The Suspension Of Disbelief By The Public

Women Claim Plumber Fondled Them

Cheerleader Accuses Star Quarterback Of

Making Her Feel Uncomfortable

Drug Clerk Charged With Groping By 23 Women

Suppose those headlines appeared in the weekly editions of mid-west papers. Would the stories be covered by the major media?

Women Claim Senatorial Candidate Fondled Them When They Were Young

Intern Accuses President Of Bedding Her

Numerous Women Reveal Sexual Demands of Billionaire Producer

How about these from major east coast organs?

We're titillated by the fall of the mighty and not interested in the human faults of the poor. The truth of the accusations is irrelevant.

Why are charges like these leveled by so many so long after their occurrence? One possibility is that at the time of the incident they were fearful and intimidated. Their willing participation would not have been well received if others knew what happened. Another is that the facts are not as they claimed or that they were the initiators of the interaction which they describe inaccurately. Or maybe they never happened.

But that doesn't account for the frequency with which they are leveled, and the eagerness of those purported to be victims to talk about them. And there are times when the accusations come at politically sensitive times – like just before an election Is it significant additionally that charges are often labeled against those with deep pockets?

It's likely that much of what they claim is true. That, however, doesn't account for the flurry of accusations coming out now. (It should be noted that there are no convictions, only accusations, but the politicians and the media have already tried and convicted those accused and they have made clear to the public what their judgment should be.) There is no question that wrongdoers should be punished, but in most states (but not all), while there is no statute of limitations for rape and violent sex crimes, there is a limit for bringing charges against someone accused of a lesser offense and, decades past the time of commission of the alleged offense, there is no remaining evidence (if there ever was any) of the crime. It's “He said, she said,” and the accusation can only serve to embarrass the one accused – often during a political campaign – serve as the basis of monetary litigation whether justified or not, demonstrate the claimed victimhood and virtue of the accuser, or simply serve as a cry for attention.

In all likelihood men, and male DNA, have not changed in the past few million years or so. Men have always been the sexual aggressors (though sometimes women have consciously provoked that behavior – I'll deal with the more complete issue of the sexes in a future essay) and the question that arises is why, all of a sudden, there is a rash of complaints. It could be that societal norms and expectations have changed, or it could be a political tactic, but it has now become common, and fashionable, to claim sexual abuse by someone famous. And the pattern is to accept the accusation – with or without confirmatory evidence – and reject any denials.

Our society has become sympathetic to the cries of women. And, perhaps justifiably, sensitive to all their needs.

And the press and politicians are playing it for all it's worth.

November14, 2017

The Debates

The debates begin tomorrow, on Monday. For the Presidency. There will be two candidates trading blows – the candidates of the major parties. Neither is trusted by the majority of Americans, but those are the only ones from whom we will hear the justifications for their seeking the office. One of them has claimed that the election is rigged (against him), which is seen as an advanced excuse for losing the election if that should occur.

But it is difficult not to accept the idea that the election is rigged. Not against either of them, irrespective of the claims. And not against the lesser of evils, but against those of us who trust neither of them. Despite voter antipathy towards both of the major party contenders, and the calls for new ideas and new leadership, the media won't let us in on any third party candidates' views, and the debate managers won't let us hear what those who question the major party offerings have to say, so we can decide. While the majority of Americans reject both the Democrat and Republican, we are not being given the opportunity to hear other views and judge for ourselves. Is Johnson better than Clinton or Trump? We'll never know. All we know is that the lesser of two evils is evil.

It's not a big surprise. Long ago the media staked out their positions, favoring either the Democrats or Republicans, and they gain nothing by devoting their personnel and their space to anyone else. And it will simply confuse their readers, who have been reared in the context of a “two party system.” They haven't been prepared, as have citizens of other countries, for a political system that contains many parties – each claiming different ground, pressing different issues, and favoring different political leaders and different political factions among the public.

It would also make debates both more complicated and expensive. And that's not the American Way. We have a free press – as long as you support the major parties. The idea of a third party is not one that the media support. Or at least not one that they “advertise.”

But if neither the media nor those who run the debates support the concept that there may be more than two points of view – on problems, solution, and people – how can we? When they limit what we can hear they limit what we can think, and what we can do. They deprive us of the ability to choose, while telling us that “anyone can grow up to be President.” The reality is that “anyone” has be an advocate (or claim to be one) of the policies of one of the major parties. There is no room for independent thinking. It is disruptive and uneconomical. It would cause citizens to question the prejudices of the established media. It would not be well received by the ownership and editorial staff of an organ that has a long-standing policy of supporting a particular party or philosophy.

A good example is the New York Times. It is a paper that, for the last half-century, has only supported Democrats for the Presidency. We have had Presidents who were members of the Democratic Party and never had a day during their stewardship when the country wasn't at war. The Times supported them. There have been Republican Presidents during times of peace. The Times has opposed them. Economic difficulties, as the “Gray Lady” has chosen to define them, are the fault of the Republicans, as is any racial strife. Even if they occur under a Democratic President.

