The previous article pointed out that modern institutions – science, policy and traditional media1Traditional media in this article: editorially embedded news organizations, regardless of platform (print, TV or digital) – are intertwined in such a way that they form a stable interpretation framework that protects itself against destabilizing information. New facts that undermine an existing policy paradigm are not welcomed as advancing insight, but experienced as a threat to administrative continuity and institutional reputation.
This second article builds on that and zooms in. This is not about the institutions themselves, but about the only route through which science can acquire social significance at all: the media landscape. Media are the producers of the interpretation frameworks within which facts gain meaning. If a pluralistic media landscape cannot ensure diversity in interpretation frameworks, important - and therefore usually controversial - facts will be neutralized, no matter how robust the evidence is.
Observation is interpretation, not registration
Cognitive psychology has been around since Bartlett's Remembering (1932) see that people do not register reality the way a camera does, let alone internalize the registration intact. Perceiving, understanding and accepting is an interpretive process, guided by mental schemas that determine what is relevant, what is exceptional and what is meaningful. Kahneman described this as the automatic functioning of System 1 in Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011). The priming with those mental schemas determines which information will stick and which will not.
These diagrams are not individual constructions. They are socially shared and shaped by cultural narratives and authority, presented primarily by, crucially, the media that are considered trustworthy. Science never reaches citizens directly, it always happens in a pre-existing manner interpretation framework.
(Note: I do not use the word 'frame' here because of its negative connotation and because it often implies a deliberate agenda. While that 'agenda' is a logical result of the context, the 'priming' of those accused of framing.)
Traditional media: the designers of the shared interpretation framework
Communication science has shown for decades that traditional media not only provide information, but especially the context in which information gains meaning.
Iyengar and Kinder let in News That Matters (1987) see that television does not so much convince as select: it determines what people think about at all. Gerbner's Cultivation Analysis (1976–1995) showed that long-term media consumption shapes worldviews that can overwrite even personal experience. And Katz & Lazarsfelds Personal Influence (1955) showed that interpersonal communication is primarily a reinforcement mechanism of media-informed interpretations. The less informed seek confirmation from their local opinion leaders: those who read more quality newspapers and watch all the talk shows.
The shared model of interpretation — what is “normal,” “likely,” “representative,” or “concerning” — is thus largely determined by traditional quality media. Not because citizens are naive, but because they are epistemically dependent on sources they consider reliable.
The narrative wins over the senses
Why then are the media decisive, despite our own vision, which is based on our own experience? Personal experience does indeed seem to be a powerful counterbalance to media frameworks, but that is a misconception. Research into risk perception, such as Slovic's Perception of Risk (1987), shows that deviant experiences rarely lead to a revision of the dominant narrative. Instead, the experience itself is recoded: as coincidence, as bad luck, as anecdotal, as statistically irrelevant.
This is a good place for a short anecdote: I was there when, at a pleasant reunion, two dear ex-colleagues discovered that they had both suffered vaccination damage from the Covid basic series. Both assured each other loudly how extremely rare side effects were. So there was no reason for regret. They had 'just been unlucky.' I didn't dare ask whether that would stop them from taking the booster. After all, it was a festive get-together.
This is not irrational behavior. It's cognitive efficiency: it's easier to reinterpret or ignore a single experience than to revise an entire worldview.
The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect sharply illustrates this mechanism. People see that media make mistakes in areas where they have expertise, but continue to trust the same media - even after turning the page - in areas where they have no expertise or personal experience. The fallibility of the source does not change the interpretation framework; the framework remains intact, and the observation is adjusted or put in a different drawer.
This docility was also evident from psychological experiments. The most famous: Milgram showed how people obey authority, against their own perception. Asch makes it clear that people deny their own senses when the group claims otherwise.
Cognitive dissonance reinforces the power of media frames
When personal experience or scientific evidence conflicts with the media-driven interpretation model, cognitive dissonance arises (Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, 1957). Citizens can then:
- adjust the interpretation framework (psychologically difficult), or
- reinterpreting the observation (psychological light).
