Superstitious Beliefs and Media Responsibility

(I originally wrote this article for a local publication, but I don't think it will get published as the publication has gone into some sort of hibernation. Hence, this dated article here/)

Given the extensive and intensive media coverage right from the incipient stage to much post-incident reporting that is frankly unwarranted, the Huang Na incident has captured the attention of many Singaporeans in the latter stages of 2004. A point of contention that emerged from the whole episode is the question of media responsibility in Singapore. One might point out to the incessant hounding by the press on the past history of Huang Na’s parents that was bordering on paparazzi behavior as a point for reflection. One might also ruminate upon the over-sensationalize reports of the incidents in the press, where one might argue the news space could be used for better purposes or something more newsworthy. One might question the role local media should play in news reporting, where both printed press and television news no doubt holds a huge social influence over the general public. I believe these points had already been discussed in detail in various printed materials, if not unofficially amongst the public. I refer to Goh Choon Kang’s excellent article “Huang Na's death exposes our ugly side” in Lianhe Zaobao on 17th November 2004, which made a few excellent points on the above issues.

I will not touch on the above mentioned issues in my discussion on media responsibility in Singapore, for these so-called ‘ugly sides’ will seem too obvious to the average clearheaded individual. The issue that I wish to discuss in the present article is of a more insidious nature, which remains hidden to most untrained eyes. In his article, Goh Choon Kang has hinted at this issue as well, but did not really discuss it in depth. What is this issue I keep harping about?

I refer to articles on 7th November 2004 in both the Straits Times “Winning lottery numbers from the news” and Lianhe Zaobao “0923 7333: Homicide Numbers Win Top Two Lottery Prizes”, and on 8th November 2004 in the New Paper “Fruit-seller wanted to pay respects, won a windfall”. The same news made headlines in Lianhe Wanbao and Shinmin Daily News as well, two papers well-known for their sensational treatment of news. A summarized version of the reports goes somewhat like this: On 6th November 2004, the top two 4D winning numbers were 0923 and 7333 respectively. It was claimed that 0923 was coincidentally the age of Huang Na and suspect Took Leng How, and also the scrambled number of the car plate of a Singaporean who was washed away in flood in Johor around the same time. The number 7333 was derived from a news report in Shin Min Daily News two days before, where the evening paper published a story about a vegetable seller at the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre, who had bought seven dresses, three watches, three wallets, three pairs of shoes and three hair clips for thewake. Incidentally, the vegetable seller bought the items for the wake because he claimed Huang Na had appeared to him in a dream.

What’s wrong with the above reports? I quote from Goh Choon Kang’s article, “The Huang Na case is newsworthy, but for them to play up reports on numbers and 4-D draws made it look like they are encouraging gambling and superstition”. This is my point of contention in this article: the perpetuating of superstitious belief by the media.

The word ‘superstition’ has two definitions in the dictionary: (i) an idea or belief that has no good or logical reasons; (ii) a belief that (certain events) that cannot be explained by human reason or physical laws. The double-nature of the definition for the word ‘superstition’ reflects the general difficulty of categorizing what constitutes a superstitious belief and what doesn’t. The problem lies with the fact that most people have differing opinions on what comprises a good and logical explanation. In some instances, it is difficult to draw the line between superstitious beliefs or paranormal phenomenon which explanations elude us. In order to make a detailed analysis on this issue, it is necessary to distinguish what ‘superstitious beliefs’ constitutes. In the present article, I shall define ‘superstitious beliefs’ as ‘illogical or unreasonable beliefs that are held by an individual, despite the fact that there are more parsimonious ways of accounting for each belief within the realm of a physical and scientific explanation’. In other words, superstitious beliefs are beliefs with the unwanted baggage of extraneous metaphysical explanations that one is unable to falsify through the tenets of logic or science [1].