Today (surprise, surprise), just in time for us to evaluate the candidates in debate having been primed to know who is right, the Times endorsed Secretary Clinton. She was recommended as “A leader with the intellect and courage to face hard challenges.” She “has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas.” It continues

Running down the other guy won't suffice to make [the] argument [although they promise to reveal to us tomorrow “why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history]. The best case for Hillary Clinton cannot be, and is not, that she isn't Donald Trump.

The best case is, instead, about the challenges this country faces, and Mrs. Clinton's capacity to rise to them.

In view of the fact that so many polls have displayed the belief that she is unfit for the office, she will certainly have “to rise to them.” And the frequent misstatements she has made while creating her image – some would call them “lies” rather than “misstatements” – make it difficult to accept her campaign promises without questions.

This is not a defense of Mr. Trump who is also not trusted by voters and would also be a bad choice. But the great flaws of both make it important that other points of view be presented to the American people. One of the two major party candidates is likely to win. They always do, and it will probably be Secretary Clinton. In either case we all lose. But if other ideas are presented either in the press or during debates we will at least have the opportunity of having more to discuss next time. I'm not so naïve as to believe that a third party candidate will ever be properly covered by the press or allowed to participate in future debates, but if their ideas become part of the conversation, Democrats and Republicans will have to discuss them. And we'll all gain from that.

Staying Alive

I've written about the press before. (While I'll refer to the “papers” and the “press,” that should be understood as shorthand for all of the media – including the internet.) One of my biggest gripes is that too many journalists view events through the lens of their own biases, or sometimes don't even bother with events to justify the statement of those biases. They are often termed “advocacy journalists,” and they turn objective news into the columns that someday they hope to have. It's oversimplification to suggest that all journalists put a spin on the news, but enough do to make the concept of informing the public through a “free press” a parody. It's becoming more and more difficult to trust the reports found in even the most earnest of publications – ones that we once viewed as the “standards” and the papers “of record.” “All the news that's fit to print,” “fair and balanced,” “objective,” and similar terms cannot be taken seriously. It's safer not to believe any news reports.

Modern technology has given us the ability to see events as reported in a wide variety of media from all over the world, and we wind up with countless different views of the same facts. Too many stories seem to be a replay of “Rashōmon.” It has become obvious that what we used to believe without question, what we thought represented an objective reporting of the facts, cannot be taken at face value.

There's no doubt in my mind that my previous characterizations are true but, like many of the stories submitted by these reporters, they lacked context and explanation. No blanket indictment of journalists is intended – most are hard working journeymen sincerely seeking to inform us of what they see, but there are those who place themselves above their profession, some who oversimplify their stories, and many who face difficult hurdles when it comes to telling us their stories.

Those are the issues that I'd like to consider, in an extended fashion, today. The discussion is certainly not complete, of course, but I hope it will add to our understanding of what's happening. And perhaps it will explain some of what contributes to the revisionism and misinformation which pervade our times. I'm especially interested in the first and last problems I raised – those placing themselves above their profession, and the question of “hurdles” – although to a degree they overlap. As for the second, oversimplification, which may result from, among other things, the journalist's failure to fully understand his subject or the selling short of his readers through his own inadequacy – it's hard to remedy poor training and poor habits, and reporters who fall into these traps just don't know enough to do any better.

The first group are primarily the advocacy journalists, those who are self-promoters, and the ones who are lazy. In order to convey their message they don't even have to be at the site of the news. They have the internet, and, in addition, they know, before they learn the facts, what they want to say – often emphasizing their own involvement in the story – or they can get enough to publish without actually going to the site of the action And it may be dangerous to go there anyway. They are journalists with no excuse for their unethical behavior. They have little regard for their readers.

More to be pitied are the ones who have constraints imposed upon them from outside. An illustration from “Honest Reporting” (October 13, 2015) is useful:

“Last November, the PLO warned [emphasis added] foreign reporters not to use the words 'Temple Mount' when referring to the Jerusalem esplanade that houses the Al-Aqsa mosque and Dome of the Rock.

“The site’s Hebrew name, Har HaBayit translates to Temple Mount. This is a name that Jews and Christians used to refer to the holy site before the emergence of Islam, and certainly before the Jordanian army captured the eastern half of Jerusalem in 1948.

“But the PLO argument is that the holy site is located in 'occupied territory,' and that any name other than Haram al-Sharif (literally, the Noble Sanctuary) impinges on Palestinian rights.”

An authority of some kind – often the ruling government of the country where the story originates – wants it told in a particular way. And reporters report it that way out of fear. Government control is common and not to be ignored when relating a story – inadvertently or intentionally. Several years ago I wrote to one of the foreign press groups complaining about the lack of reporting from certain countries, and the fact that those reports that did come out were usually governmental propaganda. The organization didn't seem very concerned about the problem, simply telling me that everyone knew the there was no free press in those countries, and there was no need to remind them. The press's own published ethical standards are of lesser concern, even if they prohibit the publication of propaganda and require that journalists specify the sources of their stories. The main concern of most of the news organizations – both the media and the unions to which the reporters belong – is the maintenance of sources and the safety of the reporters. (The latter function, of course, should not be minimized, as illustrated by the fate of Daniel Pearl OBM [of blessed memory] and too many others, but there should be great concern as well for the observance of journalistic ethics and truth.)

