Nowadays we have more cultural commentators than tubes of toothpaste, and too often the toothpaste is worth more of your time. The pressing question, if we want to stay up-to-date, is of how we evaluate these options and find the ones we can rely on. Today, I’ll present the criteria I use, not as a regimented order (because this article is the first time I’ve regimented it) but as a matter of course in response to opportunity.

Starting Point

As a rule, I discover new information sources one of two ways: somebody else recommends (or warns against) them or I stumble across them accidentally. In the second case, the method is of little weight on their credibility. In the first, however, the testimonial of the recommendation is material. It was on the testimony of Robert Barnes that I discovered The Duran and Richard Barris. I don’t continue to rely on them merely because of that testimony, but it provided an initial store of credibility to justify time spent weighing them, as well as some credibility in itself. A credible source with proven good judgement is a good reason to start trusting another source, though never sufficient in the long term.

Connected to these testimonials is the question of association. If a person is a government official or connected to one, particularly in the administrative branches, he has an immediate malus to contend with (though the direction of commentary can alter the effect of this witness, as it does for Alex Jones’s familial connections). If the person is associated with men of poor moral character, of known wickedness, of known bias or corruption, his credibility is tainted. If he has the friendship or cooperation of those with good moral character or consistent credibility, his credibility is bolstered. In short, I consider which birds are flocking together, on the grounds that birds are more likely to flock to those of their own feather.

The second test I apply is not so much a test as a prerequisite: basic competence. If I come to a commentator for political capacity, and he spouts off the most absurd nonsense, ideas patently ridiculous, I won’t continue to listen for very long, except out of a desire to argue against him. I won’t come back. If I come to somebody for theological insight and he demonstrates complete ignorance of, say, Isaiah 53, I’ll give him rather short shrift. The idea here is that if he gets the basic facts wrong, he can’t be relied on for the analysis and the more difficult areas; if I know more than him, he’s not a good source in that area.

Related to this is the question of a commentator’s relationship to the various mainstream orthodoxies, neo-con, liberal, woke, Conservative, etc. Each of these streams of thought has its own buzzwords, its own indisputable doctrines, its own enemies. A commentator who participates in these orthodoxies shows himself unreliable as a source; he is one who does not recognize the standard lies and can therefore not be relied on to see through nonstandard lies, not to mention the downstream results of false premises. A member of the cathedral speaks propaganda, knowingly or unknowingly, and propaganda is not useful.

This wariness of the cultural orthodoxies, of course, does not stop after the first impression (none of these elements do). It is, however, prone to revealing itself fairly quickly, to the attentive ear. For an example of such propaganda, see my breakdown of Rubio’s Munich speech.

Another element of a commentator which often becomes apparent early on but which requires continual scrutiny is moral competence. I do not refer here to thoroughly right doctrine or to a fully correct moral framework. I listen to and benefit from the political analysis of many whose theology varies from dubious to explicitly atheistic, whose ethical beliefs vary from flawed to fundamentally false. What’s important here is honesty and moral tolerability.

Honesty is this: that the person you’re listening to doesn’t want to lie. A known liar is an unreliable source; he must always be treated as such, always treated with care, like broken glass. Only clear and convincing repentance can remedy this state, and even that only with time proving genuineness.

Moral tolerability, meanwhile, is that the person’s moral framework, however broken, is not so blatantly opposed to reality as to make their analysis and communication unusable. A thoroughly woke activist has a moral framework which vitiates nearly all credibility; such a person’s commentary is useful only to know what he thinks, not what reality is, except when filtered through an understanding of his extreme bias (it may also be a usable source on his compatriots). More importantly, for my purposes today, such a person’s commentary tends to be vile and painful to listen to. I prefer commentators who are generally in the ballpark, not those who require constant rebutting and inversion.

Getting to Know

As I listen to or read the work of a commentator, I continue to apply the above framework (these stages are more for formatting convenience than separate in themselves). But other factors are in play throughout the process, including an array of red flags.

Red flags in a commentary are a combination of moral and practical. A commentator who pretends to prophecy must be discounted immediately (unless shown to be a true prophet by having a 100% accuracy rate, among other qualifications). A commentator who actively proselytizes for paganism is to be avoided as a rule, though not completely. A commentator who claims to be a medium (like Candace Owens) or who engages in intentional slander (like Candace Owens) must be ignored, except as a topic in himself (no, I’m not calling Owens a man. Male is the generic gender in grammar.).

Of course, every commentator gets stuff wrong. A test I find immensely useful is how they respond to getting it wrong (and what leads up to the error). Take the case of Robert Barnes. He was wrong about how deleterious Israel’s effect is on US politics. His reasoning beforehand was understandable and plausible; he had good reasons for his beliefs, even if they proved incorrect in the end. And, having been shown wrong, he has admitted his error, openly stated that certain of those he debated were correct (without unconditionally agreeing with anybody who disagreed with him before, as he still has a self-defined position), and gone forward with the new understanding. A significant part of why I have regard for Barnes’s statements is this sort of response by him in the relatively rare occasions he proved mistaken.

Connected to this is a test Barnes himself has advocated: using predictions. If a commentator or analyst makes a prediction, compare that prediction to reality. Repeat. Then use the comparisons to evaluate how reliable and insightful the commentator is. Is he consistently correct? That is a major boost to credibility. Are his mistakes explainable? Does he respond properly and admit his own fallibility? This, in a different way, also boosts credibility. Does he get stuff wrong? Is he wrong more often than you are? This leads me to doubt.

As I Go

In assessing a commentator, I look for commentary which, implicitly or explicitly, reveals the reasoning process, sources, and motivations of his statements. This process has three major utilities. First, it hones my capacity to recognize these qualities in myself and in others. Second, it illuminates how credible I should find the source. Third, it shows me where to rely on the commentator- and where not to.

This second utility has particular weight in the area of motivation. Every person has motives for speaking in public, and understanding these helps us identify not only points of dishonesty but points of emphasis (due or undue), of omission or unnecessary inclusion. Motives affect communication. A commentator whose continued career relies on accuracy is much more reliable than one whose career relies on placating a corporate structure, as with cathedral media institutions like Fox News, CNN, the Daily Wire, and the like, or who operates from an immoral religious motive (as with all three before listed).

But it’s the third point I come back to the most often. See, commentators are limited sources. Very often, I find a speaker reliable and worthwhile in one area- and consistently unreliable in another area, from ignorance, from poor source choice by the analyst, or from relative lack of skill. So, for instance, I find the theological arguments offered by certain theological commentators invariably worth considering (even when they are wrong); when they speak on geopolitics, however, I find them not particularly credible, not from ill motive but from (I think) self-unrecognized ignorance.

The point is this: we can use understanding of reasoning, motivation, and sources to distinguish between the areas where a commentator’s words are useful-reliable and the areas where they aren’t.

Conclusion

The thought-patterns outlined above are a start and an aid, not a guarantee. With discernment fostered on Scripture, with God’s blessing, such process guide us away from the harmful and towards increasingly useful sources. Other parts of wisdom are here relevant: how much time to spend on the matters, how to respond, etc. Regardless, it behooves us to take care that those we listen to are fruitful sources, places to get truth, not ways of deceiving ourselves or fostering the deception of others.

God bless.