Disinformation

In theory we have the media to present us with the facts of today's complex world. We have television broadcasts with breaking news reports, radio shows, newspapers, and the internet to keep us abreast of what is occurring in the world. And yet, with all these forms of communication, the world seems as foggy as it was before any of these devices of mass communication. Today there are conflicts both abroad and at home that must be distorted by at least some of the news outlets. Consider such topics as evolution, global warming, political scandals, the war in Iraq, and even 9/11. All of these have conflicting messeges in the news. Scientists who publish in scholarly journals claim that almost every scientific discovery supports the theory of evolution (and those that don't just do not relate) while mountains of literature have been published in the mainstream to debunk evolution and forward some form of intelligent design. Al Gore makes a movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", about the imminent danger of global warming, and environmentalists are up in arms about the damage done to the atmosphere by carbon dioxide and other chemicals that cause global warming, while skeptics claim that there is little proof to substantiate the claim that humans have any effect at all on the warming global climate. Karl Rove and Libby Scooter endured years of investigation for a leak that was no leak, all the while one side claiming they are guilty of outing a covert agent and perjury while on the other side their innocence is shouted to the high heavens. And let us not forget such matters as the reasons we went into Iraq, or what really happened on 9/11!

The problem is that there is too much information for any one person to swallow. In computer science, even, there are too many fields one person to know all of them intimately (though one can made a decent stab at keeping abreast of all new papers and keeping new findings under tabs). In theory, when one is confronted with two conflicting reports--i.e. mankind is causing global warming, mankind is not causing global warming--one will look into the matter and find where the facts lay. However, for most people this is a daunting task, especially given the sheer number of conflicting claims we see. But it is not even a collective laziness that allows these conflicts to perpetuate.

Many matters in which we see conflict these days are high risk issues. Consider how important the topics of Iraq and education are to people. Some believe that our survival as a nation is tied up in the Iraq war, in that if we fail there, our very nation wil be endlessly besieged by terrorists. Others believe that the terrorists are only active because of our overt aggression in Iraq, and that we would not have to worry about terrorist attacks or loss of troops if we withdrew. Protected by oceans and by our global power, we would not have anything to worry about. These two fundamentally conflicting beliefs lead people to conclude fundamentally different outlooks on the exact same situation. Moreover, these beliefs lead people to accept claims based more upon their previously held beliefs than on actual fact. That is not to say that there is no fact to justify their beliefs, but rather that fact is not as important as similarity to those previously held beliefs. Simply put, people will believe what they want to believe, and the stronger they want to believe something, the more they will justify that belief to themselves.

But why the conflict in information? If news is supposed to be simply reporting the facts, why are there conflicting messages in the media itself? This happens in part because facts themselves can mean little in a void. Suppose I said person A shot and killed person B. That one fact, especially as stated, would make person A a perpetrator. But suppose I phrased it differently, or sprinkled in a few details. Suppose I said Person A was awakened in the middle of the night by person B, who had broken into person A's home, and person A grabbed his gun. In the ensuing struggle, person A shot person B. The police arrived shortly after that, and person B was carted off to the hospital, where he died from the bullet wound. Now, the story is quite a bit different, isn't it? Now suppose I report that person A was person B's boss, and worked person B murderously. Person B was an excellent employee and, despite the work overload, completed all of his tasks on time and well-performed, but he never received any recognition for his work, while all his coworkers received much higher starting pay, enjoyed numerous raises, and even substantial bonuses. Person B had a wife and six children, and they could not make ends meet. The children were poorly clothed and suffering from malnutrition. Person B would try to talk with person A about his situation and how he felt he deserved more money, but person A claimed he never had time to meet him, and at least, in desperation, person B broke into person A's home at night with the intentions of forcing person A to deal with him. Now we are sympathetic with person B. But now suppose I continue by revealing that person B was an illegal alien and convicted felon, having dealt with drugs and sexually abused a neighbor's daughter, and he when he broke in person A's home, he was high on crank and bearing a large knife? Each time we reveal more of the facts, we put the situation further into context, and the meaning of those facts develop.

People discovered a long time ago that by putting facts into the proper context, they could present an issue in whatever light they chose. By carefully selecting facts, people can make a bold, brilliant idea that would help millions of people look like a crass attempt at personal gain at the expense of those very same millions. These are half-truths. They are facts utilized to present something falsely. But people will present these half-truths for personal gain, and especially to further a political agenda. The extensive resources at hand to investigate these half-truths only make it easier, not more difficult, for the half-truths to spread and take hold. When anyone can publish on the internet any idea, be it insightful or daft, when any page can be filled with words supposedly quoted from experts, the picture only becomes murkier.