But the authority dictating the slant of the story may be the employer of the journalist – the publisher or the editorial staff. The media often have editorial positions and they “suggest” to their writers that stories should illustrate those positions rather than contradict them. But journalists, like the rest of us, are most comfortable around those who share their opinions, and many of them work for organs with the same biases. And they're eager to protect their own jobs and their sources of information. What follows are excerpts from William Shirer's “Berlin Diary” which was published in 1941.

“Berlin, November 28 [1934]

“Much talk here that Germany is secretly arming, though it is difficult to get definite dope, and if you did get it and sent it, you'd probably be expelled. … Went out to a cheap store in the Tauenzienstrasse today and bought a comical-looking ready-made suit of 'tails' for our foreign press ball at the Aldon Saturday night. A dinner jacket, I was told, was not enough.

“Berlin, December 2

“The ball all right. Tess had a new dress and looked fine. [Paul Joseph] Goebbels [Reich Minister of Propaganda], Sir Eric Phipps, François Poncet, [American Ambassador, Professor William E.] Dodd, and General [Walter] von Reichenau, the nearest thing to a Nazi general the Reichswehr has and on very good terms with most of the American correspondents, were among those present. ...”

Clearly it would have been bad for him and the organization he represented to be expelled (he was an American citizen and probably wouldn't have been shot, though there is a real possibility of that today in some of the countries in the Middle East and elsewhere). He and his colleagues were aware of many murders and other illegal acts, but not so indiscreet as to report on all of them while covering the countries in which they occurred. (After all, they were there to observe, but not to be affected by injustice.) And, while in Nazi Germany, it would have been impolitic to upset General von Reichenau who was “on very good terms with most of the American correspondents.” (Add to this the fact that, at least in these entries he seems to have been more concerned with the press ball and his and his wife's outfits than in the story he was there to cover.)

The least obvious problem, however, is the kind that that is dictated by the others. While I've called it “hurdles,” it refers to the actions taken that aid in the sale of the story and of the paper: actions that serve the needs of the publisher and the market. Reports are edited to a particular length as well as to a document that slants the facts to fit the publisher's or the editor's views. Another problem is that although the press has a fetish about confirmation or a story before printing it, the desire to publish quickly – to get a scoop – often takes precedence over accuracy.

Add to that the old saying, “If it bleeds, it leads.” And it sells papers. As do exciting headlines – whether or not they are true. (It's another method of tailoring the stories to fit the “take” of the management.) Too often they seem to be designed to be intended as a “take-away” message for those who only skim the headlines. They may not be borne out by the story itself, and they certainly lack any context or background information which would help an interested reader understand the truth. The same is true of photographs and their captions. Since only a small number of pictures can be used, the ones chosen give the reader a visual message of what he is to believe, and that message may be incorrect. Moreover, the caption may be misleading. It is also, sadly, the case that the pictures may have nothing to do with the story even though they are shown as such. In short, the papers don't waste time on context or anything that would take up too much space or detract from the message they want to convey. Don't give the reader the chance to think for himself. The public has figured it out though. The following citation from the Huffington Post (2012) illustrates this sad fact:

“A new Gallup poll on perceived honesty and ethical standards found that journalists possess a dismally low rating. When asked to rate a variety of professions on having "very high" to "very low" honesty and ethical standards, pollsters found that below 25 percent of Americans have positive feelings about the honesty of journalists.” [I realize that I am using the press to call itself into question, but I find the statistic quite believable.]

That means that 75 percent of Americans don't. What's even more frightening is that the phenomenon is not new. In a lecture a hundred years earlier [1912] at the Columbia School of Journalism, Ralph Pulitzer, the oldest son of Joseph Pulitzer, decried fake “news,” though he considered it atypical. Clearly, however, the problem of unreliability in journalism has a long history. And it demonstrates that journalists may use the press to distribute stories that have no basis in fact irrespective of the desire of the reader to believe whatever he sees.

We're presented with a difficult problem. With all of the sources slanting the available information to correspond to the message they're promoting, and with all those possibly conflicting messages on line and viewable by the reader, it has become increasingly difficult to know what is true. And many governments – like, for example, those in the Middle East – rely on that fact, and rely as well on the recognition that most of the media will repeat whatever they say without questioning it. They may disclaim responsibility for the information, or correct or retract it at a later date, but the very fact that it appeared in print is all that is needed by some readers, and the subsequent correction is too tedious to be read.

So the reader is left with a “truth” that is partial – in both senses of the word. But, of course, he has a choice: take it or leave it. It's all he's going to get. Will Rogers said it, but it's just as true now as it was in the days of vaudeville: "All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that's an alibi for my ignorance."

Actually it's not true. What you read in the papers will do you a disservice. You won't just be ignorant. Too often you'll be misinformed.

Next episode: “The Sixty-four Dollar Question” – A quiz for you.

