I spent a couple of days reviewing the "Guide to the Cosmos" interview with
Steve Krivit. I was interested in comparing what was actually said versus
what certain individuals within the Vort Collective seem to be implying
Krivit has said. For example, I noticed the following opinions recently
levied against Krivit:
-------------------------------------------------------
"Krivit is attacking a straw man and claiming that people are lying."
And:
"Steve calling people who are thinking out of the box liars will not get you
in."
-------------------------------------------------------
The title of the radio program is "Guide to the Cosmos - Did Scientist on
'60 Minutes' Lie about Cold Fusion?" It's a deliberately incendiary title:
Hype. Anyone invited to speak on a radio show sporting such an incendiary
title where they are asked to explain their admittedly controversial
position is likely to end up getting branded any which way they turn -
unless they are very, VERY skillful in regards to the choice of words they
use.
I'm not interested in defending Mr. Krivit's journalistic style,
particularly the controversy that has surrounded NET#34. That has already
been extensively critiqued by many within this discussion group. What I'm
interested in focusing on is the fact that I'm beginning to read conclusions
expressed in Vortex that from my perspective seem to be skewing what was
actually said in the recent "Guide to the Cosmos" interview. It would seem
that certain vort posters are beginning to imply that Mr. Krivit has
actually accused certain CF scientists of lying. The "L" word is now being
openly bandied about like loose change strewn on top of a dresser. And while
the "L" word was not directly linked to any specific CF researcher... if it
walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... Guilt by association.
Let me be clear about this. I never heard Krivit state that that CF
scientists and researchers "lied" about their data in this interview.
<Personal analysis of what got Krivit into trouble>
[Feel free to skip the "personal analysis" portion if you're not interested
in my own personal blow-by-blow analysis of a specific portion of the Cosmos
interview.]
I can understand how such a black & white accusation could be conjured up,
particularly since in my view Krivit's handling of himself (the choice of
words he used) showed in my view some inexperience in the "PR" management of
his personal speculations. I think that inexperience got him into trouble
and allowed his critics to exploit the situation.
I heard the radio host attempt to maneuver Krivit into confirming conjecture
that certain scientists had lied. The radio host used the phrase
"...deliberate misrepresentation by these scientists" which Krivit initially
confirmed. You can hear Steve say "Yeah... Ummm..." Anyone who has a modicum
of intelligence in regards to the manner in which those two monosyllabic
words had been uttered would quickly suspect that this reporter was not
entirely comfortable with his response, that probably in Krivit's mind he
might be trying to work out a clarification in regards to what he is
beginning to realize he has just found himself agreeing to. Meanwhile, the
interviewer presses on and uses the term "scientific fraud". At this point
Steve counters by stating "No, I'm not going to say 'scientific fraud' ...
although people are free to make their own assessment of that."
Unfortunately, it's the latter portion of Krivit's reply ("...free to make
their own assessment...") that in my view gets him into even more trouble.
It can leave many a listener with the impression that "scientific fraud", of
"lying", is still a legitimate conclusion that Krivit might be indirectly
endorsing. (IOW: the sins of omission.)
It would not surprise me if Krivit as he went about performing his
investigations in preparation for NET#34 may have found himself on more than
one occasion privately entertaining speculation as to whether certain CF
scientists might have lied about the content of their data. It would be a
natural form of creative speculation that any of us could easily find
ourselves privately entertaining while in the midst of trying to unravel a
complicated confusing puzzle of scientific data. A crucial point listeners
who might chose to assume Krivit has actually claimed CF researches "lied"
is the fact that Krivit has already stated for the record: "...I'm not going
to say 'scientific fraud'". That means Krivit never said that anyone had
"lied" about their data.
As previously stated, it seems to me that Krivit's handling of his words
(particularly what I would describe as a mismanagement of some his private
speculations) was awkward, and that transparency got him into trouble.
Hopefully, in the future as Krivit continues to pursue his career as an
investigative reporter he will become better experienced in the management
of private speculations, particularly where he himself becomes the star
witness, where the interviewer is attempting to steer the direction of the
conversation to a desired outcome.
