 Aloha, welcome to Figments on Reality, season one episode four. I'm excited about today's show and so excited. I woke up at four o'clock this morning. That's not that abnormal for people my age. And I was thinking about the challenge that I face because today's topic, as you saw in the intro, is the pandemic, vaccines and the First Amendment. And you might wonder, how can I address that in a way that is apolitical? Because I don't want to get into politics. I find it distracting from a fruitful discussion. And a lot of times if you express views that don't match your viewers in a political way, they're disregarded. So I'm going to work hard to stay true to my efforts to be apolitical. And that's what I have on the screen there. No interest or involvement in political affairs. Well, we're going to touch on them. But I have an aversion to using them as a way to make an argument. And I especially dislike being vitriolic or hyperbolic unless I'm telling a story, of course. And I simply want to contribute to the discourse and not try to dominate it or inflame it. So I'm going to do that today. But before I do, hey, guess what? Figments on Reality and Figments, the power of imagination must be getting very popular because look what my son sent me from Virginia. Somebody's even gotten a vanity plate celebrating this show. Awesome. Okay, maybe not. I don't know whose car that is, but that's the way I'm looking at it. So I'm going to talk about the pandemic and vaccines and the First Amendment in an apolitical way and talk about what I think we need in our country and really in the world to promote a better discussion while protecting, certainly in this country, freedom of speech. So first of all, to start that, I should tell you what I believe about vaccines. Now I'm not an epidemiologist or a medical doctor or anything else, but here's what I believe. They're safe, they're effective, and the risks are minimal, at least for those that we're utilizing in the United States. So I've been vaccinated some time ago and I'm glad I have, but I'm surprised at what percentage of the population hasn't been vaccinated in the US and that's kind of what got me thinking about this was I looked at some numbers. I think this is a pretty good source. There are so many different numbers out there that I tried to keep it simple. And as you can see, slightly less than half our population is vaccinated. And with the Delta variants, the numbers are creeping back up again. Last thing we want to do as a nation, I think is get back to the tragedy of disease and death and the resultant economic impact. So as I looked at who was vaccinated and who wasn't, there are a couple of points that I'd like to make that there is a nearly linear progression. I'm a political science major, so I'm not sure I know what that means, but starting from folks my age, the elderly, if you will, the Kapuna here in Hawaii, and then going down to younger people, less and less are vaccinated. And two other groups are underserved under vaccinated in my mind and that's Hispanic in the African-American communities. That means our government should put its efforts into addressing the underserved, younger people, the Latino community, black Americans to increase the vaccination rate and make the whole population safer, but certainly those groups. And I really think that that's where the effort has to go and that it's a worthy effort. But as we get into that, there was some news last week that I think has caused for concern about how a government does that. And it falls under, in my mind, the First Amendment to our Constitution. And that's a fundamental, well, it's the First Amendment. So therefore it's pretty preeminent, right? But as you can see, the First Amendment says that Congress should make no law respecting the abridgment, the establishment of a religion, prohibiting free speech, abridging freedom of speech, et cetera, et cetera. And I badly paraphrased that. So hopefully you read it in its proper form. That is no simple set of words there, especially in the modern environment, partly because the freedom of speech has expanded so broadly with the information age and partly because there are so many other ways that government can affect behavior beyond a law passed by Congress, executive orders, pressure on businesses or groups. It isn't as simple as no law abridging on all those things. And then when we talk about freedom of the press, the press has become increasingly diverse over time. First, there were just newspapers, then radio, then television, then cable, now websites, apps, streaming and social media are all part of the press. I mean, even I can be a journalist, here on Figments, on reality. So it's complicated. And it's very complicated in terms of COVID-19 and the pandemic. And it's good to look at how the First Amendment has been addressed in the courts over time, especially with regard to free speech. The analogy most used, most often used to explain the freedom of the press, freedom of speech in the First Amendment. It refers to a U.S. Supreme Court case, shank versus United States from 1919. No, I was not yet born, viewers. But in that case, the question was, can you shout fire in a crowded theater when, or actually it was a case made in the decision, when there is in fact no fire? And this case was about opposition to the draft in World War I, speech against the draft was deemed as dangerous and thus prohibited and that was upheld. Now, this ruling was later modified and decreased in scope in another case, Brandenburg versus Ohio in 1969. It limited to the scope, banned