• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

Consider a statement being made in early 2006 by the Brady Campaign, formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc. The campaign stated that passage of the Brady Law in 1993 (imposing background checks for handgun purchasers) and the federal “assault weapons” ban in 1994 (which banned the sale of certain semiautomatic weapons) were followed by years of declines in violent crime. This the group cited as proof that “gun laws work.”

It’s true that crime rates plunged throughout the 1990s, starting just about the time the two gun laws were enacted. But that doesn’t mean that the gun laws caused the decline. Criminologists, economists, and just about everybody else are still debating over what did. Proposed causes include increased numbers of police, the practice of “community policing,” “zero-tolerance” policies, and even the legalization of abortion two decades earlier. In late 2004, the Committee on Law and Justice of the National Research Council examined the question whether gun laws affect crime rates, and concluded that a connection couldn’t be shown: “In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data…do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide.”

Be careful about jumping to conclusions. Always ask, “Are these facts really connected?”

And—always—keep asking, “What’s the evidence?”

Chapter 7

Osama, Ollie, and Al

The Internet Solution

SO FAR WE’VE POINTED OUT HOW TO RECOGNIZE SPIN AND MISINFORMATION, explained some of the tricks that spinners use to mislead us, and described the psychological traps that too often make us accomplices in our own deception. We’ve said that staying unspun can save us money, embarrassment, and perhaps even our lives, but that it also requires us to adjust our mental habits so that we look actively for facts that might disprove whatever we happen to believe at the moment, rather than giving in to our hardwired human tendency to see only supporting evidence. And we’ve discussed the basics of how to tell good evidence from random anecdotes. Now it’s time to talk about where, and how, to find the solid facts you need.

The solution to spin is the Internet, if you use it very carefully.

The Wall Street Journal’s personal-technology columnist, Walt Mossberg, may have put it best: “The World Wide Web is a marvelous thing. Because it exists, more people have direct access to more knowledge than at any time in history.” That’s true—and there’s more reliable information being added every day. Furthermore, much of this information is available to everyone, for only the price of an Internet connection.

Unfortunately, as you probably know, the Web is also a conduit for new gushers of toxic informational sludge as well. Anybody can say anything they want on the Internet, regardless of whether it is true, and people can post anonymously or under a false identity. We’ve already mentioned websites that tout fraudulent products, and con artists who use mass e-mailings to reach their victims. The trick is to sort the gold from the dross. We’ll show you how to do that, and perhaps even have some fun along the way.

To illustrate, we offer the story of an Internet hoax that was swallowed by untold thousands of gullible believers—and we show how to find the facts.

Osama, Ollie, and Al

Within weeks after the calamity of September 11, 2001, an e-mail began to circulate containing what the anonymous author described as “stunning” information. He (or she) claimed that Oliver North had warned Congress as far back as 1987 that Osama bin Laden is “the most evil man alive” and had said, “I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.” Furthermore, this message stated, the senator questioning North was Albert Gore of Tennessee, the future vice president and Democratic candidate for president.

This message was red meat to a