Believing what we want to believe

In the news business, the one question every newsperson is vitally interested in is whether or not a story "has legs." That means whether or not a story is going to hang around for a while, sometimes even developing a life of its own, or will the story be done and buried shortly after it has been reported? It certainly appears that the rationale the president used to order a pre-emptive strike on Iraq (weapons of mass destruction and building a nuclear bomb) has legs and will be one of the "talking points" of the Democratic candidate as the campaign unfolds over the upcoming months.

One of the things we all strive for is credibility. Are our positions and responses measured and do we analyze all the evidence before taking a stand or making a statement? If we rush to judgment or embellish the truth, we're seen as blowhards and most people won't take us seriously. We all know people who do that and the reasons they do it are pretty simple. Many people aren't satisfied with who they are or who they've become. So they either embellish their current lives or live in the history of their past triumphs, no matter how short or fleeting. What these people simply don't understand is how transparent and devalued they become to others when they do such a thing.

At the other end of the spectrum, there are people in positions of power, influence, and control who create their own realities by listening only to information that supports the opinion or perspective they've already reached. As a social scientist, I caution my students about how dangerous this can be. When a scientist conducts research, for example, the research must be brutally objective. There is no room in research for subjectivity. We cannot allow our own biases and opinions to influence the way we interpret the results of the research. The research must stand on its own and the results must speak for itself, regardless of how the scientist "hoped" it would turn out. Any research conclusions that are influenced by the scientists own opinions are flawed, biased, and invalid.

We see "I know best" attitudes everywhere. There are still people who don't believe man has walked on the moon. These people pay attention only to whatever information they can find that supports their opinion while conveniently overlooking any evidence to the contrary. Everyone who thinks we are living in the "end times" consult only the information that supports that conclusion while ignoring everything else. Democrats don't listen to Republicans and Republicans don't listen to Democrats.

During the Reagan Presidency Iran-Contra hearings, the nation was divided in their opinion that Ollie North was either a patriot or a criminal and a traitor. If you hear nasty gossip about a person you don't like, you believe the gossip. If you hear good things about the same person, you ignore it. The list could go on forever. The reader knows intuitively what I'm talking about. Most of us practice this behavior in one aspect of our lives or another.

In regard to Iraq, President Bush obviously got bad information. One of the things every president does is to surround himself with people who thinks like he does. And one of the great failings of this procedure is there is no one to present the other side of the story. So what usually happens is that a conclusion is reached before ANY information is presented about a particular situation and then you build a case for that conclusion by listening only to information that supports it.

This appears to be what happened as the president was considering the invasion of Iraq. He decided this was the proper course of action to take and the information he received was screened through his circle of advisors who shared his belief. Consequently, the conclusion was reached BEFORE the facts were presented, not after, and the only information that made its way to him was information that supported his already-decided-on conclusion. Consequently the invasion was launched.

When it became obvious that things in Iraq weren't going exactly as planned, the Administration had to practice a certain amount of damage control. The most striking example of this was the "rescue" of Jessica Lynch. You remember the story. The Pentagon released information that Jessica Lynch was a true American hero. That she fought valiantly after having been shot, battling to what she believed would be her death to protect her fellow soldiers. After she was captured, rather than killed, she was rescued in a daring pre-dawn raid by Special Forces troops who had to fight their way into the hospital to retrieve her.

None of that was true. She was knocked unconscious when her vehicle wrecked and was still unconscious when she was captured. She didn't fire a shot, nor was she shot. The Special Forces troops encountered no hostilities as they rescued her; in fact, Iraqi troops had pulled away from the hospital several hours before the rescue was attempted. Jessica Lynch is, in fact, a true American hero. Not for what she did but for what she said. We know the truth of what happened because it came from her mouth and not the Pentagons'. If she had remained silent, we would continue to believe the myth.

Believing only what we want to believe in total denial of any evidence to the contrary can lead us all down a very slippery slope.