Evaluating the Accuracy of Information

[Time for change]

You don’t have to be a professional journalist or a scientist to have an interest in evaluating the accuracy of the information you receive – from newspapers, magazines, television, on-line, or anywhere else. As citizens, it is important to be able to evaluate the accuracy of information we receive, since we all have the potential to be actively involved in determining the direction of our government.

William Greider said in his book, “Come Home America” that “Democracy begins within the self by thinking and saying what we truly feel and believe”. Thus, a good understanding of what constitutes accurate information will help us in expressing or arguing our points of view with other people whom we would like to influence. More important, it will help us to develop a well informed point of view to begin with.

There is a very good explanation as to why money has been able to corrupt politics in our country and why so many Americans sit passively by while our elected leaders lead us into immoral wars and tilt the playing field in favor of those who shower them with money. That reason is that too many Americans are not good enough at independently evaluating information. Consequently, they have too great a tendency to believe what the corporatocracy and their government leaders condition them to believe through the propaganda that they spew out on television, radio, newspapers, etc.

I am not a journalist. But as an epidemiologist and public health worker since 1977, an ability to accurately evaluate the reliability of information has been essential to my job responsibilities for all of my working life. Therefore, I have had to think a great deal about this issue. In this post I would like to share what I see as some of the most important criteria for evaluating the quality of the information we receive.


Number of sources in the chain

I begin with this issue, not because it is the most important, but because it is useful in clarifying some terminological issues:

First hand information is information that we directly witness ourselves. Obviously, most of the information we receive that is of political importance is not first hand information. If we get the information directly from a person who witnessed the information first hand, then we have second hand information. If we get it from someone who interviewed the person who witnessed the information first hand, then we have third hand information. Etc., etc., etc.

As a general rule, the fewer sources in the chain of information, the more likely the information is to be accurate. The reason for that is that if any of the sources in the chain are inaccurate then the information itself is inaccurate. However, a relatively long chain of sources does not necessarily invalidate information, depending upon the reliability of each source in the chain. For example, consider:

In 2005 Senator Richard Durbin read a report from on the floor of the U.S. Senate written by an FBI agent who had witnessed torture at Guantanamo Bay. If we assume that the report by the FBI agent was accurate, then the torture represented first hand information to the FBI agent, since he had witnessed it directly. It was second hand information to Senator Durbin, since he had to rely on the accuracy of the FBI agent’s testimony. To a journalist who heard and reported Senator Durbin’s remarks it was third hand information (unless the journalist actually saw the FBI report), since the journalist had to rely on Senator Durbin’s speech. And to those of us who read the journalist’s report in a newspaper it was fourth hand information, since we had to rely on the journalist’s accurate reporting of Senator Durbin’s remarks. Fourth hand information probably doesn’t sound very good.

However, in this case I don’t see that as a problem. That is because it seems highly unlikely to me that an FBI agent would misrepresent something like that in an official FBI report, that Senator Durbin would misread or fabricate the report, or that a journalist would misrepresent Senator Durbin’s remarks. Any of this would have been very easy to dispute if it was false, and despite all the furor over the episode by rabid Republicans, nobody that I am aware of disputed the accuracy of what the FBI agent witnessed.

Nevertheless, it is well to remember that where a long chain of sources is involved, the reliability of each one of them needs to be considered.


Anonymous sources

Although sometimes it is necessary to use anonymous sources in an article, they tend to weigh against its accuracy. That is because they can’t be verified. Because the reader has little or no idea who the source is, it is very difficult for him/her to evaluate their credibility. In fact, it is generally impossible to even prove whether or not the author of the article fabricated the “anonymous sources”. Nevertheless, it is possible for a reader to make some assessment of the potential negative effect of anonymous sources on the accuracy of a journal article.

One of the best examples of the potential problematic use of anonymous sources was Judith Miller’s use of them in 2002 to help the Bush/Cheney administration make its case for war against Iraq. The problem is explained by Russ Baker:

Relying on a small circle of highly interested parties (often anonymous "sources"), she became the leading journalistic purveyor of the fallacy that Saddam Hussein had WMD and that he was tied to Al-Qaeda.

How could a discerning reader have viewed this situation? One of best ways to assess the use of an anonymous source is to ask yourself why the source is anonymous and what possible motive the anonymous source would have for exaggerating or lying. In this case it was evident that the Bush administration was desperately trying to make a case for war at the same time that Miller came out with her anonymous sources, which she admitted were Bush administration sources (How could anyone have access to such information if not through the Bush administration?)

We should ask ourselves why these sources were anonymous. It should have been evident that they were saying what the Bush administration wanted us to believe. So they could not have had anything to fear from openly making their statements. The only other motive that comes to mind for being anonymous is that their information was false, exaggerated, or flimsy. If you provide information of such monumental importance (making a case for war) someone is bound to question how you arrived at your conclusion. If you’re not able to defend your information, the solution is to provide it anonymously, so that you can’t be questioned about it.

