By Anne Guedes |
'FAKE NEWS'
INQUIRY
HOUSE OF
COMMONS CMS
COMMITTEE
A
submission* |
March 2,
2017
|
Truth
of Facts or
Defeat of
Truth?
As a regular
reader of
British
newspapers
and some
media blogs,
I came upon
the launch
of the
inquiry into
the
phenomenon
of "fake
news" on
January 30,
2017. The
Committee
invited
written
submissions
addressing
various
points that
can be found
here:
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/news-parliament-2015/fake-news-launch-16-17/
I have a
documented
knowledge of
a "fake
news" case
which I find
an
interesting
food for
thought.
Rather than
"fake news",
I actually
should speak
of
"factually
inaccurate
news", with
consequences
not only on
the
protagonists
and on
public
opinion, but
also on the
relations
between two
countries,
the
ambassador
of one
having been
asked to
keep (his)
stupid,
sardine-munching
mouth shut
by a tabloid
of the
other.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/oh-up-yours-senor-516864
I reckon
that, in the
first place,
the
Committee
rightly
questions
the meaning
of "fake
news". It is
a very
polysemic,
perhaps too
polysemic,
expression.
What remains
from reality
when real is
denied?
What is left
from facts
when they
are refuted
as soon as
they
contradict
one's
preferences
?
Since the
election of
Donald
Trump, the
spreading of
false
information
issue seems
to reveal a
real crisis
of
confidence
in the media
and
political
system, as
explained
recently by
information
science
researcher
Olivier
Ertzscheid.
http://affordance.typepad.com//mon_weblog/2016/11/peur-sur-les-internets.html
Everywhere,
minds are
agitated to
try and find
answers. Eli
Pariser, who
has imagined
the concept
of filter
bubbles, so
much
questioned
in recent
weeks, has
opened a
Google Doc
to collect
solutions.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OPghC4ra6QLhaHhW8QvPJRMKGEXT7KaZtG_7s5-UQrw/preview#heading=h.97o89pmf8ct6
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/29/facebook-fake-news-problem-experts-pitch-ideas-algorithms?CMP=share_btn_tw
The document
now has over
100 pages
and Nicky
Woolf, for
the
Guardian,
has
attempted to
synthesize
it.
What did the
president of
the US imply
when he
claimed that
any negative
polls (about
him) are
fake news?
Simply this:
what I
dislike
doesn't
exist and if
the real
doesn't suit
me, it
better goes
somewhere
else, as
well as the
journalists
who spread
it.
In
post-truth
world, words
no long
matter and
nuances
disappear.
"Fake" here
doesn't
designate
what is
false but
what is
irritating. |
It
reminds us
of Humpty
Dumpty
claiming to
Alice, met
Through
the Looking
Glass,
that
when he used
a word, it
meant just
what he
chose it to
mean –
neither more
nor less...
the question
being which
is to be
master,
that's all.
To
say the
least the
outcome is a
considerable
impoverishment
for
communication..
However,
criticizing
the media
did not
appear with
DT. It is a
healthy and
necessary
practice
because
journalists
make
mistakes.
Claiming
themselves
as
counter-power,
they hardly
can refuse
contradiction.
Perhaps the
media is too
standardized
and does not
present
enough
different
theses.
Perhaps the
media is too
much
moderate
when people
want things
that are
excessive,
violent,
even false,
but meeting
everybody's
presuppositions.
However when
the time is
immoderate,
must we lose
temperance?
Then
there are
the
conspiracy
theories
that have
worryingly
more and
more adepts
and are
tamper-proof
since they
reverse the
burden of
evidence,
while they
present
themselves
as an
alternative
to one-track
thinking, as
dissidents,
escaping the
diktat of
truth. It is
the story of
Bertrand
Russell's
space teapot
in orbit
around Mars:
I put
forward a
completely
wacky
thesis,
prove that
I'm wrong! I
affirm its
existence
and defy to
prove the
contrary.
Consequently
the
slightest
thesis is
justified
through the
inability to
demonstrate
that there
is no space
teapot
between the
earth and
Mars.
How can
people
filled with
such beliefs
be brought
back to
reason?
Here is my
contribution
to the
inquiry of
the
Committee, a
particular
case that
illustrates
to what
extent the
concept of
"fake news"
is a complex
one and has
to be
examined
carefully.
1) The facts
― On July 21
2008, the
prosecutors
of the
Portuguese
Republic
stated in a
communiqué
their
decision not
to proceed :
With the
filing order
dated today
(21.07.2008)
issued by
the two
prosecutors
responsible
for the
case, the
investigation
on the
disappearance
of the minor
Madeleine
McCann was
closed, as
no evidence
of any crime
committed by
any party
could be
found.
