INFORMATION PLEASE

Information as Surprise

07-25-97

If you take a close look at the opening graphic for our home page, perhaps you'll notice an equation in the lower left hand corner. This equation reads as follows:

This equation says (pardon me if I mis-paraphrase Claude Shannon) that the amount of information contained in a particular message is inversely proportional to the probability of the message.

In other words 'Man bites dog' contains more information than 'Dog bites man'.

We should also keep in mind that WHO delivers the message represents part of the message. What we know about the SOURCE of the message on an apriori basis is part of the message.

Given that this is the case, we would expect that if Jesse Jackson said that he supported welfare reform, this message would contain more information than if Newt Gingrich said the same thing.

In other words, the message is not independent of the SOURCE, and the identity of the SOURCE plays a role in the amount of information (NEWS if you will) contained in a message.

The two most common ways that a SOURCE will probably manipulate raw information are: 1) FILTERING and 2) SPINNING.

• FILTERING

  Filtering is essentially the process of SELECTING what's NEWS or TOPICAL from the raw mass of potential newsworthy items. At a secondary level, if something is deemed to be newsworthy, is it FRONT PAGE NEWS, or is it relegated to the BACK PAGES (or the functional equivalents of each in the BROADCAST MEDIA)?

  It's an EDITORIAL prerogative.

  Filtering is a way of SETTING THE AGENDA (..we won't tell you what to think, but we'll CONTROL what to think about.)

• SPINNING

  Assuming that a stream of information makes it through the FILTERING process, there is also the option to report it 'as is' or to position (SPIN) it. An extreme example of SPIN taken from the cold war era illustrates the point.

  LITERAL DISTORTION
  NEWS ITEM: In a TWO country auto race, a US car beats a SOVIET car handily.

  SPIN - A PRAVDA report on the event SPINS it this way: ' In an international auto race, the SOVIET entry comes in as runner up, while the US entry finishes just ahead of last place.'

  While 'LITERALLY TRUE', as a LAWYER might say, the IMPRESSION this SPIN conveys might be quite misleading relative to the underlying FACTS.

  PROPORTIONAL DISTORTION
  Another favorite SPIN tactic involves taking advantage of the fact that most people don't have a very good sense of PROPORTION.

  Thus we have presentations of dialogues between two opposing points of view where one point of view may represent the opinions of over 90% of the population, while the opposing view is at best a minority viewpoint. The impression however (by presenting both POV's simultaneously without stating their relative prevalence) is that both positions are essentially equivalent. The same principle applies in situations where a panel is presented, and the presumption is that each panel member represents a roughly equivalent SHARE of OPINIONS.

  BOTH
  The worst abuse of PROPORTIONIONAL DISTORTION involves the assertion that BOTH DO IT, without indicating how much or to what degree each side does it (whatever IT may be). This kind of SPIN can make a Slingshot appear EQUAL to a Nuclear Weapon.

  In political matters like abuse of HOUSE PRIVILEGES or CAMPAIGN FUNDING, it is NOT enough to say BOTH SIDES DO IT. We also need to know HOW MUCH EACH SIDE DOES IT RELATIVE TO THE OTHER. If this information is left out, it's a BAD case of FILTERING/SPINNING, and on a De-facto basis amounts to LYING.

  Like FILTERING, SPINNING is another EDITORIAL prerogative.

All of this also extends to POLLS. Similarly to RAW NEWS, POLLING data can be manipulated. This is primarily accomplished through systematic manipulation of SAMPLING ERROR and MEASUREMENT ERROR (see INVERSE SQUARE LAW).

Given that this is the case, one of the most CRITICAL things that a recipient of information should check out is THE REAL IDENTITY of the SOURCE of information.

For instance, if we know that 89% of those in the NEWS business voted for CLINTON, and that they have the POWER of FILTERING and SPINNING as well as the CONTROL over SAMPLING and MEASUREMENT ERROR in POLLS, we should take these things into consideration when we evaluate their pronouncements.

Perhaps there should be something like a RADIO/TV 'Free America' (analogous to RADIO FREE EUROPE), available for a SECOND OPINION.

In any event, let me propose a thought exercise:

If you already know the political orientation of those responsible for the dissemination of political NEWS (i.e. the SOURCE), how much real NEWS (information?) is in such NEWS?

11-08-96

As a follow-up to the preceding 'COMMENTS', the bottom line would seem to be that INFORMATION/NEWS has something to do with SURPRISE or deviation from the expected.

If this seems reasonable, here's another thought exercise:

Which has more information:

'Clinton has GENITAL HERPES' or 'OJ is innocent'.

As of 2-25-97, this conundrum seems to have withstood the test of time.