A lie that speaks the truth
February 18, 2011 12:47 PM Subscribe
On balance if you were to take all the rumors that are published in blogs, newspapers, etc. about business news, celebrity happenings, etc. would the trend be that more rumors end up being true or false?
Could you take the sum total of all rumors published in media of a certain arbitrary quality or sufficiently widespread belief, then take the rumors that were satisfactorily answered either positively or negatively, and determine a percentage of likelihood for rumors that would predict future expectations?
Obviously you would have to excise rumors that are unquantifiable or ultimately unanswered. And there is also a certain self-fulfilling quality here, rumors about a company often change stock values, that would have to be investigated. I imagine only a small portion of rumors are ultimately resolved, but the goal here would a basis by which to say statements like:
"60% of the time rumors about business bankruptcy turn out to be valid"
"50% of rumors about celebrity divorces correctly predict future divorces (within x months)"
"30% of new product rumors about Apple turn out to accurately predict future products"
Could you take the sum total of all rumors published in media of a certain arbitrary quality or sufficiently widespread belief, then take the rumors that were satisfactorily answered either positively or negatively, and determine a percentage of likelihood for rumors that would predict future expectations?
Obviously you would have to excise rumors that are unquantifiable or ultimately unanswered. And there is also a certain self-fulfilling quality here, rumors about a company often change stock values, that would have to be investigated. I imagine only a small portion of rumors are ultimately resolved, but the goal here would a basis by which to say statements like:
"60% of the time rumors about business bankruptcy turn out to be valid"
"50% of rumors about celebrity divorces correctly predict future divorces (within x months)"
"30% of new product rumors about Apple turn out to accurately predict future products"
Obviously you would have to excise rumors that are unquantifiable or ultimately unanswered.
This would be almost all of them, you're right.
Ultimately it depends on the subject and nature of the rumor, and where it is heard, and who's reporting it.
If it's on a blog then it depends on the blog. Given the small number of reliable ones and the much larger number of unreliable ones I would say that the category of "rumors found on blogs" shakes out to about fifty-fifty: a small number are often right but sometimes wrong, and a great many are often wrong but sometimes right. Obviously the numbers don't work out to fifty-fifty but what I mean to say is that if you are presented a rumor whose only source is a blog and you don't know which one, it could be right or wrong but there's no compelling reason to expect one over the other - in terms of probability, anyway. Trendwise it'll probably be bullshit but that's slightly different.
Celebrity tabloids, shockingly, are almost always right.
But we're going to have to unpack that a little.
First things first: The actual things actually reported by celebrity tabloids - the Enquirer in particular - are almost always true. Their headlines are misleading, however, and are done differently than most.
We'll start here.
The headline is not the article, and in fact the headline is very misleading. If you only read that, you might walk away thinking that Steve Jobs has been given six weeks to live by a doctor who has actually examined him. This is not true. What is true - and what the article actually reports - is that Steve Jobs has pancreatic cancer (this is true), that he was recently photographed looking like hell (also true), and that a doctor who hasn't treated him and has only looked at the photos (the article readily admits this) has spitballed him at maybe six weeks to live, and eyeballed his weight at about 130 (this is also true, but isn't relevant in any meaningful way). But the gist of it is: Steve Jobs looks worryingly gaunt these days, and this is indeed so. Is this because of his pancreatic cancer? Is it because he's losing the battle to it? Is it because he's made it seven years when (according to the article) it's rare to live longer than five? No idea! And the article uses very careful language to avoid outright stating cause and effect. But there isn't a single falsehood in the article.
Another example would be this. The casual observer could be forgiven for looking only at the headline and inferring that Rihanna is in the middle of controversy over a video of herself engaging in S&M acts in her personal life (spoiler: this is what you're meant to infer so you'll read the article and/or buy the paper). But no, it's about something quite different, which also happens to be - again - true.
A final example would be this. Holy shit, Madonna is feuding with Lady Gaga! That sucks! They were on SNL that time and it was awesome and...oh. No, it's actually her brother Chris, and Madonna hasn't spoken to him since at least 2008. But again - not a single falsehood.
Point being that rumors in a tabloid like this are shockingly correct a very high percent of the time.
So, to answer your question:
Could you take the sum total of all rumors published in media of a certain arbitrary quality or sufficiently widespread belief, then take the rumors that were satisfactorily answered either positively or negatively, and determine a percentage of likelihood for rumors that would predict future expectations?
It's possible but you'd have to define terms for "satisfactorily answered positively or negatively," because if you eliminate everything which doesn't meet those criteria then you're going to eliminate almost everything and I don't think I would trust conclusions drawn from the remaining sample.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 1:28 PM on February 18, 2011 [8 favorites]
This would be almost all of them, you're right.
Ultimately it depends on the subject and nature of the rumor, and where it is heard, and who's reporting it.
If it's on a blog then it depends on the blog. Given the small number of reliable ones and the much larger number of unreliable ones I would say that the category of "rumors found on blogs" shakes out to about fifty-fifty: a small number are often right but sometimes wrong, and a great many are often wrong but sometimes right. Obviously the numbers don't work out to fifty-fifty but what I mean to say is that if you are presented a rumor whose only source is a blog and you don't know which one, it could be right or wrong but there's no compelling reason to expect one over the other - in terms of probability, anyway. Trendwise it'll probably be bullshit but that's slightly different.
