Media Literacy Will Destroy Civilization

A long time ago, in a galaxy not so far away, the idea of bringing computers into classrooms emerged as a real possibility. More than a possibility, it presented a strong controversy. “The kids lack the media literacy to judge what is real and what is make believe,” cried concerned citizens.

This was back in the 1990s. I was on what was then called the HF-L Technology Committee because of my computer background (and also because, as Town Board school liaison, I had to be on some committee). Today, those complaints seem naïve. And they were. But not for reasons you think.

It turns out secondary school students aren’t the only perpetrators of media illiteracy. We all are. From kids falling for internet hoaxes, to adults trusting what they hear and read from news outlets, to everyone thinking all sorts of things they read on social media are true and need to be repeated, media illiteracy represents a pervasive disease.

What is media illiteracy? It’s believing everything you read, hear, or see at face value. It’s the lack of critical thinking when confronted with “facts” (or, increasingly, “fact checks”). It’s always been around. The internet has just made its impact spread like wildfire.

And, of course, it’s dangerous. It’s manipulative (when it tricks you into voting the wrong way) and potentially deadly (when it suggests medical advice without adequate warnings).

The news doesn’t get any better.

The cure for media illiteracy might be worse than the disease.

Before we get there, let’s talk about the phenomenon known as “Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.” The story goes that a physicist Murray Gell-Mann spent each day happily consuming news from his favorite paper. One day, he happened upon an article on physics, a subject near and dear to his heart. He was flummoxed by the number of errors in the piece. “I’ll never believe another story this rag writes about physics!” he declared. But then added, “The rest of the stuff, though, I can believe that.”

The truth is, if the media makes errors on a subject you know a lot about, why would you believe it doesn’t make errors on the stuff you don’t know about? Obviously, you shouldn’t believe that, but most people do. In effect, this selective skepticism leads to blind spots that allow misinformation to creep in.

So, what’s the solution? You’re most certainly thinking, “We must view every piece of news with a large dose of doubt.”

On its face, a good dose of skepticism seems like the path towards media literacy. You can see where it offers benefits. It encourages you to question narratives, seek alternative (as in opposing) viewpoints, and creates a process where you automatically verify facts before believing anything.

Aye, there lies the rub.

What happens if you take skepticism too far? For the 1960s generation (that would be Baby Boomers when they were young), the mantra “question everything” ruled the day. (For those not in the Baby Boomer generation, “mantra” was in the 1960s what “meme” is today.) In fact, not less than stand-up philosopher George Carlin once said, “Don’t just teach your children to read. Teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything.”

But if you question everything, where does that lead you? The horror stories of hippie communes gone bad provide the bottom line. A place that questions every belief has no rules. And a place that has no rules is ruled by anarchy. And anarchy leads to cultural extinction, the end of the world as we know it, if you will.

If we extend skepticism beyond the media—if we question everything—society begins to unravel. If you doubt everything, you reject family traditions, religious and spiritual teachings, and shared cultural ideals—all things that bind families, communities, and nations. Extreme skepticism leads to the collapse of civilization. Families disintegrate when they no longer see the importance of their common background. Communities wither away when the moral framework that once held them together erodes in the fury of agnostic disarray. Entire nations fall when their citizens abandon the very ideals that once united them.

Extreme skepticism strips the mores that bind us down to their human imperfections. It ignores the cultural and ethical glue these commonalities provide.

Allow me to offer one example which I’m thinking you’re a subject expert on (assuming you passed 11^th grade American History). We’re familiar with the ideals the Founding Fathers instilled within the new nation they created. The reach for those ideals became the basis of the American Dream (on a personal level) and American Exceptionalism (on a national level). They echo vibrantly through the first couple of centuries of our nation, teaching generations the importance of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As an aside, any honest scholar will tell you that philosophy isn’t wholly American in nature. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et al. merely followed the advice proffered by the European Enlightenment, which championed the rights of man over government. And those ideas can be traced all the way back to Aristotle. Each of these parties modestly deferred to the wisdom of their predecessors. So, in the end, this thing we call “American Exceptionalism” really had its roots in Europe. In fact, it was a European—Alexis de Tocqueville, the French political scientist and historian who wrote Democracy in America describing his sojourn through the United States in the early 19^th century—who first used the term “exceptional” to describe America.

