UN Troops.JPG

Rumors that a new UN treaty will disarm Americans are a great example of news that ain't so.

(Associated Press)

A reader wrote, "You said to let you know if you're missing some critical facts. What about this one?"

He said he'd heard the U.S. wanted to sign a treaty with NATO that would disarm Americans. "I'm old and I live alone," he wrote. "We just had another home invasion. I don't want to be a victim. The rich and politicians have armed guards. Who's going to protect me?"

My heart goes out to everyone who is frightened for his or her safety. Even though crime has been falling nationally for years, there are still far too many victims.

Letters like this, though, remind me of one of my favorite quotes by Will Rogers: "It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so."

We haven't run stories on the disarming of Americans because it ain't so. Stories like this persist, though, because there are ideological and fundraising industries built around scaring people, even with things that are not happening.

A good news organization serves as an antidote to exploitative fiction. When we avoid printing falsehoods, though, some readers see our prudence as a sign of bias.

It's such a common problem that I'd like to ask a serious question: Should we start a regular report on "News that ain't so"? A debunking of fakery?

Happily, there are several ways already to defend against fake news.

Let's study the NATO rumor as an example. I could do a similar analysis of any number of exaggerated claims, from both ends of the political spectrum. This one just happens to be the most recent reader question.

It started with reports of a United Nations treaty designed to regulate the international shipment of conventional weapons. The leadership of the NRA quickly called this a threat to the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

The first defense against needless fear is to closely examine the scary claim.

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre did not cite specific language in the treaty that would deprive Americans of their guns. He attacked the U.N. in general terms: "The U.N. has consistently refused to recognize the legitimacy of any firearm in any individual's hands, anywhere in the world, including the United States of America," he said.

Rule of thumb: The more general the scary accusation, the less urgent the threat.

The second defense against being misled is to check advocates' claims against the findings of reputable independent fact-checking organizations.

Snopes.com specializes in rumor control. It said the arms-treaty scare story was "erroneous in all its particulars." The treaty "has nothing to do with" gun sales or ownership in the United States. It "specifically reaffirms" national sovereignty in such matters. The president cannot impose a gun ban through treaty, because "the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate."

Factcheck.org also explores tales like this. Its 2009 report debunked claims that the treaty would override the Second Amendment. It also noted that President Obama had taken virtually no steps to abridge the rights of gun owners.

Politifact.com is a third tool in my personal fact-check kit. Its report, in June of 2014, noted that "language in the treaty itself specifically leaves gun-control and ownership decisions up to member nations." It called the gun-scare claim, "all flash and no powder," and rated it "false."

I have no dog in the fight regarding this particular treaty. It seems to have no impact on life in the United States, unless somehow, against all odds, it reduces the number of heavily armed insurgent groups that Americans have to fight overseas.

The gun claim does, however, serve as a reminder of the risk that extreme partisanship may pose for our future.

Research says partisans tend to screen out news that disagrees with their personal prejudices, and focus on the news that agrees with them.

Forty-seven percent of consistent conservatives say Fox News is their main source for coverage of government and politics. Consistent liberals tended to filter, too, relying on a cluster of sources: CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and the New York Times. Some 66 percent of conservatives say their friends generally share their political outlook. Liberals, meanwhile, were more likely than conservatives to defriend people on social media or drop a friendship over a political disagreement.

Ideological tunnel vision harms our social and mental health. It breeds ignorance, which a self-governing people can ill afford. And, too often, ideological organizations try to motivate their followers through fear and anger.

Polarization also seriously complicates life for news organizations like ours. Dedicated partisans on both sides tend to see bias in any reports that don't align with their own preconceptions. Many perceive bias when we decide not to publish a story, even if it is provably false.

At The Plain Dealer, we're dedicated to truthfully exploring all sides of every major issue. That's a big claim, and you have every right to hold us to the highest standards. If we fall short (and sometimes, despite the best of intentions, we will), or if you have a question about a story we haven't printed, please let me hear from you.

And, please, look out for yourselves. If a story seems like it was almost designed to scare or anger you, don't let your blood pressure rise until you've checked it out.