All I Know

                                                                                                      

There were times when Will Rogers showed poor judgment. Like the time he said of Leon Trotsky:

I bet you if I had met him and had a chat with him, I would have found him a very interesting and human fellow, for I never yet met a man that I didn’t like. When you meet people, no matter what opinion you might have formed about them beforehand, why, after you meet them and see their angle and their personality, why, you can see a lot of good in all of them.

And, though said tongue-in-cheek, his view of the press also was ill-considered:

Well, all I know is what I read in the papers.

If you believe what you read there, you're likely to be misled. The media, and most notably the press, are only occasionally reliable – and you'll never be sure of when that occasion is. There are times, especially with a “hot” story, when publication is premature in order to guarantee a “scoop.” Speed may trump fact-checking and accuracy may be sacrificed in order to be first. It's one of those cases which displays the least of their sins – making a sloppy but honest mistake.ⁱ But more often the intent is to present a point of view. Sometimes it is that of the reporter, however often it is that of another party. Some examples are in order. And they include: the reporter who consciously mixes fact with his own opinion,ⁱⁱ who slants the content of his story to promote his own agenda, is practicing “advocacy journalism,” and no warning of the bias presented as truth may be offered by the organ in which the story is told, because the “spin” frequently corresponds to the opinion offered on the editorial page.ⁱⁱⁱ The story, therefore, demonstrates the “proof” and the justification for the paper's position, and bears witness as to why the readers should support this position.

In this instance the reporter is presenting his own version of truth, or that of his editor. But there are also many instances when the “truth” corresponds to the beliefs of others. A paper may tailor its articles to the views of the public. Regular readers of specific publications have particular perspectives and expect the publication to live up to them. Should there be some deviation from the anticipated dogma, readership may suffer, since the readers are really looking for a validation of their own preconceived notions.

Of course it is possible, and, unfortunately, it is common, for a reporter or publication to mislead^iv while telling the truth. All that is necessary, even if there is no slant or misstatement conveyed by what actually appears, is the failure to print the whole truth. An article may be completely accurate as far as it goes, but context may be withheld. The same outcome results from the fact that papers have more information than they can print and there is no requirement that they print both sides of a story. So they wind up telling only part of the story, by means of editorial selection. Only what the publisher wants you to know will appear. What the publication contains is true – and probably what the reader thought anyway – but it's deceptive.

An extension of this form of misrepresentation^v involves the placement of stories – the prominence given them. A front page, “above the fold,” story will have much more impact than one on the inside, and it's far more likely to be read. Similarly one with a picture will more likely be read than one without. The picture, itself, may have nothing to do with the story,^vi but its presence will affect the way the reader will understand it, even if the association of the two leads to an incorrect conclusion. And a good headline writer can create a totally false impression for those who only scan the bold print.

More insidious, however, are those cases when the “news” is dictated by some particular governmental agency or by some pressure group. If, for example, a nation doesn't permit reporting from its territory, reporters will focus their attention on the places where they are permitted to work. The “news,” however damning it may seem, is only likely to come from free countries. Those who might be embarrassed by events on their soil often suppress it. And the news agencies acquiesce or simply lose interest in the situation.^vii

Or the offending party may dictate the “news.” In some lands the only news releases are those that come from the government, or those that are censored by it. Those in charge control whatever you read about, so as to ensure that the message you get is the one the authorities want you to believe. A local reporter who doesn't observe their policies and standards will not have press credentials for very long, and foreign reporters who act in a similar manner will soon be deported.

But those are the lucky ones. A government or a terrorist group whose story is not told in the manner desired may injure or kill the offender, or his family. It's a good way ensure that the story told is the one in keeping with the interests of the “persuader.”

The bottom line is that you can't believe everything you read, or learn from the media.^viii If that's all you know, you've got a big problem. And there are others who want to convince you of things that may not be true.

I'll have more to say about liars next week.

Next episode: “Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire” – Don't trust anyone (except me).

i      This would include both errors of fact and interpretation. The former includes both misinformation and misunderstanding of the information available. For example, “Dewey Defeats Truman” was the result of insufficient information and an excess of wishful thinking. Misunderstanding of available information, however, may result from such considerations as cultural bias. For example, Americans understood (and the press uncritically reported) the results of the recent Israeli election as reflecting a desire for a foreign policy change – something important to them – while Israelis voted more on the basis of social issues, since there was consensus on the need for security.

ii      Admittedly, although the bias is usually high in the awareness of the reporter, although he may not view it as a bias, it is sometimes unconscious and the article is written in good faith with the writer seeing it as objective, but that doesn't change the reality that the actual facts may be presented in a slanted manner.

iii    In such cases the reporter may be slanting an article in the interests of job security.

iv     Lie.

v      Lying even though what is stated is true.

vi     It may be a “stock” photograph from a different time, or taken under different circumstances, which is either not acknowledged as such, or is made clear only in tiny print unlikely to be noticed by the reader.

vii    They justify their position by saying that everyone knows the situation, and there is no point in reporting it repeatedly, especially if it places other reporters at risk.

viii   Including the “tweet” you just received. Or the blog – like this one – you just read.