'You know my methods, Watson'

I've recently re-read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories and was going to write a review, but tuning into the news at any given time has given me a different idea. Think of this as an advice column for the media. A response from a hypothetical 'Dear Sir Arthur,' if you will.

In this post-truth world, trying to navigate the truth when reading/watching the news is in itself almost as difficult as the work of a detective. Much research has to be done in order to separate fact from fiction, and this is indeed a growing problem in the media – emotions are more important than facts. It is something the right and left are both incredibly guilty of in recent years. Think of the insane differences in the responses in American media to the recent US election controversy. I had some hope that lessons would have been learnt after the 2016, but things only intensified. And this apparent peak was the beginning of 2021. The media have not since mellowed. Instead, we who care about the actual truth of stories are forced to take upon the role of Sherlock Holmes and ruthlessly scrutinise everything to get to the bottom of what actualy went down at a particular event/rally/riot/etc.

This is unfair, of course, as it is the job of the media to do the research and reporting. One might argue that, on the contrary, it is they who should be taking upon the role of Holmes, not us. That would solve the problem, would it not? This is the approach taken by many members of what has become known as the "intellectual dark web (IDW)," the famous group of thinkers and commentators who's only common interest is dedication to truth.

Members of this group, such as conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, with his catchphrase ‘facts don’t care about your feelings’ claim to search only for the truth in their reporting. I would question this but admit that Shapiro has spoken publicly about needing to work on his own confirmation bias. On the whole, however, Ben Shapiro in many ways resembles Sherlock Holmes in his idiosyncratic approach and mannerisms. Although I do think that, unlike Holmes, who actually has struggles with any aspect of humanity and only knows facts, Shapiro is a perfectly functioning human being. Well, some might disagree. The point is that I am grateful that a movement has started among prominent thinkers and commentators to uphold the truth.

But, although I do admire this approach, I think I disagree (with Ben Shapiro specifically) on certain issues in this area. He said in one interview that he basically finds it morally abhorrent when people try and include emotions in discussions of policy etc. and cynically pointed out that it works so well because we as humans are attracted to narrative, citing our universal love of movies as evidence. Now, that’s fair enough, and in the light of post-truth politics and reporting that I criticize, I think he’s right. But I think he’s wrong to ignore the emotion altogether. And the narrative. The importance that these aspects hold for us are essential parts of what makes us human, and can’t and shouldn’t be ignored, I would argue.

To illustrate, allow me to return to the world of classic detective fiction, this time to a rather lesser known detective, Father Brown. Father Brown is the invention of novelist GK Chesterton, and was literally written as an anti-Sherlock Holmes. Chesterton believed that human nature, and thus human evil, cannot be understood through reason alone; it requires intuition. And this is an important aspect in the way Father Brown solves his cases, whilst not ignoring facts. And I sympathise with Chesterton’s argument here. Basic facts are not enough to thoroughly understand humanity; we need to pay attention to narrative and emotion and instinct as well. And this should not be ignored in the media. It’s an essential part not only of the arts but of politics and journalism and marketing. And, yes, it’s easy to be cynical about how “life is not like the movies” or “politicians are all liars” or, indeed, the idea of marketing as “legalised lying,” but at the end of the day, this is just not the case. Because that side of things is an important part of why we think the way we think and do the things we do. People will often quote Oscar Wilde and say “Life imitates art.” But they imitate each other. And, logically, life came first. We aren’t robots and we cannot ignore the importance of our humanity.

Now, forgive me for getting all, religious, if you will, in my writing. And relating to that, if it wasn’t obvious, Father Brown, who I used to illustrate this point, is a Catholic priest, and Chesterton was himself a Christian apologist. So one might point out that it is only through a religious lens that these aspects are important. But I would disagree. These aspects of what make us human are not limited to Christianity, they can be found in the beliefs and metanarratives of all world religions. And, indeed, in the ideas of the irreligious and even the anti-religious. Sam Harris, a noted critic of religion, and somebody who has been labelled as a member of the IDW, has dedicated years of his life to promoting the importance of “spirituality,” whether you are religious or not. A difficult word to define, I would argue that the aspects Chesterton added to Father Brown that aren’t aspects of Sherlock Holmes are indeed aspects of the “spiritual” side of humanity.

So, am I arguing that the news takes on the persona of Father Brown, a healthy balance of emotion, facts and narrative? I suppose. But I haven’t actually ever read Father Brown, and am told it is really rather dull in comparison to Sherlock Holmes. Perhaps this is because Chesterton never really realised that one of the most brilliant aspects of the Holmes stories is the relationship between Holmes and Watson. Holmes’ ruthless attention to facts and lack of social skills or apparent human nature humorously balances Watson’s brilliant narration and understanding of the important parts of life that the bohemian Holmes struggles with. Holmes may be the star of the show, but Watson is Conan Doyle’s storyteller. Now, many journalists, media outlets, politicians and advertisers guilty of the post-truth approach, are, I would say, excellent Watsons, in the way they tell their stories, with incredible insights into how we work as people. But the narrative doesn’t work without a balance between this and an accurate representation of fact. To stop this crisis, we need to bring back Holmes!