MISLEADING AND INACCURATE INFORMATION STILL PLAGUING US

"Lizzie Borden took an ax and gave her mother forty whacks and when she saw what she had done she gave her father forty one.''-or did she?

This childhood ditty was something that I had assumed was based on hard fact so I was very surprised when I came across a book detailing the crime and discovered that Lizzie Borden had been acquitted. Apparently there was insufficient evidence to convict her and reasonable doubt that she committed the crime. Nevertheless her name is synonymous with the horrible deed and she died in 1927 a wealthy but infamous spinster. Did she do it? We'll never know but it's interesting to note that her alleged crime has survived n our memories but her acquittal has not.

And consider this next historical riddle. According to Shakespeare, Richard III was a club-footed crookback who murdered his nephews. He is considered one of England's most infamous rulers. At least that's what I thought until I read a book called, ``Daughter of Time'' by Josephine Tey.
This novel is about a detective who starts to doubt Shakespeare's description of Richard of York after seeing a painting of the monarch. He becomes intrigued by this portrait and cannot believe that the sensitive man depicted can be the same malevolent character in Shakespeare's play.
While convalescing in a hospital he finds the time to research historical facts and concludes that Richard III was actually a good monarch and probably innocent of those murderous charges. The fictional detective's conclusions were duplicated in 1997 in a mock trial presented in front of three U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Yet I am sure a poll of average Americans would show that Shakespeare's image of Richard III still reigns.

These are only two revelations of many that have contributed to a healthy skepticism about accepting any news at face value. For instance, I recall reading a news article in a local paper reporting that the NBC TV Today hostess Jane Pauley was married to Doonesbury cartoonist Gary Trudeau, a relative of Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Two days later, the newspaper recanted and said there was no relation between the two men. But what if one hadn't seen the retraction? This person would be convinced until today of something that is not true because they saw it in print.

Journalistic reporting on political issues is becoming increasingly lax and unworthy of its fine tradition. Politicians can spout rhetoric and misleading data without concern that the press will examine their statements thoroughly. But with the Internet breaking down all barriers of information, one would think that news reporters would be more diligent in dissecting data.

Unfortunately, I am finding out that facts are being thrown around with little respect for the intelligence of the public to interpret the information.

The recent hoopla caused by the result of DNA evidence that Thomas Jefferson may have fathered his slave Sally Hemings' children is one example. Headline after headline of news articles and television news programs all have proceeded with the acceptance of this evidence as absolute proof that Jefferson fathered illegitimate children. Upon reading the facts of the case, however, one learns that the results of the tests are not as precise as its interpretation.

Dr. Eugene Foster, who along with a team of molecular geneticists was responsible for the report, admits the tests do not seal the case against Jefferson. Why not? The DNA tests were performed on the male descendants of Sally Hemings and of Jefferson's uncle not Jefferson himself. Thomas Jefferson did not have any male heirs. The tests also confirmed that the Jefferson gene was present only in Ms. Hemings' youngest son's descendants.

I am not declaring that our country's founding father did not father Miss Heming's children but it is wrong to state absolutely a fact that has not been 100% proven. All that has been proven absolutely is that Jefferson's uncle may be the father of Sally Hemings youngest child. Is this nit picking? Of course, but it is more accurate and truthful than what has been reported.

Why was this story hyped so high? I suspect it's because it corresponds with the current administration's recent attempt to compare Clinton's peccadilloes with those of illustrious former Presidents. Apparently we are supposed to believe that a healthy libido is essential to lead a great nation.

Perhaps this is so but I do not recall any instant where Jefferson, FDR, Eisenhower or Kennedy lied about their sex lives under oath before a grand jury. More likely all of them would have refused to answer the personal questions rather than lie and subvert the rule of law. In fact, this is exactly what Jefferson did when accusations arose during his second presidential campaign. He maintained his rule of life was to never ``harass the public with fendings and provings of personal slander.'' Incidentally, he was re-elected.

I felt my intelligence insulted once again when I watched Jesse Jackson's recent CNN interview with Vice President Al Gore. When asked what motivated the President's enemies the VP said he believes that it's the president's efforts to improve race relations and enhance the status of women and the poor. His comments echoed the remarks of Jesse Jackson Jr., the Illinois Democrat who voted against impeaching President Clinton.

``Underlying the Clinton impeachment is neither sex, nor lying, nor perjury, but American History itself. Essentially the same Southern-based elitist economic and political forces that drove the presidential impeachment against Andrew Johnson in 1868 are driving the impeachment process 130 years later.''

Well, Mr. Gore and Mr. Jackson Jr., I've done my homework and I wish you had done yours as well because I really hate to see history distorted to make a political point. True, Andrew Johnson was a Democrat and the Republicans did want him impeached but this was the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln which wanted to give blacks the right to vote and Johnson was a conservative opposed to such a move. These radicals in Congress were responsible for passing important legislation granting rights to freedmen and resented Johnson's veto of the Freedmen's Bureau Act and the Civil Rights Act. Trying to identify our current with the one in 1868 may backfire if the public ever bothers to read behind the headlines and do their own homework.