About The times. (Gainesville, Ga.) 1972-current | View Entire Issue (Aug. 1, 2020)
10A OPINION Sttnes gainesvilletimes.com Weekend Edition - August 1-2, 2020 Shannon Casas Editor in Chief | 770-718-3417 | scasas@gainesvilletimes.com Submit a letter: letters@gainesvilletimes.com The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. • ^2*49 "Just look at all those thoughtless people. Don't they know there is a pandemic going on?" JIM POWELL I For The Times EDITORIAL Healthy skepticism With barrage of competing facts it’s hard to know what to believe. We’ve got some tips Health care crisis. Racial equal ity crisis. Political crisis. Economic crisis. Constitutional crisis. Mental health crisis. Law enforcement crisis. Pick a topic, and there is a pretty good chance the “crisis” label has been applied to it, and rightfully so, in 2020. But there is another form of crisis that is interwoven into all the others, providing the putrid foundation on which many of the other issues fester and foment. It is a crisis of credibility. Simply put, many of us no longer know who to believe or what to trust. From biased news reporting to lying politicians to viral misinforma tion to doctored photos and videos, our belief in our ability to gather facts and act accordingly has been shaken to the core, leaving us too often to have faith in what we want to be true rather than what demonstrably is true. The rise of social media and the breadth of its scope have played the major role in the confusion over facts that too often seems to be rampant among us. Add to that the stresses of trying to deal with an international pandemic, and the traditional butch ering of facts evident during every election cycle, and it’s no surprise that many of us are no longer sure of the validity of the information we receive. The good news is that we have access to more information than ever before in the history of the world; the bad is that much of that information is inaccurate, falsified, intentionally misleading, anecdotal or skewed to satisfy a particular belief system. Increasingly, what we accept as factual depends on political beliefs rather than research, logic and criti cal thinking. Nowhere is that more evident than in the national reaction to information about the coronavirus. A survey by the Pew Research Center conducted in June shows that the most trusted source for informa tion about the coronavirus outbreak is the CDC, with some 64% of those surveyed feeling the agency was right “almost all or most of the time.” But the partisan divide in the results was significant; 76% of Democrats sur veyed trusted the CDC, compared to only 51 % of Republicans. The political split in the trustwor thiness of other sources of informa tion on the virus was even greater. Only 44% of those surveyed said they trusted news media to be accu rate in reporting information about the virus. Only 25% of those who identified as Republican trusted news media compared to 60% of Democrats. The greatest partisan divide over accurate information on the virus, as might be expected, was in opinions about the credibility of the Trump administration in providing accu rate information. Overall, only 30% of those surveyed said they trusted the administration to get the facts right. The survey found 54% of those who trusted the administration were Republican, compared to only 9% who were Democrat. Another Pew survey, this one taken in April, found that 43% of those adults questioned had a “great deal” of confidence in medical scientists to act in the best interests of the public,” which was much higher than the 24% who felt that way when asked in 2016. But again, the partisan split was a big one: 53% of Democrats had confi dence in medical scientists compared to 31% of Republicans. Let those overall results sink in for a minute. The findings of the surveys are that people are making life and death decisions about a disease that has killed hundreds of thousands around the globe based not on their understanding of medicine or science or human frailty but rather according to their political beliefs. It is not surprising that such is the case, and both political parties are to blame. Asked to describe a blank, white canvas sitting on an easel, many in the Democratic Party lead ership would insist to the world that it was awash in brilliant shades of blue, while their Republican counterparts would argue that the brilliant reds were awe inspiring. It is no wonder the populace is reluctant to believe what it sees and accepts instead what it is told. Remember the folktale “The Emper or’s New Clothes, ” all those who spoke glowingly of the wardrobe modeled by their naked leader, because that was what they were expected to do? Are the protests in the nation’s cities largely peaceful or are they primarily violent? Are law enforce ment efforts excessively aggressive or surprisingly restrained? Is social media showing bias in removing con tent it labels as misinformation, or is it negligent by allowing too much misinformation to go unchecked. It all depends on who and what you believe. And many do not know what to believe. At the core of all these issues are some basic facts that cannot be altered regardless of bias or opinion, and we have an obligation to make the effort to discern those for our selves. There are some ways you can better educate yourself on what is truthful, and what is not: ■ Find multiple, different sources for information. Don’t depend on one perspective. Form your opinions on data gathered from different sources and different perspectives, using as a foundation the areas in which they seem to agree. ■ Search for facts, not opinions or political positions. Look for words — progressive, right-wing, leftist, con servative, liberal — that indicate a bias by the source that might skew the facts. ■ Depend on sources you have found to be reliable in the past. If you trust your personal doctor, listen to her. If there is a local politician in which you have faith, listen to him. If local news media has proven accu rate in the past, pay attention to it rather than national news sources. (Hopefully, The