Analyzing Individual Source Credibility: Example One: Yoko Ono

Here’s the rub; ideally, the historian who wants to provide the most accurate picture possible should analyze each source individually, going through the checklist (agenda, public vs. private, contemporaneous vs. retrospective, strong emotion, etc.) and evaluate a person’s statements via that method. It’s methodologically more sound to evaluate every source (and, in this case, when I say “source” I usually mean “interview”) separately, rather than to make all-encompassing generalizations (“Source A said this, which means it must be true, because Source A has an honest reputation.”) As Bloch said, (I’m paraphrasing here) there’s no individual who is 100% accurate 100% of the time. Also, agendas vary and memories alter over time.

So evaluating source by source, or interview by interview, is the preferred method. But historians can also, when analyzing the written or spoken testimony of individuals, use historical methods to determine whether an individual’s statements are, overall, credible and accurate — or, rather, less than credible or inaccurate. Much of this involves discerning patterns: Does the individual have a well-established, pervasive habit of exaggeration? Do they demonstrate repeated inaccuracies on one particular subject, even if their statements pertaining to other subjects are primarily accurate? Do they benefit by lying? Have a larger number of independent, equally credible sources, and/or facts/documentation repeatedly disputed their version of events? Are their versions consistent, not only with known evidence, but with their own earlier statements? Were they, by training or similarity, capable of understanding the situation?

In The Beatles and the Historians, the only individual I applied this overall source analysis to was George Martin. My primary reason for this was two-fold: First, I wanted to provide an in-text example of that sort of evaluation, as applied to a primary-source, for the book’s readers. (Remember, my intended audience was a classroom full of college history students). Second, given that I used Martin extensively throughout my book, and presented his contemporaneous and retrospective accounts as highly credible, I believed it only fair to explain, in the book, why I regarded Martin’s testimony as so valuable. In my outline and notes, however, I had basic notes on other key sources in Beatles historiography, evaluating their credibility in similar fashion. In my discussion with Linda-A, she asked about these notes, and I confessed they were brief and not well-thought out, but thought they could make a post. (And I still don’t have the video of my presentation back from Advancement). So here we are:

I want to stress that these evaluations are more casual than those which I would have provided in the book, just as the overall tone of this blog is more casual. Also, in regards to specific figures, analyzing the issues that determine an individual’s overall credibility are not meant as criticisms, but observations. