蘭德智庫如何應(yīng)對真相衰落現(xiàn)象

[摘 要] “真相衰落”的現(xiàn)象是由國際知名智庫美國蘭德公司總裁、首席執(zhí)行官邁克爾·里奇提出的，該現(xiàn)象指政治生活中越來越不尊重事實和證據(jù)的傾向。蘭德公司研究了真相衰落的現(xiàn)象，定義并描述了該現(xiàn)象的四種特征：對事實及其數(shù)據(jù)的分析解讀越來越無法達(dá)成共識；觀點與事實的界限模糊；個人觀點和經(jīng)歷數(shù)量太多，超過了事實應(yīng)有的影響；對過去信賴的事實來源產(chǎn)生懷疑。這些現(xiàn)象在美國歷史上盡管有先例，但當(dāng)下，更具有新的成因和表現(xiàn)方式。蘭德希望通過他們的研究，激發(fā)公眾對事實的尊重與重視。

[關(guān)鍵詞] 蘭德智庫；真相衰落；邁克爾·里奇；詹妮弗·卡瓦納；信任缺失；社交媒體；虛假信息

[中圖分類號] C932.4 [文獻(xiàn)標(biāo)識碼] A [文章編號] 1002-8129（2018）11-0046-10

Rand President and CEO Michael Rich has been talking about what he sees as an erosion of respect for facts and evidence in political life—a phenomenon he calls “Truth Decay.” He asked RAND political scientist Jennifer Kavanagh to help analyze the issue and lay out a research agenda to better understand Truth Decay's causes and consequences. RAND's editorial team interviewed Rich and Kavanagh to learn more about their work. In this edited interview， they talk about the evolution of their thinking on Truth Decay， how they define it， and the ongoing research RAND is conducting to help counter it.

蘭德公司總裁、首席執(zhí)行官邁克爾·里奇一直在探討他稱之為“真相衰落”現(xiàn)象，即政治生活中越來越不尊重事實和證據(jù)。他邀請?zhí)m德的政治學(xué)家詹妮弗·卡瓦納一同分析這一問題，并制定研究計劃，以便更好地探究真相衰落的原因和后果。為了解相關(guān)進(jìn)展，蘭德的編輯團隊采訪了里奇和卡瓦納。在下列訪談中，他們討論了對真相衰落的思考過程，給出了定義，并談到他們正在進(jìn)行的對策研究。

What do you mean by Truth Decay， and when did you start thinking about the subject？

您所說的真相衰落是指什么？您是從什么時候開始思考這一問題的？

Michael Rich：My thinking on Truth Decay grew out of my work on the dangers of polarization， something I've been speaking on since 2005. More recently， I have been astounded by the erosion of truth in our politics. I'm using the term Truth Decay because I think it captures a phenomenon that goes well beyond the current outbreak of “fake news.”

邁克爾·里奇：2005年以來，我一直關(guān)注有關(guān)兩極分化的危險，并由此開始思考“真相衰落”的問題。最近，政治領(lǐng)域中的真相磨蝕現(xiàn)象讓我感到震驚。我用“真相衰落”這個說法，是因為這種現(xiàn)象遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過當(dāng)前爆發(fā)的“假新聞”現(xiàn)象。

Truth Decay describes a syndrome of distrust and disagreemen-

t. I see it as a process， not an end state. It has multiple causes and manifestations， some new and some that reach far back in history.

真相衰落描述的是一種不信任、無法達(dá)成共識的綜合癥。我認(rèn)為這是一個過程，而不是最后的狀態(tài)。它有多種原因和表現(xiàn)，有些是新近出現(xiàn)的，有些可以追溯到歷史當(dāng)中。

Jennifer Kavanagh：One of the elements we use to define Truth Decay is increased disagreement on basic sets of facts where consensus used to be more widespread， like the science showing the benefits of vaccines.

詹妮弗·卡瓦納：真相衰落定義包含的要素之一，就是對一些基本事實的分歧越來越大。這些基本事實在過去都是有廣泛共識的，比如科學(xué)研究提出的疫苗的好處。

Another part of our definition is the erosion of what used to be a clear line between fact and opinion. You can see this in news outlets where news stories and commentary often are difficult to distinguish from each other.

定義包含的另一部分，就是事實和觀點之間原來很清楚的界限正在消融。這一點可以在新聞媒體上看到，現(xiàn)在新聞報道和評論之間的界限很難區(qū)分。

There's also a growing volume of opinions relative to facts in the information space， which can drown out the facts. Look at your Twitter feed or any social media platform—quite the imbalance of opinion versus facts.

在信息空間，與事實相關(guān)的觀點或看法也越來越多，可能會淹沒事實?？纯茨愕耐铺鼗蛘咂渌缃幻襟w平臺——觀點和事實完全不平衡。

Michael's comment on trust is another aspect. In the past 20 years， the portion of Americans saying they trust newspapers and TV news “a great deal” or “quite a lot” has fallen from 35 percent to 20 percent， while trust in Congress fell from 22 percent to 9 percent. Even trust in books has declined， according to Gallup-from 41 percent in 1997 to 27 percent in 2016. How can we establish a core set of objective facts when people fundamentally don't trust key sources of information？

邁克爾說的信任是另一個問題。在過去的20年里，美國人“很相信”或“相當(dāng)相信”報紙和電視新聞的人數(shù)已經(jīng)從35%下降到20%，對國會的信任從22%下降到9%。甚至對書籍的信任度也在下降。根據(jù)蓋洛普調(diào)查，人們對書籍的信任度從1997年的41%下降到2016年的27%。當(dāng)人們根本不相信重要的信息來源時，我們怎么能確立一套核心的客觀事實呢？

How widespread is this lack of trust？

信任缺乏的范圍有多廣？

Kavanagh：Plenty. A recent Edelman study found record mist-

rust worldwide， including in non-Western countries such as Malaysia. Europe is seeing the same degradation of trust in political institutions—the European Parliament as well as national parliaments—that we're seeing in the United States.