― The letter
to the
Attorney
General,
that set out
the grounds
for putting
an end to
the
proceedings,
without
prejudice to
reopening if
a new and
relevant
element
arose, is
part of the
Policia
Judiciaria
Files that
the Public
Ministry
later made
available to
journalists
via DVD.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
(original
document and
translation
in English)
― This
document
states that
the evidence
gathered was
insufficient
to determine
1) what kind
of crime the
missing
child was
victim of
(whether
killed in a
neglectful
homicide or
an intended
homicide,
whether the
victim of a
targeted or
an
opportunistic
abduction)
and
2) whether
the
"arguidos"
(formal
suspects)
parents were
or not
involved in
their
daughter's
disappearance
(that status
implies that
supported
suspicion
exists).
― This same
argument of
insufficient
evidence was
used, on
July 7,
2008, by
James Lewis
Q.C.,
representing
the
Leicestershire
Constabulary
Chief
Constable,
echoing the
written
statement of
the
Assistant
Chief
Constable
Chris Eyre,
who worked
closely with
the
Policia
Judiciaria,
to deny the
MC lawyer,
Tim Scott
QC, access
to the
documents
held by the
LC regarding
the case :
While one or
both of them
[the
McCanns] may
be innocent,
there is no
clear
evidence
that
eliminates
them from
involvement
in
Madeleine's
disappearance.
― In
December
2009, this
position was
reflected by
the British
government's
Foreign &
Commonwealth
Office, when
responding
to a
Freedom of
Information
request
about the
missing
child, Ben
Needham.
They wrote :
You will
also be
aware of the
Madeleine
McCann case.
Both this
and the
Needham case
are
categorised
as missing
person,
rather than
child
abduction
cases, as
there is no
evidence in
either case
to support
whether the
children
were or
were not
abducted. |
―
Furthermore,
the filing
order states
that the
prosecutors
requested a
reconstitution
of the
events
because of
contradictions
in the
arguidos and
witnesses'
statements
and lack of
physical
confirmation.
Carrying out
a
reconstitution
would
eventually
dismiss once
and for all
any doubts
that may
subsist
concerning
the
innocence of
the missing
[child's]
parents.
― Given the
refusal of
their travel
companions
to take part
in a
reconstitution,
stated the
prosecutors,
the main
damage was
caused to
the McCanns,
who lost the
possibility
to prove
what they
have
protested
since they
were
constituted
arguidos:
their
innocence
towards the
fateful
event.
Last but not
least the
investigation
was also
disturbed,
because said
facts remain
unclear.
(in the
framework of
the criminal
investigation,
not in a
court of
law).
― The
filing order
lifted the
arguido
status of
the MC, as
there was no
indication
of the
practice of
any crime.
― It is
common
knowledge
that
prosecutors
do not have
the capacity
to
demonstrate
either
innocence or
guilt, only
evidence
can.
It is also
common
knowledge
that
prosecutors
do not issue
rulings,
judges do.
2) The Media
vs the Facts
― A
international
press
release was
organized in
the UK by
the McCanns'
PR, Clarence
Mitchell, on
the same
July 21,
2008.
― the media
was informed
that the
prosecutors
issued a
filing order
clearing the
McCanns.
That was
wrong.
― What the
order
actually did
was lifting
the
arguido
status, a
mechanical
consequence
of the
filing.
―
Although the
filing
order, in
Portuguese,
had not yet
been made
available,
here are the
UK media
headers,
based only
on the press
release:
.Madeleine
McCann's
parents
officially
cleared as
police
shelve
investigation
- Mirror.co.uk
21-07-08
. McCanns
Cleared Over
Madeleine
Disappearance
- Daily
Express
21-07-08
. McCanns
May Sue Over
Suspect
Status -
Daily
Express
21-07-08
. McCanns
Cleared Over
Madeleine's
Disappearance
- Daily
Star
21-07-08
. McCanns
and Murat
formally
cleared in
case of
missing
Madeleine -
Guardian.co.uk
21-07-08
. Kate and
Gerry McCann
officially
cleared of
'arguido'
status -
Telegraph
21-07-08
. Kate and
Gerry McCann
cleared over
Madeleine
disappearance
- Times
Online
21-07-08
.
