He Who Pays The Piper

A fascinating – and, to a degree amusing – article appeared on the front page of today's (May 23, 2016) New York Times. Its title was “Adelson's Era: Do Billions Erode Press Freedom?” and it was written by Sydney Ember. The article contends that the owner is putting pressure on the Las Vegas Review-Journal staff to conform to his views in the publication of the news. A specific concern is that newspaper management is guilty of “editorial interference.” The owner himself denies any participation in the nature of the stories carried, and the editors also state that he has played no part in their decisions, but it would be naïve to claim that the same editors, knowing a little about their boss, weren't eager to please him.

It's certainly a significant fear, but perhaps it is unwarranted. Before I discuss its validity, however, let me digress.

I mentioned my wedding last week, but let me make one additional comment which is apropos in light of my discussion today. We chose the band. And while we didn't have a precise play list, we let them know what kind of music we liked, and they were happy to present it for us. By and large the specifics were their choice. Not a big surprise. At least it wasn't then. But times change.

Courts have taken to deciding the nature of a baker's or a photographer's services, and who is entitled to them. Specifically the LGBTQ community. The Supreme Court argues that various aspects of cohabitation are covered by the Constitution under the rubric of “privacy” (which, however, is not a right identified in the Constitution). Based on those views it's hard to claim that the choice of music at our wedding might not be considered by the Judiciary to be just as much a Constitutional issue as “Press Freedom.”

The concept of a free press began in this country with the acquittal of John Peter Zenger, in 1733. His trial established the right of a newspaper publisher to air his views. That was before there was a First Amendment or, indeed, a Constitution, but it was a freedom needed then, one that's still the basis of our liberty. And it is a freedom that includes the right of property [newspaper ownership and the right of the owner to publish what he wants], also viewed by our founders as a basic principle upon which our country was grounded.

Press freedom, as I said, is one of the pillars on which our country and our liberty stand. (Some restrictions on it exist but they are limited and governed by, among other things, the laws of libel, sedition, and public safety.) All of the media enjoy it, but it doesn't guarantee that all press organs will be objective – nor should it. They needn't all be fair and balanced. And they're not. All have editorial policies which reflect the biases of their management. And all observe the five esses (in addition to the five double-u's) of journalistic messaging: selection, size, space, slant, and spin. (It's funny to see one paper accuse another of tampering with the news. They all do it. Even on-line, “trending,” and “social media” sites. So we have a lot of sources available and can choose the point of view to which we already adhere.)

The New York Times is a good example. It's a “liberal” paper (reflecting the views of those who own and run it), which means that it is left-leaning, anti-Republican, and anti-Israel (pro-Palestinian – favoring the “weak minority” of Muslims in the Middle East). That's not an accusation, it's a fact. [Adelson is a Pro-Israel conservative Republican which justifies his selection for a front-page condemnation.] And that's what the Times's readers want. It's been in business long enough that the staff knows what is expected of them. Applicants are likely to share the same philosophy, and those hired can be relied on to tell the stories that management wants, and tell them in a way that is desired. (Indeed, they may be “advocacy journalists” who include opinion in what readers assume is objective reporting.) The staff has been selected. Of course when there is new management of a paper the shaking-out process has not yet occurred and staff, who might not have sought employment under the old ownership, are not yet in place. And when such a change occurs current members of the staff may decide that they don't want to hew to the new line.

Selection plays another part in the process. The choice of stories, and their placement, also reflects the paper's (management's) perspective, and is aimed at getting the “right” message to those who only read the front page or the editorials. Those stories that cannot be ignored, but which may conflict with the approved message, are likely to be buried inside or otherwise inconspicuously. The same is true of (small-print) corrections which, though undesirable, must be made when the (prominent large-print) news presented is in conflict with reality.

