Michael Hastings: A Classic Conspiracy-Theory Fail

In June, when 33-year-old journalist Michael Hastings died in an unusual single-car accident, it quickly became a perfect storm for conspiracy theorists. Here we were at the apex of NSA paranoia, and a reporter famous for investigating the U.S. government and decrying the surveillance state was suddenly dead. Looking at the comments on HuffingtonPost, many ordinary liberals were highly suspicious of the crash, some outright assuming that of course he was murdered by the powers that be, yawn.

It did seem somewhat suspicious. Hastings died at 4 in the morning, driving an estimated 100 MPH on a residential street in Los Angeles before crashing into a palm tree, with enough impact to throw the engine block 50 yards away. What a weird way to die. I wanted to dig deeper, so I created a Google Alert and watched the news -- and the opinion -- come in.

During the long wait for autopsy and toxicology reports over a slow-news summer, various dubious "journalists" were happy to fill the void and keep people talking possible murder. One rose to the top quickly: Kimberly Dvorak, a Southern California freelance reporter whose stories on Hastings were bought by San Diego 6, a local affiliate of the CW television network based in Tijuana, Mexico.

So, not exactly the Washington Post.

In an early piece on Hastings' death -- which was reposted on dozens of "news" sites -- Dvorak wrote that:
1. An eyewitness saw the car going at maximum speed, then "heard a couple explosions shortly before the car crashed"
2. The explosion was so intense that it took the coroner's office two days to identify the body
3. Toxicology would reportedly take weeks to complete (even though "in stark contrast," James Gandolfini's toxicology in Italy had been completed in only a few days)
4. Shortly before his death, Hastings had sent an e-mail saying he was on to a big story
5. Hastings had said that he received death threats about once per year
6. "Accounts of the car crash" had contained "erroneous details" that "were hard to overlook" (like, the street was actually wide and straight, not narrow and curvy)
7. Even though the LAPD found no immediate evidence of foul play, the intensity of the fire, as judged by watching videos, resembles a thermite burn¹ -- "gasoline generally doesn't burn that hot" (in Dvorak's opinion)
8. The LAPD "refuses to release the accident and toxicology reports"
9. The LAPD refuses to make the vehicle available for inspection ("which only fuels speculation")
10. Although Hastings had a history of alcohol and drug abuse, "his family and friends say he kicked the habit."

Dvorak also mentioned an interview in which HuffingtonPost had asked counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke to weigh in on the Hastings case. Clarke -- ever the provocateur -- stated that the crash was "consistent with a car cyber attack" that could remotely control the speed and braking.

Further articles were routinely picked up by left-leaning news aggregators. Dvorak wrote that Hastings hadn't touched alcohol in five years and "drove like a grandma," according to his friend, Staff Sergeant Joe Biggs²; that the palm tree hit by the car showed "seemingly minimal damage" and only a scratch on the curb; that in TV interviews, Hastings' wife "kind of had a smile on her face and didn't seem like a grieving widow"; and finally, that according to her own analysis of a surveillance video (using a "mathematic equation" for speed supplied by "a University professor"), Hastings' car was going only 35 miles per hour at impact.

Well, when you consider all of these facts, I guess he was murdered! I mean, there were clearly explosions³ and stuff, and stuff burning that wasn't gas, and the car was being driven by someone on a laptop or something who could make it go 100 MPH, or, well I guess I mean 35 MPH. Simple physics says only an explosion would launch an engine 50 yards -- normal car accidents aren't like that, and I know, 'cause I've seen 'em on TV. And you can't trust the LAPD, remember OJ? All I'm saying is, keep an open mind by reading all of Kimberly Dvorak's articles, and then come to your own conclusions!




What are they hiding under that sheet, other than a grotesquely burned corpse?



Imagine the embarrassment when Michael Hastings' accident, autopsy, and toxicology reports were published.

Most of the headlines said that meth and pot were found in Hastings' system. While true, the drug levels were determined to be too low to have contributed to the crash. Other details were more telling: According to interviews with family members, Hastings had relapsed into poly-substance abuse about a month prior, and his brother was soon to arrive in L.A. to try to get him into a rehab program. Hastings had delusions that he was invincible. In 1999, he had been abusing Ritalin and crashed his car into a pole, and subsequently checked into rehab. Later we learned that Hastings had recently come to believe that his car had been tampered with and that helicopters over L.A. were tracking him.

No, drugs didn't cause Hastings to drive 100 MPH. But, he appeared to have a bit of a screw loose, and the addiction and delusion was just a symptom of that. Brilliant journalist, yes; pillar of the community who drove like a grandma, no. What's disturbing is that many of my fellow liberals picked up on the murder narrative, because, well the government with the NSA and everything just seemed so darn sinister.

