Stardate 20030320.1335

(Captain's log): It isn't what you don't know that hurts you; it's what you know that ain't so.

It's natural that we all are worried about what is happening in this war. It's natural that we want to know what's going on. And in the Internet age, we're used to information propagating across the globe in minutes. But it's important to understand that fog of war is a very real phenomenon, and the Internet didn't abolish it. A lot of the news reports that you're going to see, or hear about second hand, are going to turn out to be false. We all need to practice patience.

A lot of news reports will contain incorrect information. For one thing, a lot of the reporters out there didn't do their homework before going into the field. Even worse, some of them think they did but were wrong, and thus they think their knowledge is more comprehensive than it really is. (Thomas Jefferson said that "your education is complete when you realize how little you really know." A lot of the reporters out there think they've become expert in military affairs, and are wrong about that.)

It's also the case that people see what they expect to see. Eye witness reports are not as reliable as many think they are; there's plenty of evidence to prove this. And the more confusing a situation is and the faster it's moving, the more likely it is that someone will think they saw something other than what they really did.

And there is nothing more confusing and chaotic than combat.

So even with the best of intentions, a fair proportion of initial reports from the front will be erroneous to a greater or lesser extent. This is one of the lessons that mid and high level officers have to learn: sometimes your scouts will tell you things which aren't so. Not all reports are equally valuable; some will actually lead you astray.

Some of what you think you know from scouting ain't actually so.

In addition, all the front-line reporters are being subjected to varying degrees of control (read censorship) in what they can tell us. The reporters in Baghdad have to make their reports through a press center where what they say is monitored by the government; they're not going to be permitted to tell us anything which is profoundly damaging to the Iraqi government. And if they actually managed to get something like that out, they won't be permitted to make any more reports and may even be in danger. They all know this, so they won't generally try to.

The reporters embedded with our troops will be deliberately suppressing some information (i.e. actual locations and knowledge of plans) which could be useful to our enemies.

The situation isn't helped at all by the fact that some of the information sources out there will be deliberately lying. Both the Iraqi government and the US government will be doing this. In some cases it's going to be done for propaganda purposes. In some cases it will be disinformation intended to deceive and confuse the other side. In some cases it will be cover stories.

In particular, the US government will tend initially to exaggerate the numbers of Iraqi soldiers who surrender, in hopes of convincing others to do the same. The Iraqi government will tend to exaggerate reports of casualties among Iraqi civilians.

And some major news sources have an institutional agenda. They are not necessarily totally objective. It should be presumed, for instance, that the NY Times, Reuters and Agence France-Presse (AFP) will tend to slant their reports so as to make the situation look bad for the US. The AP will likely be somewhat more inclined to optimism, and we can assume that Fox will try to find the best slant for us that they can in any situation.

There are also some news "sources" which are more interested in sensationalism than in accuracy, and have a tendency to publicize reports whose reliability is suspect, just to drive traffic and gain attention. That's why I strongly recommend against even looking at DEBKA; they're easily the worst high-profile example of this kind of thing going. Not only do they tend to post rumors, but they also have a strong institutional agenda. (They are, after all, located in Israel; it's completely natural that they have a point of view about the overall struggle.)

Another point is that each additional person in line who processes a given report increases the chance of distortion. Thus headlines and teasers and overview articles are more likely to be erroneous than primary reports from the field.

And in general, this will be much more common at the beginning of hostilities when everyone is excited and terrified and under pressure. So for the next three days, be particularly skeptical. After that, the news agencies will start to settle down and will make fewer mistakes.

In general, the more of a rush a given medium is in to get the story out, the more likely they'll be to make mistakes. Therefore be particularly skeptical of TV news; the wire services and newspapers are likely to be a bit more careful.

And in particular, when you hear any kind of hot report of critical breaking news, take a deep breath. Breath it out. And then try to cultivate philosophical patience. If it's really true, in a few hours it will become apparent. And if it's a distortion, you won't hear much more about it. The more important it seems to be, the longer you should wait before reacting.

As a non-drinker, I can't propose a drinking g