Text And Pretext

 

Like so many Americans, I have been disenchanted with the media. More accurately, I don't believe what I see and read. John Peter Zenger risked his freedom and his life for the right to publish what he considered to be the truth. The first amendment to our Constitution guaranteed that right. It was a right that could lead to an informed public – a public that was objectively apprised of events and could practice democracy in the knowledge that they could make informed choices.

We live in a free society. We can elect representatives and we can influence their policies to some degree by the expression of our beliefs and our wishes. Indeed, our country is great because it reflects, at least in part, the attitudes of a free people.

Attitudes, however, are based on information. Some of that information comprises the views and biases of those who rear us. These color our opinions by predisposing us to accept certain ideas while rejecting others. It's a sad fact that xenophobia, racism, antisemitism, sexism are often ingrained: they are truth, “common knowledge.” The new information we seek, the ideas which we accept or reject, however, are given us by others. And to a major degree, they are the members of the media.

Unfortunately, however, we have reason not to trust the media. A Gallup Poll taken in December of last year indicated that only twenty percent of the population viewed television reporters [and, presumably, other journalists] as demonstrating a high degree of ethics. That's down from thirty-six percent in 1981 – not very impressive figure itself. But, as the press knows, notwithstanding its low credibility it's the only game in town, and people react to what it says. So even if they don't trust the source, the ideas are absorbed, becoming part of their stock of accepted facts. If they are not exposed to other ideas, they can neither react to them nor incorporate them – only to what they are told.

So if there is little mention of the abduction of Christian girls in Africa, or the killings occurring in Iraq, they cannot be of much consequence. If little space is given to the nuclear threat from Iran or the invasion of Crimea, it is not our concern. But if an inordinate amount of space is devoted to a single subject – and here I refer to the situation in Israel and Gaza – that becomes the topic which is most worthy of our attention, whether we believe everything we are being told or not.

And there is good reason for cynicism. The story from Gaza presented by most of the media – a very serious affliction of the New York Times and many other sources – is unbalanced. It includes official Palestinian government reports with the claims unchecked, stories by Hamas sympathizers hewing to the party line, reports of those who fear injury or loss of credentials for accurate reporting, and censorship of uncomplimentary reports. And only certain events may be covered, with only authorized scenes photographed. The “creation” of reality that supports the Hamas narrative is encouraged. In short, propaganda is freely mixed with news. And news that does not support the propaganda is squelched or denied.

I understand both the underlying biases and the pressure to protect sources. Truth is not merely discouraged, it is dangerous. The lives of journalists are at stake. That is the reason that the information coming from Gaza and from similar venues is limited and censored. Those who wish to stay report the story the way Hamas wants it, and the others live in fear, only describing the true situation when they are out. Even then they are often reluctant to tell the whole story out of concern for friends and colleagues still there. And all too often, those reporting from Israel find it easier and safer to report Hamas's claims rather than to risk going to the scene. It also fits their own liberal stereotypes and biases, and the wishes of their editors and advertisers. “Advocacy journalism” has become the norm.

It is also difficult to ignore the complicity of Europe and the UN. The changing demographics in Europe, with increasing numbers of Muslims, means that anti-Israeli (actually antisemitic) sentiment is rife, and there is a good market for those newspapers that tell and sell Hamas's story. No version inconsistent with the Muslim narrative is ever told, so all that the people know and believe is what Hamas tells them. Will the Europe with which we are familiar exist in twenty-five years, or will it have become “Eurabia?”

As for the UN, it is largely comprised of Muslim states and sympathetic countries around the world that either have increasing Muslim populations or are dependent on the Arab states for oil and investments. In addition, experience has shown that UN troops and organs do better in Muslim countries, and fewer are abducted or killed, when they overlook the faults of their hosts and blame Israel for all the problems that exist. That they ignore storage of rockets in UN schools and hospitals in Gaza, with the knowledge of UN representatives, while blaming Israel for destroying them, is an example, as is the use of antisemitic texts in UN schools.

The problem is gigantic, but the solution is straightforward. Tell the truth. The whole truth. A serious description of the problem – reporting what reporters who have left Gaza have seen – would be a good start. The recognition and citation of media distortions would be helpful, although it would not be surprising if no branch of the media wanted to criticize another. Facts should be checked before publication, and when this cannot be done readers should be informed that they are simply claims. It has to be clear that journalists take their responsibilities seriously if they want to earn back the trust of the public.

For if people cannot believe one set of stories reported by the media, they may question the remainder of what they are told. And that is what is happening.

Belief

                                                                                 

You think the press is bad? I mentioned recently that only 25% of the people asked by Gallup in a poll taken in June, 2012,ⁱ placed great confidence in newspapers.ⁱⁱ A more recent Gallup Poll (November, 2012) asked how respondents judged the “honesty and ethical standards” of people in various fields of endeavor, and the outcome is quite revealing (apart from the 24% rating for journalists, whom people don't trust even though we all “consult” them). For example, 70% of the respondents trusted the honesty and ethical standards of medical doctors, while only 62% trusted dentists; 41% trusted psychiatrists, and 38% chiropractors. But the confidence in nurses was at the 85% level. Even college professors, clergy, and bankers were considered more honest and ethical than journalists with ratings of 53%, 52% and 28%. Not very good to be saddled with such low levels of trust,ⁱⁱⁱ but better than the press, to whom we turn every day.