Size is another criterion considered when a story is published. More space (including number of or articles as well as their length) is devoted to what carries the preferred message, and less to what opposes that viewpoint – if it is published at all. Look at the letters to the editor and you'll see that those questioning the paper's view tend to be short, and they are overwhelmed by those that support the agenda. Strange, then, that the Times was critical of the Review-Journal for shortening stories critical of its owner.

First paragraphs of stories – the ledes – present the slant. They tells the impatient reader all (s)he needs to know in order to have the correct perspective on a subject. While a more accurate understanding of the situation might result from reading the full story – with important facts “clarifying,” and possibly contradicting, the premise of the writer found deep in the story. Fortunately most readers don't get far beyond the first paragraph, so they know only what they are directed to “know” based on the initial slant.

But the icing on the cake – what tops it all off – is the headline. And that is the artfully written spin that directs the thinking of the laziest of readers. Once they've seen the headline they know, and probably agree with, the outlet's message.

All in all, when, for example, the public reads an editorial supporting a President who has knowingly misled the electorate, they will know that the editors are only laying out the organ's dogma. Readers expect the media to present the views their owners are trying to sell. After all, no one is surprised when an auto company fails to disclose all its product's problems or a lawyer tells only what is favorable to the jury. We believe what we want to believe – but we probably believed it before someone tried to convince us. It doesn't take billions to do so, but we'd take it if it were offered to us.

The Latest News

I was a little hard on the press a few days ago when I discussed the business of selling the news.ⁱ I wasn't wrong, but I didn't go far enough in handing out blame. Not that the media are clear. They're not. But they're only greedy capitalistsⁱⁱ who are responding to the real villains – US.

From their point of view, they're only doing what the Constitution – specifically the First Amendment – guarantees. They're exercising freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Most of them are simply conveying what they've heard – from other news services, from their own reporters, or from press releases distributed by everyone from commercial enterprises to governments. Some of it is reasonably accurate, if you exclude the self-serving and the blatantly opinionated (as you might find in editorials, columns, and advocacy journalists, as well the advertisements that are made to look like the news).

Advertising. That's where the real money is. The majority of a newspaper'sⁱⁱⁱ income, on average, is derived from advertising.^iv And, in large part, it's easy money. Not that it's easy to get the advertising – although an ad is often the best way to induce the public to buy a product or buy into an idea, so the purveyor may be eager to find space for it – but more important to the paper, it is generally press-ready and comes straight from the vendor or his agency, requiring relatively little work on the part of the paper. A good ad sells, so they're crafted by psychologists and other experts.

But it can only sell something if it's seen. And the more people who see it, the better the odds. Which brings us back to the original question: how do you sell newspapers? In the last message I outlined some of kinds of “news” that you're likely to have presented to you. It's hard, though, to ignore the reason for those “stories:” because they sell. People buy the papers that contain the most bizarre and titillating contents. That's what we want – not news but entertainment.^v

So if that's what we want, we shouldn't fault the media for providing it. Their goal is to increase the number of consumers. Large circulation numbers increase the cost of their advertisements and their total revenue. Everybody wins – the papers, the advertisers, and the readers.

Well, almost everybody. Those who are really interested in the news have to be careful. So much of it is slanted, omitted, and sensationalized because the media have learned that that's what their public wants. Truth is a secondary issue. A guarantee of freedom of speech is a protection for the source, not the consumer. The public, however, can learn from good journalistic practice, even if the media don't always follow it. If you're interested in accuracy you'd be well advised to check multiple sources. At least two. It's worth getting confirmation of a story before you believe it. If you read for entertainment, confirmation isn't necessary, but if you really want accurate news, it is.

Two sources. It's a small number, but it's worth getting before you believe big news.

