Toward the end of my time as a news producer at Minnesota Public Radio, I joked about a new segment I wanted to create called "Rank Speculation," in which the host and a guest would spend 10-15 minutes openly speculating, surmising and throwing out theories, however plausible or implausible, on the various news events of the day. The civil war in Syria, Governor Dayton's tax plan, vaccines, the state of the housing market, you name it. I thought it had a lot of potential but the idea never really got off the ground.
It was a joke based in some part on the frustrating reality of the news business. Some times things get a little slow out there, but even so you still have to fill up the time, preferably with something interesting. And what's more interesting than baseless speculation?
As we all know by now, the Malaysia Airlines 777 disappeared from radar 14 days ago on its way from Kuala Lampur to Beijing, without sending any distress signals or giving air traffic controllers any indication that it was having problems, or providing any wreckage to show that it actually crashed. Add to that the Malaysian government's less-than-stellar handling of the investigation, and you have a made-for-cable-news mystery. Where is the plane? Did it actually crash? Did it head north into Central Asia or south into the Indian Ocean? Was it hijacked and taken to some secretive location for nefarious purposes? The possibilities are endless! I can almost hear the producers mimicking Seinfeld nemesis Kenny Bania. "That's Gold, Jerry. Gold."
We've been well into the swirl of breathless speculation for several days now. Last Friday, after the Wall Street Journal reported that the plane's transponder had been shut off manually, things really began to ramp up. CNN's Piers Morgan had a panel of about 54 people chiming in on his show, and throughout the hour he practically begged them to come up with every cockamamie theory they could possibly think of to explain the jet's disappearance. Thankfully the panelists, for the most part, refused to take the bait. My favorite moment was when New York Times reporter Matthew Wald, after being asked by Morgan what we were to make of the pilot having a flight simulator in his home, replied with a grin "it means he likes his work." Piers, surprisingly, appeared somewhat dismayed by that answer.
The speculation has only grown more hysterical since then. On Tuesday night, after several outlets reported that the plane's left turn had been programmed into the onboard computer, CNN's Don Lemon went into full conspiracy mode, throwing out theories from viewers to his panel. Among them: Maybe the plane was stolen so it could be resold on the black market! Maybe the plane was flown to Christmas Island! ("it fits, and explains everything" noted the emailer). Maybe a satellite hacked into the plane and dumped it in the ocean! This time, the panelists were more than willing to go along, with the exception of Ask a Pilot blogger Patrick Smith, who repeatedly took the panel to task for engaging in baseless speculation. Said Smith:
We're all playing armchair investigator here. That's the problem. Us and everybody out there watching. I think we just don't have enough information yet. And we need to sit back, stop all the crazy speculation, and see what happens. I think we'll get to the bottom of this eventually. We might not, and people should be prepared for that, but I think we will.
To which Don Lemon countered with " I think [they're] all plausible scenarios, especially when we don't know anything." Really, Don? What about the possibility that there were snakes on that plane?
I don't mean to beat up on CNN here. They're not the only network going to town on this story. And the theories are abundant on the interwebs. And I understand that a mystery like this is bound to provoke conspiracies. Science writer Maggie Koerth-Baker had a piece in the New York Times Magazine late last year on what scientist are learning about the brain and conspiracy theories. She writes:
Economic recessions, terrorist attacks and natural disasters are massive, looming threats, but we have little power over when they occur or how or what happens afterward. In these moments of powerlessness and uncertainty, a part of the brain called the amygdala kicks into action. Paul Whalen, a scientist at Dartmouth College who studies the amygdala, says it doesn’t exactly do anything on its own. Instead, the amygdala jump-starts the rest of the brain into analytical overdrive — prompting repeated reassessments of information in an attempt to create a coherent and understandable narrative, to understand what just happened, what threats still exist and what should be done now. This may be a useful way to understand how, writ large, the brain’s capacity for generating new narratives after shocking events can contribute to so much paranoia in this country.
Left to our own devices, many of us following the Flight 370 story might arrive at some of the theories being thrown about. And when the story involves flying, a routine act that nonetheless still makes many people nervous, the public mind is going to generate new narratives in the search for answers. But do we really need the cable news networks feeding our analytical overdrive? How about we just sit tight until we have more, you know, facts?
I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime, I think I might have found a taker for that "Rank Speculation" segment.
No comments:
Post a Comment