The image accompanying this article should make all of us stop for a moment.
I received this image in my email as an advertisement encouraging me to subscribe to a newspaper. Instead, it inspired me to write this article. What immediately caught my attention was not the subscription offer, but the two dramatically different headlines describing what appeared to be the same event. Two headlines. Same event. Two very different impressions.
The underlying event was serious, but look at how differently it was presented. The New York Times described an “altercation between pilot and co-pilot,” while The New York Sun reported that the pilot was stabbed by the co-pilot and the jet fell 16,000 feet. A reader seeing only one headline could come away with a very different understanding of what occurred.
The motive was still under investigation, but that is precisely the point. There is a difference between refusing to speculate and failing to plainly report known facts. Tell us what happened, tell us what remains unknown, and allow us to decide what it means.
Words matter. And maybe Sgt. Joe Friday had it right: “Just the facts, ma’am.” If you know who Sgt. Joe Friday is, congratulations, we just showed our age together.
When Did Reporting the Facts Become So Complicated?
We live in extraordinarily politically turbulent times. Americans disagree about elections, wars, immigration, the economy, health care, taxes, crime, education and almost everything in between. Disagreement is nothing new. What feels increasingly difficult is determining where the facts end and someone’s interpretation of those facts begins.
The photograph above provides a striking example of why readers need to look beyond a headline.
There can be legitimate reasons for differences in early reporting. Facts develop. Sources differ. Responsible journalists may hesitate to characterize motive before investigators have established it. A newspaper reporting an unfolding event at 8:00 a.m. may appropriately know less than another publication reporting it several hours later.
But caution about an unconfirmed motive is different from failing to clearly report confirmed conduct. If a pilot was stabbed, say that a pilot was stabbed. If an aircraft plunged thousands of feet, report it. If authorities believe the incident was an attempted hijacking or terrorist attack, tell readers who reached that conclusion and what remains under investigation.
Those distinctions allow the reader, not the newspaper, television network, social-media personality or political commentator to decide what the facts mean.
That should be the goal.
Where Do You Turn for the Truth?
Increasingly, the answer cannot be: one place.
Read beyond the headline. Compare coverage from sources with different perspectives. Look for original documents when they are available. Distinguish eyewitness accounts from government statements, government statements from independently verified facts, and news reporting from opinion.
And perhaps most importantly, become comfortable saying: we don’t know yet. That isn’t weakness. It is intellectual honesty.
Social media has made this more difficult. Information can travel around the world in seconds, while verification takes time. An inaccurate claim can reach millions of people before a reporter, investigator or government agency has determined what actually happened.
The solution isn’t to distrust everything. It is to become a more careful consumer of information.
What Does Any of This Have to Do With
Elder Law and Estate Planning?
More than you might think. When we talk about protecting a legacy, most people immediately think about wills, trusts, powers of attorney and beneficiary designations. Those documents are important. But protecting a lifetime of work also requires paying attention to the world around you.
World news matters. Wars, international instability, tariffs, markets and geopolitical events can affect investments, businesses and retirement accounts.
National news matters. Changes in federal tax law, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and estate and gift tax laws can directly affect planning decisions.
Local news matters. Property taxes, municipal rules, court procedures, elections, development and changes within your own community can affect your property and your family. And the law itself changes.
A plan that made sense ten years ago may not accomplish the same objectives today. A financial strategy based upon yesterday’s tax laws may need to be reconsidered. A family that never discusses current events may be completely unprepared when those events suddenly affect its business, investments, health care or property.
Don’t Let Someone Else Do All of Your Thinking for You
Perhaps that is the larger lesson illustrated by these two headlines.
You do not have to become a political expert. You don’t have to spend every evening watching cable news. And you certainly don’t have to agree with your neighbor about what the news means.
But you should remain informed. Ask questions. Read more than the headline. Compare sources. Be skeptical of language designed primarily to make you angry or afraid. Look for the underlying facts. And recognize the difference between “this happened” and “here is what we think this means.”
Your legacy is not simply what you leave behind when you die. It is what you protect while you are living, the property you accumulated, the business you built, the family you raised, the values you pass along and the decisions you make about their future.
Estate planning helps protect those things legally. Staying informed helps you make better decisions about what you are protecting in the first place.
In today’s world, both matter.
The Woods Law Office PLLC
