Information.

The reader may well think I need something more important to worry about, but I am more than annoyed by the press and other media reporting information as the truth, when in many cases there is nothing to substantiate this information as the truth.

The question is, how much information is fact? The next question is, which information can we pick out as being trustworthy? The answer to the second question must be that there is a large percentage that we cannot be sure of trusting, unless we care to research everything we are fed, which we could never have time to do.

The problem has been excacerbated by the internet, (especially with the increasing popularity of blogs, twitters etc.) After all, anyone can post any information on the internet as fact, and this can easily be spread to other sites. A researcher, then, in an attempt to find information on an area of specialised interest, could use a small 'byte' of information that he/she believes is from a reliable source. Therefore the intention to mislead is not always present, but mislead we are.

Or maybe people in modern times have come to assume that most of what they are fed is just entertainment value, and may/may not be true. Does anyone have any opinions on this? It is a shame if we have become blase about the truth. Although these 'factoids' are not always of great importance, they must surely, by increments, mis-shape our view of the world, if they are to be believed.

An example: A reputable Sunday newspaper reported a list of historical coincidences, including the following-

On 5th Dec 1660, a ship sank in the Strait of Dover. The only survivor was noted to be Hugh Williams. On 5th Dec 1767, another ship sank in the same waters, 127 lost their lives, and the only survivor was Hugh Williams. On August 8th 1820, a picnic boat capsized on the Thames. There was one survivor. Hugh Williams. And on July10th 1940, a British trawler was destroyed by a German mine. Only 2 men survived, one man and his nephew - both were called Hugh Williams.

This is a great story. It's got the wow factor. In days before the internet, not so long ago, we could go on our merry way thinking about this great coincidence and maybe re-telling it at dinner parties!? But the internet confuses us more. A cultural historion might say that the internet gave information to the masses for the first time, but what do we have? Let me point out a few 'facts' about the above example.

Look it up. Our first instinct? If we do, we find that most references say the 1st three examples happened at the Menai Straits. A long way away from Dover. The first example could have been 1664. But some examples say all the 1st 3 happened on Dec 5th. Then again, some don't. Which example did the newspaper use? There are many different variations of what is toted as a 'fact.'

But wait, what happened at the Thames? Some say all 3 happened at the Menai Straits. If so, it's not so much a coincidence, as there were hundreds of shipwrecks in the 16th-19th centuries, just like car crashes of today, and Hugh Williams, well, just imagine the English equivalent of John Smith, it was bound to happen!

There is a Hugh Williams who heard of this when he was 17 and is still trying to verify the validity of the story. He hasn't so far. The story is most probably a myth, but imagine if it was YOUR name! would you like to know if it's true?

The internet, then, has only served, in this case, to cast more doubt on a 'factoid' that might, or might not, have began on the internet. There are records to be observed in naval historical papers etc. that someone, someday, might piece together. In the meantime, the papers continue to 'tell'us things. (By the way, there were half a dozen similar 'factoids' on the same page. Multiply this by all the pages in all the papers on every day.. a lot of misinformation)

PS, the term 'factoid' was coined by Norman Mailer when researching information about Marylin Monroes death. So there!