Going by this definition, it is not difficult to point out examples in the media where such perpetuations of such beliefs abound. For example, a variety show on Channel U introduces an alternative service available called ‘Space Cleansing’, where a trained Caucasian lady will come up to your house, detect the presence of bad aura, sprinkle flowers over the affected areas, and makes use of the melodious sound of a ringing bell to rid your humble lodgings of unpleasant aura and negative energy. Or the post-tsunami reports on people in affected areas making ghosts sightings and hearing strange noises in the night. Or reports of expert advices on the different types of plants one should avoid growing if it clashes with one’s zodiac signs. Or headlines on the clairvoyance of relatives of an individual killed in accidents where accounts of ‘I dreamt of this two days ago’ and ‘My eyelids were twitching uncomfortably that morning’ are frequent. Or reports on the fact that the consumption of certain kinds of foodstuff can lead to longevity (e.g. vinegar eggs, spring water from Sembawang, anyone?). Or those articles on how rearing certain kinds of pets will bring luck to one by influencing the feng shui of one’s office (e.g. Luo Han fish?).[2] I shall not continue quoting examples as it will be impossible for me to list all of them in this article, given the relative ease of finding examples of such reports whenever one flips open a newspaper or turn on the television.

It must be noted that a superstitious individual might not necessarily be aware that they possess a superstitious belief in the absence of the relevant knowledge. Previous psychological researches[3] have pointed out that most people possess cognitive biases or heuristics which predisposes them to superstitious thinking. It is also a fact that when informed of the irrationality of their superstitious beliefs, most people are quite unwilling to give up these beliefs. Hence, it is not surprising that the common individual do not perceive superstitious reasoning as something harmful. In fact, most people will point out that it is probably beneficial to engage in a small amount of superstitious thinking, for it gives us a sense of explanation and coherence in this chaotic world.

However, this argument for the benefits of superstitious beliefs is flawed. From an epistemological perspective, it is imperative that one should attempt seek an explanation as close to the truth in any phenomenon as possible. The accumulation of knowledge in any field of studies is highly dependent on a working hypothesis that attempts to align itself with the truth, rather than deviate itself away from it. For example, if one held the false belief that evil spirits are responsible for eccentric behaviors of certain individuals, then one will never be able to discover a condition known as schizophrenia exists, much less find a suitable cure for it.

An incorrect and superstitious explanation for everyday phenomenon can also be detrimental from a pragmatic sense. Most superstitious beliefs involves rituals in order to ward off certain bad elements that could be both time consuming and expensive. These resources could be better used on other meaningful activities. In a more drastic sense, sometimes superstitious beliefs can kill. I am reminded the death of Hong Kong artist Luo Wen, where he had refused to undergo chemotherapy treatment for his cancer in the initial stages because he held the superstitious belief that he could starve the cancer cells to death by fasting. Instead of eradicating the cancerous cells in his body, the fasting exacerbated his condition and eliminated all hopes of medical cure.

What has the media got to do with all these? Surely the media is not to be blamed for superstitious beliefs inherent in most people due to failings in our cognitive reasoning. Moreover, the media might protest their innocent on two counts: (i) these reports on superstitious beliefs are just for entertainment’s sake as surely nobody will believe in them, and (ii) it is not up to the media to decide which reports are dodgy and which are not, as surely that is the job of the relevant professionals to decide. An argument like this is fundamentally flawed. Those who take the both viewpoints underestimate the amount of power the media wields. In response to the first viewpoint, it must be reminded that the media can sometimes act as a self-perpetuating feed forward mechanism which leads to the propagation of superstitious ideas. I quote from Martin Gardner[4] where he described how the UFO hysteria started in the United States of America in the 1950s, due to the media’s sensationalizing of a pilot’s report that he saw several unidentified flying objects in the sky. This instilled a concept of UFOs in the minds of the general public, leading them to mistake normal objects in the sky (e.g. weather balloons, the planet Venus, clouds, etc) for alien spaceships. This led to more frenzied unverified reporting in the press, and eventually an unending spiral of misinformation that persists up to this day. If the media had some self-restraint or censorship, or had taken the trouble to verify the pilot’s anecdote in the first place[5], probably one will be dispensed of a whole load of bullshit reporting for the past fifty years.