Most people choose the second option. No anchors are knocked loose.
Traditional media provide the ready-made narratives that reduce this dissonance. They present deviations as exceptions, as statistically insignificant, or as misunderstandings* that can be explained by experts. In social networks, these narratives are then confirmed by people who consume the same media. This creates a self-reinforcing system in which deviating experiences are neutralized before they can affect the shared worldview.
*Oh, mine is a lot is at stake, misinformation or conspiracy theory
Science reaches citizens through diverse media
Scientists overestimate the power of data because they assume a model in which citizens receive information and then process it objectively. But in reality, information is interpreted within media-shaped frameworks, personal experience is recoded to avoid dissonance, and social norms are valued over empirical anomalies. Moreover, scientific information will often not pass through the media filters as 'interesting', socially relevant' or even 'newsworthy', ignoring the various subjective preferences that may be expected in a pluralistic media landscape. It is precisely these that provide fuel for the debate by showing different contexts.
Either way, that means science isn't direct has access to public opinion. To get from Academia to Democracy you have to go through media customs. And that is why media pluralism is not a luxury, but a necessary condition for epistemic progress.
In a homogeneous or institutionally embedded media landscape, facts are not tested, but absorbed into one dominant interpretation model. In a pluralistic landscape, on the other hand, facts can collide, resonate, be reframed and ultimately lead to shifts in the shared understanding of reality.
Conclusion
Science never communicates directly with society. A pluralistic media landscape is therefore a sine qua non for any form of social progress based on research. Only when different editorial traditions, perspectives and frames can coexist will there be room for scholarly insights to truly compete with existing narratives. Where this pluralism is lacking, science is filtered and reduced to technocratic input for existing paradigms. Where pluralism does exist, science can be a source of social innovation.
Science does not flourish through the power of the facts, but through the diversity of the channels that give those facts meaning. Without that diversity, facts remain true, but powerless.
Related literature
- Asch, Agreement experiments. Wikipedia
- Bartlett, F. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology.
- Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.
- Gerbner, G. (1976–1995). Cultivation Analysis.
- Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. (1987). News That Matters.
- Milgram experiments. Wikipedia
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow.
- Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955). Personal Influence.
- Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk.
So much for the theory. You can read about what happens in practice The Mediacracy -2.
References
- 1Traditional media in this article: editorially embedded news organizations, regardless of platform (print, TV or digital)
The legacy media not only consider themselves the purveyors of “the only truth,” but have also appropriated the “only correct” moral judgment.
Indeed. Group think is also self-reinforcing in the media park.
Trumans we were, nice Trumans, if I say so myself
We indeed live in a reality created by media and take it for granted.
We see it ourselves (in the media, around us).
Truman finally literally knocked on the wall of his reality (cruised against the boundaries of his universe) and discovered what was real.
He experienced that he was alone and had been made fun of by everyone in his world for the amusement of many and! that there was a director who coordinated everything.
His situation partly differs from ours in this respect. We are not alone in our delusion but we share it. There is no such thing as a central director.
From a constellation of diverse interests, I think, a 'reality' emerges that we see as true. Where some stakeholders operate sneakily and consciously deploy propaganda through the media, fabricate consent and others contribute to this consent not consciously but also out of their own interest.
There is no boundary that can be physically crossed a la Truman, no Plato's cave that one can leave. No clear view outside the cave but only one, often lonely (this is in accordance with Truman's experience) not appreciated, because disturbing, exploratory groping in darkness.
Our will to know for sure ensures that, just like Truman, out of (learned) fear, we avoid the boundaries of this reality and do not knock on our Truman wall.
Living as Nescio, I don't know, is (too) difficult.
This media is also used to confirm oneself and one's own opinion.
Also to ridicule others for their opinions. Wappies, internet weirdos, etc.
Even to frame completely safe medication, Ivermectin, differently. Horse medication, while it has received a Nobel Prize for its application to humans.
