Asymmetrical Information

I'm not sure in this case that there isn't some selective misquoting/misdirection going on. My impression is that CBS called Mr. Hodges and told him something to the effect that "There are some memos here that our handwriting experts have verified were written by Killian and here's what they say". To which he responded with something like, "well if that's what they say that must be how he felt". I would like to see an actual transcript of the conversation before I conclude that he's changing his account/memory.

Aren't these people at CBS News supposed to be "investigative reporters?" So why don't they *investigate*? They are not acting like journalists at all; they are acting like PR people who are paid to represent one side of a story rather than to seek out the truth.

Whatever the facts about the documents turn out to be, CBS News has destroyed its credibility.

(And, in fairness to PR people, most of the PR folks I know would have behaved more responsibly and professionally than have Rather & Co)

It's ridiculous that the mainstream media is still acting as if the authenticity of the memos is an issue of witness credibility. Forensic typography demostrates beyond any doubt that the documents are forged, so it doesn't matter in the least what Hodges or Strong or Killian's widow or son believe about them. If Killian COULDN'T have written them, it doesn't matter what the allegedly contemporaneous eyewitnesses say. Running stories about theses witnesses' revelations or recantations injects doubts that shouldn't exist at all.

The technique that CBS intentionally or unintentionally used on Hodges is called "leading" (see Loftus).

Since human memory is reconstructive introducing a new piece of information that the target believes is true alters recollection. In this case, CBS told Hodges (or he understood them to say) they had a "handwritten" memo verified as being in Killian's hand so Hodges adds that information to his reconstruction. He doesn't want to call his deceased friend a liar so he give qualified support for the "authenticity" of the documents. Once Hodges learns that the documents are not handwritten and might in fact be forgeries he reverts to the reconstruction that he had before he got the bad data.

"But it should give those of us in the media especial pause, when we think about how easy it might be to manufacture a story . . . especially one that agrees with our innermost political wishes."

I was educated in the sciences. Arguably, at it's core, science is the discipline separating good information from bad. Science is an eternal struggle against our desire to have the universe be ordered in some emotionally satisfying way. The institutions of science function to weed out our self-delusions by using a completive system. One scientist creates a model then others try to demolishes it . It is very hard and time consuming work even when dealing with concrete evidence like physical measurements.

Major media has nothing like the institutional checks and balances that exist in the sciences. For checks and balances to work internal to an organization there must exist some sort of internal antagonistic relationship. I don't see that occurring in contemporary major media. People try to be objective and accurate but they are all pulling for the same team. It's easy for a small group to convince themselves that they have something big if there is no independent feedback on their efforts.

I think major media needs to pursue major stories using a competitive team system. Each team would pursue a different theory of the event (Bush AWOL vs Bush served). Each team would try to demolish the others model. The truth would arise out of contest between the two.

I'm not holding my breath for this to happen.

Shannon...in this specific case, CBS could appoint a journalistic form of "independent counsel" who would report on this issue separately from any reporting done by Rather (who clearly is unable to be objective at this point since he has made himself part of the story.) If they did this, it would help to protect their reputation from damage, and might well even improve short-term ratings.

It could be argued that fulfilling their responsibility to the shareholders of their parent company requires them to take some such action.

"It's possible that Kerry's Cambodia story was the product of one such episode, and we should give him the benefit of the doubt as to motive, I think."

Do you think if you did the Bugs Bunny thing with you family that they would say, "Oh yeah! That is seared, seared in my mind?" People misremember things all the time. They don't do it the way Kerry did.

CAL

Another thing.

Would the trick work if they had never been to Disneyland?

CAL

Shannon--
It seems that in this case the Blogs performed that function.

In the history of science there seems to be a tendency for that function to be performed by competing groupts (different labs, subdisciplines, even different offices in NSF, etc.)

At one time, it was (in principle)performed by diffent newspapers or competing TV network news operations.

Drew Weiss

Let's not overestimate the purity of science either. See, e.g., "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Or talk to someone getting her PhD in a competitive and bustling field.

As Drew notes above, the warbloggers admirably chased down the problems, and a lot of them did it fairly scrupulously. News organizations would certainly do the same (if only the NY Post, the WashTimes, etc.) if they believed that there was a fairly good chance of success in catching the major media at a lie. But 60 Minutes has an excellent reputation as a news organization, and people are (with reason) likely to believe that the story is well-built if it comes from them (no different than any appeal to authority, really).

