(Or why sports do not exist in MaggieWorld)

Coming Next Week: The KGB Spy Who Came to Dinner (good news about religious freedom)
[Congratulations to Betty P of Carol Stream, IL, Esther P of Centennial, CO, and Marilyn L of Fair Haven, NJ- the winners of our October giveaway: 52 Prayers of Blessing for Women.]
According to a trusted source - my husband - the New York Yankees and the Los Angeles Dodgers are currently competing against each other in the World Series. Mike insists he saw it on TV so it must be so.
So why does my computer feed never show me articles about sports of any kind other than Olympics news every four years? Just because I’m a sports illiterate who doesn't click on stats or athletes’ stories shouldn’t make the entire industry invisible. Yet in Maggie’s world online, sports simply do not exist.
How about you? Have you ever read a series of articles online about a significant topic – a political candidate, health epidemic or religious issue, for instance, and wondered why others in your family or social circles never seem to see the same information, and consequently hold contrary opinions about that which seems so patently obvious to you?
We all have.
The first amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedom of religion, speech, and the press, giving Americans the liberty to choose any faith – or none – and to share diverse thoughts on issues of the day without fear of government reprisal. As frustrating as the cacophony of voices often is, it’s a crucial freedom our democracy holds dear.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” United States Constitution
I wonder what our Founding Fathers would have thought about algorithms.
These crafty little proprietary computations – once used solely as a procedure for solving mathematical problems – now influence virtually everything shown to us online.
Algorithms analyze your past interactions by noting “what you've clicked on, liked, or commented on, to predict what content you're most likely to find interesting and then prioritize those articles in your feed, essentially tailoring your news and content based on your personal preferences and behavior on the platform.” (Overview provided by Google, of course.)
“On the other side of our digital lives are intelligences seeking to question us—nameless, faceless algorithms designed to test us with just one question, ‘What do you want?’" Russell Moore
In theory, this is not a bad thing. It’s simple marketing, right? Artificial intelligence (AI) at work. Online platforms covet advertising dollars, so they capitalize on our clicks to let marketers know who their potential buyers might be, whether we’re consuming products or political campaigns. Once we click on an article skewed in favor of one political party, we’re increasingly unlikely to be shown anything favorable about the opposition.
And then there are times that algorithms are useful to us.
I was speaking in New England when Hurricane Helene decimated western North Carolina. With all mobile and internet service down at home, the only news I could receive was from major media. National news covered the disaster heavily, so the more articles I read, the more my computer feed showed me.
Computer programs are designed to give us what they think we want, not what we actually need.
Unless we don’t let them.
That’s why writers encourage others to read widely, consider the source, and vet what you read. Do your research and check out alternate views to see what your preferred outlets might not be telling you, especially if they’re partisan. We all need to beware of confirmation bias – our human tendency to turn to echo chambers online and on the air that present the viewpoints we already favor.
Are the Media Bias charts like the one I included last week biased in themselves? Theoretically, no. But even there we need to do our research. My son-in-law found another source: AllSides, designed to help readers check for media bias and misinformation.
Senior Christian writers I respect recommend Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported newsletter that summarizes the best arguments across the political spectrum on the news of the day. (I read the free version.)
Sometimes algorithms work against our very efforts to combat misinformation, as when last week’s post on that very topic went out to some of you with a scary warning or straight into your spam folder.
Sheesh. A girl can’t win.
But I so appreciated your many comments, especially this one by reader Larry Q: “My thought on the need for discernment: Judgment without investigation is arrogance.”
Arrogance. Pride.
As Christian apologist C. S. Lewis wrote, “Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind… it is Pride which has been the chief cause of misery in every nation and every family since the world began.” (Mere Christianity)
Is pride - needing to believe we’re right - why we hesitate reading news stories or watching competing news channels that might present alternative views? Is it a general mistrust of media fostered by national figures who discredit journalism that doesn’t flatter them? Or maybe it’s simply information overload.
Probably all three.
Recognizing our own biases, which are often reinforced by what we read or view, is an important step towards extending understanding and empathy towards those who feel differently.
Because I lack interest in sports stories, my computer doesn’t show them to me. But that doesn’t mean they’re not important to the rest of the world. It’s time to swallow my own pride and admit something. . .
Yes, Virginia, there really is a World Series.