I        Small Numbers, Big News – December 29, 2014.

ii       They have stockholders who are in it for the money. As patriotic and as desirous of maintaining American freedoms, the stockholders are really eager to make as much money as they can. And who can blame them? They have expenses like the rest of us.

iii      As I said in the previous essay, whenever I mention “newspaper” I am speaking of the media in general. It's convenient shorthand.

iv       It's not what it used to be but it's still high. See http://www.naa.org/Trends-and-Numbers/Newspaper-Revenue/Newspaper-Media-Industry-Revenue-Profile-2013.aspx

v        Television “news” programs have also turned into “magazines” in which gossip and personalities are more important than hard news. And it's hard not to find reality shows on the screen. They have replaced reality because we want to be entertained, not informed.

Small Numbers, Big News

Currently in the news is the disappearance of a Indonesian airplane with 162 people aboard. It is not unreasonable to assume that it has crashed killing all aboard, but it has not yet been located.ⁱ

It's big news. Viewers and readers are eating it up. It may even convince some of them not to fly, although flying is a safe form of transportation. Between 1990 and 2000 there was one death for over twelve billion passenger miles. Actually it's the safest form of transportation. More than sixty-two drivers and riders died going the same distance and one thousand eighty-four walkers – probably from exhaustion.

Obviously the decision not to fly but to find some other form of transportation would be harmful to the airline industry, and counterproductive for the consumer. But the feeling of loss of control and a potential “all or nothing” outcome is enough to stir both the fascination and the fear of many.  So the media are all over the story.

The secret of selling newspapersⁱⁱ to a gullible public is to pull their strings and push their buttons. People look for the unusual – the unexpected. So if the headline is “Man Bites Dog” you can be sure the paper will sell. And if it's “Headless Corpse Found In Topless Bar,” the paper will need an extra edition. The more eye catching and bizarre the story and its headline, the better. Especially if it involves someone well-known. And even moreso it tears him down – politically, economically or (and this is the real attraction) sexually. Voyeurism is a big seller.

Another attraction for readersⁱⁱⁱ is the catering to their preconceived beliefs. Allege police misconduct and all the agitators will run out to get papers. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of interactions between the police and the public are beneficial, and it doesn't even matter if the allegations are not proven. That's what they want to read. Say something suggestive about a personality and the People Magazine crowd will line up;^iv describe a gory murder in an Iowa house and everyone else will read about it, and then lock their doors. The more unlikely an event, and the less likely that it will affect the reader, the greater its power to attract a big audience.^v

One thing is certain. The common doesn't sell. No one cares about what he sees every day. It's not news. No one is interested in what he experiences – only in what he fantasizes. So if he has fears that his plane may go down, now he has justification. It doesn't matter that the numbers are small. The news is big.

I        Why that is the case is not clear to me. I'm sure that all airplanes have, or could have, GPS or other satellite tracking devices that would lead searchers to the wreckage (or, less likely but more hopefully, the intact plane which has landed safely).

ii       I 'm using newspapers as the model but obviously the same is true of the other media. In all likelihood, the internet will exceed them all until the next form of communication comes along.

iii      See note number 2 (ii).

iv      Or the New York Times readers if it's a Republican.

v       Actually, if I'm talking about newspapers, “vidience” is a better word – whether or not it exists.

Just The Facts Ma'am

That's all Joe Friday ever wanted. Just the facts. But I think he was asking more of people than they could give. His aim was to take all opinion out of the story being relayed to him. The only thing he was interested in was a description of the events that the witness observed. Just the facts.

That's not how things work however. Distinctions between “fact”ⁱ and “belief” may be difficult to identify, and there are also the problems of “opinion”ⁱⁱ and previous experiences unrelated to the current question entirely, but governing the way one interprets it. Not to mention confabulation and prevarication secondary to potential benefit from remembering an event in a way favorable to one of the participants, or fear of the consequences of an accurate recounting of what was observed.

