Blogging - What's Real? How Do We Know? Stevens, Kepner, Joy

It's Saturday morning in Chiang Mai. We have tickets for the Monday afternoon flight to Taipei and Tuesday afternoon to Anchorage. I've got things to do, but I got a comment today on the Let's Get Real about Mary Beth Kepner post that has my brain twisting.

How do any of us know what is real? OK, I don't want to go into a deep philosophical discussion, so let's limit this to what we see and hear in the news. Suppose you read that a prominent politician's conviction has been thrown out and that there were allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and that there was an FBI 'whistleblower' who said his partner was violating the rules and was much too close to the witnesses. And the defense claimed this partner was having an affair with a key witness based on the whistleblower's complaint.


How do we cut through all that to find out what is true? I don't know about you, but I tend to rely on my beliefs which are based on my experiences and education. Those beliefs then inform the labels I read in the article. The interpretations are tempered by any personal experiences I have had directly with any of the people or places in the article.

I tend to 'think' more than the average person. My job was to think critically and to teach people to think critically. But I still get seduced by my stereotypes when I'm not being careful, especially if a story matches what I want to believe.

So I tend to be wary of 'politicians'. The nature of the system is that they need to raise money to get elected. And we know that people that help them get elected with big contributions are more likely to get an audience when they want one. Most people write checks to candidates they agree with, so if a candidate votes the way the contributor suggests, it isn't necessarily suspicious. But big lobbyists tend to contribute to all the likely candidates - it's not about ideology, it's about getting a foot in the door and getting what they want later on.

So 'politician' being convicted of corruption. My unthinking response is, "Yes!" If it's a Republican, then add another exclamation point. OK, I know there are honest politicians and good, decent Republicans. But if I don't stop to reflect on that, my gut reaction works through my stereotypes. But in this case, there are personal experiences too. I've met Ted Stevens on a couple of occasions. (I'm an Alaskan. Is there an Alaskan whose been around more than five years who hasn't met Ted?) He's smart, he's rabidly dedicated to doing what he thinks is right for Alaska which tends to mean getting money sent to Alaska. He also has been a Senator forever and from what I can tell, he already had an ego and temper long ago. All these years surrounded by sycophants hasn't helped his ego. And I know people who have told me they've seen the effects close up of how some of that money has spilled over into the waiting buckets of associates. Fishing and Seward for example. [Note: The ADN seems not to be giving free access to the Seward article. You may need a library password to get through on this link. The article citation is: Ben Stevens ' secret fish deal - State senator helped steer Adak pollock to a company he had financial stake in Anchorage Daily News (AK) - Sunday, September 18, 2005 Author: RICHARD MAUER Anchorage Daily News ; Staff ]

Whistleblower. That's a magic word for me. This is someone who sees a wrong and when the powers that be won't fix it, he or she risks everything to make sure the public is protected. Deep Throat. Daniel Elsberg. Jeffrey Wigand (played by Russell Crowe in The Insider). Karen Silkwood. These are all heroes. So the word whistleblower tends to turn on the 'good guy' reactors in my brain.

But in this case, I have some personal contact. I've watched in court and had several conversations with the 'corrupt' FBI agent. And the 'whistleblower's' comments are at odds with my sense of Mary Beth Kepner's professionalism and judgment.

Our science based society puts lots of weight on objectivity. We're supposed to keep an arm's length. We're supposed to judge the facts using rationality, not feelings. I had a conversation just yesterday with an anthropologist who is studying farmers in a small Thai village. Anthropology has gone through these debates about studying cultures 'objectively' from the outside or 'subjectively' by being a participant. This anthropologist is living in the house of one of the villagers when staying there and has been unofficially adopted by the family. This puts some limitations on the anthropologist's movements, but on the other hand gives the opportunity to learn things that wouldn't be available to someone looking 'objectively' from outside. There is no one best way.

When I first started blogging the trials in 2007, it didn't occur to me to talk to any of the participants. I was somewhat surprised to see some of the reporters chatting with the defense attorneys, the prosecutors, even the witnesses. Well, of course, Steve, that's what reporters do. But to me it seemed like that would taint what I wrote. If I actually know someone, if they had the courtesy to talk to me, wouldn't I owe them something, some sort of restraint perhaps on what I wrote?

