Picking just one? Bad idea.
June 25 // June 8, 2017
We seem to be "cherry-picking" our truth.
Which is ridiculous but that's never stopped us before.
With apologies to King Henry II and Thomas Becket, Two Weeks Ago News poses this question: “Who will rid us of this meddlesome news?”
First off, we watched the Former F.B.I. Director James B. Comey testimony – yes, remember the Comey testimony that sucked us all in? It is ancient history to most of us – two weeks ago! – but it was so critical that many people took time off from work to watch together and play drinking games about it. Good times.
Second, after studying the matter for more than three hours, it’s fair to say it will be come down to a choice between Rob Lowe, Kyle Chandler or George Clooney to play James Comey in the movie treatment that’s undoubtedly being drafted somewhere right now. That’s a fact. Any of them would work very nicely, thank you.
Couple of observations, and then the most critical point of the three-plus hours testimony that TWAN humbly suggests everyone tuck away, including something truly brilliant we were reminded of during the testimony.
Here we go; our observations, in no particular order:
“Have there been news accounts about the Russia investigation, about collusion about this whole event or accusations, that as you read the story, you were stunned about how wrong they got the facts?”
Mr. Comey: “Yes… there have been many, many stories, purportedly based on classified information about…well, about lots of stuff, but especially about Russian that are just dead wrong.”
Before we go one, we’ll remind you of our favorite genius, writer, director, doctor Michael Crichton, his brilliance; and something he calls “the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.” In his words, this is how this works:
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
Keeping that in mind, here’s the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect in evidence during the Comey hearing. Two Weeks Ago News believes that the following exchange should have provoked shrieks of outrage from all of us. Something all of us should have posted, tweeted, pinned, instagrammed or you tubed about. We should have written it across the sky. If you want to see it for yourself, start at around the 2:31 mark.
From Senator Cotton: “On February 14, The New York Times published a story the headline of which was ‘Trump campaign aides had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence.’ You were asked earlier if that was an inaccurate story and you said, ‘In the main.’ Would it be fair to characterize that story as almost entirely wrong?”
Comey: “Yes.”
Now, is it possible that the Times story was wrong because the sad facts of this Russian / Trump campaign are much more disturbing and far-reaching than they know at this point? Is it even worse than they “reported?” Yes, it’s possible. And yes, the newspaper addressed the Comey statements immediately. Of course they did.
The point stands. The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect – despite its name - is worth remembering.
But let's just say that you don't believe in the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. Fine. Lovely. But if you believe James Comey's testimony, you don't get to cherry-pick. You need to believe all of it.
We seem to be "cherry-picking" our truth.
Which is ridiculous but that's never stopped us before.
With apologies to King Henry II and Thomas Becket, Two Weeks Ago News poses this question: “Who will rid us of this meddlesome news?”
First off, we watched the Former F.B.I. Director James B. Comey testimony – yes, remember the Comey testimony that sucked us all in? It is ancient history to most of us – two weeks ago! – but it was so critical that many people took time off from work to watch together and play drinking games about it. Good times.
Second, after studying the matter for more than three hours, it’s fair to say it will be come down to a choice between Rob Lowe, Kyle Chandler or George Clooney to play James Comey in the movie treatment that’s undoubtedly being drafted somewhere right now. That’s a fact. Any of them would work very nicely, thank you.
Couple of observations, and then the most critical point of the three-plus hours testimony that TWAN humbly suggests everyone tuck away, including something truly brilliant we were reminded of during the testimony.
Here we go; our observations, in no particular order:
- We were impressed with Mr. Comey saying “I don’t know” when he didn’t know something. Refreshing. Good news for all of us. The hearing revealed him to be possibly the most honest person in Washington.
- Except now he’s out of a job. So, not good news actually. The people of New York or New Jersey should draft him for Congress or the Senate. They could do worse. They have done worse.
- All the senators thanking him for his testimony – or most people thanking him – and kissing up to him got old, cloying and annoying very quickly. We get it. They all respect Comey. There should have been one overall statement made about his service and his appearance before the panel. Moving on….
- Almost as annoying… listening to the panel ask the same questions repeatedly, so they could get on the record with their own constituents no doubt. Examples include the Flynn conversation: “When the President asks you – says he ‘hopes’ you will let this go…” Enough! We get it. Comey thought it was / interpreted it as an order. Understandable. The President is the boss. At least Senator Lankford tried to spin it differently. (About 2:14 into the testimony.)
- Mr. Comey didn’t write memos about his conversations with President Bush or President Obama. Mr. Comey indicated he had two meetings with President Obama in 8 years. One lasted about an hour. The second one was when President Obama was completing his term and saying good bye to his team. We can’t quite remember but he may have had a few more with President Bush. Enough! He kept detailed notes on the meeting with President Trump, and he told us why. Several times. We get it.
- We heard more than once or twice that the President asked director Comey to stop talking about the Russia investigation. It was 'ruining his agenda.' Once again, asked and answered. We get it!
- Was the now infamous dinner meeting taped? Was it not taped? Do we know? Will we know? Did everyone need to ask this question? Apparently so.
- Highlight # 1, and something we saw no where in the headlines people shrieked about on social media: The President indicated to Director Comey that it would good to find out if people in his circle did something wrong. He wanted the investigation to find out if that were the case. (Around the 2:18 mark on the video.)
- Our favorite panelist was Senator Dianne Feinstein (around 1:20 in The New York Times video link) who basically asked Director Comey open-ended questions and that sought his insight, instincts and sense of what was going on. This is possibly because of her background and the knowledge she already had but nonetheless, it was refreshing and enlightening. (As stated previously, it was exceedingly tiresome to hear from senators who simply asked obvious questions for their own political reasons.)
- Let’s get back to Senator Lankford for a second. And this will get us to our ultimate point here, we promise. Starting at around 2:17 in the testimony, from Senator Lankford:
“Have there been news accounts about the Russia investigation, about collusion about this whole event or accusations, that as you read the story, you were stunned about how wrong they got the facts?”
Mr. Comey: “Yes… there have been many, many stories, purportedly based on classified information about…well, about lots of stuff, but especially about Russian that are just dead wrong.”
Before we go one, we’ll remind you of our favorite genius, writer, director, doctor Michael Crichton, his brilliance; and something he calls “the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.” In his words, this is how this works:
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
Keeping that in mind, here’s the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect in evidence during the Comey hearing. Two Weeks Ago News believes that the following exchange should have provoked shrieks of outrage from all of us. Something all of us should have posted, tweeted, pinned, instagrammed or you tubed about. We should have written it across the sky. If you want to see it for yourself, start at around the 2:31 mark.
From Senator Cotton: “On February 14, The New York Times published a story the headline of which was ‘Trump campaign aides had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence.’ You were asked earlier if that was an inaccurate story and you said, ‘In the main.’ Would it be fair to characterize that story as almost entirely wrong?”
Comey: “Yes.”
Now, is it possible that the Times story was wrong because the sad facts of this Russian / Trump campaign are much more disturbing and far-reaching than they know at this point? Is it even worse than they “reported?” Yes, it’s possible. And yes, the newspaper addressed the Comey statements immediately. Of course they did.
The point stands. The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect – despite its name - is worth remembering.
But let's just say that you don't believe in the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. Fine. Lovely. But if you believe James Comey's testimony, you don't get to cherry-pick. You need to believe all of it.