Searching for Truth (ACLU, FBI, and Hoods, oh my!)
As you can probably guess I read a lot. I hit a lot of web sites and I am interested in many topics. It is frustrating to deconstruct, analyze, and synthesize certain information. I judge what I read using all the usual information available: age of material, author, site, number of citations, number of comments, and so on.
With that said, here’s something that I think is disturbing that is posted on the ACLU web site:
“The two-page e-mail that references an Executive Order states that the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and “sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.” The ACLU is urging the White House to confirm or deny the existence of such an order and immediately to release the order if it exists.” (Source: ACLU web site)
How do * you * evaluate information? What makes information “true” or not? How do you dig and confirm?
Side issue: Even if you have methods and tools, do you really have the time?
December 22nd, 2004 at 2:33 pm
People think information is about absolute truth. uh-uh. Information is about power and spin. It isn’t only about the claim, you can just as well use a flimsy memo to make an allegation. Even in pushing for a memo which might not exist, you prove you are “doing your job.” Funding and donations keep coming in, and so there is some point in even the pointless exercise. What happens if this particular memo doesn’t exist? Better still, because no matter what the target of allegations says, it makes them look like the the allegation is “true.”
This, kiddies, is information as it is practiced. Not the fantasyland hype of technologists and therists. And it’s also why truth and information are spelt diffr’nt. Most people select the data that makes their world view the correct one, then they call that information. What’s true for blue is propoganda for red, and vice-versy.