speech to that, which would be directed and likely to incite imminent lawless action. Likely to incite imminent lawless action is the rule for limiting free speech. And the original wording in Holmes' opinion, in the 1919 case, highlighted that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected and that is as opposed to speech, which is dangerous, but also true. An interesting and important distinction. So last week, there's word from the White House that they were working with social media outlets to counter what they labeled misinformation. White House Press Secretary, Jen Pisaki said, plus Thursday, there's about 12 people who are producing 65% of anti-vaccine misinformation on social media platforms, misinformation. And they see that as dangerous because it might prevent people from taking proper measures, including getting vaccinated. Their information came from a nonprofit. I don't know if this nonprofit known as the Center for Countering Digital Hate has a staff of epidemiologists and other experts who can make this judgment on what's true and not, but they cited these 12 or so superspreaders of misinformation. Now, I believe not politically because other governments led by other parties in the United States have similarly overreached freedom of speech. I believe this is a dangerous overreach in the government control of information. The government has the resources to compete in and ought not seek control of the information space. So they've got to compete. They've got to put their arguments out there, their views, factually based arguments, convincingly made, and they have to win in the marketplace when it is not clearly false and dangerous. And the big problem here in deciding what's false and dangerous is what is true and what is false. And as we've seen throughout the pandemic, that changes from time to time. It's not always certain. What is the truth? What is misinformation? The truth has changed over time as the virus and effective countermeasures have become better understood and they're not fully understood because it's really difficult. So some of the areas that I'd cite are, first of all, the early dismissal and the labeling of misinformation, the lab origins argument that said that this virus may have originated from the Chinese lab in Wuhan. And now we don't know that that's true. I'm not making the case that that is the case, but we don't know. And we didn't know then. However, early on it was dismissed in the head of the World Health Organization last week acknowledged that that dismissal was premature. Okay, so if I said in March or April of last year, this virus could have come from the Wuhan lab. That might have been labeled misinformation and I could have been kicked off Twitter, which I don't use, or Facebook, which I do, because I was spreading misinformation. Well, it's no longer misinformation. It's not a proven fact, but it hasn't been ruled out yet. It may never be ruled out or in, but applying the standard that the White House put to it this week, my speech could have been improperly infringed upon under the way they explained it. A couple of other cases that show the shifting nature of fact and fiction, truth and falsehood are the mass guidance. And we all know that the mass guidance, when to where it doesn't work, et cetera, et cetera, is changed and I'm not even sure. I wear my mask, partly because my wife, Father Hunter is watching, so I'll tell her. I wear it when I should, when we think we should, but I really don't know. It just seems like the smart thing to do. And of course, if there are rules and laws in place to where I'll do that. And then finally, and maybe the best example of this, not quite so controversial as the question outside outdoor spreading of the COVID-19 virus, that is a question early on the government CDC, and I believe the World Health Organization said that there was a slightly less than 10% chance of spreading the virus outdoors. Upon further review, as replay officials might say, the probability of outdoor spread is apparently significantly less than 1%. In fact, maybe as low as 0.1%. That's something we learned, right? We didn't know that. We also didn't know that somebody who claimed it was less than 1% was wrong. Once again, using the standard put forth by the White House, if I were to get on Facebook and say that a year ago, I would likely be labeled as spreading disinformation. I'm not a super-spitter. I don't have that many Facebook friends. But this shows the nature, the dangerous nature of government overreach into the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech. And I think, and here's my primary recommendation today, the government should only seek to control information as an extreme measure, and therefore would do consideration. And only when the facts are relatively immutable and not subject to change. And the speech is demonstrably dangerous. If you don't have all of those elements, then compete in the information space. And by the way, you should still compete in the information space because you can't squelch all speech, even if you're the federal government of the United States. Now, back when I was young, probably, well, it's a long time ago. I got a book from a hospital auxiliary book sale called Back to Judgment. And it's something that I referred to and I passed on to my steps in Alejo because it helps you think about what you conclude on matters. But it's, as I think back, it's not quite enough. And going from what you think is fact, to making a judgment, has certainly gotten more complex over the years. I imagine that