Madeleine's
Parents Not
Suspects -
CBBC
(Children's
BBC)
21-07-08
. McCanns
Expected To
Be Cleared -
Sky
21-07-08
. McCanns
cleared as
Maddie case
is closed -
Metro
21-07-08
. Breaking
news: Kate
and Gerry
McCann
cleared -
Leicester
Mercury
21-07-08
. McCanns
due to be
cleared by
Maddie
inquiry -
Yorkshire
Post
21-07-08
. McCanns
Set To Be
Cleared By
Portuguese
Authorities
- The
Scotsman
21-07-08
. MCs no
longer
suspects as
Portuguese
police drop
Madeleine
probe -
Daily Record
21-07-08
. McCanns to
be cleared
over Maddie
- Evening
Times
(Scotland)
21-07-08
. Portugal
clears
Madeleine's
parents -
Reuters
21-07-08
No
correction
was made by
the media
when the
translation
in English
was
published
and
available on
line.
Is it a case
of fake news
or of
deliberate
ignorance or
of wishful
thinking?
Whose
accountability
was that?
|
3)
Some
Consequences
of the
biased news
― Those who
read the
filing order
couldn't but
react to the
MSM headers,
with no
result.
http://madeleinemccannaffair.blogspot.pt/
― Fights
started soon
in online
forums
between
those who
claimed
innocence
and those
who pointed
an accusing
finger at
the McCanns
whose
neglect
allowed
abduction to
occur, two
attitudes
lacking
pertinence
but harming.
― On March
10, 2009, Dr
Gerald
McCann, his
Carter Ruck
lawyer Adam
Tudor and
his PR
Clarence
Mitchell
gave
evidence at
the Culture,
Media and
Sport
Committee on
Press
Standards,
Privacy and
Libel.
Instead of
calling
"disappearance"
what
happened to
Madeleine
MC, in
conformity
with the
prosecutors
who claimed
that the
crime had
not been
determined,
they spoke
of
"abduction"
as fact.
Nobody
protested,
as if nobody
had ever
read the
filing order
of the
prosecutors,
nobody
recalled
that the
jurisdiction
in this case
belongs to
Portugal.
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/362/9031001.htm
― Days after
the filing
order, the
head of the
investigation
for the five
first
months, who
had just
retired,
published a
book (A
Verdade da
Mentira).
― In that
book Gonçalo
Amaral took
over his
investigative
team's
conclusions
that led the
prosecutors
to make the
McCanns
"arguidos"
(suspects of
concealment
of cadaver
after
accidental
death in the
flat).
― The book
was by no
means
compatible
with the
erroneous
news that
the McCanns
had been
cleared,
forcing the
public to
choose their
party,
instead of
serenely
reflect on
the
situation.
4) Fake News
and Justice
― On June
16, 2009 the
McCann
nuclear
family
(father,
mother and
their three
children
among whom
Madeleine)
sued the
ex-superintendent
Gonçalo
Amaral (et
al) in order
to
1) obtain
a ban on his
book
2) obtain a
compensation
of 1.250.000
euros for
damages (due
to hampering
the
investigation
with the
theory that
the missing
child had
died).
― From
September
2009 on
started a
long list of
trial
sessions and
hearings.
The book was
banned, then
unbanned (by
an Appeal
Court,
confirmed by
the Supreme
Court), then
banned again
(by the
First
Instance
Court that
judged the
"prejudice
and
compensation"
part), then
unbanned by
an Appeal
Court,
confirmed by
the Supreme
Court.
― From
September
2013 on, the
"prejudice
and
compensation"
part of the
lawsuit
started (it
never was a
libel
trial). The
MC parents
won in the
first
instance,
but their
children did
not. However
the parents
made no
appeal on
their
behalf.
― The
ex-superintendent
appealed and
the McCanns
lost in the
Appeal
Court. They
appealed to
the Supreme
Court of
Justice (STJ)
that issued
a ruling
confirming
the decision
of the
Appeal Court
on January
31, 2017.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm
(Original
Portuguese
ruling,
translation
and notes in
English)
― In the STJ
ruling, the
McCanns
allege that
they were
already
cleared
through the
filing order
of the
criminal
investigation.
― The judges
claim that the
issue of the
appellants'
penal
liability,
in other
words their
innocence or
their guilt
concerning
the facts
leading to
the
disappearance
of their
daughter
does not
have to be
appreciated
(by the
court). |
― The judges
also
underline
the serious
reservations
raised in
the filing
order as to
the
likelihood
of the
allegation
that
Madeleine
had been
abducted.
―
Furthermore,
the Court
after
reminding
that a
filing order
is not a
judicial
decision
stricto
senso, nor
does it
assume a
definitive
form,
states the
following :
Let not be
said, too,
that the
appellants
were cleared
by the order
of filing
the criminal
proceedings.
