Fools and Liars

Back in the last millennium, when I was a young engineer, I got assigned to a classified "black" program. That meant we couldn't even tell people what it was we were working on. One day, we got word that some outsider had gotten a hold of some presentation material, and our program was outed by some "concerned scientist" group. When I read the press coverage of all that, I saw how completely wrong much of it was.

That was my first, but by no means my last, encounter with press coverage of material I knew well that was incorrect or demonstrated the writer's utter lack of understanding of that which he wrote about.

Yet, despite knowing this, I, like so many of my fellow humans (including most of you, dear readers) still find myself defaulting to, or at least leaning toward, trusting or believing that which is reported by the press, even after trying to filter out editorial bias.

They call this the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect, which Michael Crichton ably explained:

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

I believe that this is born of a "nature abhors a vacuum" aspect of human cognition. When we know little on a topic, what we first read fills a void.

What happens next is interesting. That first "fact" gets the benefit of being first, and we are disinclined to dislodge it even when we are presented with ample and well-supported contrary evidence. This is that other bit of human behavior: cognitive dissonance. We'd rather be consistent than correct when being correct means discarding what we thought we knew to be correct. Doubly so if we’ve “gone public” with that something. It's a blow to one's ego to be "taken in" by someone else's error (or lie or ignorance), no matter that, rationally, it shouldn't be.

These phenomena have become well understood (consciously or unconsciously) by those who share information with the public. Whether they be legacy media reporters, talking heads on television or YouTube, bloggers, or social media meme-sharers. Being first comes with benefits, and even the most aware consumer of information routinely falls prey to the "first in" tactic.

Many, myself included, have opined that "there's no benefit to being first to comment," but clearly that's not true. Just a look at one recent example, the Supreme Court ruling in Trump v United States, demonstrates the error of that opinion. As National Review contributor Christian Schneider recently observed, social media suddenly became rife with "Twitter Law School graduates" informing us that the Court just gave the President the power to send Seal Team Six to kill political rivals.

No amount of "did you read the decision" or "here's why you’ve got it wrong" rebuttal will dislodge many of those "first facts" from people's heads, especially when that first bit validates someone's political preferences. And, especially when the "internet muscles" nature of social media comes into play. Put a five-foot-nothing suburban soccer mom in a three ton SUV and she suddenly becomes the terror of Hollywood Boulevard. Put a device and a Wifi connection between someone and the rest of the world, and insults come fast and furious.

The Tyson Tenet notwithstanding.

Awareness is the first step in countering all this. But, because it's human nature, there is a difference between each of us as individuals rising above the instincts that reward and propagate such behaviors and populations in the aggregate overcoming them.

That difference means that we should not hope that the press suddenly finds a conscience and a sense of responsibility.

The devolution of the press from "they often get it wrong, but not deliberately" to "they not only get it wrong, but choose to get it wrong in order to sway public opinion" has been enabled by technology. First, it was cable news, which had to fill twenty four hours a day even when there wasn't much going on." Then, social media facilitated our sorting into tribes, and the press adapted to feeding the like-minded rather than trying to talk to everyone.

With attention spans shortening and a deluge of information competing for eyeballs, being first is more important than ever for someone trying to either make a living or have an impact in public forums. Being first, unfortunately, makes one more likely to make mistakes, or to put forth a "hot take" opinion that fails on facts. But, as I noted earlier, people would rather be wrong and consistent than correct their errors, especially on highly-charged issues.

The big-picture problem with this is - where can one turn to for good information? Even before the legacy media tore down the wall between news and opinion (Abe Rosenthal is turning in his grave), reporters would often be wrong even when they tried to be right. Now, being right has taken a distant back seat to pushing narratives, so what is a seeker of facts to do?

Again, we behold the difference between individuals and the aggregate. Someone with enough motivation and enough free time can aggregate information from a range of sources, and some sources (one I read is 1440 News) at least try to be less partisan in their reporting. But, even then, "first in" remains a problem, confirmation bias constantly looms, and the natural tendency to react can pre-empt the search for truth.

Now, imagine the plight of those who aren't news wonks, who aren't aware of Gell-Mann, who don't have the time to figure out which sources are less likely to lie or bend, etc. That'd be most of the public, and the lack of a responsible Fourth Estate, even one that is often wrong but tries to get it right, is quite a peril for a free society. With those whose job it is to keep an eye on those with power over our lives evolving from "fool" to "liar," our society itself is in trouble.