Also think of Milgram's experiment, which showed that people are willing to go very far when they are “controlled” by people they believe have authority.
Certainly. I also had Milgram and Asch in my notes…
Milgram:
People obey authority against their own perception. (The man screams for his life, but the experimenter says it is safe and so the subject continues to increase the electric shocks.)
Asch:
People deny their own senses when the group claims otherwise.
I might add it later.
The interpretation of reality is socialized, not observed.
Another striking example:
The 5 monkeys experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZpyEJDSVDw
Yes beautiful. It just wasn't really a science experiment; it is more of an imagination, a parable, inspired by actual experiments that pointed in that direction. As you describe it, it is mainly found in self-help and management books. The phenomenon has been 'clarified'. Because of the high degree of probability, I would not call it a 'monkey sandwich' 🙂
I wouldn't call it anecdotal either. If you investigate this in organizations, especially large ones, you will find many examples like this. Regulations and/or restrictive that no one remembers why they were there again. However, they are not discussed, in fact, such discussion is discouraged.
Certainly: it is very recognizable and clearly illustrates how those processes work.
Haha, Goethe (also a [somewhat controversial] natural scientist) wrote this almost 200 years ago:
It is not our senses that deceive us, but our (pre)judgments.
How true this is in light of this excellent article…..
Wow – a striking quote! I didn't know that!
You might also like this as a source/original:
The quote comes from Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. It is one of his most famous observations on human perception.
The Quote
In German the original text reads:
“The senses are not deceiving, the judgment is deceiving.”
In Dutch we usually translate this as:
“The senses do not deceive, the judgment deceives.”
“It is not our senses that deceive us, but our judgments.”
The Source
This quote is from his collection Maximen und Reflexionen (Maximén and Reflections). This is a collection of short sayings, thoughts and wisdom that Goethe wrote down during his life and that were collected after his death.
De Context
Goethe was not only a writer, but also a natural scientist (think of his Color Theory). He strongly believed that nature honestly presents itself to us through our senses. The “error” only occurs when our mind starts to interpret that information based on expectations, prejudices or flawed logic.
How recognizable is this with “scientific” narratives such as Corona, climate, immigration, energy transition, EU, etc. etc.
Yes, certainly nice, I had already looked into it myself. The quote is also seen as “pseudo-Goethe”: he would not have literally written it down like that himself, but it is a striking aphorism for his ideas.
Each AI had its own 'most similar' quote.
“The senses are not deceiving, the judgment is deceiving.”
“It is not the senses that deceive, but the understanding when it judges.”
“Everything factual is already theory.”
“You only see what you know.”
The same basic idea can also be seen in Epicurus (300 BC), Zeno, Stoics (300 AD), Descartes, Kant, Bacon, Hume. Seen in this way, it is almost an everyday thought, nothing new under the sun. But you can also say: it is a natural law of all times, other Great Thinkers also saw it 🤓👍🏻
Can it be improved? You would hope for awareness among professionals instead of abuse.
https://www.malone.news/p/nudge-and-behavioral-governance-systematic
This article by Malone is also about influence.
Yes, information/influence by the government has always existed, the techniques are known.
Yet I have never actually had anything against the guiding and nudging commercials of, for example, Veilig Verkeer Nederland.
Indeed, neither do I, but with common sense I don't need those commercials and raise my children as decent, responsible citizens. Unfortunately, those commercials from Veilig Verkeer Nederland have no effect on the behavior of most people and only punishment helps a little.
A bit bland......