In fact that
dispatch was
not
proclaimed
by virtue of
the Public
Ministry
having
gained the
conviction
that the
appellants
had not
committed
any crime.
The filing
was decided
because it
was not
possible for
the Public
Ministry to
obtain
sufficient
evidence of
the practice
of crimes by
the
appellants.
There is,
therefore, a
remarkable
difference,
and not
merely a
semantic
one, between
the legally
admissible
grounds of
the filing
order. Thus
it does not
appear
acceptable
to consider
that the
alluded
dispatch,
based on the
insufficiency
of evidence,
should be
treated as
evidence of
innocence.
― After
over 8 years
and a half,
and though
it shouldn't
be induced
from the
ruling any
suggestion
of guilt or
innocence,
the media's
headers were
:
. MCCANNS
not in the
clear –
The Sun
8.02.2017
. MCs not
formally in
the clear
over
Madeleine's
disappearance
– The
Mirror
8.02.2017
. Supreme
court
insists the
MCs haven't
been proved
innocent
over their
daughter's
death –
The Daily Mail – 9.02.2017
. MCs
haven't been
proved
innocent
over
Maddie's
disappearance
– Metro
9.02.2017
. UK media
rounds on
Supreme
Court shock
that McCanns
"have not
been proved
innocent" –
Portugal
Resident
– 9.02.2017
. Removal of
Kate and
Gerry’s
‘formal
suspect’
status does
not mean
they are
innocent in
disappearance
of daughter
Madeleine
McCann,
judges say –
The Sun
– 9.02.2017
. Portuguese
Prosecutors
never
concluded
MCs were
innocent –
Leicester
Mercury
– 9.02.2017
. McCanns
not formally
cleared over
Madeleine's
disappearance
– STV news –
10.02.2017
. Madeleine
McCann's
parents have
not been
ruled
innocent,
judge says –
The
Telegraph
– 10.02.2017
. McCanns
launch legal
fightback
against
judges'
ruling –
The Daily
Mail –
21.02.2017
No, the Portuguese Justice authorities
had not
changed
their minds,
their
findings had
always been
there,
clearly
written in
an
official document made
available on
line and in
English, pro
bono, by
members of
the public
who cared
for facts
and
translated
the legal
summary.
No
newspaper
admitted
that they
should have
checked the
facts. Just
applying
that simple,
basic
principle !
The
following
days,
political
correctness
or not, the
embarrassing
issue,
reduced to
another kind
of biased
news was
over and
never to be
heard of
again.
5) Concrete
Solutions ?
Possible
solutions
fall into
three main
categories :
synthesize
information
by human
editors, use
crowd
sourcing
(that is,
the crowd of
Internet
users to
sort the
wheat from
the chaff,
people being
allowed to
have an
auditor
status for
example), or
find
technical or
algorithmic
solutions.
In February
2017, the
newspaper
Le Monde
launched "Décodex",
a device
that
evaluates
the
reliability
of media
sites.
http://www.lemonde.fr/verification/
The French
private
radio
Europe1 has
a remarkable
early
morning
program
called "Vrai-Faux
de l'info",
5 days a
week.
Géraldine
Woessner,
speaking of
true-fake,
does not
color the
world in
black and
white,
there's no
nice true
and mean
fake, the
issue isn't
to simplify
things, but
to enlarge
the
perspectives.
http://www.europe1.fr/emissions/le-vrai-faux-de-l-info
|
One of
the
serious
difficulties
is that
people
nowadays
mainly
read
titles,
lack of
time,
laziness
or rush
of
uncontrolled
and
unorganized
information’s.
Trusting
the
opinion
of
competent
people
seems
inescapable.
Can one
verify
everything
to
establish
absolutely
the
truth of
the
facts ?
Sometimes
we have
to rely
on
someone's
testimony,
but some
witnesses
do not
really
see what
happened,
some can
have a
distorted
view,
some may
be
shocked,
other
may
invent
testimonies
that do
not
exist.
Therefore
one
should
not rely
on a
single
testimony
but
cross-reference
data.
Could
the
criterion
of
weakness
of an
opinion
be its
inability
to admit
objection?
In other
words,
shouldn’t
opinions
aiming
to be
taken
seriously
be
submitted
to the
possibility
of their
refutation?
|
|
* I wondered whether they would accept a submission from a foreigner, I asked and received this |
|
|
I received this to acknowledge the reception of my submission : |
|
|
Then nothing more, not even a link to the Interim Report on July 29, 2018 nor to the Final Report on February 14, 2019. |
|
|
|
Since this submission
seems not to have been
used, confidentiality
has no more reason to
be. |
|
|
|