There are those, however, whom we trust even less than “reporters” of the^iv news – as unbelievable as that may sound. For example, although 58% consider policemen to be honest and ethical, we only rate the lawyers who take over from them at 19%.^v And the courts are in between.^vi In the case of the judicial system, however, the problem may be less a perception of dishonesty than the appearance of poor judgment or incorrect political outlook.^vii

In any event, consumers don't trust “car salespeople”^viii (8% confidence) or “advertising practitioners” (11%). It appears that lies are more their stock in trade than are the products they sell. Of course, all “lies” aren't really lies. Advertisers have learned how to play on consumers' hopes and fantasies, so they only need to suggest something, or display an attractive image, in order to seduce a prospect and induce a purchase. They don't have to make any claim. Last year over a thousand new perfumes were introduced. With so many already on the market it's hard to believe that any of them broke new ground, but attractive packaging and the imprimatur of a movie star, clothing designer, or other famous personality – one who probably had nothing to do with the development of the scent – and a customer, longing for love or a new “look,” can be convinced to try whatever is advertised so skillfully. (Hope may spring eternal, but when it is stretched too far it is likely to recoil. So second sales may be harder to get.)

And what applies to cars and perfumes applies to other products as well. Whether it's a skin cream,^ix laundry detergent, electronic device, or telephone plan, the new product is far superior to anything before.^x And the price can't be beaten.^xi So what are you waiting for?^xii

There are many others who mislead us or lie to us on a regular basis, and when they tell the truth we don't believe them. In the poll that determined honesty and ethical standards ratings of various professions, insurance salespeople earned a 15% very high or high score while it was 12% for HMO managers and 11% for stockbrokers.

No group is as worthy of discussion, however, as politicians. Although nearly half the population approves of the job he is doing, in a poll taken during the 2012 election campaign, Gallup determined that 5% of voters considered honesty as President Obama's greatest strength.^xiii His oath of office includes a promise to uphold the Constitution, which many consider to be his first lie as our Chief Executive. Before that, however, come his campaign promises (just as they flower for all politicians who are running for office). Fortunately no one really believes them. So after the election, when they are forgotten or violated, no one honestly believes he has been deceived. Anyway, the fault, is that of the previous administration or the opposite party, who created whatever problems exist and who now prevent their solution. Fortunately there are some successes, but they always come despite the opposition of the other party and all the credit belongs to the President and his party.

But the President wasn't listed in the honesty poll so it is hard to compare him to members of Congress. In 2012 they earned nearly a 43% improvement in the perception of their honesty from the year before. Actually they worked their way up from 7 to 10%, so it's a little less impressive than it sounds.^xiv Like those of other politicians, their campaign promises are strictly for their campaigns. So, as is the case with others running for office, they should be judged on the basis of previous performance.

But, of course, it's hard to determine what they've done in before because the past records claimed during an election are unreliable. The usual pattern is that the candidate says wonderful things about himself and his accomplishments while his opponent, in negative ads, defames and accuses him. No. That's wrong. The two defame each other. Claims of your accomplishments are of less interest than what's wrong with your opponent. And the few accomplishments are likely to be bills with attractive titles that mislead the voter about the content and intent. Too often they actually accomplish something other than, or even opposite to, what the title suggests. Caveat emptor. (My favorite – and I've mentioned it before – is the Paperwork Reduction Act which increases governmental paperwork.) But truth in labeling is not required of Congress. And the “transparency” they demand of others certainly doesn't apply to them. It's no wonder that citizens view Congress as a nest of liars.

It should be obvious that a lack of trust is not conclusive proof of someone's deception. Not all politicians are liars. (Whatever the claims they make though, you'd better confirm them yourself.^xv) But after all these years, consistent doubt should make us wary of the bold statements we hear. They want to be elected. They're no different from the rest of us. We want to be liked so we often say things we don't believe in order to please someone else. We don't want to deceive – at least that's not the primary goal – but we want to be liked. Just like the newspapers, the advertisers, and the politicians.

To tell the truth, you shouldn't trust anyone.

Next episode: “If I've Said It Once” -- Words to the wise. Words to the wise.

i      For additional information on the methodology and results of Gallup Polls, see http://www.gallup.com

ii     Although I didn't mention it, the number for television news was only 21%.

iii    Especially the clergy.

iv     “their version of the” news would be a more accurate characterization.

v     It may be unfair to categorize an entire profession this way, but that is the perception of the “street.” It is, perhaps, a cliché, however “perception is reality” and, in fact, it guides our beliefs about the group even if such a characterization is not warranted.

vi     When asked about the Supreme Court in a Gallup Poll taken in June, 2012, 37% of respondents expressed “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in it.

vii    Barry Friedman writes, in an article in the online edition of “The Nation,” which I read on March 11, 2013 – though the date it first appeared is not listed – entitled (Why Are Americans Losing Trust in the Supreme Court?), “The New York Times reports a recent poll showing the Supreme Court’s approval rating at 44 percent. This represents one of the lowest numbers the justices have polled in recent years and is part of a generally downward slide since 2009. ... A plausible answer [to the question posed by the article] is: partisanship. Polls show a widespread disgust with partisanship in Washington; Congress’s approval rating was at an all time low in May. Although the justices often are divided into left-right ideological blocs, those blocs have recently become identified in the public mind with the Democratic and Republican parties.”