And all of this presumes that the observer is accurate and remembers what he saw. But that's not at all certain.ⁱⁱⁱ What we see is based on what we expect to see, what we want to see,^iv and what we have seen in the past, as much as what has actually taken place. Numerous studies call into question the accuracy of eyewitnesses. Juries may believe the word of an “honest citizen” rather that of a “criminal,” but eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

-----------------------------------------------------------

One of society's big problems nowadays^v is bullying. The most obvious kind relates to physical abuse, but it's not the most common. Chalk that up to verbal violence.^vi One child will belittle the ideas of another as evidence of his own superiority, often using “facts” that he has made up. Whether we agree with his view or not is beside the point. We may not believe there is a Tooth Fairy, but that is not proof that there is none; we may personally doubt the existence of Santa Claus, but as Francis Church pointed out to Virginia,^vii in fact, there is one. Scientific documentation may not always be obtainable, and it is not always necessary.

The most important question then is what constitutes a fact. The word itself is from the Latin factum – something done – and, consequently, refers to something that is true: provable, demonstrable, observable, repeatable, and has predictive value.^viii Most of the definitions are variations on this idea – that a fact is true and verifiable.

But that's not all on the subject. For example, Collins's World English Dictionary^ix includes in its definition of fact: “philosophy a proposition that may be either true or false, as contrasted with an evaluative statement,” and, when it comes to legal issues, “(q)uestions of fact are decided by the jury, questions of law by the court or judge.” And one of the statements of the Merriam Webster Third New International Dictionary^x is that a fact is a statement “purporting to contain something having objective reality.” Purporting. So the claim that something is a fact doesn't make it true, and it doesn't guarantee that it should be believed. Label something as a fact, though, and most people will consider you a fool if you don't accept it. Evaluation is no longer necessary.^xi Once everyone believes something is a fact, it is a fact.

But, as James Randi said, “No amount of belief makes something a fact.”^xii Randi has spent his life disproving beliefs, maintaining that only scientifically approved facts are worthy of acceptance. Facts like the four elements and phlogiston. Facts like the centrality of the earth in the universe. And, of course, facts about matters visible to all and known by all – like the fact that the earth is flat. That's certainly reproducible. But not all of science's past judgments are still believed.

For facts are really beliefs, some of which have mathematical or scientific basis and some of which are demonstrable and observable. But there are other facts for which there is no scientific foundation. That doesn't mean they are untrue. There were electrons before they were first demonstrated, and the sun was the center^xiii of our solar system even before Copernicus, but we couldn't prove it. And there were cells before Hooke, and laws of physics before Newton. There was even Truth before there was mathematics.

But we consider facts to be theories until we have the tools to “prove” them. Whether the proof is by direct visualization or an inference from mathematical theory, it takes a tool^xiv to make something into a fact. And it takes belief, Randi notwithstanding.

For some, the written word constitutes fact. Will Rogers averred: “All I know is just what I read in the papers.”^xv Unfortunately newspapers have their own agendas, and most reporters adjust their dispatches to coincide with the publication's philosophy. And many – “advocacy journalists” – present their own biases intermixed with the hard news. Even stories of scientific advances are notoriously unreliable.

Others prefer to make their own decisions without direction from journalists who may be biased. All they want to see are the pictures, whose content they'll judge for themselves. No captions are necessary. They ignore the fact that the pictures may be censored by some regimes, and those that do appear in the papers are chosen by the same people they don't trust for text. And Photoshop has ended the reliability of photos forever.

What, then, are facts? The best I can do is to view them as strongly held beliefs which may or may not have evidence to support them. Skeptics like Randi will often dispute the evidence anyway, but no one is required to accept his definition of truth any more than he accepts that of others. Before Einstein, Newton's laws of physics were indisputable. Who knows if Einstein's will be disproved. What we now believe science proves, may ultimately be shown to be wrong, but we are not compelled to use the scientific playing field in any case. The spiritual field is just as valid, as is the perspective of a particular culture. Facts are not as cut and dried as Sgt. Friday would have us believe.^xvi Nor are beliefs.

One thing is clear however. No amount of fact invalidates a belief. Even Randi's belief in the incontestable credibility of science.