On the other hand, when Seymour Hersh came up with his scoops about the Bush administration making plans to go to war against Iran just the opposite situation applied. The information in Hersh’s article was an embarrassment to the Bush administration, and the anonymous sources could have been targeted for retribution if they had identified themselves. So in that case there was a perfectly plausible reason for remaining anonymous other than that the source provided false or flimsy information. That awareness should have made the information more credible to a discerning reader.

When anonymous sources are used, the integrity of journalist becomes all the more important. In the case of Seymour Hersh I have no problem accepting the information he provides whether or not the source is anonymous, since his previous reporting has shown him to be a journalist of exceptional integrity.


Quality of the source

Consideration of the quality of the source applies to each of the sources along the source chain, from the initial source to the person who reports it to the reader.

My preference is to base my evaluation of the source’s quality mainly on what I know of its past history. In many cases I know nothing of the source’s past history – in which case I judge it neither positively nor negatively.

In my opinion, many people place way too much value on the source’s “reputation” in “respectable” circles. I’ll tell you a personal story to demonstrate what I mean by that:

When I was a resident in Preventive Medicine and Public Health, I became interested in the use of the low carbohydrate diet in the treatment of obesity. So I did a lot of reading on that subject, as well as some research. The diet had become popularized through Dr. Robert Atkins and his books. However, highly “prestigious” medical journals either ignored the subject or wrote negatively about it.

Nevertheless, I found some very good research on the subject in some relatively obscure medical journals. The methodology used and the depth of knowledge demonstrated in explaining the subject in some of those articles was very impressive in my opinion, and I came to the conclusion that the diet should be given a lot more respect than it was given. I gave very little credence to the fact that it was mainly ignored or mocked in the most highly “prestigious” circles.

Why is that? Whereas it is true that the more prestigious medical journals tend to have a more stringent peer review process than the more obscure journals, that does not by any means mean that excellent research doesn’t sometimes appear in more obscure journals. There are many criteria that the most prestigious journals use in determining what articles to publish, including whether or not the research results fit in with current paradigms. If they don’t, they’re unlikely to be published in the most prestigious journals.

So I did some of my own clinical research on the subject, had some very successful results, published a manuscript in a very obscure medical journal, finished my residency, and then forgot about the subject. Many years later (I can’t remember exactly when, but here’s one study), favorable research on the diet did begin to become published in highly prestigious journals, which of course caused a resurgence of the diet in the American public at large as well.

The same principle applies to political news. Way too many Americans give too much credence to so-called “respectable” news sources simply because they receive national attention. It doesn’t matter how many times the source has been wrong – If it is on nation-wide TV it is generally though to be highly credible. Larry Summers, for example, is a former Secretary of the Treasury, so his opinion is highly sought after and probably always will be, regardless of how many times he turns out to be wrong.

Nor do enough people consider the bias that the good majority of corporate media sources demonstrate in favor of the wishes of their corporate masters.


Motivations

We generally don’t know the motivations of the sources who write the things we read. But when we do, or if we can ascertain them, it behooves us to consider what motivations a source may have for lying or exaggerating. As I said above, anything we hear from a corporate media source should be taken with a grain of salt while considering the potential bias of the corporations behind the news.

That rationale applies to medical research as well. In recognition of that fact, most mainstream medical or public health organizations that sponsor conferences now require all their speakers to begin their talks with a disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.

Long before this problem was widely recognized, I observed that epidemiologists (I’m sorry to say because this slanders my profession) who worked for tobacco companies were on the front lines of the effort to convince the public that there was no proof that cigarettes cause lung cancer. They lost that battle, but it should serve as a reminder to consider potential motivations and conflicts of interest of authors when reading anything.


Internal consistency

In reviewing medical literature I often come across journal articles in which the numbers in the tables don’t add up, or in which the description in the text contradicts the tables. That’s always a bad sign, and provides a good reason to lose confidence in the accuracy of the article.


Consistency with external knowledge

Especially for very important issues, we should always consider the consistency of what a person says with what is currently known about the subject. That is not to say that we should automatically disregard what a person says if it contradicts existing opinions or presumed facts. But certainly our suspicions should be aroused to the extent that the information is out of synch with what we already know (or think we know) about the subject.

One of the biggest examples of how a person can discredit herself by publicly spouting out lies is Sarah Palin’s appearance at the Republican National Convention of 2008. My God, she told so many whoppers that were easily checked out that she must have forgotten all about Google! Within days most of the whole world knew that she was an unrepentant liar. Because of a corporate news media willing to give her some degree of protection and a segment of the American population that is so right wing that they have lost all ability to recognize reality, she still managed to retain some popularity after that fiasco. But still, the lies that were exposed did great harm to the McCain-Palin ticket in 2008.

The Bush administration making the case for war in Iraq is another great example of inconsistency with what is known about a subject. One of many examples that could be provided on this issue involves Bush’s January 28, 2003 State of the Union address. In making his case that Iraq posed a nuclear threat to us, Bush said that in that address, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”. Yet, someone who was knowledgeable on this subject would have known that: the only U.S. official sent to Africa to check out this story (Joe Wilson) said that there was no indication that Iraq is buying yellowcake; French intelligence had told the Bush administration in October 2002 “Bullshit. It doesn’t make any sense”; and our own National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002 had said “Claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium (i.e., yellowcake) in Africa are highly dubious”. And, on September 7, 2002, George Bush claimed that a new U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report stated that Iraq was six months from developing a nuclear weapon – though no such report existed.

