If everybody says it, it must be true!
True or false time. Take this quiz, just answering true or false to each question.
1. Shots were fired at a relief helicopter from the Astrodome, in the days just after Katrina hit.
2. Al Gore claimed he invented the internet.
3. Dan Quayle said "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
4. Saddam Hussein had a direct connection to September 11th.
5. There have been no WMDs found in Iraq.
The answer is that all five are false. They're notable only because all five have found firm root in the beliefs of large numbers of Americans. Most of them have been referenced extensively in magazines, newspapers, online and in video. One of them, #4, has taken root with a number of people despite the fact that nearly every major news story which has brought it up has done so in the context of pointing it out as being wrong.
So, what's the point? Actually, there are a few.
First, when you hear something, consider the source. Hell, you're reading a blog right now... don't take my word for any of this stuff; go look up the facts on your own. But, to help you along, the story about the shooting was heavily reported, although it wound up not being accurate; Al Gore took deserved credit for being one of the congressmen who okayed funding for the establishment of the current Internet system, and it was twisted, primarily by political opponents, to make it sound like he was claiming credit for inventing it; while Dan Quayle has in fact made a lot of misstatements, many of the most famous (including the quote above) were created by comedians but were then attributed to him by political opponents; the nature of Saddam's interactions with Al Qaida are a matter of debate, but there is no credible evidence to believe he had any association with the Sept. 11th plot; and there have been sizable quantities of WMD found, enough to wipe out thousands of people, but nothing even remotely of the scale of the stockpiles he was purported to have.
The information is out there, but most people don't have the time to do heavy research, so instead they grab sound bites, or browse headlines, and they think they're informed. Or they catch a full story, and miss its public retraction later. That's one problem. Another problem is that things are sometimes misstated or misattributed, and after it's been done once, it gets perpetuated.
Hell, even the places which are designed to inform their readers/listeners are often intentionally biased, cutting portions of a statement out so that it makes the statement look like something other than what it was.
That leads us to the second point: Get multiple sources. Sure, there are some times when it's just not worth the time to look up multiple sources of a story. Hell, that might be most of the time. But if something strikes you as important, why not try to get the full story on it? Hearing other takes on a topic, expecially if you can try to consider the merits of the argument somewhat dispassionately, gives you a greater understanding of something you consider important.
And it's not that hard to find alternate takes. CNN and Fox slant in different directions, and both are accessible to anyone with cable. The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times are both available at coffee and donut shops throughout the country. Rush Limbaugh and Randi Rhodes are both available on the radio dial or internet streaming. Molly Ivins and P.J. O'Rourke both put out books regularly. http://www.mediaresearch.org or http://www.mediamatters.org
And then there's the third: Just because a lot of people say it's true, doesn't mean it's true. There are two primary reasons why great misinformation happens; one is that the information from a bunch of different sources all stem from the same point. Like when Richard Jewell was investigated for the bomb in the Olympic Village in Atlanta. It turned out to be a mistaken charge, but because everyone covered the same press conference, everyone got the same, wrong, information. Same thing happened with Wen Ho Lee, and many others. Hell, the same thing happened with the initial report on the wonderful health effects of oat bran, or the creation of cold fusion in an aquarium. Two is when the falsehood is given a huge initial stage, especially with visuals. Whether it's President Bush talking about the huge stockpiles of WMDs during the State of the Union address, or Michael Moore altering video footage of Charleton Heston during an award-winning "documentary", one untruth can become imbedded as truth in the minds of many observers.
To close this up, I'd suggest that when you encounter sources of information, decide for yourself how reliable they are (by checking all sides of interesting stories, and seeing how close to the absolute truth your chosen source got) and when you find a few dependable ones, use them as primary information gathering spots. Just don't forget to check on them periodically, just to keep them honest.
1. Shots were fired at a relief helicopter from the Astrodome, in the days just after Katrina hit.
2. Al Gore claimed he invented the internet.
3. Dan Quayle said "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
4. Saddam Hussein had a direct connection to September 11th.
5. There have been no WMDs found in Iraq.
The answer is that all five are false. They're notable only because all five have found firm root in the beliefs of large numbers of Americans. Most of them have been referenced extensively in magazines, newspapers, online and in video. One of them, #4, has taken root with a number of people despite the fact that nearly every major news story which has brought it up has done so in the context of pointing it out as being wrong.
So, what's the point? Actually, there are a few.
First, when you hear something, consider the source. Hell, you're reading a blog right now... don't take my word for any of this stuff; go look up the facts on your own. But, to help you along, the story about the shooting was heavily reported, although it wound up not being accurate; Al Gore took deserved credit for being one of the congressmen who okayed funding for the establishment of the current Internet system, and it was twisted, primarily by political opponents, to make it sound like he was claiming credit for inventing it; while Dan Quayle has in fact made a lot of misstatements, many of the most famous (including the quote above) were created by comedians but were then attributed to him by political opponents; the nature of Saddam's interactions with Al Qaida are a matter of debate, but there is no credible evidence to believe he had any association with the Sept. 11th plot; and there have been sizable quantities of WMD found, enough to wipe out thousands of people, but nothing even remotely of the scale of the stockpiles he was purported to have.
The information is out there, but most people don't have the time to do heavy research, so instead they grab sound bites, or browse headlines, and they think they're informed. Or they catch a full story, and miss its public retraction later. That's one problem. Another problem is that things are sometimes misstated or misattributed, and after it's been done once, it gets perpetuated.
Hell, even the places which are designed to inform their readers/listeners are often intentionally biased, cutting portions of a statement out so that it makes the statement look like something other than what it was.
That leads us to the second point: Get multiple sources. Sure, there are some times when it's just not worth the time to look up multiple sources of a story. Hell, that might be most of the time. But if something strikes you as important, why not try to get the full story on it? Hearing other takes on a topic, expecially if you can try to consider the merits of the argument somewhat dispassionately, gives you a greater understanding of something you consider important.
And it's not that hard to find alternate takes. CNN and Fox slant in different directions, and both are accessible to anyone with cable. The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times are both available at coffee and donut shops throughout the country. Rush Limbaugh and Randi Rhodes are both available on the radio dial or internet streaming. Molly Ivins and P.J. O'Rourke both put out books regularly. http://www.mediaresearch.org or http://www.mediamatters.org
And then there's the third: Just because a lot of people say it's true, doesn't mean it's true. There are two primary reasons why great misinformation happens; one is that the information from a bunch of different sources all stem from the same point. Like when Richard Jewell was investigated for the bomb in the Olympic Village in Atlanta. It turned out to be a mistaken charge, but because everyone covered the same press conference, everyone got the same, wrong, information. Same thing happened with Wen Ho Lee, and many others. Hell, the same thing happened with the initial report on the wonderful health effects of oat bran, or the creation of cold fusion in an aquarium. Two is when the falsehood is given a huge initial stage, especially with visuals. Whether it's President Bush talking about the huge stockpiles of WMDs during the State of the Union address, or Michael Moore altering video footage of Charleton Heston during an award-winning "documentary", one untruth can become imbedded as truth in the minds of many observers.
To close this up, I'd suggest that when you encounter sources of information, decide for yourself how reliable they are (by checking all sides of interesting stories, and seeing how close to the absolute truth your chosen source got) and when you find a few dependable ones, use them as primary information gathering spots. Just don't forget to check on them periodically, just to keep them honest.
posted by AM | 3:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home