Some citizens also take issue with the Court's occasionally finding in the Constitution what they feel ought to be there, even if there is no evidence that it is. See Lochner v New York and Roe v Wade.

viii   Big talk and small print bring high profits even when performance is low. Those believing the claims are all too often disappointed.

ix     Is pomegranate really better for your skin than cucumber? It seems that in every ad there is a new ingredient which is the answer to all your problems. Except gullibility. We keep hoping and we keep buying.

x      And it will remain so until the next version – even better – is introduced soon.

xi     Often the price can't even be found. That particular bargain no longer exists or the product is sold out. But wait. There's something even better (and more expensive). “Bait and switch” is an advertising device often used to maximize revenues. It's used because it works. “Never give a sucker an even break.”

xii    Don't waste your time thinking or comparing.

xiii   Interestingly, 3% considered his greatest strength to be the ability to lie with a straight face.

xiv   In 2011, when they received a 7% rating, they tied with lobbyists and car salespeople. By comparison, journalists got 26% and funeral directors 44%.

xv   As John Locke said, “The only fence against the world is a thorough knowledge of it.”

Fats, Fads, and Futility

                                                                                              

There's nothing more important than your health.ⁱ Trite, but true. Another strong component of most people's thinking is belief. We all believe in something, even if it's the idea that we can't trust Congress. For most the issue of belief relates to religious teachings; for others it's the belief that all religion is fraud. (Even atheism is a religion – a belief system.) But people have belief, and if you put health and belief together and you have a powerful force – one that controls most of us.

Unfortunately, much of what we believe has little support. For example, two of my favorite foods – fat and salt – are widely believed to be detrimental to our health. I never let that stop me, however. As it says in Genesis 45:18, “Ye shall eat the fat of the land.” I certainly wouldn't want to argue with the Bible. If it says that fat is good, who am I to dispute it?ⁱⁱ I see no benefit to following the contrary teachings.ⁱⁱⁱ

But wait. The warnings are what you read in the newspapers, so you know they're true. However you read the opposite as well. A recent article in the New York Times^iv raised questions about our view of the harmful effects of salt.^v The article pointed to “a slew of studies suggesting that reducing [emphasis added] sodium to anything like what government policy refers to as a 'safe upper limit' is likely to do more harm than good.” Such studies were widely ignored however. They didn't correspond to the dogma of the times. The author of the newspaper article also stated that “(t)his attitude that studies that go against prevailing beliefs should be ignored on the basis that, well, they go against prevailing beliefs, has been the norm for the anti-salt campaign for decades. Maybe now the prevailing beliefs should be changed.”

And the harmful effects of fat, about which we're warned all the time, my be less well established than what the enemies of fat say . Another New York Times article,^vi by John Tierney, wrote, “The notion that fatty foods shorten your life began as a hypothesis based on dubious assumptions and data; when scientists tried to confirm it they failed repeatedly.” He attributed the view to a “cascade” effect in which a theory was presented which sounded plausible and subsequent experts deferred to that theory even if they couldn't confirm it. It sounded like the right thing, and most people – even scientists – aren't eager to dispute what seems true. Especially if it agrees with what they already believed.^vii

In both of the case cited above there is the disagreement among experts, but the message to the public doesn't suggest this. Salt and fat are bad. So we're told by doctors, nutritionists, newspapers, and all the other experts. Science is sloppy. It doesn't matter if the popular perception is true or if it isn't. Once an obviously correct idea captures the imagination, it is hard to dislodge it. If the media proclaim it to be true, it's true. After all, there's a scientific study which comes to this conclusion. Or, at least, a scientist. The authors of papers may have to reveal funding sources and their scientific affiliations, but there is no requirement that they disclose their political views and their pre-existing notions.

But there are also reports based on outright deceit. A single study,^viii with what has been described as “falsification” and “fraud,” led to the widespread belief that immunizations cause autism. And that view has persisted in the public mind, although scientifically disproved. As has the persistent belief that breast implants cause autoimmune disease.^ix Popular perceptions, like the ideas that megavitamins, anti-oxidants, foods said to strengthen the immune system, natural, and organic foods are good for you and genetically-altered and irradiated foods are bad, don't require proof.^x Everyone knows that electric power lines cause cancer. Why do some reject such an obvious truth? Such ideas are intuitive and, therefore, correct. Never trust a scientist or doctor.^xi Trust your intuition. Trust your gut.