early in human history is kind of simple. Fact, can I run away from that saber to tiger or should I hide in a cave? Not sure, a cave would be a good place, maybe a tree. But it was a simple survival skill. And of course, it's not that simple anymore, especially when we encounter facts that are not yet proven or fully known, or that are fake. I think fake news is a bad title. I'm more concerned about the danger of fake facts. Things put out there as truths that are falsehoods. But to make a judgment, it isn't just fact to judgment. It's observation, evaluation of the information that you've observed and all the inputs you've taken in. Weighing facts, considering opinions because we all have our biases and then making a judgment. Most people, myself included, don't have the capacity in terms of time, resources, training or to do that well. And as people have for centuries, we rely on journalists. And they play a very important role and that's second main recommendation is we need to be as consumers of journalism. We need to be critical consumers and demand quality journalism. That doesn't mean, and I'm not talking about media bias. I could but I won't because bias is inherent to human nature. I'm talking about quality journalists who do that observation, the evaluation, get the facts, weight the opinions and then put forth a presentation that's balanced and gives folks a relatively objective way to form their own views. And they have to do the hard work of providing this basis for our judgment, forming, now they face a lot of constraints that I'm not putting at all in them. And Alejandra is a career journalist from Gillian. She cautioned me that they can't do everything and they can't do everything. They've got a lot of constraints, their own time, the resources that they have to do research and do ask questions. The editors who may shift what they've written, shorten or change outright. And of course, then every author, I speak from experience, every author's worst enemy, the headline writer who has to put something at the top of the column that is attention getting and may or may not be related to the main points that the author, the reporter, the journalist is trying to make. But the journalists are very important. And I was reminded to this and I have, so this is not a rant on journalists because I have high regard for journalists including those who I'm not married to, because I've had such good experience with them and I'll share a little bit of that. I did an interview with William Cole of the Honolulu Star Advertiser on a Pacific Air Forces exercise and he published it in the Star Advertiser here in Honolulu and it's gotten a little bounce. But in the 15 to 20 minute conversation I had with William, who I know pretty well and know it to be a good competent, diligent reporter, I was reminded of how he asks questions and how he makes sure that he's not simply validating what he already thinks or validating what somebody said, but getting an assessment of what information he has and getting other information that may refute or modify what he's already concluded. That's what a good journalist does. I worked with a reporter when I was on active duty several times and did several interviews and once I told her that doing an interview with her was excruciating and she took a fence initially and I said, no, I don't mean that in a bad way. I mean that when you give, when I am interviewed by you it's work, I have to be very thoughtful because your questions are good and they're probing and not thoughtful to stay out of trouble, thoughtful to give a good factual answer and support my arguments. That's what a reporter should do. And that brings me to the highest profile reporter that I've ever talked to and that's Ted Koppel. I'm going to skip over the one of the sides that I meant to show just for our engineer but maybe I'll get to back to that in a minute. The Ted Koppel and I did an interview like he interviewed me in 1999 during the Air War over Serbia. I was at Avion or a base as a wing commander flying combat and he came and interviewed and I'd done enough media work by that time that I'd gotten overconfident, a little cocky about it. And so I went into that thing and it's just going to be another interview. I knew he was famous, et cetera. But at the end of this 30 minutes or so that we stood there on the flight line and he asked questions. I felt like I'd gone 10 rounds with Mike Tyson, not in an argumentative way. It was just very hard work. His questions were very good and a talking point was never enough for him. And it was a little contentious. We disagreed on a few things. Boy, I remember that and there's more to that story because a good journalist never stands still in their own conclusions. And that couple didn't because he published a book about the year 1999. And in it, I later learned there was a section talking probably five, six paragraphs talking about when he met me at Avion. And it wasn't complimentary. So I didn't feel great about that but there was one specific part that I took issue to and this had been a contentious interview, as I said where we were discussing some things that I couldn't talk about as a matter of security and some things that we disagreed about. And one of the areas we disagreed upon, one of the people who worked for me during the war had given one view and I gave an opposite view. And he asked what I thought of this other guy's view and I said, I didn't care. And I didn't mean, I didn't care what he said. He's free to say, check the First Amendment, what he wants. So anyway, in Ted's