Thanks for this Reader

Reader said...
You comment here that the nature of Kalnovitch's behaviour changed over time. There is a process known as 'communal reinforcement', and it appears that Kalnovitch and many others have been susceptible to its effects. The Skeptic's dictionary defines this as: "the process by which a claim becomes a strong belief through repeated assertion by members of a community. The process is independent of whether the claim has been properly researched or is supported by empirical data significant enough to warrant belief by reasonable people. Often, the mass media contribute to the process by uncritically supporting the claims. More often, however, the mass media provide tacit support for untested and unsupported claims by saying nothing skeptical about even the most outlandish of claims.

Communal reinforcement explains how entire nations can pass on ineffable gibberish from generation to generation. It also explains how testimonials reinforced by other testimonials within the community of therapists, sociologists, psychologists, theologians, politicians, talk show hosts, etc., can supplant and be more powerful than scientific studies or accurate gathering of data by disinterested parties."

I suspect that what we are witnessing here is an example of communal reinforcement: akin to mass hysteria. The role of the media - complicit and exacerbating, is significant. It is what happened in the case of Peter Ellis, as has been well-documented. Now that, interestingly, leads to another 'player' common to both this case and the Peter Ellis case: Martin van Beynen. A journalist who is active in both cases. You have outlined your objections to his article, used a a resource by the hate sites. He has apologised for his role in the Peter Ellis case. Will we yet see him apologise for his similar role in the Bain case? How much damage will be done first?

August 1, 2010 8:58 AM

As you have referred in your first para the mass media can readily support these outlandish claims by not critically analysing them. One could hope that it was simply laziness on their part. But more likely they are driven by a distortion of truth to cause shock and outrage among the willingly deceived. Whichever is the case it is a failure to the craft of journalism, if the seeds of truth are of no interest then why does one choose to become a journalist. Far better to write nothing if not sure of the veracity of your account of the subject, similarly if you haven't thought critically enough about it to feel confident in what you say. The first self-imposed hurdle for the writer becomes fixing the course the article or opinion piece is going to take, rather than following a trail, considering the material as objectively as possible and trying to suggest for your reader a conclusion that is factual and not emotive or pre-conceived.

Common language in the Bain case is that there is no evidence against Robin, when in fact there is a significant amount, equally saying there is a mountain of evidence against David when in fact there isn't and never was. But terms like 'mountain,' paper run alibi' appeal even though there is no place in constructive journalism for such adjectives. Which brings me van Beynan and his apology in the Ellis case, although I don't know that situation well, it appears he has learnt little from the experience. On the Bain article alone he fails as a constructive, informed journalist to bring balance and insight into a controversial and at times complex case, he takes the easy route - seemingly unconcerned by the damage - attacks the Jury and others in way that grabs headlines for a willing audience who thrive on subjects that don't need to be thought about too deeply.

I don't want to divert into the Bain case but I will mention some of the circular comment, 'why would Robin do such and such,' to show imaginary evidence against David. And another favourite, quote David as credible for something said or done that is helpful to the case against him and call him a liar at all other times.

But to move to construt failures:
A poor investigation, too much 'gut feeling' and a reliance on the fact David would cough.
Withheld evidence.
COA conducting a role as Judge and Jury.
The Crown wasting resources on a retrial.
The van Beynan article and the proliferation of hate sites.
No constructive media analysis.
The Crown failing to act on matters such as the attack of the Jury, Bain and others post trial despite the proceedings not yet being finished, and despite the Justice Department's role in delivering a miscarriage of justice that is yet to be remedied.