But the biggest source of misinformation,^xii and a popular preoccupation of the public, can be found in the plethora of diets and the books that promote them. The simple version of weight is that the more calories you ingest, the more you'll weigh; the fewer, the less. Weight is a matter of calories.^xiii But people want magic – something that will allow them to eat what they want while shedding pounds. So there are diets that cater to every taste: diets that permit carbohydrates while limiting fat, diets that emphasize protein, high fat diets, low fat diets, low glycemic-index diets, diets that are accompanied by exercise, and those without, some supplemented by vitamins, some not, and variations of all of these. Diet books are published at almost the same rate as cookbooks. With most diets there is an initial loss of weight which sparks the enthusiasm of the followers of the plan, and their spreading the gospel of the new regimen. But later on the lost weight is usually regained – and sometimes more weight is added than was lost initially. The early results may originate in diuretic and laxative effects, as well as the enthusiasm and willingness to sacrifice of the dieter. All of these effects disappear and pall later on. So, ultimately, the diets fail.

People want THE ANSWERS to all their health problems, and they don't want to wait. They look for magic and “feel good” solutions to those problems. Belief is substituted for scientific study. And it's a strong force. So strong that convincing a believer that he's on the wrong track is almost impossible. Facts are irrelevant when compared to “obvious” and “logical” answers. But those answers are ones that the people who control our society don't want you to know. You can't trust authority.

So like other fads, most diets are doomed to failure. If any one worked there would be no need for alternatives, and no market for them. Rather, there are so many that it seems clear that none of them is worth its salt. In fact, the salt is probably more worthwhile.

As Craig Claiborne said, “Man is born to eat.” And, in the inspiring words of Orson Welles:

Ask not what you can do for your country,

ask what's for lunch.

Next episode: “7” – Other.

i        For some, politics is a strong force but many people wisely ignore it.

ii      And most of the sacrifices had salt added. Can I criticize the the desires of the One to Whom the sacrifices were made?

iii    John Mortimer's observation also has merit: “I refuse to spend my life worrying about what I eat. There is no pleasure worth forgoing just for an extra three years in the geriatric ward.”

iv     And, consequently, fit to print whether true or not.

v     “Salt, We Misjudged You” by Gary Taubes, described as an independent investigator in Health Policy Research for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The article appeared June 2, 2012.

vi    “Diet and Fat: A Severe Case of Mistaken Consensus,” NYT, October 9, 2007.

vii   When it comes to the question of “global warming,” many attribute the statements of various scientists to political beliefs rather than scientific facts.

viii   By Andrew Wakefield.

ix     Indeed, although scientifically unsupportable, it has cost some manufacturers large sums and driven some of them out of business.

x     In fact any dispute of these views probably reflects scientific bias or conclusions driven by the deep pockets of those who gain by the controversy. It took a long time for the public to accept the fact that Laetrile was not only useless but it kept patients from getting valuable help in a timely manner.

xi     Actually that's an excellent idea if observed in evaluation of single studies, like the ones in newspapers – usually on the front page. But those are the ones that the public believes. Most scientists won't accept such studies until they've been duplicated and verified, however the failure of a study that was highly touted is not nearly as interesting, and will only be printed in an inconspicuous place on an inside page, if it appears at all.

xii    And a major source of revenue for authors and publishers.

xiii  The concept of calories was first introduced by Clément in 1842, and it referred to heat production. Later in the nineteenth century the relation to food was noted.

All The News ... Addendum

Time passes. And we think of things we “shoulda' said.” Usually that phenomenon occurs immediately after a particular conversation. It is a missed opportunity. It's too late now to make a clever remark or pose a particular argument that would have gotten everyone's attention just a few moments ago.

Ideas, however, are not static. And they are not bound by time.

I was reading a previous blog that I wrote a little over a year ago, “All The News That's Fit To Print.” Of course I agree with myself, but I could have said more. And perhaps I could have emphasized other ideas. In it I pointed out that the primary aims of a publication are to sell papers and to publicize the publisher's opinion.ⁱ Thus the media slants are predictable even before a story is read or viewed by members of the public – a public usually having the same view anyway.ⁱⁱ The media weren't giving us the objective truth we had a right to expect.

I haven't changed my view about the facts – and these are facts. But my perspective is a little different. I still view the various media as biased in a wide variety of was – both in terms of political judgments and international perspectives. I still think the papers are excellent for wrapping fish,ⁱⁱⁱ and I think that they have the view that while it is their job to criticize others, any criticism of them is an impingement on the First Amendment. With those criticisms, though, there's more to be said.

I've come to the conclusion that that's their job. Mostly they're relatively honest^iv and it's the responsibility of the public to sort out the differences of opinion and to try to get a more objective view of events by consulting a wide variety of media with different prejudices. It's time we realized and accepted the fact that there is no such thing as a free press. At least not in the sense that one can get unbiased news about all important matters, and get it from a from a single site. And there are are many causes for this problem.

First of all, the public has little patience for “hard news.” Its great interest is in sensational material, especially in the detailing of the pain of others. In addition to all the murders and other crime stories that are featured, we find that pain in reports on the poor of our own country, as well as those elsewhere. We devour stories about wars and natural catastrophes. As long as the problems are those of others, we are fascinated by them and search them out. We savor Schadenfreude, so that's what the media provides.

