Speaking with Portfolio: Have some integrity -- be 100% accurate or 100% candid

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Jan 1, 2017
10,923
1,635
290
D.C.
I don't know whether what I've discussed below is unique to matters that have a political dimension or whether it's cultural. I do know it's pervasive and in this day and age of quick and easy access to information, it should not be that.


For most folks, unless one is an expert in a given area, it's likely that one may think something to be so, but not know 100% that it is. One doesn't need to 100% of the time be 100% certain. What one needs is merely to be 100% candid when one is well aware that one isn't an expert on the subject/information one opts to share. (Recognizing that information and opinions are not the same things.)

What's it take to be an expert? Well that depends on what one discusses. For example:
  • Discussing an event one observed --> To the extent that one is merely identifying the activity one observed, the place of the event, and people and things one saw present and perform the various actions, one's an expert. In some regard, depending the nature and extent of interaction one had with the various actors involved, one may even be an expert as goes interpreting the event or portions of it. When it comes to extrapolating the event or aspects of it to the world in general, one's mere presence there or anecdotal observations of other similar events does not make one an expert.
  • Discussing what is, what's probable, what's likely, and cause and effect relationships with regard to a discipline --> Well, if one is a professional, scholar, and/or researcher in that discipline, one is an expert in it. Otherwise, one is not. For instance, an economist is an expert on, well, the economic impact of, say, a given piece of legislation, but not on, say, its political impact; however, a political scientist is an expert on the latter.
  • Discussing your own thoughts, motivations, actions, etc. --> You are the world's foremost expert on that.
There are obviously other specific examples, but the point is that as information comes one's way, one must consider whether the person who provides it without any corroborating content is credible, that is whether there's good reason to think the person knows what they're talking about. Is there reason to construe them as "expert enough," even if they aren't explicitly an expert?


Recently, the matter of Colin Kaepernick's kneeling during the National Anthem inspired a whole passel of people to remark on what the NFL Rulebook says. One of those people is a Facebook member who when commenting on post she saw on a MassLive's Facebook New England Patriots post, wrote:

"The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the NFL League Rulebook. It states:....[she went on to quote what she alleged was content from the rulebook]"​

McSweeney's comment "went viral," and the rest is history. But let's ask ourselves this:

Who is Kathleen McSweeney Lanoie?
What portfolio has Kathleen McSweeney Lanoie?
Clearly, whoever she is, there's no obvious basis for accepting as credible anything she might post on the Internet, other than her attestations about herself. That is, there's nothing readily obvious that indicates she is an expert on the topic she opted to discuss.

McSweeney also references 36 U.S. Code § 301 which contains language about conduct during the Anthem's playing. Careful readers will observe that the statute contains no language that criminalizes and defines the nature and extent of penalties to be levied for disobeying the statute. Thus, on the second point she raised, though the code section does exist, she inexpert application of it shows us that again she had no idea of what she was talking about (she's obviously not an attorney or jurist, and likely not someone with a business degree). Obviously, she merely found a piece of information and went off half-cocked posting it, and others who knew no more than she "ran with it."

Sure as I can in "no time flat" discern those things, so can anyone else. Yet, insofar as her remarks went viral, many people made no effort to do so.

We even have at least one member on USMB who contributed (presumably unintentionally, but I have no way to know that for sure) to the "virulence" of that woman's comment:

Per the NFL rulebook:
  1. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country.
Well, it took all of three seconds to check the NFL Rulebook to confirm whether it did indeed say that.

2017 Rulebook

The link above is for the PDF download of the rulebook. Doing a search for the word "country," one finds that word does not appear in the whole of the document. Searching for the word "judged," one finds it four times and none of them is in the sentence you've indicated. Accordingly, I deem that the so-called rule you (your mother?) claims is in the rulebook is wholly fabricated.

At the time, I didn't know where the statement came from, but I knew from where it did not come -- the NFL Rulebook. Well, now I have found out from where the claim came and who is its source: a Facebook post by Kathleen McSweeney Lanoie.

The passage Lanoie cited came not from the "NFL League Rulebook" as she claimed, but rather from a document called the "game operations manual," at least according to Time. From where Lanoie got the manual or learned of it's content is anybody's guess. I cannot find the document on the NFL's website.

The magazine also reports that "'The league’s Game Operations Department uses the manual to govern the conduct of home clubs, to ensure they protect players and provide the conditions for a fair and fan-friendly contest,' reads the NFL's website."

According to Time and an NFL spokesperson, the Game Operations Manual states:

The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem.

During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.​

From where I sit and come from, there's just no excuse for being "loud, strong and wong." Naturally, nobody wants to be that, but the only way to not be that is to check things before uttering them in public. So what does it take to speak with portfolio? Very little...
  • Verify the information's factual and contextual veracity and applicability before sharing it publicly. The Internet makes doing that very easy and very quick.
...or...
  • If one doesn't feel like checking carefully -- something that is at times understandable -- simply state that one has not unverified the information. That's the barest minimum of discursive integrity. It tells audiences that they are well advised to confirm what one has said before relying on or repeating it.
And therein is the problem: the power and speed of message-flow across social media is such that we really cannot afford to have polity comprised of millions who don't exercise discursive integrity. Before the Internet and before the advent of social media, one could pretty well get away with saying just about anything because how many people might actually hear it? Unless one was a prominent figure, not many. That is no longer the case. Because it is no longer the case, we each have a civic duty to refrain from saying whatever comes to mind when we do not have portfolio for saying it.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top