Actually, the murder talk had already been largely deflated, once Hastings' brother and wife came forward to say that it was probably only a tragic accident. Even while the new "casual conspiracy theorists" were describing to each other a stable, responsible Hastings being remote-controlled toward his fiery, explosive murder at the hands of vengeful government agents -- great scene for a movie, huh? -- his family privately knew that he was simply advancing toward self-destruction.

Ouch. That's gotta hurt, when the victim's own family denounces the cinematic narrative of the journalist-hero getting cyber-gunned down. (Maybe the wife and brother were bought off by the New World Order global bank? Sure....)

I'm not saying for certain that Hastings wasn't murdered. It's just so unlikely, given what we know now. It's an Occam's razor thing: Either, sinister forces came together to commit a Black Ops high-speed murder on the gritty streets of L.A. using cutting-edge wireless cyber-hacking technology, ooh! Or, a very talented dude who was already unstable and had a sad history of psychiatric problems, early one morning just snapped.

Doesn't make for a great movie. Then again, reality seldom does.



1. Many 9/11 conspiracy theorists believe that the World Trade Center buildings were demolished using thermite, a notoriously difficult-to-ignite incendiary.
2. If you want to give your "expert authority" more credibility, add a title or two, or three ("physics Professor Dr. Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.").
3. The reporter Dvorak routinely conflated sudden fire with explosion. There is a difference; actual explosions shred vehicles. Plus, eyewitness testimony is unreliable and easily manipulated.

The Privacy Myth

No matter which side they're on, everyone is talking about the "revelation" that the National Security Agency has been collecting data about Americans' private communications. Aside from the clearly documented fact that we've known about this program since 2005 (it inspired my very first comedy video), I find it curious that many people are calling this an indefensible invasion of privacy -- a "draconian" program that is both unconstitutional and unethical.

I do not understand how anyone can reasonably expect privacy protection for their telephone metadata (phone numbers and identities of parties, and the duration of their calls, which is what the NSA has been collecting). I'm afraid it is not, as many claim, a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights: The 1979 Supreme Court case of Smith v. Maryland established that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding telephone metadata. Today's suit by the ACLU therefore has no grounds and will be dismissed (which, fortunately, has never stopped them from trying before). So, there's that minor detail.

The notion of absolute or even relative privacy is a quaint relic from a bygone, pre-electronic era. How often is our cherished personal privacy routinely violated, in manners which we accept without the slightest protest? Let us count the ways:

1. Anytime you appear in public, you are photographed constantly by security cameras. As seen in the Boston Marathon bombings case, this video can be combined to track your movements with incredible accuracy, should anyone wish to do so.

2. If you have a cell phone and it's turned on, your real-time, minute-to-minute position can be similarly monitored and tracked with amazing accuracy. This technology, too, was used in the Boston case.

3. If you drive a car with an air bag system, a device under your hood constantly records your speed, acceleration, and braking actions. If you're in an accident, the data from this recorder can and will be used against you in a court of law.

4. If you own property, anyone with an internet connection can view photos of it, taken from several different angles, for free. Zillow.com will even overlay information about the size of the home and the most recent sale price.

5. For a nominal fee, anyone can perform a government- and/or credit-records search to reveal your home address (if that isn't already freely available), residence history, arrest record, credit score, business license, etc.

6. If you upload a photograph, the file can be analyzed to reveal the camera's serial number, and if the seller is subpoenaed, your identity as the photographer.

7. Any online photograph identifying you can be found in seconds, by anyone, as can any information that has ever been revealed about you online. It is virtually impossible to get such things removed.

8. If you touch something and invariably shed skin cells or hairs, your presence at the scene can later be confirmed with incredible certitude, through DNA sequencing.

9. Consumer data centers have compiled dossiers on you and your buying habits. (If you're turning 55 soon, you'll be hearing from the AARP. You can be sure of it.)

10. If you include the term "Game of Thrones" in your text on Gmail, you may well be targeted with a banner ad involving Game of Thrones. Yeah, your emails are being scanned by a corporate entity with zero oversight. Does that not bother you also, and if so, why do you still use Gmail?

11. If you live in certain cities (like mine) and you live in an apartment, you can be fined for lighting up a cigarette inside your own home. Now, if that isn't an affront to personal privacy and freedom -- an otherwise-legal act being outlawed in one's own home -- I don't know what is. Yet, the members of my community seem to think this is just fine. (I am neither a smoker nor an apartment dweller.)

12. Then of course there's the personal information that users of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., are happy to distribute to the world. This self-invasiveness, in many cases, boggles the mind.

Through all of this, though, somehow there's an assumption that one's precious phone-calling records are sacrosanct. Where is this world, where we can expect to do anything and go anywhere we wish, using any technology, without leaving a trace? It's no world that I know -- at least not one that's existed for the past 20 years.

