Anfield Road

A FAIR few years ago a friend’s nine-year-old daughter was told by her primary school teacher that the moon landings were a hoax. He went through the usual items of “proof”: the flag not moving, the shadows not quite right, the astronauts not bouncing right, no sign of the moon buggy on photos of the moon and so on. To a nine-year-old, coming from her teacher, it was the nailed on truth – man hadn’t been to the moon. When the teacher showed a tape of some documentary or other putting these theories forward there was no changing her mind.

It wasn’t the most important issue in her life and so it was many years later that she saw something to disprove those hoax theories. Until then she’d taken the word of someone she trusted, she had no reason to question what he’d told her – especially having seen a TV programme that added more weight to the theory – and just went along with it.

It’s probably fair to say that most nine-year-olds automatically trust their teachers to be spot on with whatever information it is they’re dishing out in the classroom. It’s much the same for all of us – when someone we trust is giving us information we don’t bother double checking it with someone else. If we decide to investigate it a bit more there’s a good chance we’ll ignore any evidence that points to an opposite point of view, instead we find more information to back up what that trusted person told us.

The big problem with this is that we don’t always trust the right people – and the people we trust don’t always trust the right people. Information can be wrong even with the best of intentions – and people without the best of intentions can be very convincing too.

And so we come to Nathan Eccleston and his tweet from Sunday, the one that took its time to hit the back pages of the papers and to then spread across the Atlantic before causing an outbreak of condemnation from people who on the whole didn’t see the original tweets, just the bits the reports picked out under the headlines and accompanying text that was used to make it into a story.

What seems to be missed in many of the reports is how Nathan came to be tweeting about 9/11. A lot of the reports decided to use just one word from his original tweet, “accident”, before moving onto the second tweet.

In his first tweet he was actually sending his condolences to the victims’ loved ones:

“R.I.P all 9/11 victims my thoughts are with their family’s and all those that was affected by this tragic accident!”

It was the second one that caused the problems for him as he clarified what he meant by “accident”:

“I aint going to say attack don’t let the media make u believe that was terrorist that did it. #O.T.I.S.”

The first national news outlet in this country to show mock outrage at the tweets was the one that Liverpool fans have boycotted for 22 years. This was soon followed by other outlets and although there had been anger on forums and on Twitter it was a while before the national press had picked it up.

“When Saturday Comes” shook its head at the player but their only reference to the first tweet was the use of the word “accident”. No mention of the “RIP” or the expression of sympathy, but maybe WSC only had the word of The S*n (that’s the paper we don’t buy) to go on – hardly the best source of accurate information. LFC released a statement saying the tweets were being “investigated” and eventually it would become news in the US as versions of the story were syndicated.

Nathan isn’t 21 until after Christmas. In the US he’d still be considered too young to be trusted to buy alcohol. When people talk about “an impressionable age” they tend to include Nathan’s age group in that.

Where exactly did the youngster get this theory from? Is he alone in thinking this or is he going along with something that others of his age believe too?

Never mind others of his age; people of all ages seem to doubt the official version of events. YouTube is full of videos that say this and where there’s a YouTube video there’s usually a collection of websites backing the theories up. In fact an article in ‘Vanity Fair’ in 2006 quoted some research:

“According to a May 2006 Zogby poll, 42 percent of Americans now believe that the U.S. government and the 9/11 commission ‘concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks,’ and that ‘there has been a cover-up.’”

42% is a pretty big number, certainly the kind of number that gets governments into Parliament in this country. When that survey was done Nathan was 15. When 9/11 happened he was 10. If 42% of Americans had doubts about the truth five years ago it suggests that the conspiracy theories have been sold very effectively down the years. If 42% of Americans believed it why should it be such a shock that Nathan did?

For the record the survey was on a sample of 1200. 48% said they believed there wasn’t a cover-up and 10% were unsure. The survey company’s press release also said:

“Majorities (50%-56%) of Democrats, 18-29 year-olds, Hispanics, single adults and those who are divorced/widowed/separated, residents of small cities, and adults with less education than a high school diploma believe the government and 9/11 Commission are covering up something.”

