You can't believe everything on the Internet... or on TV... or in the newspaper, for that matter. Now what?

State Farm has an amusing commercial in heavy rotation these days poking fun at its Internet-dependent competitors -- and making the more general point that not everything you see online is credible.

Yeah, who'd have guessed, right?

But TV news is no better. Watch two TV stations tonight and you'll see different stories covered or, frequently, the same story covered with two different spins. Sometimes the differences are subtle. Other times, though....

I've often heard it said that the closer one is to a news story, the more errors one finds in the news coverage. Many lawyers have had the experience of becoming involved in a case only to see news coverage that, in the lawyer's opinion, completely distorts the facts of the case. (The converse of this rule is also true: The further away one is from a story, the easier it is to believe the news coverage. This is why presidential candidates know all about how to solve problems in Iran, Afghanistan or Guantanamo -- and why presidents often find the same problems extraordinarily difficult. This principle is also an extension of the more general one, "where you stand depends on where you sit.")

In these days of YouTube and Hulu and iTunes it is often possible to diagnose the "spin" that this reporter or that columnist or blogger puts on a speech or news conference. If a person could only take the time to investigate the original sources on any interesting event, he or she could reach a truly informed opinion. He or she would also be unable to hold a job... or sleep much.

The temptation is to think that this sort of news 'spinning' is new.

It is not.

Some of the terms are new, but news reporting has never been an exact science. Here is a case in point.

I found these clippings among my late father's effects. His mother had saved these when her husband died -- in March 1946. I can't tell you which newspapers these clippings are from. Only these scraps were saved.

But look at the discrepancies in these three accounts of the same event. In reporting my grandfather's death, my grandfather's brother is named Daniel Lyons; in another, Daniel Leyhane; in the third, Daniel is given no last name at all. Actually, Daniel's surname was Lyons and my grandfather was really named Leyhane -- and, no, they weren't half-siblings, the family name was changed by my grandfather's parents at some point, perhaps -- so family legend has it -- to enhance another of my great-uncle's chances to enter the Seminary). My grandfather's age varies from story to story. His age is given variously as 42, 48 or 51. My father's age is mentioned only in one story. There, his age is given as 18; actually, he was then 20.

It's just a little story, a sad reminder of the risks that firefighters take, but really important only to the families involved. There was no interpretation needed here, no 'spin,' just objective facts that could have been ascertained. And weren't. Not quite.

Just something to think about as you watch the news or read a newspaper.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See also, Chicago Fire Department Line of Duty Deaths.