Eventually, I did one day ask an FBI technician a question about a missing exhibit and learned from the answer that they had been reading my blog and trying to figure out who in the courtroom was writing it. OK, so that's what I wanted, people reading my blog. But to what extent do I then become a participant? But every reporter has to deal with the fact that their subjects read their articles and in many cases their behavior is affected by what they read. There is no complete objectivity. That led me to invite Mary Beth Kepner to talk to a class. And there were, as I've said in other posts, other conversations when we accidentally met somewhere in Anchorage.

So, when I read her name in the newspaper along with the 'whistleblower's' allegations, I had to think carefully about whether those personal conversations gave me important information (like the anthropologist gets from the adoptive family) or whether those conversations bias me against the 'whistleblower' and make me miss 'the truth.' [I know that putting things in quotation marks can be annoying, but it's the cleanest way I know how to point out that I'm using these words with some skepticism.]

So I read the complaint carefully. While I acknowledge I couldn't totally erase my impressions from my mind, the complaint on its own just seemed peculiar. I've written at length about it. First the redacted version. Then the less redacted version. (I even blew my own horn a bit when there were news reports that Joy hadn't been granted whistleblower status, but that turned out to be another lesson in why you shouldn't blow your own horn. Whistleblower status turned out to not be so clear cut in the Justice Department.)

Law enforcement officers have a lot of pressure to not rat on their own - even when their own commit serious crimes. Why would this agent rat on his colleague for things like being too close to an undercover source? It's an anomaly at the very least, if not bizarre.

I've written quite of few posts on this topic. The one that comes closest to tying things all together with links to all the others is Checkered Swan at the Stevens' Trial? post.

But in this post I want to focus on the difficulty of really knowing and how each of us has stories buried in our heads which give meaning to the words we read, whether that meaning is really in those words or not. Even if we don't have an immediate personal stake and won't be affected in any way, we judge where the truth lies not so much on the facts (in this situation there are still enough missing facts that we have to use circumstantial evidence) but on our beliefs, our prior experiences with the labels in the story, and our own emotional needs.

Perhaps Mary Beth Kepner did some voodoo on me that has kept me disbelieving Joy's allegations. Perhaps my ego is now invested in this and I want things to fall a certain way so that I will be vindicated as being right from the beginning. I work hard to make calls based on as much factual information as possible and with as much self-examination of my own hidden biases and motives as I can. Most of the time I don't write conclusions because there's still too many missing pieces. I just stack up the evidence as I see it and let readers draw their own conclusions. But, of course, which things I choose to list and which I omit, and how I tie them together will affect where the uncritical reader takes it. And the ideologically motivated reader will not be persuaded at all if my stacks of evidence don't point to the conclusion he wants to believe.

So, as someone who has followed this story closer than most people and still is not sure what it all means, I'd call on others who value the quest, if not the certainty, of truth, to be cautious in their conclusions. And to be skeptical of those who use any of this story to declare certainty about anything but the absolute facts - such as the fact that the Attorney General has written:

In light of this conclusion, and in consideration of the totality of the circumstances of this particular case, I have determined that it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the indictment and not proceed with a new trial.

And even here I'm taking the Anchorage Daily News' word for it, but there were many other similar reports so I feel reasonably confident this is accurate.



So, about that comment on the blog today. How do I know that the writer has something solid? Part of me wants to say, "Yes!' just because it would mean I was on the right track. But how much does he really know? It sounds like he's had a closer look than most, but that doesn't mean that his filters, his stories didn't lead him to unwarranted conclusions.

Ambiguity is not one of humankind's favorite places to be. We like to know. And even if we don't have enough evidence, we tend to jump to conclusions anyway. We like closure. I think that's why sports are so popular. At the end of the game we know who is the winner and who is the loser. Some may still dispute which is the best team, but they can't dispute who won the game.

[UPDATE March 17, 2012:  Cliff Groh pursues the question of why the Bush Administration pursued the Ted Stevens  indictment using the Schuelke Report for more information.]