It pays to be aware of information of that kind when evaluating a case for war.


Detail

In the absence of known internal or external inconsistencies it is very helpful to have a lot of well explained detail from an information source. If a journal article says something to the effect that so-and-so agreed with me on this issue, that’s not much to go on. There is so little information provided in a statement of that nature that even if the person whom the author referred to later denies that he agreed with the author on the subject, the author can avoid being caught in a lie by simply saying that she misinterpreted the source.

Providing a full quote that demonstrates the claimed agreement would be much more valuable than merely asserting agreement. The reader can then evaluate the quote himself and come to an independent opinion on whether or not it really demonstrates agreement with the author. In that case the author is putting her reputation on the line. If the quote turns out to be seriously inaccurate (especially if it came from a written document) she can’t later claim misinterpretation. The more detail the reader has to go on, the more he can come to an independent and valid conclusion as to the accuracy of the author’s information.

I recently received an e-mail from President Obama, in which he asked for my support of his health plan. The e-mail gave the principles of the plan, including 1) Lower health care costs; 2) Choice of our own physician; and 3) Affordable quality health care for everyone. I am fine with the principles, but skeptical of the fact that so few details were provided. In particular, if the Obama plan intends to achieve affordable quality health care for everyone without providing a public option for everyone (meaning that many of us would be forced to deal with private insurance companies in order to obtain our “affordable low cost health care”), I would have very little confidence in the plan. The lack of detail in that case is troubling.


Coherency

Sometimes I read articles that are very difficult for me to understand. That is sometimes because I don’t know enough about the subject. Or, my difficulty in understanding the article could be because the author does not write very coherently. In either case, if I can’t understand an article I generally won’t have much confidence in its conclusions – unless I have a great amount of confidence in the author’s integrity, judgment and intelligence.


Verifiability

The issue of verifiability is closely related to that of detail because in general, the more detail that is supplied by an author the easier it is to verify what s/he says. The same can be said about the number of references. I’ll use the assassination of John F. Kennedy to illustrate some points on this issue.

Verifiable evidence that JFK was shot from the front
David Lifton, in his book “Best Evidence – Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy”, supplies hundreds of references and meticulous detail in making the point that Kennedy was shot from the front. This is of vital importance to the question of Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone gunman because the official finding of the Warren Commission places Oswald in the book depository behind Kennedy at the time of the shooting.

Lifton notes that three persons offered eye-witness accounts of the movement of brain material. All three say that the brain material and blood exited the President’s head to the left and rear of the head. Two of them were motorcycle police officers and were actually splattered with the material. One account was obtained from a contemporary newspaper article, one was obtained from Warren Commission testimony, and one was obtained from a book author.

Nine physicians and a nurse who treated the President at Parkland hospital are quoted (four in Warren Commission testimony, three in their official medical reports, one in a contemporary newspaper account, and Lifton doesn’t provide the source for the other two) as saying that the fatal wound produced a large hole (5-7 centimeters by one account) in the back right side of the head. The skull at the back of the head was noted to have “exploded outwards”. All of the physicians characterized this wound as an exit wound.

Lifton supplies way too much verifiable detail to be accused of making this stuff up, exaggerating it, or misinterpreting it. As noted above, the evidence can be found in contemporary newspaper accounts, Warren Commission testimony, and medical reports.

Autopsy evidence contradicting the evidence that JFK was shot from the front
But Lifton explains that the autopsy evidence contradicts the eye-witness accounts of the brain material and the Parkland doctors, indicating that the fatal bullet came from behind. So which is correct? If all the bullets came from behind, that is consistent with the lone gunman theory. If any of them came from the front (i.e. the grassy knoll area), that indicates a conspiracy.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) contradicts the Warren Commission – reports “probable conspiracy”
In 1976 a House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was established to reinvestigate the JFK assassination (among other things), releasing its final report in 1979. Based on newly available acoustical evidence that indicated the existence of a fourth shot which probably came from the front, the report contradicted the Warren Commission findings by concluding that the assassination was “probably a conspiracy”.

