How to Know When the Narrative Is False

[PeteS in CA]

How to Know When the Narrative Is False

https://townhall.com/columnists/robjenkins/2021/05/09/how-to-know-when-the-narrative-is-false-n2589153

You, of course, as a Townhall reader, are not stupid and gullible. Nevertheless, the professional narrative-spinners are quite adept at what they do, and they are backed by the power of government and the far-reaching media, including social media. With all those forces arrayed against you, how can you know when the narrative is false—and more importantly, how can you demonstrate that to others? Fortunately, for the wary and astute, there are always clear give-aways: 

Vagueness. The first indication that an allegedly factual narrative might be mostly fiction is when the information presented is vague and imprecise. It lacks specificity, relying on hedge words like “might” and “could.” Instead of providing hard numbers, it refers to “many” and “some.” ...

Contradictions. Another sign is when the spinners contradict themselves. A narrative is typically constructed over time, using multiple, similar stories ostensibly conveying the same information and thereby reinforcing each other.

But when this week’s story states something different from last week’s, without the spinners acknowledging the inconsistency— apparently hoping you won’t notice — that means they’re advancing a narrative, not giving you information. ...
Moving goalposts. Yet another common tactic of the narrative-spinners is to change the terminology mid-stream, essentially equating two things that aren’t at all equal while once again hoping you won’t notice. ...
...
Data manipulation. Speaking of numbers, narrative-spinners are also masters at manipulating data to make something look worse (or better, but mostly worse) than it really is. ...
...
Cui bono? Finally, when evaluating the truthfulness of any narrative, it’s vital to ask yourself “Cui bono?” or “Who stands to benefit?” If the answer is “the narrative-spinners,” that’s a good sign they might not be honest brokers.

I'll toss in a few more clues: mixing fiction into facts (plus or minus the facts); non sequitors nested in a cloud of irrelevancies; citing "experts" who are speaking outside of their expertise or are known activist-fabricators; fallacies such as ad hominem, red herrings, straw men, and generalizing broadly from a very few facts.

How to deal with an extensive narrative (IMO, of course)? First, recognize that some people will not care about facts, and some will. Second, recognize your limitations, especially time. Within that context, pick a few key factoids and/or fallacies and punch significant holes in the narrative. Let the other person show whether they care about facts or not and work from there.