Nearly every day, people evaluate what they consume. We tend to accept nutritional information from valid studies of coffee, eggs, or trans-fats and adjust our approach. But I don’t see that same interest in thoughtful verification elsewhere. Folks seem to set aside perceptive reasoning and critical thought, and readily accept statements offered by charismatic personalities even though source data is elusive or unclear. People tend to declare loyalty as a part of group-think as the default mindset.
This essay addresses only two categories, mass media and religion, because of their effect on our daily social interactions. I hope it empowers and encourages readers to pursue authenticated sources as a continual practice so they can challenge their own credulity and know what they think and why.
The Horse’s Mouth
Straight from the horse’s mouth, an English idiom used since the 1920s, describes getting information from a source firsthand. Its original application illustrated the process a buyer would use to verify the age of a horse he or she intended to purchase. For example, if the seller said the horse was three years old, a discerning buyer would go to the horse in question, open its mouth and be able to challenge the seller’s claim by the number and condition of the horse’s teeth. The potential buyer could then negotiate the price or walk away. Instead of naively accepting the seller’s version of information, the buyer demonstrated due diligence by going to a more reliable authority and original source—the horse.
Careful evaluation of sources carries over to our present-day lives. We are bombarded by information from myriad sources, and many people just give up instead of doing the work of essential analysis of a presentation. Some prefer a lax approach and avoid critical thinking altogether, choosing to let gatekeepers interpret facts and color original details.
Even though audio and visual communications are pervasive, not all voices and videos transmit authentic material. It is our job—our responsibility—to evaluate sources and exercise our critical thinking. The initial part of that job is to get as close to looking into the horse’s mouth as we can, especially when it comes to the media and spirituality.
The sway of media
Information we take in needs to be accurate, verified, and gathered as close to the primary source as possible. As media consumers, we each have an individual responsibility to evaluate information before applying it to our decision-making life. We can’t afford to surrender our minds to vague or invisible editorial committees who revise facts. We need to watch out for these and other gatekeepers in our discernment process. Gatekeepers, in the media sense, filter, limit, shape the language, or in some other way control public access to factual information. News directors and editors are some of the most prominent gatekeepers in today’s society.
Utilizing the horse’s mouth approach even applies to sports. For example, the Kansas City Chiefs give an extensive media briefing on Wednesdays after a weekend game whether they win or lose. Although I watch the game, those who actually played are still my primary source—the horse’s mouth. Their responses to questions are forthright and based on their direct experience. I avoid more sensational commentary by commercial pundits and wait to hear from the coaches and players who were active on the field.
Of course, the offensive squad has a unique point of view, as does the defensive squad, special teams, and coaching staff. And surely each Twitter follower is passionate about what they saw, but the Chiefs’ public briefing is thoughtful and much less shaped by commentators and podcast gatekeepers who might frame questions to introduce or advance conflict.
..
It is our obligation to cull the noise, shed gatekeepers’ agendas, and decide to get factual data from as close to original sources as possible. We can think for ourselves; we’re just out of practice.
Maybe we’ve been involuntarily programmed to react to sound bites and slogans like “a station you’ve come to trust” and “we’ll keep you safe.” We seem to declare loyalty to affinity groups to manage our information diet like with our favorite fast-food eatery. We’re familiar with the menu – familiar with the jargon and semantics of our chosen affinity groups and media networks.
They speak our language. They may use phrases like “everyone knows that…” You may even catch yourself saying “I saw it on (a certain show), so it must be true,” or “(a certain personality) wouldn’t say it if it wasn’t true.”
But whatever media form we choose to draw from, the bottom line is media does what is necessary to stay in business and prosper. They will exploit our gullibility for their financial benefit. Any time we tune into any show, whether news or entertainment, we’re opening a door of influence.
From September 26, 1994, through October 3, 1995, O. J. Simpson was on trial for killing two people. I had the television on for updates while folding laundry. At one point, O. J. was trying on a pair of black gloves—on top of a pair of latex-looking gloves. I questioned why he’d put on a pair of leather gloves on over another pair. However the case might turn out, his trial made it to television because pop culture wanted to see how well this football celebrity played this game.
During the trial, this text rolled across the bottom of the screen: 5,ooo people die in Kobe Japan earthquake.
I expected Ted Koppel to break into the trial coverage and offer more detail about the tragedy. I changed channels. No one was covering these thousands of deaths. All three networks were covering the gloves.
My first thought was why aren’t they switching coverage? On January 17, 1995, the Great Hanshin Earthquake Disaster, one of the worst in Japan’s history, killed 6,433 people, and no one cared enough to report it.