Times falls into that category.) ■ Do not depend on social media for news. Social media platforms do not employ journalists. They do not write stories or research facts. Other sources, many of them suspect, pro vide information to social media. Find the originating source on what ever data you gather and convince yourself it is trustworthy. The fact that something is often repeated on Facebook or Twitter doesn’t make it true. ■ Consume information thor oughly. Don’t just read a headline and jump to a conclusion. Study the full content of any news story or video. ■ Do not repeat bad information. Whether it is in casual conversation or by sharing a post or meme, endors ing bad information puts your own credibility, and reputation, at risk. Be sure that what you share is accurate by doing your own homework first. We have a credibility crisis in our country that is exacerbating all the other issues and undermining our ability to find solutions to problems. The only way we can make it go away is to demand factual information on all fronts and reject that which we cannot confidently endorse as true. The onus is on us all. It s all risky business these days I jumped out of an airplane once. I think I was 18, and whether I thought I was invincible or just naively trusted the world around me, I was not that concerned about the inherent risk. It was something my friends wanted to do. I was sure the company we used would be safe. I don’t recall doing any research to defend that belief. The small group of us sat in the hangar playing Rummikub waiting for our flight up. I recall the plane was very small and I believe its interior was plush and purple. The flight was a bit tense, maybe a lot tense. When it came time to jump, I got the choice to swan dive or somersault out of the open plane door. Looking back, I wonder if they offer that choice to give you a feeling of control once you’re staring at the earth thousands of feet below. Strapped to a professional skydiver, I swan dived out of the plane. The experience was much more peaceful than I had expected. The sky is a quiet place. The earth was so far below I wasn’t a bit con cerned about smacking into it. It was all wind and quiet. At some point, the professional pointed out to me how we were fastened together and safe. I had not considered any possibility of becoming unattached from him, so that realization may have been the most jarring moment. But that was after he had puiled the parachute and we were gently coasting down. Eventually we found our field, I pulled my feet up toward my chest and his feet met the ground. Going sky diving now feels like an unneces sary risk. But it is actually relatively safe. Only one out of 220,301 jumps resulted in death in 2019, according to the United States Parachute Association. The activity is getting safer and safer, too. There were 15 skydiving deaths nationwide last year compared to 33 the year I went. The National Safety Council publishes infor mation about the odds of dying from various causes. Skydiving doesn’t even make the list. The No. 1 cause is heart disease and the No. 2 cause is cancer. Here are the lifetime odds of dying by a few causes, as reported by the council. ■ Opioid overdose: 1 in 98 ■ Car crash: 1 in 106 ■ Fall: 1 in 111 ■ Gun assault: 1 in 298 ■ Drowning: 1 in 1,121 ■ Choking on food: 1 in 2,618 ■ Hornet, wasp or bee sting: 1 in 53,989 ■ Lightning: 1 in 180,746 The council hasn’t crunched the data on COVID, noting that the death results are all pre liminary at this point. In 2020, it feels as if we must weigh the risks of every activity. What’s the risk of vacationing with my fam ily? What’s the risk of sending my kid to school? What’s the risk of talking with the contractor at my house? What’s the risk of holding and kiss ing my nephew? What’s the risk of walking in the grocery store to pick up a bottle of wine? It’s exhausting. And we don’t have great data to help us make these decisions; as impatient as we are, these things still just take time. We do know our hospital is treating more COVID-19 patients than it ever has, 176 as of Friday. A couple of the key questions seem to be: Just how easily is it transmitted, especially by asymptomatic people? And how likely is it to kill us? Also, what’s the risk of not vacationing, or sending kids to school or connecting with others? There are always horror stories. Those in my age range have died from this virus. Those 65 and older who contract this disease are much more likely to die from it than someone in their 30s, according to the Centers for Disease Control. It’s still true that most who contract it won’t die from it. Rarity is one of the factors in determining if something is newsworthy. An outlet isn’t going to report every death from heart disease, but if someone dies from a lightning strike, that’s news. It’s important to remember this fact when consuming news, and the lack of doing so is often what leads to unfounded fears. A high- profile case of some tragedy doesn’t increase the risk of that tragedy happening to you, just your perception of it. As we navigate the risks of contracting COVID, driving cars, swimming in the lake and a thousand other things, it’s always a balance. Each of us gets to choose our level of risk, but we also should consider how the risks we take affect others. Shannon Casas is editor in chief of The Times and a foster parent. SHANNON CASAS scasas@gainesville times.com (the (Times Founded Jan. 26,1947 345 Green St., Gainesville, GA 30501 gainesvilletimes.com EDITORIAL BOARD General Manager Norman Baggs Editor in Chief Shannon Casas Community members Cheryl Brown Brent Hoffman David George J.C. Smith Mandy Harris Tom Vivelo To submit letters: Send emails to letters@gainesvilletimes.com or thecontactformatgainesvilletimes. com. Include name, hometown and phone number. Letters are limited to one per writer in a month’s time on topics of public interest and may be edited for content and length (limit 500 words). Submitted items may be published in print, electronic or other forms. Letters, columns and cartoons express the opinions of the authors and not of The Times.
