>>But how does one, in his (Bush's) defense, provide proof of something that doesn't exist - what is the saying - proving a negative? It doesn't matter - truth has a way of eventually surfacing.<< Kakki wrote the above, on an entirely different matter, just as I was about to write something in relation to another post from another person entirely (Sarah) so the following remarks may be pertinent to her (Kakki's) rhetorical question but not inspired by it. My remarks may also apply to Kakki's argument about Bush and Clinton but they are directed at Sarah's. (see below) The references are to the Reagan/Thatcher years rather than the Bush/Blair ones. It's from a paper I wrote some years ago, bear with me please. Sarah's reply to Kakki was >> This is ALWAYS the problem with conspiracy theories. A claim is made, and because it can't be disproved -- because no-one can prove a negative -- the claim is perceived by some to be accurate.<<
mike says Berel Lang, in an article entitled 'Politics and the New History of Truth' (Lang, 1991:38), looks at the concepts of 'truth' and 'lie' and the blurring of the distinctions between them, especially as used by Presidents Nixon and Reagan. Many of the key concepts of the corruption of language emerged during their presidencies. Most people have a clear idea of the difference between telling a lie and telling the truth. The difference between the two concepts is so fundamental that: >>it would be difficult to find a child above the age of five who, at some level, is unaware of the difference, and indeed almost all the links that hold social institutions together - laws, contracts, promises, even simple descriptive statements - assume this very distinction (Lang, 1991:38). << The concept of 'deniability', however, muddies the waters and during the Watergate hearings the "Nixonians' working definition of truth" emerged (Lang, 1991:38). >>Where in common usage, the truth of a statement implies a correspondence with facts, including those that might be known only to the speaker, 'deniability' ascribes truth to any statement that cannot be disproved, all claims to the contrary can then be denied. (Lang, 1991:38). << The second step is to ensure that there are no claims to the contrary, such as the cases where films are banned or censored, therefore 'deniability' works hand in hand with censorship, ensuring that the official version remains the only version the public gets.... Public opinion, then, is based on a partial viewing of the facts (partial in both senses). Where claims to the contrary are available, the government uses the media to discredit the source. For example, some people attempt to ridicule Chomsky's political views in order to diminish the weight of evidence he provides. We should not underestimate what is going on here: without evidence to the contrary, the original assertion, however incredible, remains 'true'. Lang states: >>It means that the test of truth is now negative: all assertions - claims or denials of responsibility, descriptions of events - are true until they are disproved. If they are. The burden of proof is thus entirely on the audience and not at all on the speaker, whose main concern, once s/he has spoken, is to retain the power of deniability by assuring that possible counterevidence remains hidden.<< (Lang, 1991:39). Let's look at two examples of sound bites. When Mrs Thatcher heard that Amnesty International were planning an investigation into the Gibraltar shootings (1988), she said "I hope Amnesty has some concern for the more than 2,000 people murdered by the IRA since 1969" (Jack, 1988: 37). Of these 2,000 killed in the troubles, over 600 were killed by Loyalist paramilitaries, and over 200 by the British Army and the Police (Curtis, 1985: 109). Mrs Thatcher's soundbite went unchallenged and uncorrected. Secondly, a quote on the Gibraltar inquest: "What greater inquiry could one have than an independent inquest in an independent colony?" asked Jerry Hayes (Jack, 83). Ignoring the obvious paradox of the phrase 'independent colony', the actual number of witnesses who were completely 'independent' either of the British Government or the administration of its dependent territory was 16 out of 80. Hardly 'independent'. Hayes' rhetorical question also went unchallenged. mike in bcn
