Notice How Opinions are Molded

About 14 years ago police and firefighters were the unsung heroes.  After 9-11 everyone wanted to give them the recognition they deserved.  The ones in NYC who risked their lives in the aftermath of the attack were thought to be typical of all police and firefighters throughout the country.  Now the police are being portrayed as vicious psychopaths who will shoot you in the back at the least provocation, especially if you are a minority.  Armed with a few debatable examples some people want to generalize this to include all cops everywhere.  Judging from some of the following stories, it may be that the police just don’t have a good PR department to counter some of these broad accusations.

The armed forces and National Guard seem to have it figured out.  Many remember in the sixties and early seventies how poorly people in the military were treated.  They were characterized as warmongers and killers by protesters of the Vietnam War.  Even those who never served in Vietnam or who were in the military involuntarily (i.e., drafted) were disdained.  The theoretical solution proposed was that eligible young men should become conscientious objectors or career college students or they should flee to Canada to dodge the draft.  Without fighting men the politicians would be unable to wage war.

Today things are much different.  Although we have an all-volunteer force with no one drafted, people in uniform are celebrated.  Veterans are thanked for their service and given shopping discounts or free meals on Veterans’ Day in November.  Part of this reflects a change in the popular culture; part reflects an intentional political move several years back to paint those with the opposite attitude as unpatriotic – hate the war, not the soldier – but some of this new patriotic fervor may be attributed to the kind of behind-the-scenes PR work carried out by Washington (with our tax dollars).  It seems the tributes to our heroes at NFL games seen on TV and live at the stadium are not spontaneous displays of patriotism, but paid advertising.

This report tells about the various programs, prizes and presentations at NY Jets games in support of the New Jersey National Guard over the last four years.  It was more business than patriotism, as the Jets were paid for many of these events.  But they were not alone.  “The Department of Defense and the Jersey Guard paid the Jets a total of $377,000 from 2011 to 2014 for the salutes and other advertising, according to federal contracts. Overall, the Defense Department has paid 14 NFL teams $5.4 million during that time, of which $5.3 million was paid by the National Guard to 11 teams under similar contracts.”

The Indianapolis Star tells a similar story.  Although the Colts can list many ways they honor the military without compensation, they were the fourth highest paid for some of the activities; and it would be hard for a fan to tell the difference.  What’s real and what’s solicited?  If they (and every other business) couldn't build or enhance "brand loyalty" and future sales with these efforts, both the voluntary and paid support would quickly disappear. 

So while the military continues to be honored both spontaneously and contractually, and the firefighters are still considered heroes by many, the poor police whether good or bad continue to share a tarnished reputation thanks to the few problems driven to the front page by demonstrations and a sensation-hungry press.  As this report shows, police are even blamed for some of their own deaths because of inadequate use of seatbelts and bulletproof vests.  They may need better training and better behavior in some cases, but they definitely need some better PR.

A close look shows that the news and advertising try to shape our opinions and then build on those opinions by promoting whatever is popular at the time and being against whatever is currently out of favor.

Outrage

Our freedom of speech is threatened not by brutal government policies but by common outrage.  Outrage replaces civil discourse in any number of areas.

Years ago Lawrence Summers as president of Harvard expressed the possibility that young men were naturally more gifted in STEM subjects than young women.  According to the Harvard newspaper, he said that underrepresentation of women in sciences “may stem in part from ‘innate’ differences between men and women, although two Harvard professors who heard the speech said the remarks have been taken out of context in an ensuing national media frenzy.”  In science this is known as a hypothesis, a guess at reality that should be tested before it’s accepted as true.  Set up an experiment, do a survey or otherwise look into it to see if the facts support it.  Was this the way his statement was treated? – Of course not.  Instead the women’s rights groups went ballistic, demanding an apology, demanding his resignation, setting off a “media frenzy”, all due to his expressing a thought that was “taken out of context”, easily refuted logically and did not necessarily reflect a personal opinion.  Using the weapon of outrage, his critics managed to shut him up, forcing him to apologize and quite possibly affecting his later career.

This came to mind as I read about a more recent example.  An AP story tells of University of Iowa President Sally Mason who has taken serious steps to reduce violence on campus.  She hired “an administrator to coordinate help for victims and mandated prevention training for employees.”  Years ago she even personally experienced an incident as an undergraduate.  “Yet one statement she made last month - that ending sexual assault was probably unrealistic ‘just given human nature and that's unfortunate’ - ignited a firestorm.”  Is this a woman who hates women, or could she merely have been expressing some degree of frustration with the enormous job of trying to guarantee everyone’s safety on campus?  No time to find out.  Outrage erupted with accusations of hurtful speech and insensitivity, causing uproars among activist groups “from California to Massachusetts.”  Critics even went so far as to complain that the university “put too much focus on the victims by warning women not to walk alone or to binge drink – and not enough on perpetrators.”  Is that any more insensitive or uncaring than reminding people not to leave their cars running in the driveway or to lock their doors when leaving the house because there are bad guys out there?  Of course she too was forced to apologize.

It’s not only women’s groups who use this tactic.  Minorities, religious groups, animal rights activists and many others use it to squelch conversation, to put their opponents on the defensive, to win an argument without presenting a counterargument.  As a result things are never resolved and others feel intimidated to express an opinion or make a controversial hypothesis for fear of getting the same treatment.  Firestorms and media frenzies don’t solve problems; they bury them.

Fluoride in Drinking Water

Add this to my series of examples of the battle between public outcry and the scientific evidence.  Here is an anthology of 13 articles on the subject of fluoridated drinking water published by the Center for Fluoride Research Analysis.  They have gathered in a single document “the official policy statements and consumer information on fluoride from the nation’s leading scientific and advocacy organizations that support community water fluoridation.”  (Additional support can be found on the new ADA website.)

A nice summary appears in the AARP document:  “In spite of its well-documented effectiveness and safety, 100 million persons in the United States remained without fluoridated water at the beginning of the twenty-first century.” 

Why would this be?  Part can be attributed to water supplies from private wells, but part is due to negative public reaction to fluoridation.  Another group of well-meaning people stare scientific evidence in the face and stir up opposition based on their personal interpretation of the studies.  As the article from the American Council on Science and Health puts it:  “The combination of a scientifically unsophisticated public and the profusion of easily accessible crackpot information on the Internet is indeed a prescription for disaster.”  The American Cancer Society article reinforces this:  “A review of more than 50 population-based studies…does not support the hypothesis of an association between fluoride exposure and increased cancer risk in humans.”

If so many reputable organizations promote the addition of fluoride to drinking water, where does the opposition come from?  There are, of course, the conspiracy theorists who once characterized it as a communist plot, but many have sincere and well thought out arguments.  The questions we must always ask about such information are: what are the sources, what are their qualifications, and do they have an outside agenda or possible conflict of interests?

Above all we must resist the temptation to stampede into action or opposition without full and reliable information.  See other instances of potential damage from public outcry in such cases as  the “pink slime” (April 2, 2012) and mad cow disease (April 30, 2012) controversies.