Careless Explanations in a Post-Truth World
Donald Trump is the leading exponent of “post-truth” politics—a reliance on assertions that “feel true” but have no basis in fact. Two pieces in the JEP have both argued that it doesn’t matter if politicians make statements that are untrue, as long as they end up with good results. Matters of what’s true and what’s false are irrelevant.
In his letter to the JEP, Gerard Baudains tells us that “Deputy Andrew Lewis stepped into the breach. I am no fan of his but nevertheless he grasped the situation and came to the conclusion that Lenny Harper, the investigating officer was essentially out of his depth and the only person who could control him was the Chief of Police, Mr Power. And as a result, Mr Power had to be suspended. Which the minister duly did.”
He concludes by saying: “I was there and I didn’t feel misled”.
Well if that is how he understood the debate, either he had not been paying attention, or his memory of events today is widely astray.
Graham Power was suspended in November 2008. Lenny Harper retired in August 2008, long before that.
Gerard Baudin’s explanation of how he remembers events plays fast and loose with time, because quite how suspending Mr Power in November could control Mr Harper, who had retired three months earlier, is beyond me!
I could not help but be reminded of an episode of “Yes Prime Minister”, where a comment is made of an individual that "Passage of time and separation from official records have perhaps clouded his memory.”
He concludes by saying: “I was there and I didn’t feel misled”. It is unfortunately more like, “I was there and I can’t remember it accurately at all.”
His error over time is duplicated in the article by John Boothman, where defending Andrew Lewis in the JEP.
Donald Trump is the leading exponent of “post-truth” politics—a reliance on assertions that “feel true” but have no basis in fact. Two pieces in the JEP have both argued that it doesn’t matter if politicians make statements that are untrue, as long as they end up with good results. Matters of what’s true and what’s false are irrelevant.
In his letter to the JEP, Gerard Baudains tells us that “Deputy Andrew Lewis stepped into the breach. I am no fan of his but nevertheless he grasped the situation and came to the conclusion that Lenny Harper, the investigating officer was essentially out of his depth and the only person who could control him was the Chief of Police, Mr Power. And as a result, Mr Power had to be suspended. Which the minister duly did.”
He concludes by saying: “I was there and I didn’t feel misled”.
Well if that is how he understood the debate, either he had not been paying attention, or his memory of events today is widely astray.
Graham Power was suspended in November 2008. Lenny Harper retired in August 2008, long before that.
Gerard Baudin’s explanation of how he remembers events plays fast and loose with time, because quite how suspending Mr Power in November could control Mr Harper, who had retired three months earlier, is beyond me!
I could not help but be reminded of an episode of “Yes Prime Minister”, where a comment is made of an individual that "Passage of time and separation from official records have perhaps clouded his memory.”
He concludes by saying: “I was there and I didn’t feel misled”. It is unfortunately more like, “I was there and I can’t remember it accurately at all.”
His error over time is duplicated in the article by John Boothman, where defending Andrew Lewis in the JEP.
Mr Boothman remarks that “The decisions to remove Mr Harper from leadership of Operation Rectangle and to suspend Mr Power, were vindicated by the Met Report”.
Graham Power was suspended in November 2008. Lenny Harper retired in August 2008, long before that.
There was no “decision to remove Mr Harper”. He retired. Mr Boothman also, it seems, suffers from this carelessness with events.
“Deputy Lewis did not say explicitly that he had read the Met report, whatever those listening at the time may have assumed.”
The transcript of the debate accurately records Mr Lewis as saying that: “I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place.”
How much more explicit do you want?
For someone defending someone else on the grounds that they did not intend to mislead, coming out with sloppy misleading statements themselves does not do Mr Lewis any favours. Mr Boothman clearly had not bothered to do his homework and check basic facts.
It seems that in their haste to put pen to paper, both Mr Baudains and Mr Boothman assume that if they make statements, they will be taken as true, regardless of the facts of the matter.
Whether they indented to mislead is something on which I am not going to speculate. But let us hope the public is not so easily deceived by these falsehoods.
“An imprecise answer with negligible consequences” says Mr Boothman. But playing fast and loose with matters of truth has a corrosive effect on democracy. In fact, this answer had clear consequences: it underpinned the rationale to suspend Mr Power.
As John Arundel Barnes says in his book: “A Pack of Lies: Towards a Sociology of Lying”:
“A politician who is seen to have lied is less likely to be believed the next time he or she tells the truth.”
The electorate has little enough trust in politicians. Let’s not make matters worse!
Graham Power was suspended in November 2008. Lenny Harper retired in August 2008, long before that.
There was no “decision to remove Mr Harper”. He retired. Mr Boothman also, it seems, suffers from this carelessness with events.
“Deputy Lewis did not say explicitly that he had read the Met report, whatever those listening at the time may have assumed.”
The transcript of the debate accurately records Mr Lewis as saying that: “I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place.”
How much more explicit do you want?
For someone defending someone else on the grounds that they did not intend to mislead, coming out with sloppy misleading statements themselves does not do Mr Lewis any favours. Mr Boothman clearly had not bothered to do his homework and check basic facts.
It seems that in their haste to put pen to paper, both Mr Baudains and Mr Boothman assume that if they make statements, they will be taken as true, regardless of the facts of the matter.
Whether they indented to mislead is something on which I am not going to speculate. But let us hope the public is not so easily deceived by these falsehoods.
“An imprecise answer with negligible consequences” says Mr Boothman. But playing fast and loose with matters of truth has a corrosive effect on democracy. In fact, this answer had clear consequences: it underpinned the rationale to suspend Mr Power.
As John Arundel Barnes says in his book: “A Pack of Lies: Towards a Sociology of Lying”:
“A politician who is seen to have lied is less likely to be believed the next time he or she tells the truth.”
The electorate has little enough trust in politicians. Let’s not make matters worse!
Posts
2 comments:
élisez Crowcroft Maire de la commune de Jersey (Ille-et-Vilaine)
"I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place"
I'm not sure if this was on the same occasion, but Lewis, having said something like the quote, then said something along the lines of "if the interim report is this alarming, Lord knows what the final report will be like".
According to those bloggers who claim to have seen the Met report, they assert that it was not significantly critical of the Power/Harper methods at all with one exception - the "failure" to form a "gold group" to run things. Power/Harper themselves are on record as saying that they elected not to form a gold group because some of those who would have had to be on it were the very same "establishment" figures that were suspects in abuse, cover ups or negligence and it would therefore have been counterproductive to do what would have been standard police procedure.
Post a Comment