Misinformation, Part 2
The previous 'essay' on misinformation recalls to mind another
scenario of similar duplicity in information.
Whether read in a book, newspaper or magazine or possibly even
heard on radio, I don't remember. I just remember the incredulity
I felt when discovering that many "facts" that are frequently
"quoted" in these same media are not facts at all, but are
conjectures on someone's part that, once stated, begins to take
on a life of their own.
The source of this strange myth-making machinery was revealed so
deftly and so studiously and logically that to defy its conclusion
would be superscillious.
How all of this comes about, once you are shown its progress
step by step, you wonder that you ever accepted it from any
one as fact for anything other than your own insanity. But,
be that as it may, the misinformation marches own and rarely is
taken to task.
One scenario: tests are being run in a laboratory on the breakdown
of the content of the human body. The human body is composed of
solids, liquids and gases. Of the liquids, a percentage is water.
The water in the human body of an "average" sized person is the
equivalent of about six to eight glasses of water at any one time.
One of the researchers carries this little oddity home and, after
dinner, in front of the television, is reminded of it by a
commercial. He begins to think about this little fact that hasn't
appeared in any medical journal to date. His imagination begins to
dwell on the outflow of water and the intake of water in the human
body.
Another "fact" pops into his mind concerning the human dehydration
point. The conclusion reached is that to prevent dehydration, IN
A WORST CASE SCENARIO, a person would needed to have consumed 8
glasses of water that day.
The next day at the lab, he discusses this with a collegue, how long
could a person last in the desert, etc., and they agree on certain
points, the eight glasses of water being one of them.
Six months later, as they are filing their report, they include the
dehydration/8-glasses- of-water find. Another six months pass and a
congressman, who has read the report, mentions the 8 glasses of water
in one of his appeals for additional funds to the Health Department
of his state. Three days later the newspaper states the need for
humans to consume 8 glasses of water a day to prevent deyhdration
with the source of this "new health fact" as being the congressman
who read it in a medical journal. After a year or so have passed, the
'dehydration' part is dropped from any reporting and the fact
that humans need to drink 8 glasses of water a day becomes "common knowledge."
And misinformation marches own.
My own attesting to this myth parade ocurred when I was in high school.
One night I was watching the late news and reporters had zeroed in on a
prominent figure who was in/making the news at that time, for one thing
or another.
They buttoned-holed him on the steps of the statehouse as he was exiting
a hearing/questioning session. I listened to his answers intently.
I heard his responses clearly, I understood them. I was satisfied with
his answers.
The next morning, which was Saturday, as I ate my breakfast cereal, I
grabbed my favorite and honored newspaper and was dumbfounded by the
headlines. The headlines screamed words about the aforementioned
"interview" and said the very opposite of what I had heard!
My curiosity piqued, I avidly read every article about this situation
and was dumbstruck with what I read. The newspaper had twisted everything
that the man had actually said into the very opposite!
My love affair with newspapers was over. I never picked up an issue
of this paper after that and decided that if I don't see or hear
it for myself, I would never believe another newspaper again. To this
day, I rarely read a newspaper.
Now, how did they arrive at an opposite conclusion?
As I began to mull over this question, I began to understand the trail
of mis-information that often occurs more frequently than we realize.
The newspaper sent a reporter to cover the man's appearance before
a state congressional committee-no television reporters allowed.
The reporter jots down his notes on what the man said fairly accurately
and takes them back to the office. This would be good to include
somewhere in the next mornings edition.
At the 'news jam fest' wherein topics are considered for the morning
edition and what would appear on the front page and what would appear
in other sections, the reporters notes are discussed.
In the office, away from the actual event, the reporters notes are
either read or just related to the group.
The main point is that in this discussion, the reading back of notes
will, unless the reporter is extremely astute, drop the inflections
used by the interviewee. With inflections dropped, tone of voice not
heard and just words on a piece of paper as a source, words with no
life in them at all, allowing pauses at points other than at which
they had actually occured, etc., one can, by turning your head
sideways slightly, arrive at the entirely different conclusion than
was actually stated.
In their rush-meeting for the morning edition, the panel of reporters
and editors arrived at the opposite conclusion from what I had actually
heard on television.
The above instance is similar to the situation that occured in the
famous O.J.Simpson trial when a black attorney, questioning a white
policeman, drilled him on how he could possibly know that he was
talking to a black man on a telephone!
In 95% of the cases, I know when I am talking on the telephone to
a black person simply because of the above newspaper scenario. How
words are pronounced, tone of voice, inflections, slang expressions,
accents, etc., is how you tell if you are talking to a black person,
or a Mexican, or a Scandanavian, or an Australian , or my wife, or
my son, my daughter or anyone else on this planet, and anyone who
ignores those attributes just to keep from maybe being termed a
racist has committed a worse crime.
To this day I believe that that particular incident set the tone of
that trial in the jurors' minds and from that moment forward it
established a standard by which all subsequent evidence was judged.
I am not saying that O.J. was guilty because of this. I am saying
that the evidence that was presented after that tense moment,
was considered by the jury with a "can this be considered as
racist" shadow hanging over it. The hint and accusation was not
acutally stated but exposed by implication and it could not be
retracted.
And misinformation marches on.
