My Guide To Understanding What Constitutes A Solid Source Of Information

Well, I think we can all agree this election needs to be over yesterday. The deluge of crazy we've witnessed has been extraordinary. It seems like everywhere you look there's a post or an article containing what should be valuable information and have very little to any. The endless cycle of crazy reactions and hysteria that happens with every new "update" has eroded what little credibility many of us in security who depend on this information have in sources. There are good sources, though, still out there.

I have created the following guidelines to sort through the chaff. This list is not just for political news, even though seemingly everything has become political.

1. If it hasn't been reported in the news yet but some insert-the-name-of-a-group-you-identify-with's page has the "scoop", Google the keywords in the story. Also, for goodness sake, check Snopes.com. Most of the time, most of the "stories" I see on social media are debunked first by Snopes. Some have been debunked for years.
2. Not every site with the words "news" or "breaking" is actually a news site. Treat these sources as GARBAGE.
3. Any site that is run by people who share your exact worldview is also GARBAGE and so are its "sources".
4. Any stats in a meme are also GARBAGE if they don't give a source.
5. Most people on social media have ZERO clue how to sort and analyze stats. If your buddy is giving his arguments on stats with mostly his opinions, he's probably full of sh*t.
6. Life is full of gray. Not everyone is evil who shares ideas that are different than our own. Be careful of sources who want to inject their own morality in what's supposed to be an objective account of a story.
7. Be careful of "triggers". These include images or words used in connection with an often poorly sourced and highly-opinionated piece that are often irrelevant to the piece but there to gain your reaction.
8. It's often full of "damning evidence" discovered in just days to tell a story of a conspiracy that's been happening for decades.
9. The site or publisher have a SIGNIFICANT interest in the story being told the way it is by them. Often, for their own profit and gain. Treat these as garbage too.
10. Treat any source that can't be named or won't name other sources to corroborate its information as potentially garbage too.

I use something a bit different for shootings, bombings, and other "breaking" security-related news.

1. Never trust first reports. Trust me when I tell you that eyewitnesses sometimes have terrible memories. I have seen shootings which witnesses report what they believe to be multiple gunshots resembling machine guns to be resolved to a single to a few shots from one shooter. Eyewitnesses can and do distort shooter identifications. Active shooters often have multiple first responders on-scene and some are in plain clothes carrying guns. Imagine being frightened and knowing a shooter is out there and you come across from the distance an armed man scanning for targets. You can't see a badge or uniform so you naturally assume that person is a probable shooter.
2. Scanners are great but most civilians have little to any clue what they're listening for. 10-codes are department-dependent. Suspect descriptions are often given with little verification (they need to be transmitted quickly so the bad guy can be neutralized). Scenes described by first responders can also be subject to perception - a description heard over the radio of "blood everywhere" means something different for new rookies versus veteran officers.
3. ANY loud noise will surely be described as on-going gunfire.
4. EVERYONE has a political agenda except for responding cops and victims. Seriously, refer back to previous guidelines about sources and who you can trust. Hint: no one you like.
5. If your source touts an immediate conspiracy afoot that would benefit them politically, you should ALWAYS ignore them.
6. Anyone trying to be "first"to report will almost always give you bad information. Real pros take their time and vet their sources.
7. Video is great but it doesn't always tell the complete story. Most video of an event will often be edited and cropped to show what the publisher believes is relevant for his/her audience. In other words, they may have little clue what they're looking at but are deciding for you what you should see. That's crap. I want all of the video or none of it.
8. With bombings, "experts" will often claim sophistication in order to claim an actor they believe did the act without actually having evidence they did do it. "Sophistication" is a term used to describe an assortment of things about a device. If an "expert" won't describe what that constitutes in comparison to other bombings of similar ilk, I tend not to trust that analysis. In my limited experience, "sophistication" is often attributed to big name groups to events that have high casualties. I find that the likelier explanation is much better. A simpler device placed at the right time and place with enough targets does as much damage if not more than one "experts" claim is "sophisticated".
9. Don't trust "experts" who have commentary than actual facts. I'll happily take analysis from a guy with bad facts than from a guy who has no facts but thinks he's right all the time.
10. Bad acts are not exclusive to any one group. There are a lot of bad things that happen in our small world to a lot of people. Just because a cop gets shot by someone doesn't mean that someone is of a certain race or belongs to a certain group. Watch out for the agendas of your sources here.
11. Terrorism is a fairly simple thing with a very simple description. Use it before you belittle or demean an entire group for acts that aren't terrorism. Simply saying things we don't like or even disgust us doesn't make them terrorists. Sure, it makes them jerks but it doesn't make them the ultimate jerk.
    
    Here's how the FBI defines it:
    
    "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
12. Trust anyone who thinks "we should wait this out and see where this leads". These guys are probably pros and make a living being right a lot about these things.

That's it for now. I hope this helps you out.

The TV "Expert" Life

So, you're probably wondering what being a TV "expert" is like. Was it fun? How did it happen? Is everything they say true? Did you get paid a lot of money? Well, let me answer those questions one by one.

