If Someone Says it, Is it True?

Share

This morning, I have been battling people who think that things they heard on the internet are true. Over a year ago, I started discussing with folks the notion that the prominence of something on the internet is inversely proportional to its actual value. I will go so far as to say today that the more sensational a thing is, especially in the age of the internet where things go viral like lightning, the less likely it is that there is any truth at all to it or that what is alleged is the truth.

Take for example two recent news stories.

First, we have the son of a NYC police commissioner accused of rape. Before I take any stance on this, I remember the Duke LaCrosse players accused of rape. Eventually in that case, the accuser recounted and admitted she made it all up.

Second, we have this image going around on twitter and facebook that claims McDonalds charges extra ees to folks based on their melanin content. Has anyone actually called the number or looked into the image? I don't frequent McDonalds, but nothing in the picture besides the image printed on the paper can be associated with McDonalds. For all we know, this was hung in the window of a Subway or T-mobile franchise or laundromat. The number is the contact number for KFC (yes, I called it). The zoom level on the photo leads me to believe it's a scam, and Snopes agrees.

Just because someone says it or posts it to the internet does not make it true. Most people don't seek truth. Most people only acknowledge and pass on the bits of information that support what they already believe. The people who are passing this on, I suspect, either believe the stories or are afraid or hope that they are true. They want this to be true, and they don't care if it hurts innocent people along the way.

I sometimes wonder how fast I could get a rumor to spread around the world. I have never attempted it because the amount of coverage correcting a story is never even remotely sufficient to compensate for the transgressive level at which they promote the original. You see, to fix a rumor, one must admit that one is wrong, and that's a big hit to one's ego. Even after the error is 'corrected', people are still branded.

The story is told of a salesman who arrived in a distant town. The villagers were not very receptive to his wares. One day, a villager observed the salesman stoop down and pick up a piece of bright string off the stones of the square. When some valuable jewels were stolen a few days later, the villager pointed to the salesman and accused him of the crime. The salesman protested; he had just picked up a piece of string. Eventually the real thief was caught, and the salesman set free. However, in order to do any business, he had to leave town, because all anyone remembered was that he had once picked up some string. We judge too quickly, like in this video:

My favorite is the hospital scene.

As the internet connects us with people we have never met and who know only about us what they read, the opportunity to start over elsewhere diminishes. Although I am not taking a side on the following issues, consider the Casey Anthony case (which was decided as 'not guilty'), the Duke LaCrosse case (which was dropped after the accuser recounted her story), the Hermann Cain affair accusation (which still has yet to be corroborated), Newt Gingrich's 'open marriage' (which has yet to be corroborated by anyone other than the offended ex-wife), etc. Like the salesman in the above story, if these people are eventually exonerated, what restitution can and will be offerred? We can't change some people's minds about them, and Cain and Gingrich, if this costs them the presidency, will not be awarded it by way of apology. We trash people, and then brand them with a scarlet letter in both directions of time and all eternity for a single moment, EVEN IF THAT MOMENT IS A HOAX. They say that it's only a crime if you get caught, but nobody ever talks about what it is if you are accused of a crime and yet are innocent.

Stories abound of the wrongfully accused. Giving them money doesn't give them back their life or their reputation or their character. I try very hard not to mention people by name here who are not public figures. When you become a public figure, you in essence admit you are willing to face that scrutiny, and so I don't consider them immune. Be careful what you put out there. Some day you may eat your words, and some of the people about whom you speak may have to eat them too.