book, Mr. Cople's book, he said the general leaf seemed more interested in making a second star than in supporting his troops which couldn't be further from the truth. And I would hope that people who have worked for me over the years would say that isn't me. I read that and I just kind of dismissed it at first. And then, man, it made me mad. And I thought, what if family and friends read that and think it's true? It's not true. So I sat down and with the help of a journalist, this reporter I mentioned who gave excruciating interviews, I crafted an unemotional letter that said, I take exception with this, here's why you're wrong, et cetera, et cetera. And it turned out one of the guys who worked for me had written a similar letter to Mr. Cople. I delivered it to his office and the next day the phone rang. And it was Ted Cople's assistant who said that he wanted to talk to me. We spoke briefly and agreed to meet for lunch and talk through it. So we had lunch at his club that he belonged to in a hotel in Washington, D.C. And we talked for a long time, maybe 90 minutes. And we never agreed. It was a great discussion. He wanted to know where he was wrong, if he was wrong and explain how his process worked in making judgments. And he talked about his experience as a young boy in Britain during the Battle of Britain as a reporter in Vietnam. It was fascinating, but it was also very purposeful. Mr. Cople wanted to be as right as possible, even though this was all water over the dam. The interview had gone on, the interview turned out quite well. The book had been published, who cares? And so we agreed to disagree on a couple of the facts, the one that was most contentious about the conduct of the war and finished the lunch and got up to walk out. It was really a very interesting, enjoyable and enriching time. As we walked out, I turned to him and I said, Mr. Cople, call me Ted, Ted. I just have one request. You know that that part about me being self-serving and self-interested is not true. You're convinced of that now, right? Yes. So I'd like you to take that out of the book. So I can't take that out of the books that have been published and the hardcover edition is done, but I will modify the paperback edition. He said, I'm not gonna change other things that you and I disagree on. And even though you might be right because that was my assessment. So I'm not going to change that, but I will take that piece up because that was clearly wrong. And I was, you know, that's a good journalist. It's a good man. As we got ready to leave the hotel, I'm in my dress blue uniform and he's in his suit. He said, but generally, don't worry about it. Nobody reads these books anyway, which you could think anytime you publish a blog or an article or whatever. We walked into the bright sunlight and there was a businessman hurrying to get to an appointment. I mean, you just tell he's kind of running, half running with his briefcase. And he turned us before he recognized Ted Koppel. He said, hey, do you know where the such and such hotel is? Must have been where his meeting was. And that you could see his face when he realized he was talking to Ted Koppel. And Ted said, yeah, it's down two blocks, turn left, second building on the right. Great. Thanks, Mr. Koppel. Then he started to run again and then he turned back and said to us, said to Ted, by the way, Mr. Koppel, I loved your book. So people do read it and they do influence and journalists should have that sense of responsibility to do it right, even in the rush of meeting deadlines in the information age. And deadlines was the other thing I wanted to show every 4th of July, this meme comes out and it's one of my friends, let's do it tomorrow. Yeah, any of us who write know that it's easy to take shortcuts when you've got to get it published. So two major recommendations. One, the government should not overstep attempts to control information. They should only do so in extreme cases and only if the facts are relatively immutable and not subject to change and the speech is dangerous. The other is that journalists need to recognize their extraordinary responsibility in the 4th of state, the value they bring and do their best in a very hard job. So that brings me to what would FIG do? I try to always close to that. We still have the responsibility to read and think critically. And to do that, I think you should find individual journalists that you trust, don't have to like them and don't rely on outlets that you like that reinforce your existing biases. Don't rely on all journalists from a single outlet. And then most importantly, and I think this is critical for the democracy regardless of which party is in power, in courage restraint and government controls, government attempts to control speech and the press. I think this is important in the future of our nation. And we look at how information and disinformation has fueled turbulence across the world, not just in the United States. It's especially important now. So thanks for joining. I wanna tell you that we're gonna have an encore presentation next week of FIGMENT's The Power of Imagination on the road or imagining the road with former chief staff, Dave Goldfee, my most popular episode so far. Encore means rerun, because yes, I'm taking a brief break. And then finally in closing, let me thank Think Tech Hawaii, a wonderful nonprofit organization that makes the power of imagination and on reality. Reality, and I appreciate it. I hope you appreciate it too. I encourage you to visit their website and make a contribution. They deserve your support. Aloha.