My second and third thoughts were: Who’s making the choice to ignore the lives being lost in that moment? What editorial executive board or person has control?
From that moment on, I paid close attention to the credits of television news productions. I search what media corporation owns the stations, and I read their mission and vision statements. I want to know more about the philosophy that shapes the tribe they are trying to satisfy. I try to notice how drastic that influence is and whether propaganda or subliminal insidious conditioning is happening.
It’s important that we try to find out who the owner of a network is. See what their mission is for the business. Who does the hiring of media personalities? Who is in the editorial department of your local station? This group selects and revises content and chooses the order to deliver stories. They choose which stories to label as Breaking News.
A few months ago, a local station, KCTV-5, began the hour with Breaking News about a school bus accident where three children were injured—in Georgia. This was followed by another school bus story describing another elementary school bus that slid off the rain-drenched road—in Wisconsin. Then a third story about a local school district that would be discussing the issue of seat belts in buses at the school board meeting that night.
If I hadn’t paid close attention to geography, I would have placed those three stories in the same mental file. The order those three stories were produced had affected my emotions, and I would have drawn the conclusion that seat belts on school buses are necessary—a perception shaped by editorial gatekeepers instead of my own critical thinking.
Of course, all media operates with the typical constraints of a business. Time is limited, and stories must be compressed or altered to fit the allotted space. More time is designed into documentaries so stories can be developed. However, the business of media still requires profit, so the concept of a story or subject matter must still be funded. This likely leads to bias or slant as facts are edited. Our part is to question what might be missing or skipped over, and to make the effort to find that information before drawing a conclusion.
As you practice paying attention to the shaping of information, you may become more aware of media programming conflating real life with scripted portrayals of reality. You may become aware of categories of jargon that affect your emotions, which might affect your objectivity. This use of semantics, the choosing of words to imply or assign meaning, is not a problem in itself. Electricians, medical professionals, and plumbers all use industry jargon.
My brother, John, often used the jargon of a heavy equipment operator. Terms like skid, hammer, and dirt dog peppered stories of his workdays in the mountains. But when he started using language outside his normal jargon and deflecting my questions with Rush Limbaugh slogans, I remembered an old Bible story that explained the shibboleth.
The biblical story describes a conflict where a tribe of Israelites fought and defeated another tribe (Judges 12:4–6). After the battle, survivors were attempting to cross the Jordan River. The tribe guarding the river challenged all would-be crossers to say the Hebrew word shibboleth. In the dialect of the defeated tribe, the word is pronounced with an initial “s,” not “sh,” so the guards killed anyone who said “sibboleth.”
On one of my Amtrak trips, I struck up a conversation with a friendly couple. Less than two minutes into casual chat about our destinations, I recognized a shibboleth of a religious cult I’d been part of years before and politely withdrew from their presence. The gentleman invited me to sit with them, but their shibboleth indicated their tribe, not mine. I walked away.
Shibboleths are evident in the world of media. When the evening news anchor comes on air with the statement, “We’re going to begin tonight with a tragic story,” that’s a signal to me that she will likely bring a dramatic tone to her whole presentation. In vying for consumers’ attention, in writing copy or posting on social media, engagement is achieved by creating a hook that will engage the audience.
In today’s culture, drama and trauma are effective. Pay attention to any hook that functions as a shibboleth and examine what that shibboleth might reveal about the tribe.
What can we do?
Where do we begin to reclaim critical thinking? Notice where we have become careless. Identify our own biases that affect perception. Ask ourselves questions and dig for honest answers. We can ask ourselves questions like:
- Is this oversimplified? What information could be missing?
- Am I drawn to the sensational viewpoint of the material? Does it amplify my emotions?
- Is this piece distributing facts or opinion? Am I too trusting of this person (because I’m a fan)?
- Where is this presentation or story leading me? Is it confirming what I already believe?
- Are there pieces that seem irrelevant or don’t fit?
- Do I detect any shibboleths that suggest insider-outsider issues?
It may be easier to trust gatekeepers, but is that the best practice? We currently live in a personality culture where celebrity status holds some sort of power. We would do well to ask ourselves what sort of power we have forfeited to others.
Here are some tips for looking into the media horse’s mouth.
- Make the essential effort to verify sources; this is important to our freedom of thought.