Nevertheless, the HSCA report continued to lay the blame principally on Oswald and exonerated the U.S. government in the conspiracy, saying that the fatal wound came from behind (i.e. the book depository where Oswald was supposed to be) and that the conspirator who shot at Kennedy from the grassy knoll area must have been conspiring with Oswald alone. In coming to the conclusion that the fatal shot came from behind Kennedy, the HSCA favored the autopsy evidence over the evidence provided by the doctors at Parkland Hospital. Lifton quotes from the HSCA on that issue:

If the autopsy doctors are correct, then the Parkland doctors are incorrect and either lying or mistaken…. It does seem possible that the Parkland personnel could be mistaken. The theoretical possibility also exists that both Parkland and the autopsy personnel are correct in their observations and that the autopsy photo graphs and X-rays accurately reflect the observations of the autopsy personnel. This could have occurred if someone had altered the body while in transit from Parkland Memorial Hospital to Bethesda Naval Hospital. This possibility, however, is highly unlikely or even impossible. Secret Service agents maintained constant vigilance over the body from Parkland to Bethesda and state d that no one altered the body…

In other words it all boils down to the opinion of the Parkland doctors versus the testimony of Secret Service agents – for whom many, including Lifton, have shown evidence for complicity in the assassination – to the effect that the body was not altered prior to the autopsy.

Evidence for alteration of the body prior to autopsy
On that score, much of Lifton’s book is devoted to showing the likelihood that the body was indeed altered prior to the autopsy and that the “constant vigilance over the body” claimed by the secret service agents provides little or no assurance that the body was not altered prior to autopsy. With respect to the “constant vigilance over the body”, Lifton notes several persons who saw what appeared to be Kennedy’s body brought into the morgue in a plain gray coffin, very different than the fancy bronze coffin into which Kennedy’s body was placed in Dallas after he was pronounced dead, and which was televised being unloaded from the plane that carried the body from Dallas to Washington. (Additional evidence for a fraudulent autopsy can be found in this post.)


Plausibility

Plausibility is closely related to coherency, and to consistency with external knowledge as well. But it also has to do with a certain type of common sense. We should always ask ourselves if what the author says makes sense to us.

Typically a journal article (or other information source) will contain a conclusion, along with additional information and maybe some reasoning to show how the author arrived at the conclusion. Sometimes the conclusion will be crystal clear to us, while it is unclear how the author (or speaker) arrived at the conclusion. Either few details are provided to back up the conclusion, the details that are provided to back up the conclusion don’t form a coherent pattern in our minds, or we have reason to doubt the veracity of the details. In order to arrive at a valid assessment of an article’s conclusions, we should always try to understand how the author used the information at her disposal to arrive at the conclusion. And we should figure out if the logic used in that process makes sense to us.

The Bush administration told us frequently that we must continue our war and occupation of Iraq because if we don’t fight them over there we’ll have to fight them over here. He never provided any further explanation on that bizarre statement. It made no sense to me whatsoever. Shipping our military half way around the world, to a country where no enemies existed before we invaded it is supposed to protect us from attack here? Same thing with Bush’s claim that we were spreading democracy to Iraq. What good will democracy do for them when we kill about a million of them, make refugees out of four million, and ruin their infrastructure?


Summary

There are numerous criteria that can be used to assess the accuracy of information that we receive. No single criterion is necessarily a deal breaker (although it can be). Rather, a reasonable evaluation of information accuracy depends upon an assessment of all the relevant criteria taken together as a whole.

[Quantess]

1. You wrote this yourself?

It's very good.

[bleever]

2. All this, and more.

See his journal for more. Among the best honest scholarship and analysis that DU, or anyone, has to offer.

[Karenina]

3. +1

[H2O Man]

5. Absolutely.

I trust his work far, far more than anything that is printed in the NY Times, which is the best newspaper in the country. It is a treat to open up any of his OPs. There isn't a better journalist anywhere in the USA.

[Time for change]

8. Thank you very much H2O Man

I trust whatever YOU have to say much more than what I read in the NY Times as well.

And speaking of the NY Times, I find it very interesting that they didn't care for the "conspiracy" concludion of the House Select Committee on Assassinations:

The word is freighted with dark connotations of malevolence... 'Two maniacs instead of one' might be more like it.

What was left unsaid in that editorial was that 'two maniacs instead of one' was never established. The finding of the HSCA that led them to use the term conspiracy in the conclusion was simply that at least one of the four bullets came from the grassy knoll area. This was EXACTLY what the "conspiracy theorists" had been arguing for so long. Which bullet hit the President was in a large sense irrelevant to the main point of the "conspiracy theorists", for which they had been ridiculed for so long.

Of course, establishing that at least one bullet came from the front was just a starting point for us "conspiracy theorists". That fact alone establishes a conspiracy, and should open up the door for a great deal of additional investigation to determine the nature of the conspiracy. But as far as the HSCA was concerned, that was the end of the story, not the beginning. The Secret Service said that there was no alteration of the body prior to autopsy -- end of story. The conspirator must have been working with Oswald because.... any other conclusion would have been unthinkable.

[Time for change]

10. Thank you very much bleever

[DaLittle Kitty]

35. John Russell Worked With A Physician Who Trained At Parkland Hospital In Dallas Under A Doc Who

Treated JFK in the ER. The physician who used to be the head of the Trauma Team at Tampa General told John that his mentor said that the whole Warren Commission report was BullShHit and thatnJFK was shot from the front with HUGE EXIT WOUND OUT THE RIGHT BACK OF HIS HEAD... Just as ALL MEDICAL PERSONNEL WHO TOOK CARE OF JFK THAT DAY REPORTED! Thanks for this great post and will follow the writings of this author closely!