I think you found the commercials of 'you are doing it for someone else' less useful guidance. 🙄
It is therefore absolutely not the "drive" to prove yourself right and to be proven right, but to stop and prevent suffering when you belong to the apparently small group of people who investigate observations without influence but based on facts, logic, etc. This article gives me the push to continue sowing tiny seeds of thought. So much sad medical news in my area over the past week and just as much hearing of the word "rare" that last night I thought "it won't turn out well and no matter what I say it doesn't matter anymore...". That anecdote about the Anton reunion is so recognizable. After the medical news, there are often climate stories, with nowadays endless complaints about how to avoid all the extra costs, while hardly anyone has properly investigated the regulations, etc., so I (again) bring the negative news that they have been included in the mainstream media story. No longer going to parties and gatherings is not a solution and participating in the discussion goes against my nature... We are still invited 😉 Busy with a book for the age of 2 years to... I'm afraid it is also suitable for adults. Informative to keep the environment safe for anyone with sensitivities to certain foods. The text and pictures had to be so simple, while the children had already understood it. Experienced an incredible amount of apparent “stupidity” from doctor to uncle, schoolteacher and neighbor. There is more to it than just “Follow the leader”.
An extremely illuminating piece. It occurs to me that a certain group of people would very much like that the ordinary people - the people who do not belong to the inner circle - can be guided in this way to form that "perfect" society. The kind of beehive, in which each animal performs its functions according to the model presented. Any animal that falls outside the group is rejected, or worse. That group believes that there are too many people, so victims are not only allowed, but also desired.
What I wonder is what the point of humans as a species will be? Self-thinking and creativity are slowly but surely being destroyed. What then is man?
Response to SuSanna, Anton and C,
Don't underestimate the power of 'nudging' and 'persuasive communication'. Many governments now have a special Behavioral Insights department, which is part of an international network (BIT).
Under Rutte, BIN NL was founded in the Netherlands in 2014. This is a government department that advises all ministries on how the choices and behavior of the population can be steered in the desired direction. It is much more powerful than you think and it undermines fair democratic processes. I also used to think that it was quite harmless and perhaps a good thing to point out to people about the dangers of smoking, for example. After I looked into it (in relation to the corona policy), I think very differently about it. It goes very far, it is extremely manipulative and people usually don't notice it.
Not only governments, but also companies and NGOs use behavioral insights (including in lobbying activities).
Journalists and politicians are also very easy to influence with nudging and persuasive communication. And so do you and me, if we are not very alert.
I paid attention to this in my Book 'Conspiracy of Opportunism'. I find it dangerous and autocratic.
It will not surprise me that the 'Wappies' are also being nudged. They are easy to encourage to believe in very extreme conspiracies. Then they can more easily be dismissed as madmen, so that the masses continue to follow the narrative.
The aforementioned article by Robert Malone is excellent.
I don't underestimate it (I think). In themselves they are also very human strategies to get your way, although they are not pure from an “argumentation theory” or “scientific” perspective. Every point of view is suitable for being disseminated in this way, crazy or not. It is part of the social dynamics on which a democracy is based.
In my opinion, the problem arises mainly where the government (formerly: "capital") claims a monopoly on those strategies and outclasses the organic dynamics with enormous budgets and media networks.
I think it's opportunistic. The other person is used or even abused for their own purposes, without consenting to it. Opportunism has always existed, but that does not mean that we should accept opportunistic manipulation, especially not when the government does it. It's just like cheating.
Yes it is. But yes, that is also lying, and fraud, and bullying, to name a few. That's just what people do among themselves and although we try to limit it, we don't cut off hands or heads for it. We have the judiciary for that and the media to expose things.
But as soon as the government comes into play, the playing field becomes uneven - especially if they form an alliance with the judiciary and the media.
In my book I am much more nuanced about nudging. It is very useful for many things, such as complex traffic situations and to make information about legislation more accessible. Unfortunately, the corona policy has gone completely off track. Information has been withheld and lies have been and continue to be made. Vaccination victims received no help and were called liars and lunatics.
If there were an honest evaluation and an apology offered, forgiveness might still be possible. However, the lying continues and the cover-up is extensive.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people involved. Due to the lack of evaluation, they have all now become liars, fraudsters or worse.
In my opinion, government communications have been “militarized.” There has been another purpose associated with it over time. Citizens are becoming increasingly resilient and this also leads to less compliance.
It is as if the government wants to regain the docility of the citizens as it used to be.
The “just listen, I know what's good for you” mantra is also there. I call it the vertrutting, take all weather and other alarms (code orange, yellow, red).