- Read articles from varied print sources. I find thorough articles in a business newspaper published daily in the United Kingdom (and available digitally): Financial Times. Another reliable source is The Economist, an international weekly newspaper printed in magazine format and published digitally. It focuses on current affairs, international business, politics, and technology. Based in London, the newspaper is owned by The Economist Group with core editorial offices in the United States, as well as across major cities in continental Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
- Search for trustworthy online sources. I go to Reuters, an international news organization with two hundred locations and 2,500 journalists. I choose my own reading. Another option is The Associated Press (AP), which is a nonprofit news cooperative. AP news distributes reports and photos to its members and customers. When I see two different versions of a story, I can go to the AP and see the original report they both received and how each changed it.
Now that you’re emboldened to think critically and get your information from the horse’s mouth regarding media’s coverage of current events, you may be ready to go the horse’s mouth in a spiritual context.
Spiritual data matters too
Raised on sparse flatland of the high plains, my first exposure to religion came from the man who would become my husband. He asserted that any questions I had about life could be answered in the Bible. I had countless questions, so I bought into that idea. Then I married him four months later. I spent decades trying with all my heart to reconcile things I learned in bible class with logic.
I understood from my nonreligious mother and my religious spouse that my job was to obey, not question. But I still had questions—more as I tried harder. All those years studying the Hebrew or Greek original words had built an intellectual comprehension but also increased the cognitive dissonance. During my fiftieth year, I crossed a threshold and decided to go straight to the horse’s mouth for this category of spiritual authenticity too.
I decided to pursue the true character of God from the perspective of a hunter-explorer. I did not want to arrange facts in any way, but just took notes. Simple. Straightforward. I wanted to skip over the chaos and confusion of historical issues of gender roles and proper behavior.
We have bought into the idea that we can’t or it’s too difficult, so we should just trust “someone smarter than me” (like a religious leader) who has it all figured out and will tell us what we need to know. After all, “they” have our best interests in mind, don’t they?
Religious gatekeepers control access. In my religious experience, elders and deacons were gatekeepers in the church. They stood up in front of the congregation with authority to teach, preach, and sing, qualified or not. Whether those elders and deacons beat their wife or abused their kids, there was no disqualifier. If they attended the assembly, they had power.
In my hunt for the true character of God, I became determined to eliminate the gatekeepers’ influence. I decided to not read books by spiritual leaders or experts. My quest could not be guided by them, and no substitute horses would do.
A preacher is not the horse’s mouth. Like writers and editors, preachers choose to include or exclude specific details about a given horse to deliver or promote a particular point of view. They assemble scriptures and quotes that support their assertion.
Bible class teachers are not the horse’s mouth. Authors of commentaries are not the horse’s mouth. I often heard the presumption that we common people can never know God. Even if that’s true, does it mean we surrender to gatekeepers?
Religious media networks are not the horse’s mouth. Like all other commercial media, they are in business for profit. They do the research on their niche market and deliver.
I tried to set aside my bias toward or against specific religious or spiritual communities. My exploration was not about trading one system for another. I simply chose to use critical thinking as best I could, adapt to any new expressions of deity, and verify by my own firsthand experience. I wanted to truly comprehend the character of the deity usually called God. I sought the real and true nature of the entity who motivated so many heroes.
I did read scripture, but I read differently. I included material written in the first two centuries. I looked for Bibles that had no columns, no numbering, no archaic language (shibboleth triggers like thee or thou), and no footnotes or references.
When I read, I rewrote sections in paraphrase without verse identifiers or subtitles. I trusted my own grasp of the text. I didn’t build my faith on any single statement. I focused on what the content revealed about character traits of God.
Some of my current spiritual convictions came in the form of experiential knowing. That means I believe something because I’ve experienced it. I’ve had encounters outside the normal physics of this dimension but as real as gravity and aerodynamics within this dimension. Those experiences verify the accuracy of spiritual truth, which is comparable to the truth that if I cut my finger, it will bleed.
Conclusion
Today can be a turning point for us—for you. It’s on us, not others, to do the work gathering facts for our consideration. It’s on us to hunt for important or missing information, to the extent we can. Cultivate knowledge by reading relevant material, asking critical questions, looking for information gaps, and hunting that gap down. Start by paying attention and noticing. Level up your literacy skills.
Don’t be pacified by others’ interpretations of circumstances. Practice hunting for facts from the horse’s mouth, or as close as you can get. Know where your information comes from and thoughtfully consider the data.
In the spiritual domain, steer clear of gatekeepers; an almighty God does not need an interpreter. If you want to know God, let God know, then listen. Tune in to the deity character described in scripture that you read. Read fresh with an open mind.
Practicing critical thinking is a treasure—the exploration of real information. Be brave; research does not hurt. It’s worth the work. Shine a light on precision; there is peace in knowing. You can draw your own conclusions with intellectual integrity. Enjoy your journey of improving your understanding and becoming more compassionate for others and yourself.