[Time for change]

40. Thank you

Much of Lifton's book is deals with the huge exit wound in the right back of the head. It is something that could not be missed and WAS NOT missed by the doctors at Parkland. Yet the autopsy findings were very different from what the doctors at Parkland witnessed. Lifton's detailed description of the evidence that the autopsy was a massive fraud is one of the most interesting things I've ever read.

When I was at the Medical College of Wisconsin I presented at a journal club session both the Parkland doctors' findings and the autopsy findings to the Occupatonal Medicine faculty. They all agreed that the body must have been altered prior to autopsy that the the bullet that caused the fatal wound came from the front.

[dotymed]

11. ONE OF THE BEST RECOURSES

Is to REINSTATE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. It will allow Americans
to hear all points of view concerning information that impacts
their lives. Then a person will be much better equipped to
make a decision based on, not what the "NEWS"
commentator is paid to say, but on the opinions and facts
disseminated by people whose only desire is to get the truth
to the people. We had the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE for over thirty
years, and it served our people well. The media did not like
being obligated to give free air time to opposing viewpoints.
The Reagan era politicos didn't like it because it was hard to
hide their Iran-Contra dealings. Reagan determined that:
"the content of NEWS programs should be determined by the
FREE MARKET." So, the truth was sold to the highest
bidder. Conservatives. Reinstating this rule upon media
companies is a relatively easy process. The media is fighting
"tooth and nail" to prevent it, as are the
Republican Party. The Democratic Party has not pushed this
doctrine, as I believe they too, are now afraid of Americans
learning the truth. Recently, the Florida Supreme Court (Jeb
was Governor) declared that NEWS programs had no obligation to
be honest in their "reporting." 1984 is here.

[dotymed]

38. EVERY DESPOTIC NATION

must have its MEDIA strongly backing it, in order to convince
their people of their manifest destiny. Just like America has
FOX and(to a somewhat lesser degree)every other American Main
Stream Media to propagandize the righteousness of its
governmental actions of aggression and oppression of their own
people and the people of "insignificant" nations.
North Korea just completed their nuclear tests, followed
immediately by missile tests, so they could demonstrate to the
world, their nuclear capability and the price any nation who
opposes them, will pay. Here is the quote from N.Korea's
"official" (their version of FOX)media:



"The current U.S. administration is following in the
footsteps of the previous Bush administration's reckless
policy of militarily stifling North Korea," the North's
main Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in commentary carried by the
country's official Korean Central News Agency."



When our nation tests a "new" weapon, in violation
of the treaties we have signed and often developed,then we too
put our "mouth-pieces" to work, declaring our
"right" to test the "defensive" weapons.
Every country does the same. Perhaps we need an
"INTERNATIONAL MEDIA" whose allegiance is to the
world, rather than to the individual countries and
corporations. Sadly, if they took ad revenues, they too would
be biased for their patrons.

The only solution, is to kill this beast called
"unregulated capitalism." We must reign in this
beast and its WMDs,(ie..media)and, through massive regulation
of its many arms....insurance,pharma,media,FINANCE,(outlaw
lobbyists); create a civilization that is beneficial to
humankind, not corporate-kind. We need to remove the twisted
reasoning behind the Arms proliferation: Corporatism.

We as a world are quickly destroying ourselves in order that
these corporate monsters can thrive, until the end. If we as a
world are allowed to speak with one voice (not the MSMs) the
vast majority  of our world inhabitants recognize the danger
and the immediacy of that corporate danger, cheered on by the
corporate medias, profit hungry,bloody handed lobbyists and,
worst of all their corporate whore masters.

Yes this problem reaches far beyond our borders, although we
are one of the most blatant, shining examples of what a
"cooperative" media is capable of, by solidifying
the masses. We need an international, non-government,
anti-propaganda program. It has to start with stopping the
flow of money and embracing a people centered universal checks
and balance system.

I realize that this sounds naive. So did the civil rights
movement, the labor movement,..etc.. We now have the internet,
one of the best, most far reaching means of communication
possible. Next we need an army of citizen journalists on a
universal scale. We need a clearing house or some way to
disseminate this verified "news." We have to self
finance, which is the hardest part, but ANY corporate
sponsorship destroys credibility.

The citizens,not the wealthy, must regain control of the
media. It's a noble idea but a logistic bitch. A great first
step would be to REINSTATE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE in our
country. Maybe, then people will understand the need for a
truly, multi-viewpoint media. One that presents facts as well
as all differing views and allows citizens to determine the
most likely "facts."

[Time for change]

13. Thank you. Yes, I did.

[Greyhound]

4. Auto K&R.

When are you going to tackle the function of banking vs. the financial industry?
:kick: & R

[Time for change]

19. Thank you Greyhound --

I'm not sure what you mean by the function of banking vs. the financial industry.

Economics isn't my strongpoint, though I have posted some things on economic issues:

"The Federal Reserve and Current Crisis of our Democracy"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20change/461

"On the Geithner Bailout Plan -- Liberal vs. Conservative Views":
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20change/447

But I'm not sure what you had in mind by your question?