1. Was it fun? Look, I won't lie. Some of it was very fun. I got to meet two famous people and got my opinions and ideas seen by millions of people. That part was very, very cool. What wasn't fun, you ask? Well, I lost a lot of time with my family. Many times, I missed dinner and a few important moments. I hated being scrutinized by people about my credentials (more on that in a sec). There were also the occasional calls while out with family or even at my real-life job asking about things that weren't always in my "lane". Minor things. A lot of it was very stressful for me. Most guys in my shoes wouldn't see it that way. That said, enough of it was "fun" that if I'm asked again, I might do another interview.
2. How did it happen? It all started one rainy day..... Okay, it wasn't exactly like that but close enough. I got a call from Malcolm Nance, the Executive Director of TAPSTRI who needed someone to go on a major news show to talk pipe bombs. Yeah, I know - I'm not EOD. Guess what? I never claimed to be either. I thought the interview would be very short and probably over Skype. It wasn't. I was being driven to New York City to meet a huge television news host. Very cool. I bumbled my way through nervously and survived five minutes, barely. Then, the deluge of calls and requests for more TV came as more and more attacks happened. The rest is history.
3. Is everything they say on TV true? I see you're an "explosive ordinance expert" now. What's up with that?!?! Hmmm. Well, it is and it isn't. Let me explain. Every show I was on was very honest with me and I was with them. No issues. Except for one teeny tiny one. When I first went on that previously mentioned news show, I was asked by a producer/booker what my credentials were. Obviously, being a "Security Forces Mediocre Superstar" wasn't cool enough. In the interest of not being "that guy" I stated the following in an email:
   
   
   
   "My name is Scriven King and I am a veteran of the US Air Force, having served 10 years in both operations and security program management. In my professional experience, I have responded to, directed first responders to, and developed programs and procedures in the mitigation of explosive ordinance. I was NOT EOD but I have a breadth of knowledge about rudimentary explosive devices. I have also been trained in SWAT and done executive protection while assigned to protect the Deputy Commander of US Forces Korea. I have been trained on vehicle and entry control point searches for explosive devices as well as the development and implementation of programs used to mitigate and facilitate their detection. I am also the national security expert at TAPSTRI and have provided commentary for other media outlets recently about ISIS and separately, the militarization of police based on my previous experience in military law enforcement and security and operational management."
   
   And that's how I became an "explosive ordinance expert". It's also how my Twitter account went nuts. I also recall telling a producer, rather sarcastically, "Thanks so much for calling me an expert. My phone battery will be dead by the end of the night." It most certainly was. So what happened? In a nutshell, television producers and guest bookers have no way to guarantee their audience will listen to a guy whose credentials are basically "I Know A Lot of Cool Stuff; Met A Lot of Cool People - I'm Just Not As Cool As Them" or "I Paid Attention And Read A Lot" (LOADS of sarcasm there - anyone looking to hire me). Basically, they have to convince a show host I'm smart enough and have relevant experience even if I wasn't some former JSOC G.I. snake-eating warrior of freedom. Granted, I'm not less qualified to talk about improvised explosive devices. They have been the centerpiece threat I have faced or had to mitigate over a decade-long career. I'm not special, though. That doesn't sell as well as "former Navy SEAL/Delta/Ranger/EOD Mega-Dope Dude" and so they made me an "expert". If you watch that clip, you can notice my cringe as I glance downwards and see what they described me as. An EOD buddy said it was the first thing he noticed. Then again, unlike many folks who know me through social media only, he's actually worked with me.
   
   By the way, I have found it far easier to just tell people I'm an "analyst". It makes sense and it's also honest. If you ever find yourself before millions of people, I suggest going that route. Keep it real.
4. You looked nervous. Were you? Yeah, I don't know how these other guys do it. I was totally nervous the entire I was on a television show. What made it worse? Good-intentioned mentors and friends who called to tell me areas I need to improve upon. Do you wanna know what areas I constantly thought about the entire time and almost always repeated those mistakes? The areas of improvement. For every person who said to work on my "umm's", I must have said it even more after being aware I said it.
5. Did I get paid a lot of money? No. Thank goodness. I think not getting paid makes it much easier to take a break as needed. I needed a break.

So that's what TV-life was like for me. Will I do it again? Not gonna lie - probably. Why? Because I get to talk about things I like. Will I make it a "thing"? Probably not. I like being a guy who knows a lot of stuff but doesn't want to be known as an "expert", especially a TV "expert".

Back to Blogging (sort of)

Dear Readers,

You've probably noticed I haven't been blogging in quite some time. Yeah, like in over a year. Well, I've been busy and life caught up with me. I'll do my best to answer what I've been up to and what this means for the blog (if you're still reading).

First, I've been busy. I was on television and seemed to be bombarded with various requests for interviews. It was a great experience but one that kept me from family and work commitments. So I took an extended break. I know, right? The direct opposite of what a TV "expert" does. Instead of garnering more fame, I shunned it. I have some good reasons for that. A lot of which I will explore in a later post. Suffice it to say, I learned a lot about myself and where I want to be as a professional through this experience. I still talk security when given the chance but being a guy on television a lot no longer appeals to me.

Second, the blog will continue. Over the last year, I've come up with a few really great topics that I think would be good to explore here. I'll try to keep an editorial calendar to keep myself consistent. If you haven't noticed, the posts can be sporadic and a little less thematic than they should be. It is my goal to keep this blog as objective and nonpartisan as possible. In other words, I'm not changing much.

Finally, I ask that you continue to be patient. The blog is going through some cosmetic and architectural changes. Nothing serious but I feel as though the blog could use a makeover. I'll do my best to keep you updated.

The Security Dialogue Staff (me)

P.S.
Don't expect anything really soon. Like I said, I've been living and working my way through life and work. Plus needing a calendar to keep me on track and not blogging for over a year should tell you everything you need to know about when you can expect me to blog again.