The economy is still down, the unemployment rate is up, and the Tea Party’s anti-government sentiment can be infectious in a time when it seems like we are falling further downstream, dispite all our paddling. The result is high tempers, misunderstandings, and confusion that can cripple progressive legislation and prevent those in need – us – from getting the help needed. It’s times like these when TV and radio feast upon American fears and confusion, and American citizens need to calm their arguing, process what they hear, and make informed decisions for the good of the republic and themselves.

When the chips are down politically, it seems like everyone has an argument to make. Thanks to the Internet and other electronic sources, the average person has more tools than ever with which to inform themselves and construct arguments for what they believe.

Fortunately, this opens the door for even greater political participation and even more enlightening debate, which is important in our day when action is needed so badly. The beauty of debate is that it allows people to select his or her arguments based on what they must prove.

However, in an age where times are rocky and everybody – including those who provide information for argumentation – seems to have their own best interests in mind, it’s up to the general public to weed out the bias from the fact before making an impassioned case for their side.Frankly, it seems more and more that the “weeding out” ability is needed even with the average news broadcast.

For example, on April 14th, CNN ran a story entitled “Clinton draws parallels between ‘upheaval’ of 1995, today”, the basic gist of which was that at the time of the Oklahoma City Bombing, the country also saw heavy anti-government ripples.

This could easily lead one to believe that what Clinton and Obama share is a nature that incites domestic terrorism.

What the uncritical public can miss, however, is that Timothy McVeigh’s attack was inspired by his anger toward raids on Ruby Ridge and Waco. Ruby Ridge may have been an American militia camp, but Waco was, in fact, a cult having nothing to do with populist “upheaval”.

As you can see, the “misinformation” present in contemporary mass media is so subtle that it takes a truly critical, educated eye to spot the difference.

Take, as another example, a recent excerpt from Glenn Beck’s radio program. In this clip, Beck begins his criticisms of the current administration by assuming that some comments by President Obama on tax day were “mocking” the Tea Party.

In this context, it is again easy to simply accept the assumption, especially considering the confidence with which Beck asserts this.

However, closer examination reveals that Mr. Obama’s message was that if Tea Party activists want less taxes, then they should instead be thankful for the current administration’s work cutting taxes.

It wasn’t mockery, it was a fact that goes cleverly ignored by Beck in order to reinforce his anti-government message. Regardless of whether you are anti-government, an argument that calmly makes erroneous statements should, in the information age, be quickly discredited by an informed public. It does not.

Glenn Beck’s programs, which make critical assumptions incorrectly on a regular basis, brought in $32 million between March 2009 and March 2010 according to Forbes magazine.

The worst offender of subtle misinformation is everyday conversation. For example, a member of one of my lab groups recently touted that $500 million of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act funds were spent on road signs in Illinois.

Without the internet handy or a source to cite, it becomes very easy to simply accept an assertion like this. After the fact though, despite a thorough search, I could not find a single piece of evidence that corroborated this claim.

Regardless, the assertion went unchecked and seemed poignant enough at the time to sway the conversation against the measure. Now, whether or not you agree with the Stimulus bill or any other government measure, you can do some very basic things in order protect yourself from attractive facts that may be false.

The first of these is to recognize a simple psychological principle. In general, people tend to seek out evidence that confirms his or her already held beliefs and tend to reject even accurate evidence that challenges them. Recognizing this allows you to be open-minded when approaching contradictory points of view.

This step is perhaps the most difficult because it requires that you question some of your own beliefs, which can feel uncomfortable. Along with this, doing so requires a keen eye in order to prevent further confusion.

This brings me to the second tip: checking the source. Examine world events by first checking a non-partisan news organization – NPR for example – and then using those facts as a reference.

If the source of information you’re using appears to deviate from or color these facts in favor of one side or the other, its information must be examined critically. This prevents that confusion when questioning your already held views or challenging the views of others.

The final tip is simply to listen. Frequently, when we engage in a heated ideological discussion we hear what we want to hear, which is our own voice. We tend to impose our principles on the conversation and only take from the conversation what supports our already held beliefs as I mentioned above.

Listening and examining what’s presented in any piece of opinion, be it conversation, television or published word, allows us to glean new insights, prevent the easy acceptance of biased statistics and educate ourselves for when it’s time to stand up for what we believe in.

Should these practices find widespread acceptance, perhaps the American experiment could find more vitality and less ignorant discourse.

The fact remains, though, that our common news sources, television, radio and even everyday conversation, are riddled with subtle biases.

Educate yourself by recognizing your own bias, checking the bias of others, and listening and become a more informed, more helpful part of the American conversation.

Ian Barker is a senior in chemical engineering from Des Moines.