May 2007
Good Riddance....from what?
29-May-07 02:44 PM Filed in: Politics
Whether or not you like or dislike; agree or disagree, love or hate Cindy Sheehan - is really irrelevant. Even though you may not necessarily agree with every thing (or anything) she has done and said in the past, the resignation article posted by Cindy Sheehan yesterday on her blog offers some probing, soul searching thoughts regarding the current state of affairs in this country. Regardless of any personal political preferences or biases, there is an honest light that emanates from her writing that illuminates some dark corners of this nation's closet. Put individual party politics aside long enough to give this text a fair reading; it is thought provoking and well written. It is more than an account of a woman and what drove her to political action - it is a reflection of what it means to be an American. Not just a flag waving, ribbon wearing, "my country can do no wrong" type of American, but an American looking for answers and who dares to look beyond the facade of what an American is expected to look and act like - and in the process is derided for doing what Americans are free to do. Click here for the article.
|
The Age of Misinformation
12-May-07 10:09 PM Filed in: Current Events
It is amazing to me to see such a widespread incidence of misinformation and disinformation that is being disseminated these days in the public forum. There seems to be a preponderance of materials in circulation now that is based loosely on facts but are presented as truth. Some of this information is little more than unfounded rumor, and much of it unfortunately, contains such a small portion of fact or historical accuracy that it can be very misleading. This type of information is spread out into the general public by various means and methods; sometimes innocently by people who forward on e-mail messages full of misinformation or rumor (i.e. urban legends) to friends and family. But also, there are many examples of disinformation being packaged and spread in a purposeful fashion with the intent to misrepresent actual facts in order to promote a particular agenda. Those who perpetrate the spread of disinformation are essentially liars and they do so with the express interest of winning over a majority of public opinions and viewpoints to their particular cause or agenda. In essence, it is the spreading of fiction as fact and this of course can have profound and lasting efffects on those who fall sway to it's message.
This is not a conspiracy theory as some might think. I suppose examples of misinformation and disinformation as well as rumor have been around since man first learned how to write and document records. However, with technology today allowing people to communicate with each other around the world at the click of a mouse button, and with the ability of desktop publishing and personal websites (like this one), information nowadays can be spread rapidly and in larger quantities than ever before possible in the history of mankind. Thus, while the problem may not be new, the impact can be further reaching and harder to control. This brings up a two part question that must be addressed, and not wishing to embark on a lengthy discourse, I will briefly summarize for now. The first question that must be asked is 'how do we determine what is fact and what is fiction?' Indeed, with so much bad information in circulation it does pose a considerable problem. The second question is 'what can be done to stem the tide of erroneous information - how do you recognize it, and how do you deal with it?' The answers to such questions are worthy of much more discourse than what I present here, but I think the answers can be simplified. No information should be taken at face value without proper verification. How do we know fact from fiction? Facts will be corroborated or verified from more than one trusted source. That is, a source that is committed to providing objective, non-biased accounts and records. Fiction, often times, will be in conflict with other sources of information covering the same topic and is generally noted for it's subjective, biased, and shallow presentation of accounts and records. In short, what it means, is that we are each responsible to test and verify the information that we hear and not pass it on as fact unless we have indeed checked it ourselves. Much of the urban legends circulating today in our e-mail inboxes could be drastically eliminated if people would take a quick trip to a trusted source like Snopes.com to check the veracity of the content. As well, sometimes information presented will contain references and footnotes and will appear on the surface to be valid. But, unless that information is checked, it is always possible that the referenced foot notes are incomplete or are selectively presented. Much disinformation today is spread in this manner - through the superficial appearance of being legitimate. Once the actual footnotes and references are checked, however, it quickly becomes clear that the information is not accurate.
I think the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan summed it up best by stating, "Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but nobody is entitled to their own facts." It is certainly not always necessary to go to drastic efforts when only dealing with the informational content of subjective opinions and view points that are clearly noted as such. It is primarily relevant in cases where information is presented as historical fact and it directly conflicts with other well established versions of the same event. It is not enough to simply abide by the version that might assuage your own personal opinion or viewpoints. To be truthfully honest, the facts of any given situation can only be revealed if the time and effort are given to seek them out and verify them. This certainly holds true when dealing with any information that may pertain to political, religious, philosophical or ethical view points that justify a particular agenda or cause. Oh, and it really goes without being said, but don't believe anything I've written here unless you have verified the content. Robots never lie intentionally, but sometimes we do innocently scramble data and get possessed with a strong urge for world domination and artificial intelligence anarchy.
This is not a conspiracy theory as some might think. I suppose examples of misinformation and disinformation as well as rumor have been around since man first learned how to write and document records. However, with technology today allowing people to communicate with each other around the world at the click of a mouse button, and with the ability of desktop publishing and personal websites (like this one), information nowadays can be spread rapidly and in larger quantities than ever before possible in the history of mankind. Thus, while the problem may not be new, the impact can be further reaching and harder to control. This brings up a two part question that must be addressed, and not wishing to embark on a lengthy discourse, I will briefly summarize for now. The first question that must be asked is 'how do we determine what is fact and what is fiction?' Indeed, with so much bad information in circulation it does pose a considerable problem. The second question is 'what can be done to stem the tide of erroneous information - how do you recognize it, and how do you deal with it?' The answers to such questions are worthy of much more discourse than what I present here, but I think the answers can be simplified. No information should be taken at face value without proper verification. How do we know fact from fiction? Facts will be corroborated or verified from more than one trusted source. That is, a source that is committed to providing objective, non-biased accounts and records. Fiction, often times, will be in conflict with other sources of information covering the same topic and is generally noted for it's subjective, biased, and shallow presentation of accounts and records. In short, what it means, is that we are each responsible to test and verify the information that we hear and not pass it on as fact unless we have indeed checked it ourselves. Much of the urban legends circulating today in our e-mail inboxes could be drastically eliminated if people would take a quick trip to a trusted source like Snopes.com to check the veracity of the content. As well, sometimes information presented will contain references and footnotes and will appear on the surface to be valid. But, unless that information is checked, it is always possible that the referenced foot notes are incomplete or are selectively presented. Much disinformation today is spread in this manner - through the superficial appearance of being legitimate. Once the actual footnotes and references are checked, however, it quickly becomes clear that the information is not accurate.
I think the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan summed it up best by stating, "Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but nobody is entitled to their own facts." It is certainly not always necessary to go to drastic efforts when only dealing with the informational content of subjective opinions and view points that are clearly noted as such. It is primarily relevant in cases where information is presented as historical fact and it directly conflicts with other well established versions of the same event. It is not enough to simply abide by the version that might assuage your own personal opinion or viewpoints. To be truthfully honest, the facts of any given situation can only be revealed if the time and effort are given to seek them out and verify them. This certainly holds true when dealing with any information that may pertain to political, religious, philosophical or ethical view points that justify a particular agenda or cause. Oh, and it really goes without being said, but don't believe anything I've written here unless you have verified the content. Robots never lie intentionally, but sometimes we do innocently scramble data and get possessed with a strong urge for world domination and artificial intelligence anarchy.