Adding to the problem is the fact that accuracy is not a critical factor, but speed is. Publishing first, takes precedence over getting it right. In fact, there is not enough time for the media to get it right. Like a lie, a rumor “will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.”^v To be first, therefore,^vi little time can be wasted on the checking of facts – or those statements presented as facts. Indeed, notwithstanding pompous statements about “truth” and “accuracy,” it is not always in the best interests of the media spend the time to present material correctly and objectively. Rather, it is the goal to achieve a certain response on the part of those who receive the information, and to achieve that response first – before someone else convinces them of an alternative “truth.” The deadline dictates the news.

And news usually reflects a point of view rather than objectivity.^vii The message is the message. But that has always been the case, and, like today, those in the past who carried new information either believed what they had heard or been told, or they related “facts” that they wanted the audience to believe. Some may even have believed it themselves, although they probably told the story in such a way as to emphasize their beliefs rather than the facts. Travelers related what they considered important when questioned about the place they had left. That represented “incidental” news. But sometimes the goal was more calculated. Pheidippides ran to Sparta to get Athenian troops needed for the battle against the Persians at Marathon – at least that was Herodotus's story.^viii It was the messenger who carried good or bad news.^ix

Wandering minstrels followed, and town criers as well.  And they, like the editors of today, chose what we would hear.  But the “news,” at least that which was reported, was old. Even the introduction of newspapers in the seventeenth century left the public with old news. Perhaps it was more recent than previously, but it was old. That problem was solved with the telegraph, radio, television, and internet, and now we get the news while it is happening – sometimes even before.^x This is especially the case when the media are controlled by the state. For them, the news is an extension of foreign, as well as domestic policy,^xi and it must be doled out to the public carefully, expressing the ideas that will be of greatest use to the government. Politicians recognize the power of the pen.

And the same is true of history, which is, in essence, old “news.” Using old reports, such as those in newspapers, or history books written long after the fact, is likely to lead to erroneous conclusions. As Winston Churchill said, “History is written by the victors.”^xii That's quite in line with the idea that the written word, even now, should be considered in the light of the prejudices of the writer. So the best historians are those who sift through contemporary documents and try to understand them rather than those who rely on the interpretation of others. The record of events more likely to be correct than reports of events.

So if, like Will Rogers, all you know is what you read in the newspapers, you'd better read a lot of them. Which, fortunately, you can now do thanks to the internet. You can read all about it in papers from coast to coast and internationally as well. You can sample both governmental and private biases around the world. The responsibility for what you read, and what you believe, however, is yours. The obligation to get the facts belongs to you. You can't blame the media for slanting what they present. You'd do the same. If you only read what you're going to agree with, you're wasting your time. You could write those articles yourself.

That's what I shoulda' said. Rather than blame the media for doing what I would do – what anyone interested in making money and influencing people would do – I should have acknowledged my own responsibility to learn the truth. And it is my responsibility. No one will do it for me.  I'll be my own editor.

Next episode: “The Absolute Truth” – I'm Sir Oracle. Don't question me.

i     The paper will claim otherwise, saying that the staff are free to express their own opinions. The staff, however, having been approved by the publisher, are likely to share his views. At least if they want to keep their jobs. Some papers boast balance and evenhandedness and hire columnists with contrary opinions, but those with different views are certain to be outnumbered significantly by those who express the “party line,” lest anyone think that the minority opinion has any validity. Obviously it doesn't. But the publisher has established his credentials as one who is “objective” and who wants to air all sides of a story.

ii    The bias of a newspaper is likely to be known to the purchaser before he opens it. The Village Voice will speak out in extremely liberal terms, while the Wall Street Journal will record a much more conservative perspective; the New York Times will multiply Israel's faults while the New York Sun will always see the bright side. (The same is true of other media. NPR, for example, is likely to have a liberal outlook while FOX News will be conservative; Atlantic Monthly will be liberal and National Review conservative.) To a large degree this is a marketing as well as a political position. Each outlet finds its niche, and each reader buys the paper that he knows will echo his prejudices. And from that viewpoint, it works.

iii    I didn't say that at the time, but it's true.

iv    Notwithstanding the low opinion of the media as held by the public and as demonstrated in polls which evaluate the performance of many professions and industries.

v     Rev. Charles H. Spurgeon.

vi    And that's a major goal of the media.

vii    It's a mistake to take at face value either “All the news that's fit to print” or “Fair and balanced” reporting. They respond to both temporal and doctrinal dictates as much (or perhaps more) than the objective facts. In some markets one is more attractive to the public, in some markets the other is favored. It's unfortunate that much of what they say is taken seriously. Some of the media make a show of “evenhandedness,” but it's clear that it's only pretense.

viii   Plutarch tells it differently.

ix    And he was sometimes shot for his efforts.

x     The scheduling of particular events, or their anticipation, coupled with the need to be first in reporting, my lead to errors. For example, Dewey did not defeat Truman. And the reporting of election winners, reporting that occasionally needs to be revised, also occurs.

xi    Clausewitz was too limited in his perspective.

xii    He also wrote “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” A cute remark, and one illustrative of the unreliability of such printed reports.