|
August 08, 2006
When unconfirmable facts disappear
Wikipedia can be a useful tool (I often use it to provide background details involving largely uncontested historical matters), but when partisan allegations or activists are involved, beware! As an example, take a look at the huge difference between the current Wikipedia entry on George W. Bush, and the Google cached version. In particular, take note of this paragraph (from the cached version), which has now disappeared: In February 2004, Eric Boehlert in Salon magazine claimed that Bush's cessation of flying in April, 1972 and his subsequent refusal to take a physical exam came at the same time the Air Force announced its Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program, which was officially launched April 21. Boehlert said "according to Maj. Jeff Washburn, the chief of the National Guard's substance abuse program, a random drug-testing program was born out of that regulation and administered to guardsmen such as Bush. The random tests were unrelated to the scheduled annual physical exams, such as the one that Bush failed to take in 1972, a failure that resulted in his grounding." Boehlert remarks that the drug testing took years to implement, but "as of April 1972, Air National guardsmen knew random drug testing was going to be implemented". [7]Back in 2004, I devoted a good deal of time in attempting to verify the drug testing program, but I came up dry. (Boehlert, as I noted, provided no link to sources.) In despair, on July 27, 2004, I even called the Air Force. They looked and looked, but couldn't confirm the regulation. Finally I sent an email to the "Air Force Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment (ADAPT) Program Manager, Air Force Medical Operations Agency" in Leesburg, Virginia, simply asking him to confirm the existence of the regulation. It was never answered. All I wanted to do was verify the existence of one single regulation -- Air Force Regulation 160-23. It's all over the Internet, but in a pattern which has become numbingly familiar, all the links go back to a single source -- Eric Boehlert's original piece in Salon.com. The fact that I couldn't find the regulation, of course, does not mean there was no such regulation. But what I'd like to know is what special skills do super sleuths like Boehlert have that enable them to unearth regulations that I couldn't find after diligent searches, which even the Air Force couldn't point me to, and which a retired colonel (Joseph Campenni) said did not exist? Blogging has its limits, and among them is the fact that it is impossible to disprove the existence of a fact that cannot be confirmed. But when unprovable facts disappear entirely, I worry that the Internet might be developing Alzheimers. I think this touches on the tension between "high trust" and "low trust" sources. In his discussion of Reutersgate linked by InstaPundit yesterday, Ed Driscoll quoted from a 2004 post by Glenn Reynolds about the essence of the distinction (between the traditionally "high trust" MSM, and the "low trust" blogosphere): The Internet, on the other hand, is a low-trust environment. Ironically, that probably makes it more trustworthy.I used to do appellate law, and if there's one thing I can say with confidence, it's that no attorney could get away with citing regulations that can't be verified or looked up. My dark side would have me point out that lawyers are, by their very nature, untrustworthy creatures, because they are partisan advocates. Hired guns, if you will. A bit like partisan political activists. When facts are contested, they not only don't take things on faith, it is their responsibility to their client to challenge them -- just as it is the duty of their opponent to prove them. The law, like the blogosphere, thus tends to be a "low trust" environment. Back to the Air Force regulation in question (and I think this is equally applicable to the discussion of Observer reporter Jennifer Copestake's citation of the Iraq Penal Code)... Who has the burden of proof in these matters? The "low trust" blogger, so impertinent as to question an unsupported citation? Or the "high trust" citation itself -- of a supposedly authoritative source which can't be confirmed? I'm not sure whether Salon.com fits into the "high trust" or the low trust category, nor do I know where Wikipedia fits in. But I do know that no blogger -- and no lawyer -- could get away with citing unverifiable statutes or regulations. Might it be time to revive the Reagan "trust but verify" doctrine? I think the burden of verification should be on whoever offers the "citation." (You know... It's a little thing called a "link.")
There's an old expression among lawyers: "If you don't have the facts, argue the law, and if you don't have the law, argue the facts." Reduced to a similar expression, what I'm complaining about would read like this: "if you don't have the law, argue the law anyway!" Sorry, but it violates my low standards. Kindly show me the law, and I'll be glad to apologize. (Until then, I'm going to have to wonder whether people who cite unverifiable laws and regulations might deserve a lower trust ranking than even lawyers.) posted by Eric on 08.08.06 at 10:04 AM
Comments
And I'm just pounding the keyboard! :) Eric Scheie · August 8, 2006 02:19 PM No organization is as anal-retentive about record-keeping than the Armed Forces, because without tradition, they have little to work with. If something was once policy, there is ALWAYS a record. Way I see it, if you research showed that the Air Force has no record of the regulation, and your expert couldn't remember it either, it never existed, and the Salon guy is a liar. End of story. Unless, of course, the Salon Liar is prepared to disclose where he got the thing. Kim du Toit · August 8, 2006 03:19 PM Kim, I appreciate your remarks, and thanks for visiting. What beats me is, just what part of linking don't these folks understand? It's one thing to quote a source, but citing a law in an online story -- is that asking too much? Eric Scheie · August 8, 2006 03:56 PM Gotta agree that the burden is on the original poster, especially since you've actually looked around and can't find it. It is a lie. Harkonnendog · August 8, 2006 06:54 PM You should try to get the attention of The Volokh Conspiracy with this one. I think it'd be right up their alley, and they'd bring the hits/traffic to the subject which could result in real consequences. Beck · August 8, 2006 09:44 PM On another topic, I'd like to make a suggestion. I remember that you once said that you didn't like Reagan because he seemed to prey on the culture war divide, and that you would have loved it if he had stood side by side with an anti-communist long-hair to prove that it wasn't all about the culture war. Here's my suggestion for who that long-hair should have been: Alice Cooper! What do you think? Jon Thompson · August 9, 2006 01:54 AM While at R.A. Roth (a major lights company in Atlanta), I worked in the offices between tours, drawing in AutoCAD. The work involved taking the communications point with clients all over the world, and the most valuable principle that I took from that experience was on the day Robert told me, "God sides with the paper-trail." Keep all communications on record in order every step of the way, and then let somebody try to dispute the deal. It's the same principle with this stuff. Proper citations are elementary. The ubiquity of people who can't figure this out is astounding and infuriating. Billy Beck · August 9, 2006 11:21 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
From mourners to suspects overnight. Who knew?
Educating Diplomats soft spot for crocs? "I Bet The NY Times will jump on this" "slaughter" committed by "high caliber" "automatics" Balancing the polls Despite "dog overpopulation," there's a puppy shortage Squeezing Iran First they came for our elephants.... Hillary's favorite opponent?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Here in Texas, teh saying has always been, "if the law is on your side, pound on the law. If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If neither is on your side, POUND ON THE TABLE!"