Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/2000/RRE.Al.Gore.and.the.Inte.html
Content
| | | | --- | --- | | Red Rock Eater Digest | Most Recent Article: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 |
``` [That Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet has got to be the most successful flat-out lie since, well, the last one. I swear that I see it repeated in the media at least once a day. For example:
Who's the real Al Gore? Attempts to answer that question expose a peculiar tone deafness and low-stakes dishonesty. Gore says he invented the Internet instead of saying, truthfully, that he pushed technological research.
This is from a book review in the 3/26/00 Washington Post. What's so
striking is the projection: here are all of these people telling lies
about Al Gore, while pretending that Al Gore is the liar. Of course
it's hard to find the dividing line between conscious lying -- people
who know that something is false but say it anyway -- and the mere
spreading of rumors -- also known as the media echo chamber. How
does it work? Well, in this case the starting-point is clear enough.
To find it, fire up Google
http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/18390.html
This article repays close reading. It argues, for example, that Gore cannot reasonably take credit for the Internet because ARPANET was invented years before he entered Congress. That a Wired reporter could confuse ARPANET with the Internet is disappointing to say the least. Yet this same argument appears in a press release from Dick Armey's office the same day:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-00285.html
That was echo number one.
Other common tricks are on display. The Wired article suggests that Gore is ignorant of Internet technology on the petty grounds that he once pronounced "router" as "rooter", and the vast evidence that he does understand the technology and its significance is not reported. The question of Gore's credit for the Internet is not submitted to someone who was actually there, like Dave Farber or Joe Traub, but to a guy from a Republican think tank. That guy's quote is so twisted that I don't have room here to describe its full complexity. Read it for yourself.
The original Wired article quotes Gore's famous words and glosses them as claiming to be "father of the Internet" and "took credit for the Internet". But the word "invented" does not appear in the text. (Nor does it appear in the keywords in the HTML source code. So why does it show up in a search for "Gore invented Internet"?) Although my search facilities are not the best, I cannot find any use of the word "invented" in the media until it appears in another Wired News article 12 days later:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,18655,00.html
This article reads in part as follows:
Al Gore's timing was as unfortunate as his boast. Just as Republicans were beginning to eye the 2000 presidential race in earnest, the vice president offered up a whopper of a tall tale in which he claimed to have invented the Internet.
This is an important part of the echo-chamber effect. Start with a fact, then circulate a paraphrase of that fact that makes it sound slightly damning without actually falsifying it. Then once that paraphrase becomes widely circulated, circulate a paraphrase of the paraphrase that sounds even more damning. Repeat. In this case, many paraphrases were circulated. Wired, for example, summarized the original article as follows:
Vice President Gore tells a reporter the Internet was his idea. Nice try, Al.
The first few paraphrases, then, were tendentious and polemical, exaggerated and misleading, but one hesitates to call them "lies". Gore made clear that the actions he took on behalf of the Internet were in the context of his Congressional service; he is clearly taking credit for legislative initiatives, and in fact he frequently used the word "Initiative" when naming his proposals. It's only when we get to the word "invented" that we cross into the territory of clear- cut falsehood. The word "invented" suggests technical work, and the suggestion is that Al Gore claims to have done the technical work behind the Internet. That's just not true. And once that falsehood entered the media echo chamber, there was no stopping it. "Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet" is a fun thing to say, and it can spread far and wide without the evidence or context following it. Look at the Washington Post quote that I introduced at the outset:
Who's the real Al Gore? Attempts to answer that question expose a peculiar tone deafness and low-stakes dishonesty. Gore says he invented the Internet instead of saying, truthfully, that he pushed technological research.
Wired might pretend that "invented" is a reasonable paraphrase of Gore's words. That would be, as we say mock-euphemistically when we're talking about Al Gore, a "stretch". But this quote explicitly draws the distinction between pushing legislatively for research and inventing the thing as a technical matter, admits that the former is true, and yet claims that Gore said the latter and not the former. There's no possible excuse here: whether he investigated the facts for himself or simply passed along a rumor, the author is projecting his own "low-stakes dishonesty" onto Gore.
These echo-chamber falsehoods are useful diagnostic tools. They're like radioactive tracers injected into the system. When someone is paid to express opinions in the media, we tend to assume that they have a privileged access to the facts, when in reality they often have no more information than the rest of us: being busy people, they scan the headlines on the Washington Post on their way into the studio. Yet their aura of authority powers the echo chamber, so that even an obvious falsehood (e.g., that liberals control the media) can be repeated so often that doubters can be certified insane.
This is not, of course, an isolated case. Remember the one about Al
Gore falsely claiming to have inspired the novel "Love Story"? And
the author vehemently denying that what Gore said was true? And Gore
admitting that he had been making it up? Well, that's all a lie too.
All of it. Really. See
What causes the echo chamber? It's partly just laziness, of course. The Neanderthals probably developed bigger brains so they could spread gossip. But it's not just that. The echo chamber of the electronic media really has gotten worse in my lifetime. The reasons are many:
The sheer number of talking heads. In the old days you had a few
networks, each with a few shows. Now you have cable. And the more talkers you have, the more opportunity you have for echoes.
The economics of news: a network can pay someone an hourly rate
to opine off the time of their heads, or it can pay a real reporter to spend days and weeks digging up facts. Talk is cheap, and the cheap talkers inevitably recycle stuff they read in the paper or see on CNN.
Real-time news. Even when reporters do their jobs, the world
of 24-hour journalism presents them with pressures to break stories before they're really reported. So rumors get injected into the media bloodstream, and then they get spread around before anyone has a chance to recheck them. (See Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, Warp Speed: America in the Age of Mixed Media, Century Foundation, 1999.)
You've got your opposition researchers digging in their databases
to come up with factoids, and then you've got your professional and amateur conspiracy theorists, all working furiously to put the worst possible spin those factoids; each theory then propels the hunt for another round of factoids. This stuff gets fed into the echo chamber through the character assassins of the partisan press, and once it starts echoing there's no stopping it.
You can trace every one of these effects in the epidemiology of the falsehoods about Al Gore, and you can trace them in the epidemiology of Whitewater. (The White House once issued a brief report on the matter, something like a dozen pages double-spaced, with 200 pages of news clippings attached to it; the media responding by howling darkly about the "200-page report" that the White House had prepared on its enemies. You've heard that phrase "200-page report", haven't you? It's another tendentious paraphrase untethered from the facts.)
And yet even these powerful forces do not suffice to explain the
data. The various forces have a multiplicative effect, and together
they work to subvert the culture. And it's that corrosion of truth
and reason that is destroying our society right now. That's why
you have reporters for serious newspapers reporting the kind of junk
that a very small number of serious people on the Internet, such as
the Daily Howler
---
This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" option. For information about RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, see http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/rre.html
---
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 16:27:07 -0500
To: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com
From: David Farber
It is nice to see confirmation of something I have said often and loudly coming from someone like Joe DJF
>Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 16:23:51 -0500 (EST)
>From: Joseph Traub
| | | --- | | ProcessTree Network TM For-pay Internet distributed processing. | | Advertising helps support hosting Red Rock Eater Digest @ The Commons. Advertisers are not associated with the list owner. If you have any comments about the advertising, please direct them to the Webmaster @ The Commons. |