Meanwhile, according to a 1999 Gallup survey, only 6% of Americans thought “the government staged or faked the Apollo moon landing” – yet that thought has been given a lot of coverage down the years.

Whatever the background is to Nathan forming these beliefs about the tragedy they are his genuine beliefs. He’s not trying to upset people or cause trouble, if anything he’s expressing his sympathy that bit more because he feels outrage for those who died and those who lost someone. His outrage is aimed at different people to the terrorists but it’s still outrage and he sounds like someone who wants to see justice done, not families hurt.

The press seem to be revelling in telling the story; their decision in some cases to omit “RIP” and the condolences suggests they aren’t too worried about the truth themselves. The use of the word “investigation” by the club has added more spice to their story with it now being twisted to suggest he’s currently locked in a room with a lawyer answering questions about his “crime”.

The nine-year-old at the start of this story watched an episode of “Mythbusters” to find out that her teacher had given her duff info about the moon landings all those years before. She probably would have gone on to believe the hoax stories for years, until someone she trusted told her otherwise or until some evidence was put in front of her to show why the hoax theories were wrong.

Time and again emails (or updates on Twitter and Facebook) repeat hoaxes and myths that have been going around for years. One example is the friendly tip-off from a member of a terror group saying that a particular shopping centre is going to be targeted in a few weeks – this story changes to fit the worries of the nation at that moment in time; the shopping centre gets changed to fit the locality of those being hoaxed; the terror group has changed from the IRA to Al-Qaeda. When people fall for the hoax they spread word to others and the hoax continues to spread, mutating as it does so like some kind of virus, relying on the way that people trust certain other people without question.

If Nathan was someone you knew personally and he expressed this opinion over a coffee one morning the chances are your reaction wouldn’t be like the reaction that he got from Twitter. Chances are you’d ask him to explain what he meant and where he’d got the ideas from. You’d listen to him and he’d listen to you and if you didn’t share his opinion you’d explain why you thought he was wrong and he’d do the same. Maybe you’d agree to disagree but you’d at least know how each of you had come to your own conclusions and you’d have given each other food for thought.

Nathan got abuse on Twitter and then got slated in the press. In private at least he will hopefully be afforded the chance to sit down and explain where his views come and how he came to his conclusions – with a chance then for him to listen to the opposite point of view.

One opinion put forward by the people with the pitchforks was that Nathan’s comments compare to comments made recently by Mark Lawrenson about Hillsborough. They don’t, not even close.

Lawrenson gets his media gigs simply because he used to play for Liverpool (and others, but it’s Liverpool he made his name with). He knows, or should know, the score where Hillsborough is concerned.

Nathan’s suggestion that 9/11 wasn’t caused by terrorists does not suggest that it was caused by the victims themselves or their own friends and family (including people who tried to save them). Lawrenson’s recent blunder did – he said, “maybe there are Liverpool supporters to blame,” which is of course untrue and has been proven to be untrue, even in the climate of the heavily restricted (and very-much part of the cover up) investigations, inquests and inquiries. Lawro has been working in the media longer than he was a player, he should know how to be careful with his words. Nathan is 20 years old and wasn’t born when Lawro was still a Liverpool player.

The inevitable follow-on to the outcry about Nathan is that his tweets somehow prove he’s not a very good player – he’s not a very good player because he spends too much time on Twitter, it’s as simple as that. Well, it’s not as simple as that – and certainly not as simple as those who say it is. Maybe if they thought about it for a bit they’d see why. And that includes all those calling for him to be sacked off the back of this one incident.

Liverpool do need to be seen to be dealing with what went on and maybe part of that is to get out there exactly how Nathan came to these conclusions about 9/11.

People have said he’s a role model to young fans and should know better – but he’s still young himself and has his own role models; perhaps if anyone needs to be condemned it’s them – along with those who seem to have taken great pleasure in seeing him attacked so vigorously in the press.