I Read It In the Paper, So It Must Be True
Or, maybe not.....
There’s an old saying from back when people read newspapers: “I read it in the paper, so it must be true.” It’s facetious statement, a backhanded observation that you can NOT trust all that you read.
Have you noticed how the reporting on stories seems to invariably take sides? I have. So, how do we find the truth? We can read stories from both sides, and presume that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. That’s how juries figure things in the jury room after a trial. Both sides have presented their evidence and told their story. The jury has presumably seen all the evidence, heard all the testimony, and now it’s up to them to decide what really happened.
Our news media might benefit from such an approach. Not much in our media resembles a jury trial when it comes to determining and presenting the facts of an event. Media tend to create a “narrative”, tell a story. Facts are secondary considerations. There’s perhaps two ways for citizens to approach this. A person could attempt to see multiple reports, and then attempt to interpolate to find the truth. Or, a person can pick a side ahead of time and read/watch/listen to only the reporting that confirms his bias/bigotry.
Perhaps I’m jaded, but it seems that most people make that second choice. After all, that second choice is much easier and perhaps more satisfying than the first. It’s so much more satisfying for a person to be sure they’re right, than to have to evaluate and then maybe still not be sure.
Just for fun, I’m going to give you two news reports. I’ve made them both up. They’re based on a list of facts, also made up; but I will adhere to them as I write these stories. After reading the two reports, imagine how well informed a person would be, having read just one of the reports. How well informed would a person be if he read both reports? How well could he determine the facts, based on the reporting?
Here's the facts:
Joe and Bill are neighbors.
Joe has lived there for ten years, Bill for a month.
Joe has a dog.
Joe is black, Bill is white.
Joe is retired, Bill is a custodian at the hospital; has worked there for three months.
Both are married. Bill has three kids at home, 10,8 and 6, Joe has two, married and moved away.
It is known that Joe’s dog has a broken rib, and that the eight year-old has been bitten by the dog.
What has happened? Read the two stories, and try to decide:
Weekday Press-July 12, 2022 Police were called to a normally peaceful neighborhood today, when two neighbors erupted into a heated argument. Officers arrived to see the two neighbors in the street yelling at each other. Police succeeded in separating the two, and attempted to discern what the issue was. Police learned that the dog belonging to the one neighbor, Joe, viciously attacked Bill’s eight-year-old son, requiring stitches. Joe, an unemployed black man, claimed that the child, along with his brothers had been continually teasing the dog. However, there were no witnesses to verify that claim. Bill stated that there have been continual problems with Joe, ever since his family moved there. He stated that Joe has been harassing his children for no reason except that he apparently hates kids, and ultimately turned his vicious dog loose on the helpless children. Bill stated that he can’t always be watching his children, as he has a demanding job at the hospital. Bill’s wife corroborated that statement. Asked by police why Bill’s wife couldn’t watch the children, she stated that she was watching them, but that the dog attacked so suddenly, she was not able to stop him. Joe claimed that his dog was in fact tied to a stake in the yard, but it was determined, according to the statements by Bill’s wife and children, that the dog broke loose and initiated the attack. The wife stated that she kicked the dog in self-defense, breaking its rib. She was then able to get ahold of the dog and tie him back to the stake. Joe was cited by police for failure to control a dangerous animal. A court date is to be determined.
On the other hand:
Hometown Press-July 12, 2022. Police were called to a local neighborhood recently to answer a call concerning two neighbors shouting at each other in the street. Having successfully separated the two, police attempted to determine the cause of the dispute. Neighbor Joe, a longtime retried resident of the neighborhood, stated that Bill’s children have been harassing his dog ever since they moved in, a few months ago. He further stated that he keeps his dog tied to a stake in the yard and that it has never been loose. Joe attempted to keep the children out of his yard, but he got no cooperation from Bill and his wife, who made no effort to control the children. On this day, one of the children, the eight-year-old, kicked the dog so hard that it broke the dog’s rib. In a defensive move, the usually placid dog bit the child, who will require stitches. Bill and his wife claim that the dog was in fact running loose on their property when the child was bitten, but no other witness had seen the dog loose that day, and none could remember any time when the dog was loose. The wife claims that she subsequently retied the dog to the stake, so that he would no longer be a threat to their child. Bill and his wife further claim that the dog bit the child first, and that the child then kicked the dog in self-defense, breaking the dog’s rib. With no impartial witnesses to the event, police determined to charge Joe with failure to control a dangerous animal. A court date is to be determined.
OK, that’s all made-up. Now think of real news stories. How much of wht you are told is factually verified? Not just claims and counter claims, but provable facts? Facts are funny things, they say. I often say, the more sure you are that you are right, the more likely you are to be wrong. That’s because, once you are convinced you know, you stop questioning. My advice? Never stop questioning.
I like to think every child has heard the story of the Blind Men and the Elephant. If every child has heard it, then every adult has heard it. Perhaps that is not the case. The story predates Christ, and examines the tendency of people to jump to conclusions, to see everything from just one perspective. How is it that these ‘primitive’ people understood perspective and bias, but so many today do not?
The Blind Men and the Elephant