COMM 317: Political email spam raises questions

A couple of weeks ago, a student sent me one of those political spam email messages that go around attacking the "MSM" (mainstream media), Hillary Clinton and I-forget-who-all-else on the basis of what we'll charitably call very shaky evidence. She thought it would be worth going over in class, and I agreed.

But I promptly lost the message.

That's OK, I thought. There'll be others.

And so there are. So there are.

This kind of stuff, we agreed, raises questions. Lucky you. You get to answer them. Here are a few, to be thinking of as you read further. Most of the political spam I see doesn't appear to be written by professionals. Much of it is anonymous. What is the ethics of that? Non-professional spam artists are not bound by the SPJ code. What ethical standards do apply? What can the "MSM" do to prevent such attacks? Or should the media even try? Do the spammers make any good points? What are their rights under the First Amendment?

Military Losses, 1980 thru 2006
Whatever your politics, however you lean, however you feel about the current
administration, this report should open some eyes.
Military losses, 1980 through 2006 (ttp://www.fas.org/ sgp/crs/natsec/ RL32492.pdf)
As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics:

The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:

1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 .......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 .......... 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George H W Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 ......... 1,213 (Clinton Year)
1994 .......... 1,075 (Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 (Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 2,318 (Clinton Year)
1997 ............ . 817 (Clinton Year)
1998 .......... 2,252 (Clinton Year)
1999 .......... 1,984 (Clinton Year)
2000 ..........1, 983 (Clinton Year)
2001 ............ . 890(George W Year)
2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 .......... 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year)
2005 ............ . 919 (George W Year)
2006........ ...... 920 (George W Year)
2007........ ....899 (George W Year)

Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths

If you are surprised when you look at these figures, so was I. These figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war!

And, I was even more shocked when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities! I think that these figures indicate that many members of our Media and our Politicians will pick and choose the information on which they report. Of course we all know that they present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. But why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth? Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda? Obviously there is one shared agenda, and I believe it is
clear it comes from the most powerful Democratic family of the decade.

Do you want further proof? Consider the latest census, of Americans. It shows the following FACTS about the distribution of American citizens, by Race:
European descent ............ ......... ...... 69.12%
Hispanic ............ ......... ......... ......... . 12.5%
Black ............ ......... ......... ......... ...... 12. 3%
Asian ............ ......... ......... ......... ........ 3.7%
Native American ............ ......... ......... 1.0%
Other ............ ......... ......... ......... ........ 2. 6%

Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:
European descent (white) ............ 74.31%
Hispanic ............ ......... ......... ....... 10.74%
Black ........... ......... ......... ......... ... 9.67%
Asian ............ ........ ......... ......... .... 1.81%
Native American ............ ........ ...... 1.09%
Other ............ ......... ......... ......... .... 0.33%

I was surprised again. . .until it became clear to me that the point here is that our mainstream media continues to spin these figures (for political gain). Nothing more.

It's all about politics and some politicians, are now famous for turning American against American for a vote. (Consider Slick Willy and his comments made about South Carolina, Jesse Jackson, and the 'blacks' voting for the 'black' candidates); or Hillary's stump speech after her Super Tuesday 'victory' stating that the current administration does not 'listen' to anyone and continues the war costing precious American lives. Yes, I might even agree with her, but she should be made to acknowledge her own husband's administration, without having an actual war, sent more soldiers to death during his regime-while also forcing the military to release Osama when we actually had him detained.

I hope that during the time between now and November, that intelligent Americans can decipher the facts from the spin and the spinners from the leaders; those who seek even more power from those that seek justice, the
dividers from the uniters.

Over the next months let's be good listeners (yes, Hillary we are listening) and see and hear who tries to divide our nation; and who wants to unite our nation. Who wants to control how our money is spent and who wants our money
spent the way we would spend it. Who seeks power and who seeks justice? Who spins the facts and who is genuine.

(These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at: http://www.fas. org/sgp/crs/ natsec/RL32492. pdf)

The problem with this message? It isn't true. Last week Army Times, a weekly newspaper for military personnel, looked into it. They determined the statistics were faked. They were supposedly taken from a Congressional Research Service report, but the numbers for the Clinton years were higher than the those of the CRS report while from the Bush years were lower. Said the paper:

In reality, according to the CRS report, 7,500 service members died on active duty in the eight years from 1993 through 2000, compared to 8,792 in the six years from 2001 through 2006.

The Pentagon has not yet released data on total active-duty deaths for 2007, but 1,014 service members died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that year, and more than 100 have died in the wars so far in 2008, pushing the known total under Bush to more than 9,900.

Let's keep things in perspective. This is not the first time in all recorded history that government numbers have been cooked for partisan political purposes. That has no doubt been going on as long as there have been governments. (Just look at some of the body counts in the Old Testament, where the Israelites smote and slew 150,000 of their neighbors, and their oxen and their cattle and their man- and maidservants.) But the Internet has made it easier to peddle falsified information.

These political spam messages, like other urban legends, are tracked by http://www.snopes.com/. Urban legends, according to David and Barbara Mikkelson, creators of snopes.com, are "are told as true, local, and recent occurrences, and often contain names of places or entities located within the teller's neighborhood or surrounding region." The Mikkelsons add:

Urban legends are narratives which put our fears and concerns into the form of stories or are tales which we use to confirm the rightness of our world view. As cautionary tales they warn us against engaging in risky behaviors by pointing out what has supposedly happened to others who did what we might be tempted to try. Other legends confirm our belief that it's a big, bad world out there, one awash with crazed killers, lurking terrorists, unscrupulous companies out to make a buck at any cost, and a government that doesn't give a damn.

The key to their popularity, I think, is the way they give a narrative to our "fears and concerns." Most of the upolitical urban legends I see appear to come from right-wing websites, but they're common all across the spectrum.

My advice: When you get political spam, "Google" the message line or heading. And look for snopes.com in the web addresses. The link will take you to a page that reprints the message and determines whether it is true, false or -- well, harder to classsify. When I got the military fatalities spam this morning, I this, and quickly learned it was false.

Snopes also has links to its top 25 legends, including several about Barack Obama. Also one of my favorites, of President George W. Bush holding a digitally manipulated book. My final discussion questions: What are the ethical implications of taking any of this stuff seriously? What are the ethical implications for journalists of having so many amateurs on the Internet peddling bogus information? How should we treat information we get from the web? Do we have a responsibity to knock down rumors? How can we tell rumors from jokes? How can professional journalists take advantage of the free-wheeling, entertaining nature of the internet without losing sight of their professional responsibities? Or is there even a conflict?