[Greyhound]

36. I read those, both excellent as usual.

This has become a pet issue for me as I've talked to so many people that are completely clueless about all issues economic and the financial industry has done a very good job of equating their looting to the necessary function of banking.

The few people I spoken to that think they know how banking works suffer from what I call the "George Bailey theory of economics", which of course bears no resemblance to reality.

Anyway, I was just curious to know if you had any plan or even desire to put one of your pieces together on the subject. I'd do it, but like John Adams (in the musical 1776) I'm obnoxious and disliked, so it would likely go unread, and that would be a shame because this is important and effects everyone's life.

[Time for change]

41. How about this

I'm not quite sure what you have in mind, and you apparently know a lot more about this than I do.

How about if we work on it together, and I'll post it as a joint effort. Feel free to pm me about this if you're interested.

[H2O Man]

6. Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers

were two cars back. They both saw and heard shots coming from the grassy knoll. Both told investigators the exact same version of events. Both were pressured by the FBI to NOT tell what they knew to be true. If an "official story" requires that eye/ear witnesses be pressured to lie, the "official story" is a lie.

[annabanana]

7. This is a hugely valuable series of yardsticks of credibility!

You need a shorthand model for day to day conversations with skeptics though.

When I talk to the great oblivious and they question my sources.. ("Well you always listen to MSNBC and everyone knows they slant to the left")... I tell them I start with C-Span. I watch the Senators and Congressmen and see what they DO.. not what they say.. not what people say that they did.

Then I watch to see which newspeople & commentators lie about what the congressmen did and which ones told the truth... That's how I found out who to listen to and who to ignore..

This is usually sufficient for those who have just not been paying any attention.

[Time for change]

21. That sounds like a great plan

[CJCRANE]

9. A great resource are the full transcripts

of court proceedings, official gov't reports, Bin Laden tapes etc. that I've read over the years from official sources on the internet.

It's interesting to compare them to the "spin" version in a newspaper headline or TV news report. Quite often the "spin" is the opposite of the conclusion/message in the actual document.

[Time for change]

23. Excellent point

It happens all the time. I would never take the word of the corporate news media on their interpretation of documents.

[kentuck]

12. Wm Greider has wonderful insight..

I'm glad you quoted him.

By the way, excellent writing by the OP.

[Time for change]

24. Thank you -- Yes, Greider has a lot of very important things to say

In addition to "Come Home America", I've read "Who Will Tell the People", which was a real eye opener at the time I read it in the 90s.

[kentuck]

28. Yep... A must read.

“Democracy begins within the self by thinking and saying what we truly feel and believe”

That is the kicker, in my opinion. Do people understand what they truly feel and believe and are they able to verbalize it?

[BeFree]

14. Nice work

Follow the trail of information to make best use of it, is wise advice.

Noticed you left out any mention of 9/11. Learned your lesson, eh?

[Time for change]

25. Thank you

What do you mean by 9/11? What is that?

[Overseas]

15. K&R !!

And bookmarked because it describes so well how I felt during the Bush Administration's marketing of their invasion of Iraq.

AND provides useful characteristics for analyzing propaganda of various kinds.

[Time for change]

27. I know how you feel

That is one of the greatest crimes in world history IMO. Some day, hopefully, when we have a more civilized world, those kinds of crimes will be punished.

[Overseas]

46. And since we're talking about evaluating information

There I was, having read enough information from various sources to establish that Sadaam was no friend of Al Qaeda, knowing Excuse #1 was false. Then reading enough from various sources to know Excuse #2 was false; there weren't major WMD programs; no yellow cake from Niger. Yet watching the so-called-liberal-media giants going along with the administration's push to war on Iraq. Pumping up the fear machine, urged along by Judith Miller and Curveball, marginalizing the anti-war voices.

Even Excuse #3, Sadaam was a horrible tyrant, is something we had known for over 15 years by then. But when we complained about Sadaam's brutality in the 80's we were told our country needed him TO KEEP IRAN IN CHECK. It was "realpolitik" I was supposed to get used to, like the other ruthless dictators the US has supported to protect its corporate interests in other regions over the years.

Even the "they will greet us with flowers" theory was contradicted by experts from multiple sources. Those within our government were reassigned or chose to retire.

The plentiful examples of war profiteering (via no-bid contracts with friends of the VP) were covered in the news but not much in the hours of news chat on TV. That's the insidious nature of our "free press"-- you can't say the stories were not covered. The billions in cost overruns for shoddy service were reported in various media, but they weren't a major discussion point for the news chat shows. It was excruciating to watch them talk about The Beer Guy vs The Dork again in 2004, instead of the criminal war profiteers vs the war hero liberal policy wonk. Shoving aside solid information about election manipulation, TV news chat engaged in convoluted discussion about how those exit polls just get it wrong, and even the "left" media told us to shut up about election manipulation.

So from a news consumer's standpoint, the Bush Cheney Regime was extra depressing.