Celebrity tabloids, shockingly, are almost always right.
But we're going to have to unpack that a little.
First things first: The actual things actually reported by celebrity tabloids - the Enquirer in particular - are almost always true. Their headlines are misleading, however, and are done differently than most.
We'll start here.
The headline is not the article, and in fact the headline is very misleading. If you only read that, you might walk away thinking that Steve Jobs has been given six weeks to live by a doctor who has actually examined him. This is not true. What is true - and what the article actually reports - is that Steve Jobs has pancreatic cancer (this is true), that he was recently photographed looking like hell (also true), and that a doctor who hasn't treated him and has only looked at the photos (the article readily admits this) has spitballed him at maybe six weeks to live, and eyeballed his weight at about 130 (this is also true, but isn't relevant in any meaningful way). But the gist of it is: Steve Jobs looks worryingly gaunt these days, and this is indeed so. Is this because of his pancreatic cancer? Is it because he's losing the battle to it? Is it because he's made it seven years when (according to the article) it's rare to live longer than five? No idea! And the article uses very careful language to avoid outright stating cause and effect. But there isn't a single falsehood in the article.
Another example would be this. The casual observer could be forgiven for looking only at the headline and inferring that Rihanna is in the middle of controversy over a video of herself engaging in S&M acts in her personal life (spoiler: this is what you're meant to infer so you'll read the article and/or buy the paper). But no, it's about something quite different, which also happens to be - again - true.
A final example would be this. Holy shit, Madonna is feuding with Lady Gaga! That sucks! They were on SNL that time and it was awesome and...oh. No, it's actually her brother Chris, and Madonna hasn't spoken to him since at least 2008. But again - not a single falsehood.
Point being that rumors in a tabloid like this are shockingly correct a very high percent of the time.
So, to answer your question:
Could you take the sum total of all rumors published in media of a certain arbitrary quality or sufficiently widespread belief, then take the rumors that were satisfactorily answered either positively or negatively, and determine a percentage of likelihood for rumors that would predict future expectations?
It's possible but you'd have to define terms for "satisfactorily answered positively or negatively," because if you eliminate everything which doesn't meet those criteria then you're going to eliminate almost everything and I don't think I would trust conclusions drawn from the remaining sample.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 1:28 PM on February 18, 2011 [8 favorites]
I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned something really important: the law.
There are laws about saying untrue things about people.
If a publication makes a general practice of printing false rumors, it's going to expose itself to libel lawsuits all over the place.
And the law doesn't say, "But hey, it's no big deal if you're a tabloid!" These laws apply to the National Enquirer just as they do to the New York Times.
I'm not so sure about your average blog, but I would guess that most rumors published in mainstream publications (print or online) are true. This isn't because I think the writers are noble, honest people on a mission to seek out the truth and inform the public. I just see no reason to believe that a mainstream publication would make a general practice of writing the kinds of stories that make them likely to be sued.
(You might point out that these rumors would often be about "public figures," and it's hard for a public figure to sue for libel. But the Supreme Court's rule doesn't say a public figure can't win a libel lawsuit; there's just a tougher standard for what mental state the defendant must have had.)
posted by John Cohen at 3:05 PM on February 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
There are laws about saying untrue things about people.
If a publication makes a general practice of printing false rumors, it's going to expose itself to libel lawsuits all over the place.
And the law doesn't say, "But hey, it's no big deal if you're a tabloid!" These laws apply to the National Enquirer just as they do to the New York Times.
I'm not so sure about your average blog, but I would guess that most rumors published in mainstream publications (print or online) are true. This isn't because I think the writers are noble, honest people on a mission to seek out the truth and inform the public. I just see no reason to believe that a mainstream publication would make a general practice of writing the kinds of stories that make them likely to be sued.
(You might point out that these rumors would often be about "public figures," and it's hard for a public figure to sue for libel. But the Supreme Court's rule doesn't say a public figure can't win a libel lawsuit; there's just a tougher standard for what mental state the defendant must have had.)
posted by John Cohen at 3:05 PM on February 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
There's an interesting dichotomy.
On the one hand, Famous Monster and John Cohen are right. For business and legal reasons, publications source and fact-check stories that their subjects won't verify -- including thsoe include salacious details on the private lives of celebrities.
On the other hand, the really wired-in media often have some practical impunity because they know a heck of lot more than they report. (The "blind items" that gossip columnists run are kind of an on-going reminder that however much their sometimes sloppy reporting might annoy you, they could crush you if they wanted.)
posted by MattD at 6:42 AM on February 19, 2011
On the one hand, Famous Monster and John Cohen are right. For business and legal reasons, publications source and fact-check stories that their subjects won't verify -- including thsoe include salacious details on the private lives of celebrities.
On the other hand, the really wired-in media often have some practical impunity because they know a heck of lot more than they report. (The "blind items" that gossip columnists run are kind of an on-going reminder that however much their sometimes sloppy reporting might annoy you, they could crush you if they wanted.)
posted by MattD at 6:42 AM on February 19, 2011
« Older Am I just using these laundry detergent bottles... | Trying to go to McMurdo Station in Antarctica for... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Considering that GENERALLY true rumors are often accompanied with more source material and verifying facts, and are therefore covered more widely and with more press than rumors with little evidence, I would bet that more reported rumors are true than not.
posted by 2legit2quit at 12:52 PM on February 18, 2011