If you don't like the fact that privacy no longer exists, then either elect Congresspeople who will enact privacy laws (probably not going to happen), or I suppose, move to a cabin in the woods and live Ted Kaczynski-style. But to text and chat on your high-tech device claiming that the government's actions are unethical and unconstitutional, and that you're outraged by this affront ... get real. That ship has sailed long ago.

Update 6/13: Here's a great companion article on the myth of privacy:
The Top 5 Things You Didn't Know the Government Knows About You by Meagan Reed (HuffPo)

The Truth Really Is Out There

The other day I got a message from someone asking what I thought about water fluoridation. I knew there are conspiracy theories on fluoridation, but this guy had heard specific concerns about the safety of fluoride, from sources that seemed credible. “There are people on both sides saying totally different things,” he wrote. “But there does seem to be a lot of evidence that fluoride can be harmful to your brain. I don't know what to believe.”

I really appreciated the letter, because it seems that more and more, people are latching on to claims that are disturbing, perhaps just because they are disturbing and memorable. But this person wanted to dig deeper and find out what is actually true. It made me ask: What can a thinking person do when there’s a controversy (or a claimed controversy), and they want to know whether one side is just spinning B.S. that contradicts true and actual fact?

Believe it or not, your best bet is to go to Wikipedia. There is a right way and a wrong way to do this. Wikipedia gets a lot of flak about reliability (I’ll get to that in a minute), but certainly one of its strengths, and a core principle that editors try to follow, is neutrality and balance. If an issue is controversial, the article devotes space to both sides, with claims referenced to reliable sources such as major newspapers and peer-reviewed studies. A good example is the article on pink slime, the beef filler that made news this year. There are well-sourced sections on the controversy as well as specific consumer concerns. By checking out the references listed at the bottom of the article, you can actually get the facts, and learn who’s putting them out. (My opinion on pink slime: It’s a non-issue. If you don’t want to ingest a safe-to-eat, protein-rich filler that reduces meat-industry waste and lowers costs — because you think it’s “disgusting” or whatever — then become a vegetarian!)

Then there are pseudo-controversies, where a small group of detractors want to create the impression of a scientific controversy; think creationism or “9/11 Truth.” In these cases, the Wikipedia article will devote less space to the minority view, and perhaps link to a separate article. Wikipedia has a “due and undue weight” guideline, which states that recognized minority viewpoints should be covered, but they should not get special treatment. In the case of the Moon landing, for example, there is an appropriately short section at the bottom called “hoax accusations,” with a link to the Moon landing conspiracy theories article. Even from the latter (and its sources), it’s obvious that this made-up controversy is baseless. 

To check out the claims about fluoridation, I went to the water fluoridation article. There is no mention of potential harm to the brain from fluoride. There’s a link to an article called water fluoridation controversy, but this is largely about ethics and effectiveness, with some discussion about mild discoloration of teeth (fluorosis). I saw no reliable sources with evidence that fluoride is unsafe, except at unusually high levels (for example naturally occurring fluoride from well water).

So, the claim that fluoridation damages your brain appears to be another example of baseless B.S.

Of course, some will say that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. Yes — it’s always a bad idea to assume that any individual fact on Wikipedia is true. If you’re researching a political candidate, don’t write that he has four children because Wikipedia said so. Use the article as a springboard and look at its sources to get the information you need. But for a broader question, such as the existence or merit of a claimed controversy, Wikipedia is an excellent resource. Articles have long histories, are constantly being updated and improved, and are “watched” by an army of volunteers looking out for biased viewpoints and foul play. If you have doubts about an article’s balance, (1) check the sources, (2) click on the “view history” tab to see how the article has changed over time, or (3) click on “talk” to read discussions among editors. The merits of controversies are often discussed on the “talk” page, with editors providing useful (or not so useful) links to back up their claims.

Some say Wikipedia is unreliable because it is just a mouthpiece for the establishment. Conspiracy types will say that their views are routinely scrubbed from Wikipedia by government agents and their shills (this wretched piece of trash is a classic example). So, I guess Wikipedia is part of the conspiracy, too — even though anyone can edit its articles, and nothing on Planet Earth is more democratic or transparent. Sigh. If Big Brother really did maintain all of this “disinfo,” why would there be articles on the conspiracies at all? And so on. Don’t get me started.

Everyone in the world wants you to believe their point of view, and people are getting better and better at producing startlingly convincing media to get you to believe (YouTube videos being the absolute worst in this regard). Wikipedia is one place where you are safe from that kind of manipulation — and, there’s an article on everything. So, when you need to know whether something really is controversial, try going there. As always, though, don’t forget to bring a functioning brain with you.