Beware the Juggernauts of Journalism
Written by William Urbanski.
Wearing a mask is more than a way to stop germs: It is a badge of civic pride.
Among all the information, misinformation, memes, and videos about this whole coronavirus situation, one piece that stuck out to me was a certain article from Forbes magazine that encouraged people to not wear masks because they will not protect against the coronavirus and may even increase a person’s chances of contracting it. The article actually put forth some pretty convincing arguments to bolster its case and was written in a way that sounded, if nothing else, like the ultimate authority on the whole matter. But, as it turns out, it is not some big-time American juggernaut of journalism that will have the last word on this issue but rather a renegade English teacher, a rebel who plays by his own rules and who also happens to be the managing editor of Gwangju’s finest English-language news magazine. While the Forbes article reached a conclusion that I basically agreed with, it arrived at it by citing a number of apocryphal ideas employing faulty logic and served as an example of why it is so important to evaluate any source of information. Most importantly, the article missed the bigger picture, completely overlooking the societal functions that wearing a mask plays.
The article in question makes a number of factual and logical errors. Most heinously, its interpretation of science and physics would shock the entire Nobel Prize committee, and make physicist Richard Feynman, Isaac Newton, Copernicus, Marie Curie, Rene Descartes, and Albert Einstein, collectively turn over in their graves. It explains, at length, that common, disposable masks are ineffective in stopping the coronavirus because they are designed to stop germs from being spread outward, not stop them from coming inward. That is to say, people who are sick should wear masks to keep others from getting sick but wearing a mask will not stop others from spreading their germs to you. Setting aside all considerations about who should wear a mask and why, this implies that masks are made with a hitherto undiscovered, physics-defying material that acts as a one-way barrier to germs. The materials that masks are made of simply do not and cannot work this way because one-way barriers are impossible. If you take a piece of tissue and sneeze a germ at it, it does not matter which side of the tissue the germ hits – it will either block the germ or not.
That being said, certain semi-permeable membranes do exist in nature, and they allow objects with very specific molecular properties to pass through a barrier in one direction only. These membranes exist at the cellular level and, without exception, need an external energy source to work. So, unless there has been a recent, ground-breaking discovery in the field of nanotechnology that allows for these semi-permeable membranes to work without an energy source and that very same technology has been magically inserted into all masks worldwide, Forbes’ little theory is dubious at best.
Next, let me jump aboard the fashionable bandwagon of criticizing the logical validity of arguments. The most egregious logical fallacy committed by the article is known as an “appeal to authority.” Forbes, because they are so well known and because the magazine took the time to include in the article some hyperlinks with some pretty spiffy graphics, are appealing to their own reputability. Nobody could really deny that Forbes is a household name, but that does not mean they should be taken at their word. Even though the journalist who put together the article may be a fine writer, he or she certainly lacks the prerequisite specialized expertise in microbiology to pontificate to the masses about the best course of action during a pandemic. As well, let’s all just keep in mind that Forbes is not a scientific, peer-reviewed journal and, at the end of the day, the article was just something that showed up on my Facebook feed.
Now, as much as Forbes’ bogus article is nothing but thinly veiled pseudoscience for entertainment purposes only, you may be surprised that I actually share the belief that masks will not protect me from coronavirus any more than a pair of sunglasses from Daiso will protect my eyes from a solar eclipse. Let’s face facts: If someone with COVID-19 sneezes in your face, it does not matter if you are wearing two masks and earplugs because you are heading straight for a two-week quarantine. You may be further surprised, shocked, and all around flabbergasted to learn that despite this belief, I dutifully wear a mask almost every day. This practice may seem hypocritical or even paradoxical, but I would suggest that it has less to do with an inherently contradictory belief system and much, much more with the ability to hold two conflicting ideas in my head at the same time.
Allow me to explain. As a foreigner in Korea, I understand there are certain rules, some stated outright, and some implied, that have to be followed. The clearest example of a set of directives that have been explicitly communicated to me about the ongoing coronavirus situation are from the Canadian Embassy here, which told me to cooperate with local authorities. So, if the word on the street is that I have to (or should) wear a mask while out in public, so be it.
On a more theoretical note, it is my personal belief that as a foreigner here, I have a duty to set a good example or, at the very least, not set a bad example. This means that I very consciously “play along” with what is happening in Korea. I observe certain customs and often do things not because I want to but because I understand that they are important through the eyes of Koreans. Wearing a mask falls squarely into this category. So, even though I feel that wearing a mask does not really reduce the risk of me contracting COVID-19, it serves other functions, the most important of which is as a form of social signaling. It is a declaration that I do not mind walking around with a ridiculous-looking piece of tissue on my face if it is for the greater good. A mask, therefore, is akin to a badge, an emblem, something adorned for the very same reasons that people wear sports jerseys when their local team makes the playoffs: It is a form of civic pride. But make no mistake: Even though the conclusions of the Forbes’ article align with my practices, this should not be mistaken for validation of their ideas – only mere happenstance.
Getting back to the pernicious concepts circulated by the article, there is a story in Ray Dalio’s fantastic book Principles that beautifully illustrates why we should always question information and its source. In fact, the higher the stakes, the more time we should be willing to invest into investigating the validity of claims and suggestions. For those who are unfamiliar with Dalio, he is the founder of Bridgewater, one of the biggest and most important investment firms in the world. He also has a net worth of approximately 18 billion USD more than you or I ever will. During a routine medical checkup, a doctor informed Dalio that he had a precancerous condition called Barrett’s esophagus with high-grade dysplasia. Since Dalio was not a candidate for treatment, there was a good chance of him developing inoperable esophageal cancer.
Dalio, not one to accept the opinion of any expert without first triangulating opinions with other believable people, set up appointments with four other experts on his condition. One specialist told him that specific type of cancer was in fact treatable but basically required disembowelment. Another doctor recommended quarterly endoscopic examinations to monitor for abnormalities and metastasis. Two other doctors agreed that the regular examinations would do no harm, so that is what Dalio decided to do. During one of these procedures, a tissue sample was taken and, lo and behold, it turned out that there was no high-grade dysplasia at all! Now, imagine what would have happened if Dalio had let panic take over and gone with the disembowelment option. It is this very level-headedness and tendency to check and double-check claims that not only prevented him from becoming an invalid, but allowed him to successfully ignore herd mentality and market noise, resulting in him becoming one of the richest men alive.
Just because some Wikipedia Warrior writes a blog or some big-time news agency puts forth a bunk and rambling assembly of disjointed commentary and inflammatory jargon that amounts to nothing, that does not mean it is true. And, by the way, I am fully aware of the irony of using a news magazine as a platform to rally against untruthful (or misinformed) media. But there is a big difference between making outlandish and scientifically unverified claims that attempt to influence mass behavior and reminding people to not believe everything they read on the internet.
THE AUTHOR
William Urbanski, managing editor of the Gwangju News, has an MA in international relations and cultural diplomacy. He is married to a wonderful Korean woman, always pays cash, and keeps all his receipts. Instagram: @will_il_gatto.