How to Read Critically in the Information Age

Misinformation is everywhere: in newspapers, in books, on the Internet-the list goes on. So how do you sort the good information from the bad? Unfortunately, no easy way exists. Sometimes the truth can come from notoriously disreputable sources (think National Enquirer), and falsehoods can be spread by normally pristine publications (such as the reporter who fabricated stories for the New York Times). Despite these anomalies, there are general guidelines that you can follow to become a critical reader: a reader who can distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate information and understand the author's argument. The following eight pointers will help you wade through the misinformation so plentiful in all media.

1. Determine the author's motivation

To evaluate information, you must first understand the author's main motivation. First, ask yourself the point of the article. What are the authors trying to prove to you? And how do their subsequent reasons and evidence support their main point? Sometimes, authors don't have an agenda (e.g., news articles seeking to simply inform the audience), but that doesn't mean you can automatically trust what they wrote. And when authors do have an agenda, their biases don't necessarily invalidate their work. But if you can determine the writer's goal, it makes it far easier to judge if his or her argument is valid.

2. Evaluate the writer and the sources he or she uses

Look at the writer's credentials. Is she a journalist, writing a book on globalization? Or is he an academic, penning a column on game theory? For the journalist, a lot more weight rests on the sources she uses. Does she interview experts? How reliable are these experts? Or does she simply rely on her own experience? For the academic, his expertise is already proven. However, that does not mean he's free from scrutiny. You'll still have to examine his logic and reasoning, asking yourself if his argument makes sense to you or if something seems amiss.

3. Don't be swayed by anecdotes

Anecdotes-or personal experiences-are compelling. We love hearing stories about people, and they'll last in our memory far longer than numbers. However, anecdotes are not good evidence for trends. The news media especially tend to use anecdotes to try to make claims on a larger scale. Who can forget their hysteria every time a shark attacks a beachgoer? But no matter how many times they report an attack, it does not mean that shark attacks are on the rise. Now, if the U.S. Coast Guard releases a report that states shark attacks tripled from 10 attacks to 30, then we can say shark attacks have increased.

4. Don't be impressed by statistics

However, numbers aren't cold, objective facts. Statistics and numbers can be manipulated. Let's say I only told you that shark attacks tripled. You would think that would be significant, right? But then what if you found out that they tripled from one attack to three attacks? Not so impressive now, huh?

You also have to examine the source from where the statistics came. Imagine you found a story that said 80 percent of children who played violent video games bully other children. When you see who sponsored the study, it's from the American Association of Family Values. That doesn't necessarily mean the statistics are faulty, but now that you know a the sponsor has an interest in a particular outcome, you should give the statistics a closer look (actually you should do this regardless of the sponsor). You should ask, "How did they pick the children for the study? What's their definition of bullying? How did they measure their results (did they do an experiment, did they hand out a random survey)?"

Generally, be the most vigilant when alarming statistics pop up or the sponsor of the study is biased.

5. Know the difference among primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Pretend you're reading a health story on a blog: a reporter wrote a story about a scientific study that links cell phones and brain cancer. The blogger is explaining the reporter's story in his own words. As you may have guessed, the study is a primary source, the news article is the secondary source, and the blog is the tertiary source. Just recognize that the further a story gets away from the primary source, the more it's filtered by the author's interpretation.

However, maybe the reporter's interpretation of the story is wrong, and the blogger's version is right. But if you're truly interested in a story, look for the primary source. This isn't a practical suggestion for every news story you encounter, but if you're writing your own article, or it's just something you really want to know, go read the primary source.

6. Learn the difference between correlation and causation

Now let's pretend you're reading a news story on a study that found drinking a glass of red wine every day is linked to a reduced risk of heart disease. The first question you should ask is if this finding is a correlation or a causation. A correlation is a relationship between two variables, while causation is a relationship in which one variable directly affects the other variable.

In plain English? A correlation does not mean two separate entities caused each other; they may both rise or fall together, but that does not mean they cause each other to rise or fall-an outside factor may be causing their relationship. A causation means that one entity causes the other one to rise or fall.

So for our wine study, a correlation may be that anyone who can afford to drink red wine every day can afford better health care (thus the better health care reduces the heart disease, not the wine). To conclude that the wine causes it, researchers would have to take into account all possible variables and work to control any potential interference.

7. Look for logical fallacies

Let's now take a look at logical fallacies. Basically, whenever a writer makes a connection that doesn't quite seem right, they may be committing a logical fallacy. Here are some of the more common ones. A straw man argument is when a person will distort someone's opinion to make it more extreme and thus more easy to knock down. Example: if Representative Suzy Smith voted for gun control, pundit Al Lenz would bleat that Smith is against all guns.

Another prevalent fallacy is a false dichotomy, which is when a person puts forth two options and says there's no other alternative ("You're either with us or against us!"). However, many alternatives actually exist. Another huge fallacy (last one, I promise) is called an ad hominem argument. The arguer will attack the person and not his or her actual argument. For example: Senator Stan calls a conservative commentator an idiot windbag and doesn't actually respond to any of his criticisms on his bailout plan.

If you're interested in more logical fallacies (and who wouldn't be!) this Wikipedia page lists many of them.

8. Understand the person behind the words is human

I hope this article didn't make you paranoid, thinking everyone's out there to manipulate you. People make mistakes. A journalist might confuse correlation and causation, and a frustrated blogger may accidentally use a statistic from a disreputable source.

So be skeptical but don't be overeager in criticizing the author; otherwise you may end up dismissing an otherwise good article. At the same time, don't let the author condescend to you. The writer has to persuade or inform you, and it's up to you to decide whether the argument works or needs some major revision.