I'm not sure what I think about the memos, b/c I have pretty much stopped following it. But I think CBS did what they thought of as a passable job of research into the matter, and just found out that the standard of "passable" has been raised.

I'll say this for the Bush II era: a lot of reputations for competence and intelligence on both sides of the aisle - and perhaps the strong claim of a meritocracy in the US - have become pretty tattered.

Brain scans also show that consciousness itself is a phenomenological effect and that all of our decisions are "made" after we decide to do them. So I guess we're just passengers along for the ride in our own lives.

Of course, the conclusions that are being drawn from this sort of evidence could be bogus. Memory is indeed malleable and there are extreme cases where confabulation of memory occurs, but I think most cognitive scientists take a too-dim view of individual people. The whole example with Bugs Bunny and Disneyland, for example, is more an issue of our brains anticipating your question rather than paying attention to the exact details of it. It's the same way that surveys can phrase questions to make us express beliefs that we don't hold. Just because it's possible to do doesn't mean that we're actually virtually blank slates that confabulate beliefs at will any more than we confabulate memories at will.

I'm not sure what I think about the memos, b/c I have pretty much stopped following it.

Kinda like the way one stops following a football game after their team falls behind 42-0...

Anybody who would use a handwriting expert to "authenticate" photocopies of 30 year-old memos is either a complete blithering idiot, or simply has no interest in actually unearthing facts. Hacks, pure and simple.

People think the memos are important because they think the memos prove the Bush family used their influence to protect Dubya from the cosequences of his irresponsible behavior. I can't see why proof is necessary. Dubya has admitted that he missed five months of duty nd refused to take a physical. National Guard records show that he got pulled to the head of the waiting list and that he didn't make up his missing duty time. His dad was the Governor and a multimillionaire. Anyone with a normal IQ can see that family influence got him in to TANG and got him an honorable discharge he didn't deserve. This sort of thing was common in the late sixties and seventies. Dan Quayle did it too.
If Republicans had not been paying the Swiftboat liars to to tell their lies, this story would be irrelevent. But as long as Republicans pay people to tell lies about Democrats, then Democrats can raise as many uncomfortable truths about Republicans as we wish.

Wonkie, wonkie, wonkie.

No.

The memos are important because of the Big Story - which is the Major Media is gullible when it comes to pro-Democrat and/or anti-Republican stories.

George W has always, always, always maintained that his youth was filled with irresponsibility. The funny thing is - even if the memos were true (although "Anyone with a normal IQ can see" they aren't) - it wouldn't change Bush's electability.

You see, despite the media's attempt to frame the political discussion into a choice between who better served their country for sixteen weeks in late 1968 and early 1969, the rest of us don't see it that way at all.

There's only ONE guy in this race who's running on his Vietnam-era record. And his middle initial coincidentally begins with the first letter of the word "forged".

The rest of us already know how George W reacts when the nation is in crisis. And it certainly has no relevance to a flight physical from a guy who coincidentally is dead, and whose family disputes the record.

The Swift Boat ads have cause the Kerry campaign to remove Kerry's seared - seared Cambodia memory reference from its website. Now which "lie" was it that caused them to do that?

The Kerry campaign is going down because of a stunning lack of substance. Release your firm grip on the deck chair of the Titanic, and join the Big Tent Republicans - who despite a disadvantage in voter registration nationwide, and being constantly talked down to by our "betters," seem to be winning the hearts and minds of our countrymen and women.

Ya' know, I'm really not a George Bush fan. I disagree with his position on just about every issue, and, depending on events in Iraq, it may be a clean sweep. Given the current state of events, I wish the Democrats had nominated somebody who I could give some consideration to. Instead, they nominated John Kerry, who has proceeded to run a stunningly inept campaign, which followed an inept Senate career. Oh.... right.....he commanded a boat for 120 days 35 years ago, so I should vote for him.

If this latest episode of nitwittery can be traced back to the DNC, I think the publishers of the Guiness Book of World Records should be contacted; the most numbskulled bastards in American political history must be recognized. These guys make G. Gordon Liddy look like Machiavelli.