And that’s the way things stood until the mantra of the 1960s called up its youth to “Question Everything.” This extreme skepticism reframed the Framers. No longer seen in terms of the ideal of liberty which it had espoused since 1776, extreme skeptics viewed American history solely through a critical lens. Today, a generation of students hasn’t learned to celebrate American Exceptionalism. Instead, they’ve been taught to define our nation only by its past sins. Unfortunately, in the act of doing this, our nation is throwing away the principles that have allowed it to grow and improve.

This is how you destroy a nation. This is how you destroy civilization. Media literacy, taken to an extreme, is no different than extreme skepticism. It can unintentionally strip out the basic facts and fill the void with yet another form of misinformation.

I won’t get into the whole “History vs. Historiography” debate because that rabbit hole merits its own Commentary. Suffice it to say, the dichotomy presented in that debate is an offshoot of extreme skepticism. Bluntly, if you want to maintain accuracy and understanding regarding the thoughts and reasons behind historical actions, you must rely solely on evidence from that period. Introducing modern perspectives will bias your understanding of the true legacy of the past. It’s the only way to attain the most accurate historical scholarship.

But let’s return to our original question regarding media literacy. It’s apparent both extremes are bad. With no media literacy—100% media illiteracy—people can fall victim to the slightest of propaganda schemes. We can’t have that. With 100% media literacy—extreme skepticism—we aggressively question our valued institutions, destroying their validity in the process, and causing the collapse of civilization. We can’t have that, either.

So, what’s the solution?

Consider the American founding story. Taken at face value, it is uplifting: A group of revolutionaries dared to defy a global superpower and created a new nation based on liberty and self-governance. It is a story of courage, idealism, and triumph.

But apply extreme skepticism, and suddenly, the entire narrative collapses. The Founding Fathers were flawed. The system they created was imperfect (by their own standards). There were injustices (by today’s standards).

A healthy media-literate person, however, can hold both perspectives. Yes, the Founding Fathers had faults. But their ideas—freedom, democracy, and human rights—were revolutionary. The American story is not one of perfection but of progress. Perhaps, in that way, it is also what makes America exceptional.

So how do we improve media literacy without destroying civilization? The answer lies in balancing skepticism with acceptance. Call it “healthy skepticism.” If only Murray Gell-Mann knew this.

Oddly enough, Comedian Bill Murray provided an excellent example of how to avoid the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. He recently spoke to Joe Rogan about his immediate reaction to Bob Woodward’s 1984 book Wired: The Short Life & Fast Times of John Belushi. He said in the interview, “When I read Wired—the book written by, what’s his name, Woodward—about Belushi, I read like five pages, and I went, ‘Oh my God. They framed Nixon.’ If this is what he writes about my friend that I’ve known for half of my adult life—which is completely inaccurate—talking to the people of the outer circle getting the story, what the hell could they have done to Nixon? I acknowledge I only read five pages, but the five pages I read made me want to set fire to the whole thing. Those five pages, I went, ‘If he did this to Belushi, what he did to Nixon is probably soiled for me, too.’”

Clearly, comedian Murray shows he’s more media literate than physicist Murray.

Healthy skepticism means questioning without dismissing. It means asking questions but also recognizing the importance of a shared ethic. It allows us to see failings without losing faith in the institutions that hold society together.

The next time you read a news story, remember the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. Recognize that the media is imperfect, but so is absolute skepticism. Somewhere in between, there is a wisdom that demands you to trust (a little), but verify (a lot).

The survival of civilization depends on finding it.