The Wake

“Family Guy” enthusiasts know the episode –-the one where Peter starts his own country, appropriately labeled “Petoria.” While the authorities threaten to make Peter’s house and yard part of the union once again, Peter fends them off by eloquently citing the Constitution. By simply quoting the word “the” from a passage of our nation’s handbook, Peter convinces the soldiers to disburse and he is free to reign as the leader of Petoria.

This scene brings up a good question (likely by no mistake of the writers): Why does the backing of what we perceive as an authoritarian source so easily blind normally skeptical eyes? There are plenty of well-publicized examples, as well as those that aren’t so highly-publicized, of people we look to provide information fooling even the most astute people.

The most recent high-profile example that comes to mind is the CBS News debacle involving the use of what appears to be falsified documents that condemned President Bush’s military record in a “60 Minutes” special report. While Dan Rather took the brunt of the criticism for this grave mistake made by the CBS staff, executives pushed to air the story despite objections by multiple document consultants according to a Washington Post story.

Another accuracy issue wasn’t so highly publicized. In his presentation to the United Nations before the current war with Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell used information that had been gathered to prove Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Powell later admitted that the information he used for that part of the presentation was not valid after the information was proven to be obsolete.

While everybody who pays any attention to the news knows about the Jayson Blair scandal at the The New York Times, there are probably about four or five Jack Kelleys for every Jayson Blair. Jack Kelley was a USA Today foreign correspondent who was fired early last year after it was discovered that he had plagiarized a number of stories.

What about cases in which sound information is used, but in completely the wrong context? This goes back to the “Family Guy” example. It’s pretty easy for us to identify a valid source, but it’s not nearly as often that we examine the manner in which the citation from that source is used.

While the Jayson Blairs and Dan Rathers are making headlines, there are plenty of others who make a living off distorting valid (and sometimes not so valid) information. A certain talk show host on the Fox News Network and a portly political documentary-maker deserve to be mentioned when tackling this issue. While these guys are pretty extreme in this sense, it is known by most that their work is largely subjective. However, it brings up the question of how many of the people that we count on to bring us hard news are distorting information in more discreet ways? We won’t even begin to discuss the ways lawmakers and politicians mince words to support causes.

Why do people use sources to back up their work, regardless of whether the information is consistent with what they are looking to prove? It works. All of the above-mentioned journalists were widely revered for their work before they went down. Much of the United States is still in the dark about Colin Powell’s gaffe during his presentation to the U.N. Any college student will tell you that quoting multiple sources in a paper often results in a better grade, regardless of whether the quotes function correctly or not.

This brings up another question: Why is this type of misinformation so prevalent in today’s society? A possibility could be the way we’re educated. The use of multiple sources, good or bad, is strongly encouraged by educators. While there are many good teachers who will question the sources used, there are just as many for whom a couple of citations, regardless of what they are, will suffice.

Another reason could be our general instinct to jump to conclusions. The people receiving the information are eager to reach some sort of conclusion from it, so that’s all the more incentive to help them along any way possible. If the audience isn’t going to question the information, there’s no incentive for the person disseminating it to present it as if they will, unless he/she has a great sense of ethics.

It may also be possible that there just isn’t enough time to go through and scrutinize everything we come across. We are fed so much information that it’s difficult to absorb every detail of what we receive, much less what contributes to it. Similarly, it would be impossible for a teacher of a class of as little of 20 to go through every paper by every student and see if the cited sources were legit.

While it’s always good for purveyors of information to back up what’s being said with solid sources, the value we place on this process needs to be taken into perspective. Just because someone else said it, doesn’t mean it’s the truth.

Grant Boelter is a staff writer for The Wake and welcomes comments at office@wakenews.org.