We all think something of it, but by now it is already in your language.
In this way we all unconsciously move forward little by little...
It starts with a fact, then the interpretation follows.
This man is dead, a fact
How tragic, interpretation
Thank goodness, interpretation
And so forth.
Interpretation as I see it is not a well-established fact, which leaves room for discussion. At worst, interpretation is shadow accounting (a fact is deliberately withheld), but most often (say in normal) it is a lack of information. This way you can disagree wholeheartedly with someone and still have a good discussion. You then exchange information and perhaps gain better insight.
The man is dead, a fact
I thought he was a bad man, interpretation
But from what I've heard now, I come to the conclusion that he was actually a good person
And so on
Where things go wrong is in the value-free interpretation, an interpretation that is completely separate from a fact and yet passes as the truth.
There are virus particles, a fact???
Now people are dying from that virus, interpretation
Grammatically not very different
There are Martians, a fact???
They influence the weather
I wish science would stick only to the facts and abandon interpretation altogether.
Nice essay by the way!
Even with (blood) results, interpretation takes precedence over observation (also because results can differ per laboratory and/or method. Protocols prescribe the interpretation (ULN) and a twilight zone is created (it's up to you or not, or your child). Dealing with files and information is sloppy, to say the least, but it is binding... The free choice to decide for yourself or to decide for your child is in doubt and that has become very clear during the corona period, but most do not see it or do not want to see it. Not even when the damage has already been done.
The problem you raise is the problem of standardization. If you agree that you measure in exactly the same way in every laboratory, then you can speak of a fact, as in 'this man is dead', 'the hemoglobin value is x', and so on.
With apologies for the schoolmaster tone, a remnant of the time when I had to explain the problem of standardization to lecture halls containing 100 students (and assumed a superior tone to outsmart the much smarter students. Old habits…).
How a smart student could have brought me down is as follows: 'Is standardization a bit successful? Or does it only work that way in theory. What is your experience?'
My experience is that at conferences there is endless talk about standardizing the simplest laboratory tests, which must have a reason, that is: that standardization is very difficult, perhaps even a utopia. Because why else would you talk about it endlessly (in rooms where you are sure no one will hear you = at a conference).
My own experience:
In the distant past in a certain hospital, a cheaper (competitor's) clotting test called d-dimer was ordered from the coagulation laboratory (where I did research). (Or maybe it wasn't cheaper, but price agreements had been made between the pharmaceutical company and my then bosses, it gave me nice conferences where my then bosses talked about... the effectiveness of the new clotting test! And then we slept in beautiful hotels, luxurious dinners were paid for by... the pharmaceutical company who made this d-dimer test... but I digress). This new d-dimer test, the manufacturer said, would give exactly the same results as the old d-dimer test. But we stollologists could not find the publication where it was stated. What my bosses and I did then was the following. I said: let's investigate whether the statement of the manufacturer we did business with is true. We still have old material d-dimer and now new material d-dimer and compare the results (in a so-called bland alman plot, for those who are really interested in the method). It turned out that the old and new d-dimer test did not correlate with each other at all! What did we do then? -We ran out of old material and we said to each other: 'apparently we did something wrong in our analyses'. I was also too blue to believe that the mistake might have been my fault... The results of that study then disappeared into the proverbial drawer (were never published), and so the coagulation world assumes that to this day d-dimer from manufacturer A measures exactly the same as d-dimer from manufacturer B.
All this falls under the heading: obscuring a fact in such a way that the interpretation shows what is desired. This is indeed the practice, it follows what you say, that interpretation takes precedence over observation. But what I'm saying is that this doesn't have to be the case, and is only the case because it suits 'us' better (thinking about all those paid trips and the idea that what we did in that coagulation lab was very scientific).
Has anyone seen the video from DNW yet? Ad Verbrugge in conversation with Ruud Koornstra, on the subject of Lidocaine as an effective medicine against corona. This took place in the spring of 2020. Astonishing!