卡瓦納：很廣。愛德曼①最近的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，在世界范圍內(nèi)，不信任現(xiàn)象已經(jīng)達(dá)到創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄的水平，包括馬來西亞等一些非西方國家。歐洲的政治機構(gòu)，如歐洲議會以及各國議會，正和美國一樣面臨著信任度下降的局面。

Could it be healthy that institutions are trusted less？

對政治機構(gòu)的信任度下降有可能是好事嗎？

Rich：It may be a good thing to the extent that people demand transparency and accountability from institutions and insist on verifiable facts， accuracy， and objectivity. It's not healthy if people begin reflexively distrusting all the experts and institutions they used to rely upon for complex technical or scientific information. And it's dangerous if people decide that it doesn't matter if something is factual or not， as long as it advances their interests or conforms to their beliefs.

里 奇：如果人們要求政治機構(gòu)具有透明度和責(zé)任感，堅持提供能夠驗證的事實，保證事實的準(zhǔn)確及客觀性，從這一角度說，這可能是一件好事。但是，如果人們開始本能地懷疑那些過去一直依賴的專家和機構(gòu)，也就是供給他們復(fù)雜的技術(shù)信息和科學(xué)信息的來源，那就不合適了。如果人們認(rèn)定某件事是否屬實并不重要，只要能促進(jìn)他們的利益或符合他們的信仰就行，那就太危險了。

That's why I believe that Truth Decay and the polarization that drives it are grave threats to America—to our politics， our values， and ultimately our democracy. It's rotting away our public discourse， undermining our civic literacy， and we've even seen it inspire violence.

這就是為什么我相信真相衰落和兩極分化這一動因是美國——是我們的政治、價值觀以及民主，所面臨的嚴(yán)重威脅。它正侵蝕著我們的公共話語，破壞我們的公民素養(yǎng)，甚至?xí)て鸨┝Α?/p>

What's the ultimate harm？

最終傷害的是什么？

Rich：Well， it's hard to maintain democracy if you can't govern. Truth Decay certainly seems to be making it more difficult for government to function. Congress has been having chronic trouble passing laws， confirming nominees， and approving a budget. While there are a number of potential causes including differing values and reluctance to comprom-

ise， it seems it's in part because of disagreement about basic policy facts.

里 奇：如果控制不當(dāng)，我們就很難保持民主。真相衰落使政府更加難以發(fā)揮其職能作用。長期以來，國會在審議法律條文、確認(rèn)提名人、批準(zhǔn)預(yù)算方面困難重重。雖然有一些潛在的原因，比如價值觀不同、都不愿妥協(xié)等等，但部分原因似乎是對基本政策事實無法達(dá)成共識。

Another harm can arise if external adversaries use disinformat-

ion to delegitimize systems of governance. Think of the surge in cross-border propaganda， such as the effort by Russia that RAND studied in Christopher Paul's “Firehose of Falsehood” report.

如果國外的對手使用虛假信息來打擊我們的管理體系，那就可能產(chǎn)生另一個危害。想想跨境宣傳的暴漲態(tài)勢吧。蘭德公司克里斯托弗·保羅的報告《謊言灌噴》，研究的就是俄羅斯的宣傳方式。

Unfortunately， information overload might be making us more vulnerable to disinformation. Garry Kasparov， the chess master and Russian dissident， said： “The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking … to annihilate truth.”

不幸的是，信息超載可能會使我們在虛假信息面前更加脆弱。國際象棋大師、俄羅斯持不同政見者加里·卡斯帕羅夫曾說：“現(xiàn)代宣傳的重點不只是誤傳消息或推動議程，而是要耗盡你的辯證思考能力……最后毀滅真相?！?/p>

A decline in trust in institutions also can be life-threatening. Attacks on science have caused people to doubt the safety of vaccination， for instance. But study after study—including by RAND—shows that vaccines do not cause autism or other major harm. Some parents still refuse to vaccinate their children， which has real consequences. We are seeing a return of viruses like measles that had been mostly eradicated in America.

對機構(gòu)信任下降也會危及生命。例如，抨擊科學(xué)已經(jīng)讓人們懷疑接種疫苗的安全性。但是各種研究，包括蘭德的研究，都表明疫苗不會導(dǎo)致自閉癥或其他重大危害。然而有些父母仍然拒絕給孩子接種疫苗，這種做法會產(chǎn)生實際的后果。我們看到，麻疹等過去在美國基本滅絕的病毒又出現(xiàn)了。

Where do you see signs of Truth Decay？

您在哪里看到真相衰落的跡象？

Rich：Russian disinformation and hacking are good places to start. There's strong evidence of it in the United States， the former Soviet Union， and in Western Europe. We don't know how far it went in terms of influencing the last U.S. election， but we know Russia is using falsehood to sow confusion and delegitimize Weste-

rn democracies.

里 奇：俄羅斯的假情報和黑客行為就是例子。在美國、原蘇聯(lián)和西歐都能找到強大證據(jù)。我們不知道這對最近的美國大選究竟有多大影響，但我們知道俄羅斯正在利用謊言散播混亂，削弱西方民主國家。