But I remember the Reagan administration too, committing war crimes while talking lovely platitudes about it being "Morning in America." Parading his patriotism while trading arms to Iran to fund his "covert" war against Nicaragua.

[pmorlan1]

16. Wonderful Post

I wish everyone would evaluate the information they receive from the establishment media and our elected officials instead of believing whatever they say. Just yesterday the Washington Post published a blatant lie about the Max Baucus approach to health care reform. And sadly, this is not an isolated incident, it happens every day in this country.

http://democracity.blogspot.com/2009/05/washington-post-lied-to-its-readers.html

[Time for change]

30. Thank you -- If people did a better job of evaluationg the information they receive

from the corporate media, we would begin to see a great deal of progress in this country on all fronts.

[indepat]

17. True-believers don't need to evaluate the accuracy of information emanating from the mouths

of their leaders, no matter how lacking in detail, coherency, verifiability, and plausibility, else they wouldn't be true-believers: to wit, a significant portion of our population have crippling emotional, reasoning, and mental disorders. :D

[Larry Ogg]

18. Perspectives as to how information can be distorted are important to understand;

as well, using the tools for evaluating the accuracy of such information is equally important. Got it!

It can be so amazing and laughable, as well as frustrating and tragic to watch full grown adults swallow some of the most pathological BS without even giving it a second thought or any attempt to verify anything, and I just hate it when I do that.

Of course there is no natural immunity which protects anyone from those who will distort the facts for political gain or profit. Even when the evidence shows that the official story is amiss, the majority consensus - filled with the hobgoblins and propaganda of highly paid and skilled information managers - often sides with the official version no mater what, so this phenomena requires that the fact finder and the truth teller be held to almost unachievable standards, and still the truth is often seen as being un-authoritative or liberal bias; therefore the truth has historically been far easier for officials to keep it under the rug than it has been for the good citizen to expose it. Fortunately there are reliable sources, i.e. people like you that set the best examples as to how too present the needed and useful information, I really do learn a lot from your OP’s.

Thanks again Dr. Dale.

K&R
Larry

[Time for change]

31. "Truth has historically been far easier for officials to keep it under the rug than it has been for

the good citizen to expose it."

Isn't that the truth? After all, they have control of the news that so many people receive. And many of us have been taught from a young age that it is "unpatriotic" to criticize our country.

[me b zola]

20. K&R

[G_j]

22. excellent reading

that is some VITAL writing you've posted there.
:applause:

[Time for change]

32. Thank you.

[DemReadingDU]

26. Excellent reading!

Thank you for all your time writing this essay. After reading it, how can so many people who hear the 'talking points' on TV, think that what they hear, is always truthful. I think so many people are too busy with their lives, jobs, families, hobbies, vacations, to pay attention to research for facts.

[Time for change]

33. Thank you --

The powers that be depend upon our inability to cut through their propaganda to maintain the status quo. Once we catch on -- if we ever do -- there will be some big changes.

[depakid]

29. I always find the overlaps between science (public health) law and rhetorical criticism interesting

While they might sometimes be pursuing ostensibly different things- from different angles, the skills and principles are often times the same.

:thumbsup:

[bertman]

34. The twenty-four hour window has elapsed, so I'll just have to kick this one.

Wow!! That's what I call exhaustive. Or at the least, thorough. Thanks, Time for change.

One other dimension that I try to incorporate in my evaluation process is "the other side". For example, I almost never go to a right-wing website because I don't want to waste my time when I could be perusing liberal, or at least, left-leaning sites. However, I sometimes feel like I'm being too one-sided in my view of the world, so I do a search on "the google" or, if we're dealing with current events, I'll watch CNN or FAUX to see what the other side is saying. I know that right-wingers are going to have a very different opinion from mine, but I want to be sure that I'm not overlooking some relevant point that my liberal "sources" have overlooked--or chosen to ignore.

The greatest difficulty in the "other side" approach is determining how valid or accurate their viewpoints and backup data are. Since I work for a living, I don't have all day to run down every fact that I think deserves investigation. So, I end up looking up only the information that my personal experience (or my intuition) tells me needs verification. Sometimes I feel like this is legitimate while other times I think I'm being lazy.

The most recent example of this is the debate over single-payer/public option versus private health insurance. A friend, who is a conservative, argues that the statistics show that Medicare's overhead costs are in the 40-plus percentage range when you take into account all the benefits, perks, etc, etc. I have always heard less than 10% is Medicare's overhead cost, so I started trying to get info to debunk his charges. With a little help from some folks at DU I was able to come up with some stats that showed a less than 10% overhead expense for Medicare. Of course, I got the info from a liberal source, so is it legit? Or is it just more "socialist propaganda"? I still don't know the answer.

What I do know is that there is a huge disparity in what my sources tell me about virtually every issue I discuss with my right-wing sister and brother-in-law, and what their sources tell them. Yet, they always have an answer that they believe is from a legitimate, verifiable source. . . even if it is right-wing, super-Christian radio.

So, the propaganda wars will probably rage until the rising seas cover the North American coastline.

