and we all have our framework of interpretation Even a mundane observations and we can't help it So some people think I should stick with the facts the plane has a dent That's the story, but don't call attention to the fringe aspect, but it doesn't work. There has to be context. I Must be upfront in saying I'm telling another part of the story I take these pieces of information I find from various sources Look at different angles and based on fact and evidence provide alternative options For explanation and I'm not the cynic or contrarian even though some people assume this My role is not to dismiss my role is to be the honest broker of potential options And this is the second important concept That I learned Resonated with me from studying science and policy The honest broker is a concept taken from a book by Roger Pellke It integrates knowledge with public concern to provide possible alternatives It's a policy role that I adopted from my writing that provides alternatives and potential outcomes based on what factors We choose to apply to the issue and considering that things are complex in the world You have disparate audiences with different values among them. It's the role. I see is the most socially conscious Human decisions are best informed by science, but we have to take into account social issues emotions ethics Humanity perceptions fact and feeling or else it won't be broadly accepted So as an honest broker the options are expanded not restricted the thinking is open-minded not closed And it's a positive role Given array of options to think about one which may be accepting that we don't know and it's a good start towards compromise the honest broker role requires Experience and informed opinion about what is credible and valid or nonsense and if I don't have that experience for the subject I'll be honest. I Asked that others help me out crowdsourcing works We often get fantastic and informed input on DN stories and this additional input offers Those looking to decide for themselves a better array of options to consider based on science reason and sound evidence You aren't being food spoon-fed a story. You're being presented with the options. Should you choose to consider them? So it's not been easy to take this role Like I said many in the audience prefer only their confirmation of their beliefs And they don't want to hear anything that messes with their worldview and threatens their outlook. I Don't think that's honest, but I think this is the reasonable approach and it's right for me So with a voice of scientific skepticism and a role of honest broker here. I am doing my thing Why do it? Is it worth it? Those who advocate contrarian ideas or fringe views are actively seeking fertile ground for their seeds or weeds To germinate pseudoscience conspiracy junk science scams and hoaxes are being pushed on us every day all the time and many people fall for them And they sacrifice their health or mental well-being their money and their hope And I don't see how we can afford to just sit around and be neutral or passive about science and critical thinking It needs supporters and cheerleaders And I choose to be an advocate for critical thinking because I love the subject areas And I want to get the best answer and I don't want people to be fooled. I Think it's better for all of us in society if we don't buy into things that are untrue I mean how angry do you get when people aren't giving their children modern health care? You have two children die in a faith-healing family because their parents belong to a church that believed in God's will to heal What's it matter to you? They're not your kids It matters. I care about society as a whole What about when rhinos are killed for their horns and other animals are tortured or butchered to produce nonsense Chinese medicine treatments It matters. We're citizens of earth We have a responsibility and I get angry when people brush off those responsibilities for their own ends or market it with mistaken ideas Even just being the one to explain that a perceived experience with demons or ghosts or bigfoot may have an alternate Explanation is part of a responsibility If you know something about this topic Share it share the science-based alternative. They may choose to consider it or not And I wonder it like how many people would have been helped if they knew that Sleep paralysis was real. You know, they probably would have been less traumatized from their personal events So taking the skeptical perspective looking at the evidence is not one that will make you beloved or popular No matter how tactful you try to be you will make enemies of people who are just angry that you disagreed with them Or mad that the evidence you put out there undermines their claim that happens to me a lot like every day You'll get threats from those who think that disagreeing or uncovering errors and pointing out bad science is personal defamation They're afraid of losing their ground. So they attack you And you may become so outraged that you want to attack them Instead of the claim and that usually doesn't work out very well There's too much outrage theater in the world today. It's distracting from doing productive things like solving the problems So let's face it if you spend all your time attacking some other whether that be the opposing view religious scientific pseudo scientific or Your skeptical colleagues You weren't going to produce a whole lot of anything other than animosity Keep things in perspective put your views out there and don't take the backlash personally too many people confuse critique of the claim With the personal attack and this is a huge lesson. We'd all do well to learn Okay, so time to wrap this up in a neat package for you to take home Your unique voice is important find what voice suits you and how to best use it and I advocate Demonstrating to the world that skeptic need not be the heartless mean Vemently objective slave to reason you are human you have feelings and values Acknowledge others values and worldview Let them have their own voice and they might be more willing to listen to yours Think about your goals and be true to yourself Not what someone else says you should be Be the honest broker and serve up multiple options in an understanding way and Provide a positive path with critical thinking and skeptical activism. So now go on go out there be inspired Have your say do good stuff. Thank you Sharon Hill ladies and gentlemen. Yes be inspired Congratulations