Those who take the second viewpoint that it is not up to the media to arbitrate on which reports smacks of superstitious elements and hence should be removed from reporting because they are not the relevant professionals are in fact saying something like “it is not my fault that I’ve accidentally killed a man with a gun, because I don’t really know about the working mechanism of a firearm”. Ignorance is not bliss, but a dangerous time bomb waiting to explode. I think a dialogue between Spiderman and his dying uncle in the movie Spiderman summarized the whole idea succinctly: with great power comes great responsibility. The media must realize the great power they hold, and by claiming innocence because it is not within their jurisdiction to verify the logic and truthfulness of a reported phenomenon does not absolve them from blame. I don’t think it will be far removed from the truth if I point out that most of the media workers are generally not trained in the basic tenets of scientific reasoning, where the basic ability to discern between what is possible, plausible and impossible is taught. Surely, there must be some form of internal control within each media publication or production, where reports that purport to disseminate superstitious beliefs must at least be countered by another report that provides a demystified version of the so-called paranormal phenomenon. Rarely have I seen such counter-reports being offered in the press or television.

Perhaps I am missing the whole point here. Perhaps the media is not totally ignorant of the situation. I am probably taking a very cynical view when I suggest that perhaps the media is not only well-aware of the situation, but allows the perpetuation of superstitious beliefs in their reports or television shows because such ideas sell to the audience. Recall that it is in our inherent nature to be superstitious, and by packaging reports or entertainment programs that appeal to the common cognitive structure of most people, one can get the desired viewer or readership ratings that each newspaper, magazine or television program craves. After all, what is more important than raking in the profits?

Such an argument might seem tenable in a free media market like the United States of America, where Michael Shermer, editor of the Skeptic Magazine, once remarked that the purpose of television programs is to attract the attention of viewers between advertisement slots. However, in a small and controlled media market like Singapore, where there are frankly only two major players in the media field, shouldn’t there be more accountability towards education of the public as a whole and less emphasis on profit making? Or maybe I’m just being too naïve and optimistic here.

The question that perhaps most people will ask is what are the advantages of eliminating superstitious beliefs? How might a suppression of reports and television programs with superstitious elements be beneficial to the society as a whole? The answer is that a propagation of superstitious beliefs is against the whole fundamental core values of scientific thinking.[6] Since the enterprise of science is concerned with the search for knowledge that contributes to an objective truth, a superstitious mindset that carries with it the excess baggage of superfluous metaphysical and paranormal bullshit will only be detrimental to the training of young minds to acquire a scientific mindset. By allowing superstitious beliefs to proliferate, one will only do harm to the scientific enterprise of the nation. One might not subscribe to the idea that science can solve all problems in the world, but one must surely accept that in the modern world, the economic and military strength of any nation is heavily dependent on the scientific and technological advances made for that nation. After all, does the government of Singapore not make a heavy investment in harnessing and developing our country into a technological hub? What is the point of developing the hardware of a technological advanced nation when the software is seriously under threat from the most unlikely of all sources?

[1] Due to space constraints, I am unable to discuss in depth the various non-metaphysical and scientific accounts of superstitious beliefs in the present article. However, I refer readers to the excellently written Pseudoscience and Paranormal (2nd Edition) by Terence Hines.

[2] Of course, there are parsimonious and logical explanations for these examples cited which need not invoke the paranormal and the metaphysical. One is encouraged to browse through the books introduced in footnote 3 for these explanations.

[3] I refer to Thomas Gilovich’s How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life, Stuart Sutherland’s Irrationality and Michael Shermer’s Why We Believe In Weird Things that summarize the psychological researches that deal with the illogicality and fallibility of human reasoning.

[4] From Martin Gardner’s classic book, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.

[5] Incidentally, investigations by the United States Air Force on the reports of the pilot turns out that the unidentified object he saw were actually surveillance balloons that rose up to a greater height in the sky than most other normal weather balloons.

[6] Some might argue that the glorification of the scientific paradigm is much unwarranted, especially those who adhere to the relativist postmodernist arguments. The main premise in this article is that the scientific mindset is important and deserves to hold a special and important place in modern societies. Of course, that is another story for another day, but interested readers can refer to Richard Dawkin’s “Unweaving The Rainbow”, A. F. Chalmers’s “What is this Thing Called Science?”, or Gregory Derry’s “What is Science and How It Works” for a comprehensive introduction to both the basic tenets of the scientific paradigm, and why it is important for a modern society to adopt such a mindset. Just for the record, the author of the present article will also like to point out to all those people who adhere to the so-called relativistic postmodern arguments: Hey, you are all so muddled in your head.