Digital Deception

Option 3: Drunken Senators

Option 3 reminded me of a Maureen Dowd column from earlier this month, which described a story of two politicians and a night that may or may not have happened. According to an article in The New York Times, on a congressional trip to Estonia two summers ago, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed a vodka-drinking contest, and Republican Senator John McCain happily obliged. The report said that “after dinner drinks had gone so well, McCain later told people who unexpectedly engaging he found Mrs. Clinton to be.” He described her as “one of the guys.” Later, when walking through the Capitol, McCain was said to have been heard happily reminiscing about that night – apparently it had been a while since the Senator had gone through a few rounds of flip cup.

But afterward, Senator McCain denied the evening ever occurred. He went on the conservative talk show Hannity and Colmes and said that the reports of him going shot-for-shot with Senator Clinton were absolutely false. Then he went on Jay Leno and said that, basically, The Times got it wrong. That evening “didn’t happen. It didn’t happen.” McCain turned down the Atlantic Monthly when they wanted an interview to talk about his adventures in the Baltics with a certain senator from New York.

Some might say that it appears this will go down as one of Washington’s unsolvable political mysteries, but I say it is a perfect case for a reality monitoring analysis.

Reality monitoring identifies eight criteria for evaluating a story. They are clarity, perceptual information, spatial information, temporal information, affect, reconstructability, realism and cognitive operations.

The clarity of this story was never really in question. Had there been fewer details and a less vivid description, it probably would not have made for as good of a story. Without the sharp and clear report of who was involved, who initiated the drinking, where they were, what they were doing, etc., The New York Times wouldn’t have had much to put on its cover. And without that cover story, talk show hosts would have seemed a bit off-base discussing Senator McCain’s drinking habits and partners. Indeed the story – regardless of its validity – is clear.

In terms of Perceptual Information, the best we have gleaned of that was McCain’s comments in passing on Capitol Hill when he was joking with reporter Joshua Green that it had been a long time since he had engaged in a drinking game. In the midst of his denial, McCain never told us the smells of the room or the sounds he’d overheard, but he might have been referring to a physical sensation – hangover – when he told Green that it had been a while since he’d something like that.

Spatial Information for this story is tough. We know that the alleged night of drinking occurred on a Congressional trip to the Baltics, specifically Estonia. As near as I can tell, that’s as far as the detail goes – we don’t know the name of the bar or where in the bar they were. However, it is difficult to say whether that should diminish the credibility of the story for two reasons: they were in an unfamiliar city; it is possible that even sitting in the bar, the Senators did not know where they were. The other, of course, is that if a location were to be disclosed, it would only be the name of the place the Senators had dinner. Neither one has denied to having dinner together, and the drinks were said to be “after dinner drinks.” A location would not substantiate or diminish the story.

The clarity of this story goes hand-in-hand with the Temporal Information provided. A sequence of events is provided: several members of the Senate were out to dinner. After dinner, Senator Clinton suggested that the group have a vodka-drinking contest. Senator McCain happily and quickly agreed. There were six senators present along with staff, and all of them drank.

The Affect of the story is really what is in question here. We know that the Senators went out to dinner and more recently Senator McCain has even admitted that he had some drinks that night, but he felt that it was a gross misrepresentation to call it a drinking contest. He has said that he had only a couple of drinks and was relatively sober in comparison to Senators Clinton and Collins, who were “revelers.” Essentially, the Senator has argued that he felt he was not truly partying, while the Times report seemed to suggest that he was.

The story is fairly Reconstructable, once the name of the restaurant is disclosed. All the essential elements could easily be in one place at the same time. We know that the Senators were together; we know they eat dinner; we know they are of age to drink.

The story’s Realism is what made it a headline on The New York Times. Senators Clinton and McCain have shown an unlikely affinity toward each other given their party differences. In fact, one article about the incident was titled, “2008 May Test Clinton’s Bond with McCain,” referring to the fact that the two candidates are running against each other for president. Their friendship has been the object of a great deal of surprise because of their political roles but also lends an element of realism to the story that they would be drinking together.

Finally, McCain’s Cognitive Operations seal the deal for me that this story is true. His comments that Clinton is “one of the guys,” that “she can hold her liquor,” and that “it had been a while” sound like the kinds of things he would be thinking in that situation.
The clarity, reconstructability and realism of this story are untouchable. The cognitive operations and temporal information seem to support its truth. Spatial information in this case seems somewhat irrelevant. The only thing truly subject to dispute here is the affect, and with McCain’s conservative voter base, he has every reason to lie about this instance’s affect on him. All in all, it sounds like Senators Clinton and McCain had a fun night in a bar; I’d like to have been a fly on the wall.

posted by Erica @ 11:26 AM