My husband and I were having lunch with a friend on the weekend, and the topic turned to business. My husband works in International law, and so does our friend, but at the sharp end. Specifically, our friend prosecutes war crimes.
'Before we go on,' he says, 'there's something I should probably tell you. I'm currently the subject of a criminal investigation.'
And the crime, as it turned out, was torture.
Now strange things happen in the world, and I'm cautious of any statement that reads 'I know X and he would never' (I've seen at least three stalkers - who really were stalkers - defended that way). But frankly, the odds against this being true would give the infinite improbability drive a run for it's money. The idea that some particularly knuckle-headed defendants tried a last-ditch move to get off the charges against them, on the other hand, is running at 1:1.0000000001 odds on the being-true front. But still.
If you google my friend, you'll find an article in a reputable UK newspaper with his name and the charges. I'm not linking to it, because no way am I going to push it up the google ranks. But it's turned me to thinking about the social impacts of truth.
True statement:
Friend has been accused of torture.
Totally legitimate newsworthiness:
High.
Highly-unlikely-to-be-true statement:
Friend committed the crime of torture.
Totally legitimate newsworthiness:
Absolutely none.
That's not a 'oh shame on you media' statement, it's a point of necessity: Probability statements aren't news, nor should they be (apart from op ed blarney). 'Bad accusation made against good dude who almost certainly did no such thing' is not legitimate news, because there's no fact content in it. 'He probably didn't' is not reportable, and if it was, a lot more bad people would get away with a lot more bad things.
And yet, and yet, and yet... there's also social truth. And longevity. Especially longevity.
Flash forward to the hasn't-happened-yet end of the criminal proceedings:
True statement:
Friend has been cleared of torture accusations.
True statement:
Friend did not commit torture.
Totally legitimate newsworthiness:
Middling.
Middling because nothing really happened. An allegation was disproved. That means the basic system of the world didn't *actually* change - a falsehood came up and was knocked down. Nothing actually new about the world was revealed, just a slight blip in the great long list of Things People Have Said - a list that does not have a 1:1 correlation with Things That Happened.
Again, this is not an 'I blame the media' statement - it's just that 'someone didn't do something' is, in most circumstances, far less interesting/useful knowledge than 'someone might have done something'.
(Some of you will know that I've done my time with journos, and I don't actually like the news media very much at all. So I am trying Extra Hard to be Totally Objective here.)
Flash forward two (hypothetical) years, and let's imagine two (I'm being optimistic here, there may be more) articles in reputable newspapers about this case exist online.
One contains time-sensitive true statement 1: 'X is accused of torture.'
The other contains non-time-sensitive true statement 2: 'X has been acquitted of torture.'
...Which of these will have the higher google ranking?
Which will more people see?
Given that both are true, which will the most people know to be true?
And of those that see only the first, how many will interpret 'accused of' as 'did'?
I don't have answers to this, and never in a million years would I say the first article should be taken down. I just worry about my friend, that a malicious move by bad people could follow him around for the rest of his life because the technology for 'true' doesn't meet the world's real requirements for 'true'.
But then again, he's seen worse.
Posts
Sadly, mud sticks — even when thrown in error. Yes, I get that there is public interest in some cases, but accusations of torture, rape, etc are relatively easily made, but, I would imagine, damn hard to shed. Newspapers and other media are also not in the habit of reporting stories like "Oh, you know how we said X might have been a thing? Turns out, not so much." Which pisses me off (mainly, though not solely, when it's the right-wing media, who seem to have a special thing for slinging mud).
ReplyDeletePersonally I don't understand why the law permits reporting of anyone accused of a crime until it has been to trial and a verdict found. Maybe because it would be impossible to keep such things quiet, but I do think it's unfair, whatever the alleged crime. But maybe I'm being naive.
C.