D. Max Noel (’64) is professionally acquainted with deceit.
| 马克斯·诺埃尔将于10月26日星期二晚上7点就他在联邦调查局的工作做一个虚拟讲座.m. in Olin B, located between Olin Hall and Smith-Curtis. |
这位退休的联邦调查局探员被无数罪犯骗过，他们编织的故事又长又曲折，横跨各大洲. 诺埃尔也同样编造了一些谎言来操纵劫持人质的人, 恐怖分子和骗子在他数十年辉煌的调查生涯中.
所以每当诺埃尔看到他最著名的案子的戏剧性重演, he’s not exactly shocked if the plot veers from the truth. 他说:“我知道编剧有工作要做，但没有太多空间。. “They’re not going to get everything just right.”
Still, Noel’s patience has limits. And the 2017 Discovery Channel series, “Manhunt: Unabomber,” was one of the portrayals that stretched his tolerance.
“只有一名联邦调查局特工采访过泰德·卡钦斯基, along with Postal Inspector Paul Wilhelmus,他说. “And that’s me.”
The truth often requires a critical eye
这种直截了当的现实并没有反映在真实犯罪题材的电视剧《十大网络娱乐平台排名》中.” The Discovery series was generally a hit with audiences, and a miss with the people closest to the case. (NPR’s TV critic, David Bianculli, called it “an all-out winner”; and Ted Kaczynski called the plot descriptions he read from his maximum- security prison cell “bull manure.”)
在联邦调查局探员中，对该剧的不准确感到失望的不仅仅是诺埃尔. 退休特工Greg Stejskal在联邦执法博客上写了这个系列, ticklethewire.com. “It portray[ed] a minor player on the Unabom Task Force (UTF), 吉姆·菲茨杰拉德, as the investigator who broke the case. 然后，它在小说的基础上，描绘了男女之间的关系 ... Ted Kaczynski and Fitzgerald that never happened.”
只有一个联邦调查局探员采访过泰德·卡钦斯基 ... 这就是我.
Stejskal continued, “吉姆·菲茨杰拉德 never met Ted Kaczynski.”
诺埃尔和他的两名同事对此案的错误认识促使他们采取了行动, 负责特别探员吉姆·弗里曼和负责UTF助理特别探员特里·塔奇, to write their second book about the investigation. 《十大娱乐平台排行榜》于今年5月由历史出版公司出版. It joins their 2014 book, 《炸弹客:联邦调查局如何打破自己的规则，抓获恐怖分子泰德·卡钦斯基.
“It’s our effort to set the record straight,” Noel said.
Pursuing the truth is not easy
传播学教授大卫·惠特很快承认，他并不是FBI或爆炸案调查方面的专家. 但这位北吴大学的教授确实与诺埃尔这样的特工有一些重要的共同点:
They’re both professionally committed to pursuing truth. And that pursuit is getting harder.
Whitt teaches NWU courses on mass media and persuasion. 他说:“我们生活在一个界线越来越模糊的媒体环境中. 很难看出内容之间的区别，这些内容旨在告知我们, entertain us or even manipulate us.” The rise of newer terms like “fake news,” “infotainment,” “alternative facts,” and “mockumentaries” all point to this recent blurring.
虽然娱乐经常巧妙地玩弄事实，但惠特不会忽视其文化价值. 他是, 毕竟, 《千禧年的神话制造:论科幻小说和奇幻文学的力量》等著作的作者或编辑, 电影, 和游戏, as well as “ ‘I can get college credit for reading Batman? That’s a joke, right?’: Confessions of a Fanboy Professor Teaching Comic Books.”
“Even when it’s not strictly factual,惠特说, “历史娱乐可以激发我们对新学科的兴趣.” He pointed to Netflix’s “The Crown” and the 2018 film, “Bohemian Rhapsody,，作为最近的例子，这激发了他更深入地研究像伊丽莎白二世和女王这样截然不同的主题.
惠特敦促他的学生把历史娱乐作为进一步学习的跳板. They can move from the art to the actual history, not in order to discredit the entertainment, 而是为了加深对这个主题的理解.
“It’s important for my students to keep asking, ‘What is true?’”惠特说. “我们可以问，‘为什么这个角色是由三个人组成的? What was the screenwriter doing here?’”
In the case of “Manhunt: Unabomber,” fans who take the time to learn the full story can ask, “Why was Noel’s role minimized and Fitzgerald’s inflated? How did those decisions impact the story? And was the outcome aesthetically effective?”
惠特说，他的学生更习惯于以这种方式审视广告, in a context where they know they’re being sold on something. “但如果能把这种批判的心态带到我们周围的所有媒体内容中，那该有多好啊? To ask ourselves, ‘How does this work? What are its goals? What’s honest about it? And what’s misleading?’”
Solving problems, or winning fights?
这种媒体素养的用处远不止于解释电视节目的情节. 事实上, 惠特认为我们的媒体的精明和它的邻居, 在大流行期间，统计和科学素养已成为美国公民日益重要的组成部分.
如果我们缺乏驾驭大量复杂数据的技能——如果我们越来越无法判断专家的主张是否正确，也无法根据不断变化的环境调整自己的行为——那么我们只能带着一种令人心烦意乱、迷失方向的头晕来处理我们最大的问题.
Max Noel knows that angry, head- spinning feeling well. 帮助领导美国历史上最复杂的追捕行动之一的压力.S. 历史经常使诺埃尔脾气暴躁，以至于他在联邦调查局的老板给他起了个绰号“疯狂的麦克斯”.”
虽然诺埃尔的情绪很不稳定，但他知道“疯狂和头晕”不是打架的好办法. “有些事情会让我大发雷霆，”诺埃尔在2015年关于卡钦斯基被捕的一篇报道中告诉Archways. 但不是这个. For [tactical situations], I’m cool, calm and collected.”
诺埃尔的细心保护了他作为一名调查员最有效的武器:解决复杂问题所必需的批判性思维.
As Americans continue to face our most divisive issues, some of us are sure to also occasionally “blow our tops.“我们会发现自己在已经根深蒂固的立场上挖得更深，而我们本应该在更复杂的真相上挖掘新的领域.
That’s not necessarily the ground where arguments are won. But it is where the solutions hide. This is the ground where the crimefighter, 公民和电视演员都面临着同样的基本问题——性格. We ask ourselves: What’s my motivation here? Am I trying to solve problems, or win fights?