跳到主要内容
brian_williams001
前期

Did Brian 滚球 谎言?

这个问题将使许多人感到荒谬。该男子供认,没有’他吗?而且动机很明显–他正在与可能冒着生命危险在中东生活的新闻记者争夺地位,并希望以类似的新闻英雄的身份自pass。但是,如果通过“lie” we mean “故意伪造,旨在欺骗。”建议的动机和大多数其他动机可能很容易得到处理。在今天’s world of “gotcha journalism” and the internet, where existing records are easily discovered and few records are erased, 滚球 could not expect an untruth as blatant and public as his to go undiscovered. He surely would have realized that the risk of discovery far outweighed any benefits the glow of heroism might bring.

但是没有必要动机来解释滚球’声明。他是人类就足够了。几十年来,我们已经知道内存不能像磁带录音机或照相机那样工作。很少触发闪光灯以捕获所有时间的内存。大多数观察结果没有保留,当保留时,很少能像原始记录那样忍受。记忆是可延展的。随着时间的流逝,我们的记忆随着每一次讲述而重塑。当无可辩驳的无辜者因严重罪行而被定罪时,错误的目击者身份鉴定是最常见的原因。然而,这些证人的原始说法并不总是不正确的。初次被问到时,证人可能会给出模糊的描述,只记得一些突出的特征,或者证人可能会将照片阵列中的照片描述为“最接近袭击者。”但是到审判时,也许在看完被告后’的照片几次或在现场直播中看到被告本人,曾经是“closest resemblance”成为自信的身份。即使兴奋通常会干扰准确的观察,但看到犯罪或受犯罪之害的兴奋却成为为什么“我永远不会忘记那张脸。”如果提醒证人交叉盘问第一个摇晃的身份,则可能会拒绝或解释摇晃。陪审员,目击者留下深刻的印象’即使证人,也缺乏偏见,诚意和完全的信心去定罪’信心使我们几乎看不到证人’s likely accuracy.

甚至陌生的人,在应对极端压力的情况下,人们承认自己犯下的罪行’t commit. Most false confessors recognize the 谎言s they are telling, but do so to escape the situation or because of benefits they believe are promised. (“我们知道您做到了。我们赢了’除非您告诉我们原因,否则请勿将您送回家给父母。”)但是后来有少数人说,当他们供认时,他们开始相信自己在胁迫下的虚假陈述,直到后来他们才承认植入的记忆是虚假的,而且故事是不真实的。

当牵涉到的犯罪少于定罪时,很容易改变人们’对事件的记忆。询问发生车祸的观众,两辆车在行驶时有多快“bumped into”彼此之间,估计速度可能很慢。询问同一部电影的观众,汽车在行驶时有多快“smashed into”彼此之间,估计速度会更高。更重要的是,如果一周后观众被问及他们是否在电影中看到了碎玻璃?“smashed”那个小组,不同于那些碰碰碰的小组,会说他们在没有的时候看到了玻璃。

滚球’ falsehood is particularly interesting because we have a documented history of 滚球’ descriptions of his helicopter venture over time. His original version described a trip in which he safely observed another helicopter under attack. But over the years, with each retelling, the trip became more harrowing for him. His next most recent version claims the helicopter he was in came under small arms fire, while the most recent version ups the ante by adding an RPB attack. A similar relationship exists between other adjacent prior recountings. With each retelling he had more cause to be concerned for his safety. I suppose it is possible that these escalating retellings were part of a Machiavellian plan to pave the way for acceptance of the version that made him look most heroic, but it is far more likely that we are seeing a rare, detailed portrait of how memory is transformed over time. This does not mean that 滚球’ desire to for celebrity did not affect the direction and extremity of the transformed account, but it does suggest that we should acquit 滚球 of charges that he 寻求 to deceive. We certainly lack proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that we cannot trust 滚球 to accurately recall old events without self-aggrandizement good does not mean that we cannot trust him when he reports the news or his own contemporary observations.

这个故事的一个有趣的旁注是,声称自己驾驶过搭载滚球直升机的里奇·克雷尔(Rich Krell)最初证实了滚球’关于小武器射击的说法,但不是火箭榴弹的说法,但他后来撤回了他的确认。确实,其他人声称,克雷尔在这次旅行中不是飞行员。克雷尔打算欺骗吗?不太可能。对于他来说,没有任何东西。我们很可能再次看到可延展的记忆在起作用。滚球和克雷尔的合影表明,即使克雷尔没有当时的滚球,他也可能会在其他场合这么做。毫无疑问,作为阿富汗的直升机飞行员,他经历过多次武器射击的经历。内存转换的一种常见形式是将有经验的事件置于错误的环境中。 (“I’我永远不会忘记我们在乔的周年晚宴’s Joint.” “亲爱的,那是我的生日晚餐。”)此外,就像发生车祸的影片一样,其他人说的话也会触发误召。聆听滚球’这个故事可能导致克雷尔(Krell)融合了飞行员滚球和受到小武器射击的记忆,并将它们与滚球描述的事件联系在一起。然而,仅知道克雷尔和滚球讲的故事是错误的,许多人会认为克雷尔一定是在试图掩盖滚球。

希拉里·克林顿(Hillary Clinton)潜伏在滚球故事背后,几乎是在为以后可能发生的骚动做彩排。’她在波斯尼亚飞机上时躲开狙击手大火的故事。这个故事也无疑是错误的,但是事实与现实之间的差异并不意味着克林顿试图欺骗。助理国务卿克里斯托弗·希尔(Christopher Hill)正在飞机上,在飞机降落前叙述了他在岗哨上的详细安全简报,描述了飞机降落时可能会有狙击手开火的情况以及发生这种情况时的处理方法。毫无疑问,克林顿密切注意了简报会’的警告和指示,这些印象比实际下船的平淡经历给人的印象要多得多。几年后,如果她还记得她在波斯尼亚着陆之前所听到的一切,这也就不足为奇了,这使克林顿错误地将实际的狙击手射击与她的着陆经历联系起来。与无法想象目击者曾经忘记攻击者的陪审员一样 ’表面上,很难想象一个人会忘记自己是否被狙击手开除,但是就像陪审团裁定无辜者一样,我们对一个诚实的人会记得什么的直觉很可能会犯错。

Celebrities and politicians should not be given a pass when they state untruths. Rather the untruth should be called out. But this does not mean we should call out the person who spoke falsely as a liar. Newscasters and politicians are, like the rest of us, human. We all have false memories. This does not make us untrustworthy, or mean that most things we say should be viewed with skepticism. Now 滚球 will be off the air for six months, perhaps because he is a self-aggrandizing liar, but most likely because he is simply human.

R

理查德·伦珀特

Former 布鲁金斯Expert

埃里克·斯坦(Eric Stein)杰出大学法学和社会学名誉教授- 密西根大学

获取布鲁金斯的每日更新