We think we formulate our own opinions. We think we have taken great care in arriving at ultimatums. We think that we think. And sometimes, we do. But, we are also being told what and how to think. This is not a "the media is a terrible thing" spiel. The media does not need to change, but rather we must change. We tend to perceive the media in a flattering light, whereas we should be casting more shadows of doubt on this same light.

Seeing is believing. Too often, we are taking another person's piece of clay and molding into what is to become our own opinion. Don't get me wrong, there is great value in expanding upon other's ideas if you are in agreement or even taking their ideas and making them your own. But, this is not what I am talking about. I'm talking about how we have simply fallen prey to the exposure of some opinions through the media and automatically brand them as ours too. We don't need to eliminate opinion in the media; It's impossible. We need to eliminate our tendancy to believe what is on the surface, rather than digging deeper. The purpose of the media is to inform, then the readers are to interpret that how they wish. However, when discussing controversial topics, writers are not immune from human tendencies; Their hyper charged opinions sometimes outweigh the core of the issue at hand.

To understand exactly what I mean, its important to look at headlines. We all know that they play a role in determining how many people read your article. But, they also determine just how people read your article. This frames our sense of belief from the start. We all know that first impressions matter in terms of appearance or personality, but the media is no stranger to this. By choosing to showcase certain facts or ideas in a title, writers can call in question personal beliefs, existing knowledge, or even the basis for future beliefs.

A study had been performed at the University of West Australia by a neuroscientist and psychologist by the name of Ullrich Ecker, who decided to test how slightly misleading headlines can alter the reading of the article. Ecker had people in Australia read either factual or opinion-based pieces, where the only variable that had changed had been the headline. For instance, in one factual article, Ecker discussed changing burglary rates. The article had highlighted a .2 percent increase in the past year, which countered the 10 percent decline over the past 10 years. Overall, the longer trend is what holds more weight. The .2 percent was a mere side note to a broader trend. The accompanying headline highlighted either the smaller or the larger of the two trends: “Number of burglaries going up” and “Downward trend in burglary rates." Ecker's goal had been to determine if the degree of the slant would matter.

The headlines had played a greater role than reframing the factual articles; Details of the article that lined with the heading were more easily recalled than details that had conflicted with the headline. However, readers had still predicted that crime rates would decrease because the misdirection was obvious enough for readers to become aware of it.

However, in the case of opinion-based articles, the headline had a far greater impact. Two headlines were created: "GM Foods are Safe" and "GM Foods May Pose Long-Term Health Risks". The second headline impaired the reader's ability to make accurate inferences. For example, when asked to predict the future of public-health costs of genetically modified foods, people who had read this misleading headline had predicted a far greater cost than actual evidence had warranted. After repeating the study, Ecker had found that first impressions mattered and were not easily corrected. For contentious reading, this gives us a reason to become concerned. If opinion or bias can sway us so easily, on what basis our our opinions even valid?

Another study had been performed at Harvard University by Rick Falton, a psychologist who focuses on cognitive research. Falton had performed a study wherein subjects were asked if climate change is a prominent issue that must be addressed. A third of the subjects were given an article titled "Why Climate Change is Killing Us" and the other two-thirds were given an article titled "The Myth That is Climate Change". The results? By a 2-1 margin, the subjects had coined the opinion that climate change is not a threat to us.

The first way we are at the media's disposal is through opinion-altering headlines. I have just demonstrated to you the second way. The previous study about climate change is completely fake and I made it up. By incorporating elements that give way to a sense of credibility, I had been able to deceive my audience. Do not believe every single thing you read.

The media is not fleeting. However, our interaction with the media is what can change. Not to say we are naive, but too often we are too willing to believe what the media throws at us. Rather than them telling us what to care about, how about we decide for ourselves. Most importantly, rather than issuing borrowed opinions as our own, how about we use more conscious in formulating them?