</Personal analysis of what got Krivit into trouble>
It seemed to me that Krivit spent a good portion of the interview clarifying
what he personally perceived to have been a "...misrepresentation of [the]
data", a conclusion based on his own research of the scientific findings.
What I took away from that interview is that Krivit doesn't seem to link his
perception of a "...misrepresentation of data" as deliberate: "intent to
deceive." ... of "lying." But some within the Vort Collective seem to have
come dangerously close to interpreting Krivit's statements as having been an
all-out accusation: That certain CF researchers lied.
It's beginning to look to me as if the rumor mill has started to grind away.
Will Krivit soon be accused of deliberately accusing CF scientists of lying?
Rumors can be insidious little disinformation pathogens. Is the Vort
Collective in danger of catching the fever? Will this nasty little virus
replicate and spread its message to other hosts? I'm sure this little gem
would love to do just that - if it hasn't already.
What I took away from this interview concerning Krivit's reporting style is
the fact that Vort participants (myself included) are not immune to becoming
a tad cloistered, even incestuous as we continue to bask the admiration and
eloquence of each other's expressed opinions. Our posts occasionally include
extensive analysis of the behavior and motivations of others. Our posts can
also turn into circuitous feedback loops stated and re-stated over and over
- occasionally in tedious bulk format. (I freely admit that I'm probably
just as guilty of having committed many of these sins, particularly since
this post is five pages in length, single spaced.) It wouldn't hurt too keep
in mind the fact that the world is a big place where plenty of alternate
perceptions are floating about, different perceptions that don't necessarily
coincide with what some within the Vort Collective appear to be advertising
as the truth of the matter.
I've also noticed that an opinion was recently expressed, that Mr. Krivit
has "lost it", presumably in reference to Krivit's discriminatory
performance as an investigative reporter. The accusation reminds me of a
similar situation I experienced (at close range I might add) almost 20 years
ago. I recall an investigative reporter who was reporting on UFO matters, an
individual I knew quite well, who encountered a great deal of exposure of
the unwanted kind. Due to his own inexperience at handling certain
complicated issues for which he was going through at that time in his life,
he got into trouble with some of his closest colleagues. The incident
eventually spilled out into the public arena in techno-color tabloid
fashion. It was a juicy incident as it stampeded across various USENET UFO
news groups. At one point this reporter ended up being called a
"pathological liar" by a formal colleague who felt betrayed. Incidentally,
such anger was justified I might add, even though the "pathological liar"
claim wasn't. Way back then, when the feeding frenzy was at full swing,
critics concluded that this investigative reporter had truly lost it. They
predicted he would either self destruct or be ostracized, fading into the
woodwork, never to be heard from again. The predictions never materialized,
much to the consternation of his simmering critics. He continues to perform
the same investigative work he embarked on twenty years ago. He continues to
plug away, collaborating and co-authoring several new books. He has also
been involved as a consultant to a few television documentaries. It reminds
me of a famous quote Mark Twain once said: "The reports of my death are
greatly exaggerated"
Investigative reporters are often perceived as either heroes or villains
depending on what side of the fence one is working on. It's the cross those
who engage in this scrappy profession must carry. As such, it is my opinion
that accusations, such as Krivit has "...lost it", or that he's using the
"L" word ("make him stop!!!!") strike me as not terribly insightful. Drama
of this nature plays out all the time in the public arena. It seems to me
that many have gotten themselves all whipped up over Krivit's recent choice
of words. I'm also getting the impression that some here might even begin to
feel confident enough to start predicting Krivit's untimely professional
demise, or that he will be ostracized. I don't think so, but that's just my
opinion. In the meantime, I certainly understand the anger, the outrage. I
will not make light of those emotions. Insofar as the craft of investigative
reporting goes: Hopefully, as we get older and more experienced we acquire
more insightful (if not more tactful) ways of delivering the message. Like
any profession, it's a learning process, one that possesses its share of
pitfalls.
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