Next episode: “Proportionality” – The measure of all things can't be measured.

I        As will become clear, I don't always place what people call “facts” in high esteem. I usually view them as having scare quotation marks, but using those at all times would be unwieldy in an essay of this sort. So don't look for them, but understand that I often don't take them seriously, and neither should you.

ii        Some might even say bias.

iii        You can fool some of the people all of the time.

iv        And we remember what we want to remember.

v        It's not a new problem at all, but all of a sudden it's become one of our major concerns. We should have dealt with it a long time ago.

vi       The persistence of this form of abuse into marriage is beyond the scope of this endeavor.

vii      Editorial in the New York Sun, September 21, 1897.

viii     Actually that's not completely accurate (though it will do for our purposes). “Fact,” comes from “factum” derived from Latin facere, and describes something that has happened. Already. So it's not really a fact that “the sun will come up tomorrow” – despite Annie's protestations. Based on our experience, however, we believe it to be true. But fact and truth are not synonyms.

ix       www.collinsdictionary.com

x        Springfield, Massachusetts, 1971.

xi       You can fool all of the people some of the time.

xii      http://www.atheistrepublic.com/gallery/no-amount-belief-makes-something-fact-james-randi

xiii     Well not really the center, but close enough. Certainly all the planets rotate around it. As far as we know.

xiv      Like a magnifying glass or electron microscope.

xv      Rogers only feigned his simplistic trust. He knew the papers were full of nonsense and used them as a comic prop. In fact, he viewed “just what I read in the papers” as “an alibi for my ignorance.”

xvi      You can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Addendum

Add this to yesterday's post.

Headline Shocker Implicates Israel in Ceasefire Breakdown   The Daily Telegraph's headline on the attempted Gaza ceasefire implicates both Israel and Hamas as equally responsible for its breakdown. Read more...

And, of course, it lists Israel first.

Blaming The Victim

Many more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed in the ongoing war. But they picked the fight. Shouldn't we blame them?

Civilian casualties? If they cheer for the deaths of Israelis and they allow themselves to be used as shields, those civilians must know that they're likely to be targets, even if the terrorists who hid among them have already run away leaving them to receive the punishment.

Israel has better weapons and a better defense system? Hamas knew that before beginning the engagement. The victim ought not be blamed for defeating the aggressor. What Hamas seems to have wanted were graphic pictures of the death of its people, and the grief of the Palestinians, that it could “sell” to an eagerly awaiting press to illustrate the suffering of the “oppressed.” And those who claim to represent the Palestinian people will use the numbers of dead as ammunition in their effort to convince the UN to condemn Israel. But just as might doesn't make right, neither does weakness, though this is the argument of weak instigators. They attempt to attract sympathy by pretending to be a David wronged by a Goliath. And the hope is that the sympathy can be parlayed eventually into a victory by David – victory from the jaws of defeat.

There is no justification for the murder of a Palestinian, but neither was there any justification for the abduction and murder of three Israeli teen-agers for which it was unwarranted revenge. And attacks on Gaza are retaliation for rocket attacks from there on Israel. If the reaction is more effective than the original attacks, and if more civilians are killed, it still remains the appropriate response to the war being waged against Israel. And it is nothing less than war. According to the UN Charter, there is an “inherent right” of self-defense against armed attack. Those who view Israel's actions as “disproportionate” haven't been able to prescribe a more reasonable answer to Hamas's aggression, and to its declared determination to eliminate Israel.

Taking the side of the Palestinians out of concern for those flaunting their weakness is simply the bias of a party more concerned about the appearance of right than about right itself. (And by extension it raises questions about the objectivity of other opinions from the same source. I have in mind The New York Times.)

Additionally, the following AP report was on my was on Home Page this morning:

In the first indication that cease-fire efforts were underway, the office of Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi said he held "extensive contacts with all active and concerned parties" to end the fighting. It said the two sides discussed the "critical conditions and the need to stop all military action, and to stop the slide" toward more violence. It called on Israel to protect Palestinian civilians.

