adjust the facts

What are your news sources? Whether we realize it or not we all have a fairly well established set of sources we trust. These sources tend to be the ones which are most familiar. The TV station that's always on, your parents, AOL or MSN homepage, the paper at your doorstep, sports radio. And you trust it. Oh, sure, you may jest about not believing half of what's on TV or in print. But, when you are reading an account do you actually stop and question the validity each time? Do you check it against other sources? You may be surprised.

Google provides us with a wonderful tool for such comparisons. We are able to view web versions of most major print, television and radio news sources as well as online-only publications. All conveniently linked to and searchable. But, the results can be frustrating. On September 11 of 2001 I found serious contradictions between major news sources regarding which plane ended up where, whether the air force was involved, where the president was, etc. When a man started shooting at the 5 freeway in LA local TV stations all had different accounts of what kind of weapon he had, whose window was broken, and when police arrived.

Today, I read about a man who used an armored bulldozer to destroy several buildings in a small Colorado town. The gist of the story is that he held a four year old grudge against the town's councilmen, built a bullet-proof bulldozer, destroyed several buildings Friday afternoon, and was found dead when authorities gained access to his vehicle early Saturday morning. Most of the stories I read bare today's date, nearly two days since the rampage. The news media have had plenty of time to get the story straight.

The Denver Post and Reuters state that the bulldozer ended up in a hardware store. The Denver Post even names the store as Gambles hardware. The Washington Post, however, gives the final stop as Gambles Department store. Thirdly, the Chicago Tribune claims the bulldozer finally stopped in a warehouse. Similar AP articles in the New York Times and San Diego Union-Tribune agree with the warehouse theory and the Union-Tribune even lists both the hardware store and warehouse as victims. Likely there is some kind of store attached to a warehouse, but in which did the bulldozer end up? Most of these stories state that the bulldozer became stuck inside the crumbling building with the Washington Post adding that the bulldozer fell through the floor. But, the LA Times describes the bulldozer as stalling out and ending up behind a warehouse, not in it.

Moving on, one Denver Post article records that "several rounds of explosives" were used unsuccessfully before midnight. The LA Times places the number of explosions on Friday night at two. The New York Times claims that after three failed explosions a blowtorch was used to cut through the armor and gain access. A different Denver Post article states that an hour with a cutting torch got authorities inside the bulldozer. But, with no mention of any cutting, CNN claims that after two ineffective attempts with explosives, the third explosive was used to "blow off the hinge of a door" and gain access. Finally, AZ central asserts that "after blasting the box three times police discovered hinges that allowed them to pull out an air conditioning unit and get into the box."

There were also small contradictions about the duration of the rampage, start and ending times, whether the guy owned a snowmobile, whether he fired at state troopers and how many guns were found inside the cab of his bulldozer. Even the location of the town of Granby was unclear with the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, and CNN respectively placing the town at 50 miles northwest of Denver, 50 miles west of Denver, and 70 miles northwest of Denver.

While a few of these details might be reconciled there are clearly numerous mistakes in the reporting. If you think the lesser details are unimportant I would ask you where you draw the line between minor and major details? Must the story name the wrong person, motives or victims before you call it inaccurate? If we let little errors slide why not slightly larger ones? At what point will we admit that a story is only a half-truth? However small, fabricated details are harmful. If they originated by way of an inaccurate witness how can you know what part of the witness's story to believe? And if they were guesses or fabrications of a reporter trying to fill in the gaps or make the story interesting then how far will the reporter go when the details are even fuzzier? We've seen false reports of sarin filled warheads, ties with Al Qaida, and battlefield advances. How many other stories that we believe originated with a misleading witness or a reporter taking liberties with the facts? One reporter fabricated stories for 12 years before getting caught. How many reporters giving us lies today will only be caught 12 years from now? How do you know that I'm not making all of this up? Maybe the whistleblower stories are fabricated.

I could speak for ages about how we decide what is true and what isn't. But, I'll end before I lose too many readers. Anyway, always look at your sources critically. Ask how the reporter knows what happened. Who else witnessed it? And who else is writing about it? Don't automatically believe what you hear or read. Being informed requires using your mind, not just your eyes.