The Truthful, the Lying, and the Bullsh*tting

         After these last few years, the vast majority of the population reads the news with some regularity. Even in younger generations, most kids are interested in current events, and the media plays a pivotal role in shaping public opinion and disseminating information. However, as we shift more and more into digital communication, the concepts of truth, lies, and bullshit have become more crucial to understand. These three phenomena represent distinct forms of communication, each with its own characteristics and implications. For anyone interested in understanding these concepts, I recommend the book "On Bullshit” by Harry Frankfurt, as it offers valuable insights into the nature of bullshit and its impact on society. This essay will explore the interaction between truth, lies, and bullshit in modern media, using Frankfurt's analysis to shed light on the challenges faced by both media consumers and producers.

        So, what are each of these concepts really? Bullshit can mean so many things, depending on who you ask. We use it as a sort of verbal ketchup to string together insults about things we don’t like, don’t make sense, or are unfair. Because of this, I should establish clear definitions for truth, lies, and bullshit. The truth is the easiest; it’s the objective facts. It’s verifiable information that fully and accurately represents the reality of a situation. For example, a study may be published that says, “We didn’t see any correlation between our two variables. After thorough statistical tests, we can’t see an association.” It may be a real bummer for the researchers to admit, but it’s the truth, defined by the laws and equations of statistics.

        Lies, on the other hand, involve a deliberate intent to deceive by presenting false or misleading information. The researchers may instead want to preserve their image and say, “We did see some very interesting correlations in our data! This may be important in our field!” They may intentionally alter their variables, or even take nonrandom samples. A good example of this is the autism and vaccine study from the 1990s by Andrew Wakefield. The data was intentionally collected from autism-presenting children who just happened to get a vaccine within the months that autism begins to present. Also, only 12 kids were included in the study. Clearly, as he was paid off by anti-vax protestors, he did this to mislead the public and make money off of lobbyist groups. He didn’t even believe that this correlation was true, and that’s what makes this behavior lying.

        Finally, bullshit is distinct from both truth and lies. It is characterized by a disregard for the truth and a focus on manipulating perception rather than conveying accurate information. It’s not that they want to avoid the truth- they don’t care about it. In this situation, a researcher may see that their data isn’t shaping up to be significant, so they p-hack the hell out of their data. They pan for little shit nuggets of possible conclusions out of the stream of misinformation, a miner for gold. They cherry-pick data points that support their hypothesis and ignore those that don’t. A great example of this type of researcher is Brian Wansink, whom many may know from the early 2000s for pioneering “psychological weight loss”. He was the guy who proposed that eating off of smaller plates allows people to consume fewer calories or that placing chocolate milk farther back on the shelf will discourage kids from consuming it. He was canceled somewhat recently for admitting to altering his data to fit his narrative, purely to put out as many research papers as possible and make as much money as he could. Despite his clear and admitted bullshitting, he became nationally famous for his work in diet choice architecture, and his work still has a chokehold on many American school systems (notice how fruit is always placed right near the register in school cafeterias, or how the pizza station is often at the very back? This is why).

        The interesting thing about Wansink is that he wasn’t necessarily wrong. It’s not implausible to assume that eating off a smaller plate will prompt you to eat less food. It makes sense; I mean, you couldn’t even fit as much food on your plate. But the important point here is that his research didn’t actually support this! He made it look like it did, by altering it and twisting around the data collection, but we’ll never know for sure if these ideas he founded are actually true until we run truly unbiased tests. Wansink didn’t really care about whether eating off a smaller plate actually helped people lose weight. He was purely in the business of making money, not telling the truth or fabricating lies. 1

        There’s a middle man here, too. Media organizations bear significant responsibility for conveying accurate information to the public, as they span the difference between scientists and laymen. They serve as conduits for disseminating news, analysis, and opinion. We trust them, since most of us cannot ask a scientist about their work directly. However, the rapidly evolving social media landscape has presented new challenges. The need for speed (lol) and constant engagement often leads to a blurring of boundaries between truth, lies, and bullshit. News outlets have begun to bullshit more than ever before. In order to hold your attention online, they need to make everything seem interesting. Would you rather read an article titled, “Red wine may be sort of okay for you, but we’re not sure”, or “Scientists discover that red wine is great for the heart! (Click here to read about how your drinking problem is actually wonderful!)” That’s an exaggeration, but if I had a nickel for every study about the J-shaped curve of red wine consumption and health markers, I’d be a millionaire.