[Time for change]

43. Thank you bertman. The idea of considering alternative views is very important.

I probably should have inlcuded something on that in this discussion.

I have thought about the issues you discuss here and feel very similarly to you about them. I sometimes actually read right wing books, in order to try to "broaden" my outlook, and yet as you said, I have to be cautious about wasting my time.

I believe there is an answer to the dilemma you pose, but sometimes it takes a lot of time to resolve it. Sometimes just looking at the sources is not enough, one has to dig deeper.

The best personal example I can think of has to do with the JFK assassination. A book called "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner, purported to prove once and for all that Oswald was the lone gunman. Based on my previous reading, most especially Lifton's book, I was already pretty much convinced that JFK was shot from the front. I got into an argument with my boss about it, and I made him a bet that I could prove that Posner's book was wrong.

I then read Posner's book and was appaled at how sloppy and ridiculous it was, for a book that had garnered so much national attention. I wrote a 50 page essay documenting its many mistakes, and how it failed to address any of Lifton's major points at all. Unfortunately, the computer on which I wrote it was a victim of a fire in my house, so I no longer have access to it.

[bertman]

47. Over the years I have read LOTS of books about the JFK assassination, but I missed

the Lifton book. I'll put that one on my to-read list. My latest attempt is the book by Thom Hartman and another author. It's a tome and doesn't hold my interest for very long, so I'm a long way from finished.

[Time for change]

49. Lifton's book reads like a detective story

It's one of the most detailed books I've ever read. It can get quite technical at times -- but considering its degree of complexity and technicality, it's very well written (It would have to be, otherwise it would be unintelligible).

I don't recall the exact time period of his investigation, but I think it was longer than 20 years, with some breaks in between.

I've read 5 books on the subject, but Lifton's is by far the best. Now I'm working on a 6th, "The Unspeakable", which is also excellent, but in such a different way that there is virtually no overlap with Lifton's book (at least so far).

Edited to say: Warning: It's long and cannot be read quickly while still understanding it, unless you're a genius. It took me a long time to read it, but I found it exceptionally interesting all the way through.

[Dr.Phool]

37. Excellent post as usual TFC.

You're a must read, in the present environment around here any more.

In discussions and arguments, I always stress the accuracy and reliability of the source. What is their track record? Do they do their homework? Do they admit it, when something is wrong.

Journalists, like Seymour Hersh are almost extinct. He always has the stories that make TPTB nervous and uncomfortable. And he's always right. Another is Bill Moyers. Amy Goodman toils in an obscure media outlet, but she's not afraid to get her hands dirty, getting to the truth. If one of those three tell me something, I can pretty much take it to the bank, based on their past record of accuracy.

I think the vast majority of the public confuses opinion with fact. When a Thomas Friedman or a David Brooks,or a George Will spout a bunch of opinion, and distort the facts to square with that opinion, it's not news. It's opinion. Like assholes, everybody has them, but they don't carry equal weight. Some are based on, and supported by facts. Most are not.

And the appeal to authority weighs in also. Sure, Friedman, Will, and Brooks are published by major outlets. So was Bill Kristol. And, they were all usually off base. Kristol has been in the wrong stadium for his entire career.

Another example is the St. Pete Times. They're regarded as one of the best newspapers in America. Based on personal experience with them, I know that they can be as full of shit as the Washington Times.

A poster above, mentioned John Russell. In the 2006 campaign for Congress, they had assigned a right-wing hack to cover the race. She wrote a story that was right out of a Fox News fantasy. They slandered John Russell, making him appear crazier than Michelle Bachman on PCP. All based on a story made up by a county Republican Party chair. The events in question never happened. I had first hand information. I was standing next to John all night!

A couple of days later, they did print something a little different, but nothing near a retraction or an apology. That reporter is long gone, but they didn't improve on their standard of accuracy. Two years later, during the 2008 campaign, they rehashed the story, almost verbatim.

Not to mention their misleading coverage of the Florida delegate fiasco, and an attempted coup in the FDP.

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

Orwell is alive in our media, and our government. Accuracy in our sources is vital, if we're ever going to take back our government from the Corporatist s who run it now.

[Dr.Phool]

39. Additional afterthought about St. Pete Crimes story.

I said I was there. I forgot to say that the reporter was NOT. She just relayed a made-up story, whom she considered as a fellow traveler-er- credible source.

[Time for change]

44. Thank you Dr.Phool

I certainly share your opinions of Hersh, Goodman, and Moyers -- as well as Brooks, Will and Friedman. I don't believe that Friedman is as bad as the other two, though he may be more dangerous because he is considered more mainstream.

[Echo In Light]

42. What's In A Label? - Right-Wing Think Tanks Are Often Quoted, Rarely Labeled

This tactic is the cornerstone of right-wing views in America: many who espouse right-wing views don't realize or consider their view to actually be right-wing.

What's In A Label? - Right-Wing Think Tanks Are Often Quoted, Rarely Labeled

http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=50

[Time for change]

45. Interesting article, thank you.

[Echo In Light]

48. No prob. Your posts are always spot on!