Media reports of extreme cruelty and violence: what to do with it?

[JoH]

(sorry for English mistakes :) )

A few days ago, TV aired an interview with some young woman who had been stationed in a Central American country as a missionary. Apparently, her activities to support the local people weren't appreciated by some evil secret service (infiltrated by the CIA etc.etc..) and she had been abducted and subjected to torture. It was obvious that she had indeed been tortured severely (rape, cigarette burns...) and she was traumatized and very emotional about it.


At one point, she told in detail about one of the horrors she had been put through. Which went something like this:

"... I was bound and then lowered into a deep dark pit. At the bottom of the pit, there was a pile of corpses and people who were dying but still alive. Men, women, children... Everything was covered with a crust of drying-up blood and there was the smell of death."

At this moment, the woman even couldn't continue her story any longer (not surprisingly...).


What makes me post this message is my spontaneous reaction to this testimony, and my own conflict with it. The reaction was that I had serious trouble to believe this particular story. Yet, at the same time this inability to sincerely believe also made me feel bad.

I think, 10 years ago I would have reacted differently. But because of a number of things we've seen happen in the media and criminal trials, I have become increasingly sceptical when confronted with reports like this. The question is: is this justified, or do I just grab this as an alibi to not HAVE to believe cruelty of that level?

In this particular case, the incredible extremity of that part of the woman's story (it seems to come straight out of Dante...) leads me to prefer an interpretation whereby she was so severely traumatized that she at one point started confusing nightmares with the actual torture.


Here are some - recent and less recent - examples of cases that made the media and either later *proved* to be good reason to justify great skepticism, or sound like they could use skepticism:


- 1st Gulf War: reports about Iraki soldiers taking away early-born children from hospital so they died; reports of Iraki soldiers "spooning-out" eyes of innocent civilians. The reports of organized mass-rape of women in the Balkan conflict.

the first turned out to be pure propaganda to demonize the enemy, I'm not sure what the final conclusion is about the organized mass-rape reports, but I remember it was seriously doubted at one point.


- several reports of satanic cults, pedophile rings and other organized mass abuse of children where never any substantial evidence appears and testimonies are confabulated, induced, blown-up over time, product of confused or traumatized victims. In Belgium we had "Witness X" in the case Dutroux, we had a false accusation of a husband involved in a divorce (exploited by the media), in France we have the recent pedophile case, in the US and Netherlands also cases of completely confabulated or at least very doubtfull mass abuse.

Very high chance of being the product of confabulation with only a core of truth, amplified by media attention who sees an excellent chance to make money with the story.


- detailed reports in the media about the evil deeds of child soldiers, and the behaviour of rebels in central Africa (with descriptions of cruelty against women that is even too horrific to even *think* about typing it out here)

I have the impression that many of these stories are of the type "we were told by he/she that he had heard of this or that having happened". Is there a parallel here with early reports about cannibalism, and modern urban legends? Another possibility is that it is a tactic, arguably justified, to manipulate the media so a problem that would otherwise never be noticed gets attention because of its unspeakable cruelty. A matter of beating the devaluation of the impact of reports of 'normal' violence, so to speak.


Yet, on the other hand we have examples where reality proved to be maybe even worse than what you can imagine. Cambodia, the Holocaust etc...etc...


I guess my main point is: am I the only one who has a skeptical reflex with reports like this, and how do you handle it?

Is it likely justified?
Is it somekind of defense tactic to not have to believe the evil in humanity?
Is it better to BELIEVE unrestricted than to doubt and therebye sometimes dismiss something that really happened?

JoH

[crimresearch]

There shouldn't be predictable answers to questions about how we react to reports of human deviance.

There is no behavior so unthinkable that someone hasn't already thought of it, and tried it. There is nothing so abnormal that someone out there isn't doing it as a matter of course.
And that would include making up false reports of being victimized in a horrible manner.

So to expect our standard emotional and cognitive processes to give us useful tools for evaluating and dealing with reports of extreme behavior, is perhaps asking too much.

So I for one, do not see where there is a particular problem with evaluating such reports with an eye towards their being fraudulent.
If they are later demonstrated to likely be true, your sympathy will have lost no value for being held back at first.
And if they are later shown to likely be fabricated or embellished, your skepticism will survive the initial urge to be sympathetic.