        In all seriousness, lies have always existed in the media, but the digital age has amplified their reach and potential harm. False narratives and misinformation can spread rapidly, thanks to the ease of sharing on social media platforms. Lies can manipulate public opinion and undermine trust in institutions. We saw this first-hand during the COVID epidemic. So many people (a baffling number, really) were convinced that the vaccine didn’t work, that it was full of microchips, and that masks were a tactic by the government to restrict our freedom. Meanwhile, scientists wept in the privacy of their homes, tweeting over and over for everyone to please just wear a mask so that the hospitals don’t run out of ventilators. Fact-checking initiatives have emerged as a response to the proliferation of falsehoods, but their efficacy is hindered by the sheer volume of content to review. With billions of users on Facebook, Zuck can only delete so many bad tweets at a time.

        Frankfurt's work provides us with a great framework for noticing bullshit’s prevalence in modern media. After all, bullshit arises from a lack of concern for the truth and a desire to persuade rather than convey accurate information. It thrives in an environment where sensationalism, clickbait, and attention-grabbing headlines dominate. Since our culture revolves around making money, news’s purpose has shifted from informing the public to capturing their attention and generating engagement. Bullshit in the media can erode public trust and create an environment where truth becomes elusive. Today, we’ve got ourselves in a bind on many online platforms. A common situation proceeds as follows:

1. Some wacko make a video or comment about something that is categorically false at best and downright deranged at worst. Others pile on in agreement.

2. The online platform removes this content because it’s simply wrong and misleading.

3. Said wacko then shouts about how “The Media is silencing me! They don’t want you to know the truth!” Uproar ensues.

4. The online platform can now do nothing to counter this claim, even if they’re in the right. Experts in the matter try to demonstrate the truth, and are shouted down for conspiring with the media.

Too often, facts are overshadowed by sensationalism and hyperbole. Even worse, when people combine some half-truths they’ve heard with internal conceptions, the line between truth and fiction becomes blurred. The public's ability to distinguish genuine information from bullshit becomes increasingly challenging. The scariest aspect of bullshit is that it can manipulate emotions, reinforce biases, and perpetuate misinformation. It dilutes the value of factual reporting and undermines the foundations of democratic discourse. In online forums, we unintentionally surround ourselves with others that agree, forming infinite echo chambers of misinformation and denial.

    That all sounds pretty hard to navigate, huh? It damn well is. I know many people of my generation make fun of older people for their poor media literacy, but it’s harder to find good sources than we give credit for. If you haven’t been educated on this, you might look up “What’s going on with x current issue today?”, click on the first link, and assume that it’s correct. For us to navigate the truth effectively, we need to constantly check the credibility of citations, even if it sounds “right”. Bullshit and lies are both designed to sound as plausible and undeniable as possible. If you read a headline that sounds either too good or too terrifying, it’s probably bullshit. We need to review everything we read critically by fact-checking, even if we agree with the main ideas. Seeking multiple perspectives is a crucial habit for us to develop, as annoying as it can be, because a media outlet you’ve trusted in the past may be compromised beyond your understanding. It sounds nerdy to ask, “Well, are there any double-blind, placebo controlled studies behind this?”, but it’s often necessary. Articles can make any claim they want, attach a few studies that are questionable at best, and say that “research is coalescing around this crazy new fact!” Remember, bullshitting isn’t just making things up out of thin air; it can be purposefully twisting the information to seem more alarming as well. Media producers should also address the challenges posed by truth, lies, and bullshit. They’re the ones disseminating these things to the public, and frankly, they have a larger burden to uphold than we do. Upholding journalistic integrity, adhering to rigorous fact-checking processes, and promoting transparency are essential for the truth to be elucidated. Although easier said than done, media outlets should aim for accuracy over sensational titles and speedy publishing. All it takes is one media source twisting the facts just a little for the game of Internet Telephone to begin.

  We know that the media isn’t just a dichotomy of truth versus fiction, and the falsehoods presented to us aren’t always done with malicious intent. No matter the reason, bullshitters and liars both present a significant challenge for both consumers and producers of information. Harry Frankfurt's concept of bullshit helps us understand the manipulative nature of communication that prioritizes perception over truth. We all use it, and that’s fine; it’s when large information sources rely on its benefits that we begin to see issues. Both news sources and the public should stay vigilant while reading current events, fact checking even when it seems plausible. Maybe, if we address these challenges, we can create a more accountable media ecosystem that calls out the bullshitters and liars in the public eye, making sure everyone has access to what really goes on in the world.

1 If you’re interested in hearing more about this, definitely go check out Maintenance Phase’s “School Lunches, P-Hacking and the Original Pizzagate”. They deliver the information in an easy-to-understand way. It’s a good podcast overall, to be honest, if you’re into hearing about celebrity scandals and health fads.