It apparently never occurred to him to call upon Hamas to stop using civilians as shields when their troops were sending rockets against Israel.

Sadly, this has been the pattern of coverage for many years. And it has been the default strategy of the Arab world as well. There has never been a willingness to accept a Jewish State by the countries of the Middle East. Indeed, many of those countries were created by western powers and they question the borders set for themselves as well. Although the inclination is to blame Israel for all of the unrest in the region – and elsewhere, it is difficult to connect Israel with the problems in Syria or Iraq or in other countries. To a great degree, the invective against the Jewish State serves the purpose of distracting the citizens of a nation ruled by tyrants. And the “meek” will join together to conquer the strong, and to “inherit” the world – which they will do until they begin fighting among themselves.

It's hard to see an end to the situation. The amount of distrust between the countries in the area, and the repetition of the accusations and lies and incitements to new generations makes any solution unlikely. The only hope is that the world will finally understand that the acceptance of wrong because it sounds good, and comes from those who control the fossil fuels they need, will never lead to peace. And when the media, and the world that they inform, recognize that the only path is one in which tyrants are discouraged from inciting violence, we'll have a chance.

But until then we'll blame those who refuse to give in, and there will be invective, war, and casualties. It sells newspapers.

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.”

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.

Silly Season

                                                                  

It's silly season again.ⁱ The candidates for President are roaming around the country making promises to every audience they can find, and, especially, to any group that has a particular ax to grind. Each candidate, naturally, has a better solution than his opponent to every problem, and a more all-encompassing promise than the other that he will be responsive to the needs of the voters. The speechifying and general campaigning will go on almost non-stopⁱⁱ until election day. Then it will stop abruptlyⁱⁱⁱ while the parties analyze the results and start their planning for the next general election.

During the campaign those running for office will, in their speeches and even more in their advertisements, spend more time bewailing the failures of their opponents than suggesting solutions to the problems they identify. They will, however, let us know that they have a plan to cure all the ills they perceive. They may not reveal the details of that plan, but trust them, it will do the trick.

That, however, is all show. For them and for most of us. If you didn't know three months ago how you'd vote in November, you haven't been paying attention.^iv And if you didn't know whom the various papers would endorse long ago, the same is true. For example, over the last few days (or maybe it's been weeks) the lead editorial in the New York Times has focused on why the Republican candidates will destroy America, and the vast majority of its Op-Ed columns also denigrate them.^v They don't have all that much to say about the President, but you get more mileage from negative than positive statements.

On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal is writing a lot about the Republicans, their nominees, and the convention – and most of it is favorable. It's easy to guess which candidates each will favor when the election rolls around. I suspect that the endorsement editorials have already been written. Indeed, they were probably outlined years ago with spaces left for the insertion of whatever seems timely to support their predetermined positions.

And none of it will have much impact on those papers' readers. They've already made up their minds. The endorsements' main value is to convince the lethargic that there is an important decision to be made and they are critical to it. The current goal of the campaigning is to be seen as the winner. And the incumbent has the advantage since he has the better chance to do things that attract attention, whether or not his acts have any real impact.

But now's not the time to pay attention. You'll go out of your mind. First of all, the candidates and their supporters can't be trusted now. They're saying whatever it takes to attract votes. Truth and sincerity are not important, although their appearance is. (After the election the winner can “clarify” his intent and the loser can point to the backtracking. Or he can skulk into, and sulk in a corner. In either case the original statements and the charges and changes will be quickly forgotten.) Politicking now is just that, politicking, and the high-minded (and highly negative – the ads you see will, for the most part be defamatory) rhetoric is not to be believed. What is said about the issues is what the candidates believe to be important to voters and it's all spin. Priorities now are looking good on television and appearing to act decisively, so there'll be loud proclamations and accusations, as well as negative advertising and rapid reaction to the polls and to anything that seems to have the voters' interest.