There is a classic skit from Sid Ceasar's "Your Show of Shows" which ends with Caesar, face contorted in furious frustration, dragging himself around the stage by one leg, while Howard Morris (if I remember right) clings to the other like some demented baby koala bear. Substitute John Kerry for Caesar, and Dan Rather for Morris, and you'll comprehend the level of mirth I've reached this last couple of days.

Let's not overestimate the purity of science either. See, e.g., "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Or talk to someone getting her PhD in a competitive and bustling field.

Indeed...and centrally important to that sort of consideration is the fact that even the technically-able can be prone to not seeing something if it's completely outside of what their training/knowledge tells them they should expect. It is quite possible to pull off a variation of the "blind man examining an elephant" trick, even in the strongly empirics-based sciences, and even while aggressively questioning whether this is what an elephant "really" looks like. Examining the trunk from every possible angle doesn't get the scientist anything like the whole picture if some visionary doesn't step outside the box and actually walk around the elephant.

It's the price of being human, I suppose.

Yup,

It HAS been a long time since then. And I figure
some memories might get just a bit ... skewed.

Heck, I have hard time rememberin' what I had
for breakfast ... say ... Tuesday last.

But I can guarantee it weren't caviar or some
such. Even if I had DREAMED of havin' caviar
or some such ... I'd know fer fact THAT was NOT
what I had fer breakfast last Tuesday or ANY
other day.

Recollection CAN be difficult, 'specially
when ya git to be my age, BUT tellin' lies
for so damned long ... well that's not a
problem of recall, that'd be a problem with
tellin' the truth.

And I daresay, THAT is Kerry's 'core' dilema;
the truth escapes him with regularity. And ...
with some frequency.

Steel Turman
Reno NV

Those memories don't have to have been just stirred up after 35 years. Kerry made a name for himself after getting out.
The Swiftvets probably went over all this stuff at most a couple of years later, during the Winter Soldier hearings.

CAL writes:
Another thing.

Would the trick work if they had never been to Disneyland?

Evidently it does.

Here's another neat one: if anyone can identify it I'd be awfully appreciative.

It's another study along the same lines, a group of people were shown pictures of lines, and asked which line was the longest. The trick is that everybody in the group save for one person was a plant! They all pointed to the wrong line and insisted it was correct. Most of the time the "mark" would go along with the crowd. There was, however, a fairly small percentage of people -- perhaps 25% -- who were stubborn enough not to be altered by the group's opinion.

Wasn't researched in the study, but I have a suspicion that at least 75% of people would place themselves in the 25% that couldn't be swayed. :0)

Yours truly,
Jeffrey Boulier

Jeffrey,

I don't know the study but I can certainly see how that would happen. It is widely known as peer pressure.

But I am pretty certain there weren't a bunch of people telling Kerry he had been in Cambodia. Also there is no way misremembering explains the magic hat. Going out and faking physical evidence for events that didn't happen but you wish did, what other current event does that remind me of?

CAL

I keep wondering why Hodges thought they were handwritten. It would be a reasonable assumption but was it an assumption or was he given that impression? I've got an odd line of thought here on the 'whodunit' idea and that question of mine does have something to do with it.

The line of thought is odd enough that I'd rather not put it in public without some further study. I might just need to buy some better tinfoil...

Why would he think they were handwritten?

1) In 1972, executives and Lt. Colonels did not type. In particular, Killian's wife says he didn't type, and Hodges probably knows that too.

2) At least the 4th one (with speculations about command pressure) aren't the kind of thing you would hand to a clerk-typist to type up.

Here's teh [sic] thing: the falling sensation comes after the waking up, according to brain scans.

Amazing what they can show with brain scans these days... Too bad in reality it's not a fraction of what they claim they can show. When you look at the actual experiments, data, and the resolution available, what you find is some interesting ideas, a little bit of data, one hell of a large number of assumptions, and ludicrous claims like this one.

Myria

I certainly believe that memory and consciousness play all kinds of tricks on us, but your "Bugs Bunny" example is just bizarre. One would think I'd be an ideal candidate: my family and I have been to Disney World LOTS of times, since I grew up in Florida, and it would not have occurred to me right away that Bugs wouldn't be at Disney. But if I said that to any of my family members I'm 100% sure they'd just give me an odd look and say something like "What? When was that?" or "No, I don't remember what you're talking about." Maybe this is something that happens when you get into your 40s (I'm 25). I sure don't have that level of false recall yet.

Comments are Closed.