"You're Putting Words in my Mouth"
The most difficult thing, I think, in an information internet age is to decide if what we are reading is true or if what we are reading is a fabrication, or simply untrue. As users of the internet, we have developed a skill set that allows us to detect when something is satirical, false, or fabricated in order to save us the embarrassment of misappropriating an article that, as it turns out, was written by the Onion. This generation of people is more attuned at identifying satire than any other, simply because of its ubiquity on the internet, and the potential for visible, public misinterpretation in front of our peers is so high. And yet, in spite of this, it is still sometimes so impossibly challenging to decide what is real and what is not. Below, there are 25 quotes. Some of them, a random assortment of them, are not real. They are fabrications attributed to figures, both real and fantasy. When I wrote many of them, weeks ago, I thought I was being clever. And now, as I look back on them, even I can no longer remember which are real and which are not - there truly are a few that I myself cannot remember writing, and therefore am not sure if they're real or not. Isn't that unsettling? Many of these quotes will seem obvious to you - either obviously true or obviously false - but please keep in mind that if the author of those that are fake cannot remember which are which, that perhaps your assumption is incorrect. You might ask yourself, then, how it's possible that somebody could say something so incorrigible, incorrect or stupid - but you would be amazed by what we are capable of as humans, I think.
George W. Bush and the buffoonery surrounding his presidency is almost more famous for the presence of completely idiotic quotes than it is for the action it took on things such as the war on terror, the economy and social policy. It was so, so easy to manipulate certain things to make them sound completely real, when in fact they were false. The reverse is also true. I imagine, dear reader, that you will give me credit for idiocy that was actually spoken aloud by the person quoted. I think that's pretty fucking funny. And equally as tragic.
It is impossible to examine the state of journalism during the immediate aftermath of the outset of the Iraq War without first understanding what was being said about the war and its participants at the time. During the initial outset of the war, patriotism was the prescribed state of mind, and dissenting opinions were brushed off, obliterated or laughed at openly. As such, much of what was said surrounding the war at the time looks ridiculous to us in hindsight, and it is important to note the critical aspect that the ephemeral nature of the News and opinion plays in the perception of events, both current and historical.
I think it is also critical, while we are specifically discussing how it is possible to misinterpret information, utilizing the rest of this blog as an example, that we discuss how important the contextualization and presentation of information is to its seeming validity.
The presentation of information, in any context or form, is no different from a performance. For example, in an academic essay (which this is decidedly not), there is a form you must stick to, a typographical voice that you must utilize and in order for your essay to succeed, it must present its information in a way that is meaningful and resonant. This is no different from stepping out onto a stage and performing a piece of theatre - form, voice, quality, meaningfulness and efficacy all are critical in order to engage your audience. The thesis, therefore, is that performing journalism through variable new media forms has become common practice. It is not about what information is most accurate (hundred-page statistical reports are not as widely read as newspapers, unfortunately), but about which information is made most engaging and accessible to its audience via performance.
During the Iraq War, it was less about what was accurate information (the media circus surrounding the whole Weapons of Mass Destruction fiasco is evident of this) and more about what information rang in the ears of the audience in a pervading and lasting way. Especially towards the outset, the Iraq War was literally all that was being discussed in the news on a world-wide scale, and speculation and suspicion rang truer than what was actually happening. By examining this hysteria, speculation and fabrication during this time period, and in the format I chose to do so, we can quite clearly see how truly the dissemination of information became more a performance than a scientific practice.
If I was to state, in plain text, "Weapons of Mass Destruction were found in Iraq today" most, if not every single person, would presume some kind of sarcasm, irony or fabrication was at play. However, if I was to portray it in the following format, it takes on new meaning: "Weapons of Mass Destruction were found in Iraq Today" - Barack Obama
It is demonstrable that not only is the form or journalism key, but so is the character. If you peruse my blog and remove all of the sources and quotation marks, it immediately loses its efficacy. However, by attributing these statements to people, people who we all recognize as characters in the Iraq War debacle, it appears much more valid. Without actually reading what has been said, or without the careful examination of these statements individually, one could very easily presume this blog was not so much parody as it was real. Without me saying this all, the ignorant could easily misinterpret something wildly untrue as factual. This is all because, even when the words were not theirs, the fact that a believable character was established through the form is enough to allow the audience, or you in this case, to buy in.
The quote, therefore, becomes an incredibly powerful way to portray information, and we never consider the potentiality for misappropriation of them. How many people can truly say they aren't guilty of taking a quote or a source out of context in order to make their point, whether in conversation or in an academic paper? How many people are not guilty of exaggerating something they heard a person say for effect? And yet, so often, presume that when a person is parroting another that is must be accurate. One of the most common things said during arguments regarding a breakdown in communication is "You're putting words in my mouth." To be misquoted or misinterpreted is thought of as a breach to our very sense of individuality, as we are being forced to have said something without our consent. It is perceived almost as thought-crime. And so we presume that when somebody uses the words of another that they are being truthful in their intention and meanings, because to be otherwise would not only be seen as an attack to us as the audience, but to the person whose words are being misused.
Now that I have posted this, go back and read the quotes that I have posted, armed with the information that lying among them are red herrings. And I have made it a personal mission of mine to hide the obvious among the ridiculous, so it becomes almost impossible to tell. And before you make a judgement on what is in front of you, I want you to consider that these are quotes that are taken out of context, in many cases over 10 years after they have been said. It becomes virtually impossible to know, then, what has actually been said aloud, and what hasn't. I think that says something about the way we say things. It should definitely say something about how we think about what is being said.
Hell, even I could be wrong about what is real and what isn't - after all, I got all of these from around the internet. Who's to say I'm not the only person playing a bit of a prank on our societal sensibilities of truth.
Good luck, at any rate.