Batten down the hatches. Until election day your telephone won't stop ringing with robocalls, and your mailbox will burst with political brochures and pamphlets. And, of course, expect lots of e-mail and its analogues. But remember that anything you read in those pamphlets and hear on the telephone calls and in the media now can't be believed. The reality is that when the time comes, the red states will be mostly red and the blue states mostly blue.^vi Campaigning will focus on the undecided who, unfortunately, can't remember history, not even the last election. They have almost no knowledge of what the candidates actually believe or what they have done. Nor do they really care. They are the apathetic, ignorant, and uninformed ones, or, more euphemistically, the “independent” and “undecided,” and may not even make up their minds until they enter the voting booth. They'll be the focus of the ads and speeches from now on. Toward the end it's all about appeal to those undecided voters who will choose based on appearance and other non-political factors, though the appearance of decisiveness and action will help the image. Those who haven't yet decided have no interest in reality and past performance, only in images.^vii

Don't expect anything substantive^viii to occur. Both parties will make proposals that they know are doomed but will give the appearance of decisiveness and concern for the voters. But both parties will block the efforts of the other so as to avoid giving an issue to their opponent, or in order to get one for themselves. Don't worry though. Most of what's promised is of no consequence to the one promising it, nor should it be to you. Most of the proposed programs are ill-considered for the long run,^ix but that won't be of any great significance because none of what's promised will happen no matter who wins. Even those proposing the programs don't expect them to be enacted. It's all show for the voters.

So don't worry. It's silly season now.^x Nothing will change. And all we can expect is a continuation of what we've had, based on our knowledge of the candidates' and the parties' past performance.

Oh. We can also expect traffic jams caused by motorcades.^xi

Next episode: "Parsing Fancy" – All I know is what I read.

 

i      When is it not? In this particular instance, in the last week of August, things are just as idiotic as they'll be when this is published.

ii     There will be an occasional pause in the campaigning when some inevitable tragedy occurs. Everyone will remind us that some healing must take place before it can resume. To continue would show disrespect for those who have suffered. But those displays of “sensitivity” are themselves a form of campaigning and of humanizing the candidates. And it's fascinating how soon they determine that the time of sadness is over and they can get back to to educating the voters to the critical issues that will change the country – issues that only they can face successfully.

iii    But not for very long. Once the analysis has taken place, present and future candidates will begin telling voters about likely future problems – the ones that polls tell them have swayed the voters themselves – and their solutions.

iv     The reality is that most of us are single issue voters, though we may want to convince others – and ourselves – that we are basing our vote on everything that is being discussed. But having decided where a candidate stands on the issue that is most important to us, we “spin” his position on everything else to support our decision.

v      Today (August 29^th), on the morning following the vote for the Republican nominee for president, the Times's lead editorial condemned what it considered Republican “propaganda” at the convention.

vi      Pink, mauve, and puce voters will also be important.

vii     They may try to convince themselves, and anyone who'll listen, that they're weighing all the information about past performance and plans for the future, but the truth is that they haven't been paying any attention until now and will wind up voting on a whim, or for an image.

viii    Other than vigorous fundraising. It's amazing how much money is used in carrying on a campaign. It reflects how much the candidates consider the offices worth – to themselves and to those who support them. Apart from a job, a leg-up on the next election, and some prestige, the candidate, for whatever office, receives some valuable “perks,” some of them for life. And the benefits for contributors, including individuals, corporations, lobbies, and unions, are huge in terms of the ability to dictate political agendas and to get “set asides,” “earmarks,” tax benefits, and the like. It's a good investment if you're on the winning side.

ix     The unintended consequences would be more harmful than the intended would be helpful.

x       It's also two years since I began writing these essays.

xi     To rub salt into the wound, taxpayers will both suffer from these inconveniences and pay for them.