Next subject please.............
scenario of similar duplicity in information.
Whether read in a book, newspaper or magazine or possibly even
heard on radio, I don't remember. I just remember the incredulity
I felt when discovering that many "facts" that are frequently
"quoted" in these same media are not facts at all, but are
conjectures on someone's part that, once stated, begins to take
on a life of their own.
The source of this strange myth-making machinery was revealed so
deftly and so studiously and logically that to defy its conclusion
would be superscillious.
How all of this comes about, once you are shown its progress
step by step, you wonder that you ever accepted it from any
one as fact for anything other than your own insanity. But,
be that as it may, the misinformation marches own and rarely is
taken to task.
One scenario: tests are being run in a laboratory on the breakdown
of the content of the human body. The human body is composed of
solids, liquids and gases. Of the liquids, a percentage is water.
The water in the human body of an "average" sized person is the
equivalent of about six to eight glasses of water at any one time.
One of the researchers carries this little oddity home and, after
dinner, in front of the television, is reminded of it by a
commercial. He begins to think about this little fact that hasn't
appeared in any medical journal to date. His imagination begins to
dwell on the outflow of water and the intake of water in the human
body.
Another "fact" pops into his mind concerning the human dehydration
point. The conclusion reached is that to prevent dehydration, IN
A WORST CASE SCENARIO, a person would needed to have consumed 8
glasses of water that day.
The next day at the lab, he discusses this with a collegue, how long
could a person last in the desert, etc., and they agree on certain
points, the eight glasses of water being one of them.
Six months later, as they are filing their report, they include the
dehydration/8-glasses- of-water find. Another six months pass and a
congressman, who has read the report, mentions the 8 glasses of water
in one of his appeals for additional funds to the Health Department
of his state. Three days later the newspaper states the need for
humans to consume 8 glasses of water a day to prevent deyhdration
with the source of this "new health fact" as being the congressman
who read it in a medical journal. After a year or so have passed, the
'dehydration' part is dropped from any reporting and the fact
that humans need to drink 8 glasses of water a day becomes "common knowledge."
And misinformation marches own.
My own attesting to this myth parade ocurred when I was in high school.
One night I was watching the late news and reporters had zeroed in on a
prominent figure who was in/making the news at that time, for one thing
or another.
They buttoned-holed him on the steps of the statehouse as he was exiting
a hearing/questioning session. I listened to his answers intently.
I heard his responses clearly, I understood them. I was satisfied with
his answers.
The next morning, which was Saturday, as I ate my breakfast cereal, I
grabbed my favorite and honored newspaper and was dumbfounded by the
headlines. The headlines screamed words about the aforementioned
"interview" and said the very opposite of what I had heard!
My curiosity piqued, I avidly read every article about this situation
and was dumbstruck with what I read. The newspaper had twisted everything
that the man had actually said into the very opposite!
My love affair with newspapers was over. I never picked up an issue
of this paper after that and decided that if I don't see or hear
it for myself, I would never believe another newspaper again. To this
day, I rarely read a newspaper.
Now, how did they arrive at an opposite conclusion?
As I began to mull over this question, I began to understand the trail
of mis-information that often occurs more frequently than we realize.
The newspaper sent a reporter to cover the man's appearance before
a state congressional committee-no television reporters allowed.
The reporter jots down his notes on what the man said fairly accurately
and takes them back to the office. This would be good to include
somewhere in the next mornings edition.
At the 'news jam fest' wherein topics are considered for the morning
edition and what would appear on the front page and what would appear
in other sections, the reporters notes are discussed.
In the office, away from the actual event, the reporters notes are
either read or just related to the group.
The main point is that in this discussion, the reading back of notes
will, unless the reporter is extremely astute, drop the inflections
used by the interviewee. With inflections dropped, tone of voice not
heard and just words on a piece of paper as a source, words with no
life in them at all, allowing pauses at points other than at which
they had actually occured, etc., one can, by turning your head
sideways slightly, arrive at the entirely different conclusion than
was actually stated.
In their rush-meeting for the morning edition, the panel of reporters
and editors arrived at the opposite conclusion from what I had actually
heard on television.
The above instance is similar to the situation that occured in the
famous O.J.Simpson trial when a black attorney, questioning a white
policeman, drilled him on how he could possibly know that he was
talking to a black man on a telephone!
In 95% of the cases, I know when I am talking on the telephone to
a black person simply because of the above newspaper scenario. How
words are pronounced, tone of voice, inflections, slang expressions,
accents, etc., is how you tell if you are talking to a black person,
or a Mexican, or a Scandanavian, or an Australian , or my wife, or
my son, my daughter or anyone else on this planet, and anyone who
ignores those attributes just to keep from maybe being termed a
racist has committed a worse crime.
To this day I believe that that particular incident set the tone of
that trial in the jurors' minds and from that moment forward it
established a standard by which all subsequent evidence was judged.
I am not saying that O.J. was guilty because of this. I am saying
that the evidence that was presented after that tense moment,
was considered by the jury with a "can this be considered as
racist" shadow hanging over it. The hint and accusation was not
acutally stated but exposed by implication and it could not be
retracted.
And misinformation marches on.
Next subject please.............
posted by John | 11:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home