| 30 April 2009

If it’s on the internet, it must be true

Like any red-blooded American, I spend too much time in cyberland swapping email forwards with my crew; jokes, amazing events, cute animals, warnings of dreadful-things-that-can-happen-to-you, calls to action, and political screeds (left and right).

A lot of those amazing events, warnings and political commentary are suspect. A quick trip to Urban Legends (www.snopes.com) or Google confirms my suspicions. Here are a few examples.

I have a good friend (an ex-client) who’s a staunch Libertarian so we have some common ground about individual liberties, but he’s way to the right of me on most political matters. We respect each other’s views and over the years have traded right wing, leftwing emails. Of course I’m not biased, (un-huh) but it seems that much of his forwarded stuff doesn’t pass the smell test; that is, lots of emotionally charged words but rarely a source. A check with urban legends confirms my suspicions. I always email back and mention this to him.

 Recently I received a The-Sky-is-Falling email from another net buddy with a link to a clip of Mr. Voice of Reason, Lou Dobbs, emoting over pending immigration legislation that will (according to Lou) usher in an invasion and takeover of our beloved country by evil alien hoards. Whoa! A quick Google search unveiled a current LA Times article on exactly the same subject that made the issue seem pretty middle of the road with no predictions of dire consequences. I emailed back saying that he can cease stockpiling guns and ammo, the invasion’s been delayed.

 

A relative (whose name shall remain anonymous) sent an email about the impending ruin of modern civilization, citing examples of social breakdown; Again, lots of hyperbole, no sources.

 

The last “Ain’t it awful” example was a piece on how the courts award big bucks to people who sue over minor mishaps: “Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.”

 

Here’s a synopsis of the LA Times article I found after a Google search:  McDonalds had, prior to this incident, received over 700 customer complaints about hot coffee. McDonalds served it at a temperature of 180-190 degrees--a temperature that’s scalding and dangerous. (Home brewed coffee is brewed and kept at about 145 degrees.)

The lady spilled it as a passenger leaving the drive up window, while holding the open Styrofoam cup between her legs. She spilled the entire cup, which resulted in third degree burns requiring several days of hospitalization. She asked for $20,000 for hospital costs but McDonald refused and went to court.  McDonalds lost but the final settlement was undisclosed. McDonald's has subsequently dropped the temperature of its coffee.

So, why are people who know better willing to accept undocumented material without question?

 

Is it lack of intellectual curiosity? People who are willing to accept as accurate whatever they read, assuming—I guess—that if it’s on the internet (or radio or TV) it must be true.  Even when the material is highly questionable – a forwarded email without an author or references or from a source known to be biased. Accuracy checking isn’t a big deal anymore; we’re only a few mouse clicks away from verifying what we read.

 

Of course it may be that some readers who are locked into a cultural, religious, political position will not question anything that reinforces their core beliefs; and conversely reject a position that questions their values. I suspect many of us are guilty of this.

In both cases, the real victim is knowledge and understanding.

 

But there’s hope, lately my ex-client now sends all political emails with a “this was checked and verified by www.snopes.com” tag.