In his signature style of grand storytelling, James Michener sweeps us back through time to the Holy Land, thousands of years ago. By exploring the lives and discoveries of modern archaeologists excavating the site of Tell Makor, Michener vividly re-creates life in and around an ancient city during critical periods of its existence, and traces the profound history of the Jews, including that of the early Hebrews and their persecution, the impact of Christianity on the Jewish world, the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition.

~Inside Flap/The Source

James Michener’s The Source is an onion with 1,104 layers through which the author reveals the evolution of Israel from her beginnings as a strategic asset in the on-going battle for control of the region to a stop along the Far East trade routes to a sanctuary for the Jewish people post World War II.  Except in this case the onion is Tel Makor, an archeological site which housed multiple civilizations over the millennia, one on top of the over, each drawn to the spot by a freshwater well, a valued asset in an otherwise arid environment.

[Historical Note:  The actual dig on which Michener’s fictional version is based is Tel Dan, which overlooks the plains of Arman-Megiddo, referenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls as the battleground for the final conflict between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.  It is also the etymological origin of the term “Armageddon.”  The fact it is also equidistant from Tel Aviv and Damascus might also keep you up at night.]

The process by which the protagonists in the story, four archeologists, document the history and interpret what they observe is a model for approaching any discovery or new information.  What triggered my renewed interest in Michener’s take which I first read in preparation for my first trip to Israel in 1974 was the potential relevance to on-going debate over the impact of social media such as Facebook, Twitter or even a blog such as Deprogamming101.  What if we approached each social media post or comment in a manner akin to the meticulous step-by-step practice of an archeologist who looks not just at the content of an artifact, but questions who left it and why.

I have long since cancelled my Facebook and Twitter accounts, but am frequently the recipient of emailed articles or links from family, friends and colleagues.  They may be follow-ups to something I have written in this blog, a perspective on an off-line discussion in which we are engaged or just an attempt to affirm their perspective on a topic du jour.  Sometimes the sender will forward an article about which they knew I will object as a means of prodding me to present the counter viewpoint.  And throughout much of 2020, I welcomed this challenge and made the effort to address either inaccurate information, questionable logic in the interpretation or both presented by the author.

However, since November 3rd I have taken a different tack.  Before reading any article, I have approached the materials as a data archeologist a la the main characters in Michener’s tome.  The process begins with the same underlying hypothesis, “How can one truly understand the content without first exploring its origins?”  In other words, who wrote it and why?  Of course, this raises the next question, “What criteria does one use to determine the potential value of each ‘artifact’?”  Having now engaged in this practice for just over a month, I found two yardsticks which make the difference whether the subject matter is read or ignored.

First, the history of the organization associated with the content.  When was the entity established?  What events might have motivated the founders to act at a specific point in time?  Has the entity recently renamed or rebranded itself or changed its mission?  Who are the founders?  Who are listed as directors, advisors or consultants?  These questions differentiate commentators who have a history of punditry covering multiple issues and those who use a website or created a presence to promote themselves as an expert or leader of a single issue movement.  Or whether the organizational affiliation is a front that gives its members credibility on the topic which they might otherwise not deserve.

Second, I Google the name of the author to see what else he or she may have written.  For example, a recent letter to the editor in our local paper consisted of a diatribe against the radical left, conspiracy theories about the “stolen election” and unsubstantiated charges of Biden family corruption.  The first hit from my search was a 2015 opinion essay by the same writer calling for people who submitted opinions to newspapers to demonstrate “civility and credibility.”  As Buffalo Springfield would say, “Hypocrisy runs deep.”

So, to those who want to share mainstream or social media with me, you can save us both time and effort.  I welcome viewpoints, even those with which I might disagree, from sources such as the Wall Street Journal or even the National Review as I do from The Atlantic or Washington Post.  Nor am I concerned if a long-established source takes up a new cause as I assume they apply the same editorial standards as they have in past and their history provides evidence of any partisan or ideological bias they may bring to the table.

The same is true of commentators the likes of George F. Will or Peggy Noonan.  They may spin the facts, but they do not promote conspiracy theories.  And when recently they condemned a wannabe dictator’s efforts to overturn the will of the people, it reinforces my willingness to listen to their side of a policy argument, knowing that we share a common commitment to the democratic process.

And though I do not expect others to follow these same rules of the road, this approach does provide insight to the dilemma created by open-source platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and TikTok.  Despite recent efforts to filter content and the apologies for past failure to do so, primary responsibility for what one views or ignores is up to the individual.  While each platform must address clear threats to public health and safety, the worst actors in these storm clouds over Madisonian liberalism will always be the subscribers to the services, regardless of political affiliation or ideology, who choose not to peel back the onion in order to question not only what they read, but why they are the target audience and the history and motivation of those making that decision.

As Walt Kelly aka Pogo always reminds us, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP