In the final concluding chapter of unSpun, the authors once again reiterate what they’ve been telling readers all along: the importance of authenticating facts, the respect one should have for real, honest-to-goodness facts, and the constant vigilance to be had for any chance of being spun yourself. However, the message I walked away with was one inspired by a quote on page 183: “We’re not surprised that advertisers and politicians try to deceive us. Who can blame them for fabricating, twisting, exaggerating, or distorting the facts?”
This statement, though it seems unassuming at first, would later cause me to deeply question the ethics and morals within the modern day world. “Who can blame them?” I can blame them, we as the unassuming public can blame them! What is wrong with society in which consciences are so lacking that advertisers and politicians can use propaganda techniques that can border on blatant lies in order to win support? Isn’t lack of this sense of moral dignity and responsibility to honesty the larger problem? The fact that we live in a world where it’s okay for people to blatantly distort facts for their own personal or monetary gain terrifies me. Why can’t politicians run campaigns or businesses promote their products on the basis of their own strengths? Why have we reached the point where we feel we must manipulate people in order to gain their approval? Worst of all to me is the idea that many of these propagandists have begun to believe their own spin, because the moment this occurs is the moment where we all begin to exists in a world of self-constructed lies.
have learned much from this book about spin, including how to spin others. And yet, ironically, the best lesson I learned of all is that of honesty. Even though the authors weren’t intending to teach it, I have begun to genuinely appreciate messages that lack any and all spin whatsoever. Because there’s something to be said for the real, un-adulterated, cotton-pickin’ truth.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Darrow Rolls With Jesus?!
In Chapter 8, the authors again remind us of the importance of verifying facts (this time the focus is quotations, in order to be assured that the person being attributed with the lines actually spoke them) with an anecdote about the infamous Scopes Monkey trial. During the court proceedings, lawyer Clarence Darrow, the defending attorney for the teacher accused of teaching evolution in a Tennessee science class, was quoted as having uttered that it was “bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of origins,” a quote that many Creationists would use at the time and for years to come in their own argument for the teaching of creationism in schools, in an almost-reversal of the trial’s eventual rulings.
However, as it turns out, despite numerous sources citing Darrow as having spoken this infamous phrase, he never actually said it. And yet despite the fact that it is now widely recognized that the line was contrived and there are numerous reputable source disputing his supposed “statement”, many creationists and intelligent design promoters still use this quotation as part of their arsenal during arguments, a phenomenon that authors Jackson and Jamieson explain well by simply stating that people will use whatever supports their cause if they can get away with it. In carrying this idea over to other areas of life, the authors remind us all that the media is a business; its goal is to create a sensation in order to sell whatever they must. Thus, it is always important to verify what is being said and to look deeper than what’s apparent on the surface for a statement’s true meaning, or else risk being seriously mislead.
Lastly, the chapter warns against being swayed by a majority’s opinion simply because it is the majority. The Asch experiment involving showing a number of students different lines and asking them to verify the lengths, but also allowed them to compare their answers to other students undergoing the experiment. Interestingly, many chose to change their answers (even when they were right) in order to become a part of the majority, even though the majority was always wrong. This is intriguing and terrifying to me at the same time, because it signifies that far too many people are not confident enough in their own intelligence to stand next to what they believe is right. And if such results were to be carried over into a real-life situation in which the majority was wrong again (entirely plausible), such easily-swayed masses could end up making decisions that have horrifying repercussions.
However, as it turns out, despite numerous sources citing Darrow as having spoken this infamous phrase, he never actually said it. And yet despite the fact that it is now widely recognized that the line was contrived and there are numerous reputable source disputing his supposed “statement”, many creationists and intelligent design promoters still use this quotation as part of their arsenal during arguments, a phenomenon that authors Jackson and Jamieson explain well by simply stating that people will use whatever supports their cause if they can get away with it. In carrying this idea over to other areas of life, the authors remind us all that the media is a business; its goal is to create a sensation in order to sell whatever they must. Thus, it is always important to verify what is being said and to look deeper than what’s apparent on the surface for a statement’s true meaning, or else risk being seriously mislead.
Lastly, the chapter warns against being swayed by a majority’s opinion simply because it is the majority. The Asch experiment involving showing a number of students different lines and asking them to verify the lengths, but also allowed them to compare their answers to other students undergoing the experiment. Interestingly, many chose to change their answers (even when they were right) in order to become a part of the majority, even though the majority was always wrong. This is intriguing and terrifying to me at the same time, because it signifies that far too many people are not confident enough in their own intelligence to stand next to what they believe is right. And if such results were to be carried over into a real-life situation in which the majority was wrong again (entirely plausible), such easily-swayed masses could end up making decisions that have horrifying repercussions.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Osama, Ollie, and Al – Awkward Alliteration Attempts Abound
In Chapter 7, authors Jackson and Jamieson feature the controversy surrounding Osama Bin Laden, Oliver North, and Al Gore to illustrate the importance of verifying facts one finds on the internet in order to form opinions based on legitimate facts (thus repeating the same conclusion that is reached in every single chapter, but with the inclusion of computers). In this particular controversy, which occurred “within weeks of September 11”, an anonymous e-mail began to circulate stating that conservative senator Oliver North had been warning Congress about the dangers of bin Laden and al Qaeda for years, but that a number of prominent liberal senators, most notably Al Gore, had completely dismissed his testimony.
Almost immediately, information was unearthed that resulted in the complete disproval of this rumor, but for many who didn’t bother to do their research and blindly followed the hype the lie continued to be real. Obviously, many people were unjustly influenced by false information, and this may have affected them during such events as elections. However, rather than allow such people the excuse of ignorance to explain their actions, I would simply like to once again point out the “duh” factor of this entire chapter. Perhaps it comes from being of the generation that grew up with the internet, using it so consistently in settings like school where we were told that all of our information had to be verified, but I cannot comprehend how anyone would have been able to receive a message such as this one and not try to figure out whether it was true or false, especially before passing it on, as this chain e-mail quickly was. It is of course true that when this scandal first occurred in 2001, it was in the earlier days of the internet, and fact-verifying sites were less well-known and harder to find. But still. Sheesh.
Almost immediately, information was unearthed that resulted in the complete disproval of this rumor, but for many who didn’t bother to do their research and blindly followed the hype the lie continued to be real. Obviously, many people were unjustly influenced by false information, and this may have affected them during such events as elections. However, rather than allow such people the excuse of ignorance to explain their actions, I would simply like to once again point out the “duh” factor of this entire chapter. Perhaps it comes from being of the generation that grew up with the internet, using it so consistently in settings like school where we were told that all of our information had to be verified, but I cannot comprehend how anyone would have been able to receive a message such as this one and not try to figure out whether it was true or false, especially before passing it on, as this chain e-mail quickly was. It is of course true that when this scandal first occurred in 2001, it was in the earlier days of the internet, and fact-verifying sites were less well-known and harder to find. But still. Sheesh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
