TRUTH VERSUS SPIN
In a tizzy over conspiracies
By Jonathan Eyal
IT TOOK the British court six months and S$30 million in legal fees to listen to no fewer than 250 witnesses, but the verdict was utterly predictable. A London jury ruled last week that Princess Diana - the former wife of Prince Charles - and Dodi al-Fayed, her boyfriend, were killed when their drunken driver smashed their car in a Paris tunnel while trying to evade journalists.
That is what most people already knew to be the truth, and what a French court concluded a decade ago. Yet the British authorities felt obliged to rehearse all the evidence because they wanted to quash, once and for all, a conspiracy theory.
Mr Muhamed al-Fayed, Dodi's father, claims that his son and Diana were murdered by the British security services on the orders of Prince Philip, the Queen's husband. And the reason? To prevent the princess from marrying his Muslim son, whose child she was supposedly carrying at the time of her death.
Because his allegations were so damaging for race relations, the British authorities pulled out all the stops. For the first time in the country's history, the heads of its intelligence services were interrogated in the witness box. And Mr Fayed was given plenty of scope to tell his tale.
He even entertained the jury to obscenities directed against the Queen, Prince Philip and most of the country's political elite.
In the end, the judge ruled that there was 'not a shred of evidence' to support his allegations.
But if the authorities thought that this would be the end of the matter, they were sorely disappointed. Within days, numerous websites were offering new 'proof' of Diana's 'murder'. The Diana story has joined a mushrooming list of conspiracy theories that can never be put to rest.
There are some who, after reading The Da Vinci Code, now genuinely believe that Jesus and Mary Magdalene sired a dynasty of kings and that the truth was suppressed by the Catholic Church until Dan Brown found a publisher for his book.
Others think that aliens arrived on earth in 1947, that the Apollo 11 moon landing was a hoax, that the bar codes on supermarket products secretly contain the digits 666, the 'Number of the Beast'. And is there anyone who really believes John F. Kennedy was shot by a lone gunman?
Until recently, such ideas caused little harm. But a newer wave of conspiracy theories - such as the allegation that Aids was invented in the CIA's laboratories or that the Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US were perpetrated by Americans themselves - carry grave political consequences.
The United States government is so worried about the trend that earlier this year it established a unit devoted to rebutting conspiracy theories. But nobody gives it much chance of success. Conspiracy theories, by their very nature, cannot be dispelled by rational explanation.
Experts differ on why conspiracy theories are appealing. Dr Patrick Leman of London University thinks there is some underlying process in human psychology that assumes that the more spectacular a news story, the bigger the 'cause' behind it must be.
Is it possible that a US president was killed by a lone gunman hiding in a library loft? Or that glamorous Diana could perish in a stupid car accident simply because she did not wear a seat belt? A plot is always more appealing than humdrum reality.
Conspiracy theories also thrive on seemingly illogical chains of events. Korey Rowe is one of two youngsters who produced 'Loose Change', a video alleging US government involvement in the Sept 11 attacks. His thesis is based on a straight question: How was it possible for 19 hijackers 'to completely bypass security and crash four commercial airliners in a span of two hours, with no interruption from the military forces?'
The answer, as subsequent inquiry showed, is simple: cock-ups. But this will never satisfy those keen on alternative stories. As the editor of Skeptic magazine, Mr Michael Shermer, puts it: 'The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking.'
Technology is also giving conspiracy theories a boost. There was a time when zany theories circulated by word of mouth. No longer. Although no media network endorsed it, more than 100 million people have watched Rowe's 'documentary' online.
The Internet flattens all evidence. 'Truth' is no longer something which needs to be established through a rigorous sifting of facts. Indeed, as the Diana case indicates, the burden of proof may have shifted: Governments are now expected to disprove conspiracies rather than just leaving it to the fabulators to prove their case.
When Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated last December, a variety of films and stills sprang up instantly. In a rush to report the news, TV networks speculated widely. Much of the reporting was plainly wrong. But all of it is now being used by people determined to spin a different story, and each of them clutches on to some contradictory report as 'evidence'.
The phenomenon is global. But according to British journalist Damian Thompson, who recently published a book on what he calls 'counterknowledge', it is particularly prevalent in the Muslim world. This is not 'because Islam's foundational doctrines are especially susceptible to empirically dubious propositions'; rather, it is because some leaders find it convenient to use conspiracy theories for their own political ends.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly said in 2005 that the Holocaust was just an 'invention'. Mr Amin Hweidi, a former chief of the Egyptian Intelligence Service, was one of the first to say that 'he did not rule out an Israeli role' in the Sept 11 terrorist attacks.
And it was Al-Thawra, the Syrian government's official newspaper, which this year claimed that bird flu is a racially motivated disease planted by Americans and Israelis.
Such nonsense has impact. In 2006, the Pew Research Centre asked Muslims in Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan and Turkey whether Arabs carried out the Sept 11 attacks. The majority of respondents in each country said 'no'.
The explanation probably lies in the sense of impotence which many Muslims - particularly Arabs - feel about the world. They know that they are part of a community of 1.3 billion believers, proud heirs to great cultures and traditions. They also know that they possess massive natural resources. Yet they remain poor, and are reduced to watching impotently as the world passes them by. Believing that this is all part of a great conspiracy provides a soothing explanation.
There is little one can do to contradict such stories, apart from pointing out that those who believe in them can pay a heavy price. Last year, Islamic leaders in northern Nigeria and parts of Pakistan issued fatwas declaring the polio vaccine a US plot to sterilise Muslims. Polio returned to these areas, and subsequently spread along the routes of the Mecca pilgrimage.
While the Diana myths have merely cost the British taxpayer money, other conspiracy theories can cost lives.
Not that this will deter anyone from spinning a good story. The latest 'news' on the Internet is that Diana is alive and well and that her death was - you guessed it - a hoax.
IT'S ALL TOPSY-TURVY
The Internet flattens all evidence. 'Truth' is no longer something which needs to be established through a rigorous sifting of facts...Governments are now expected to disprove conspiracies rather than just leaving it to the fabulators to prove their case.
Jonathan.eyal@gmail.com
(Thanks to ST, 16 Apr 08)
No comments:
Post a Comment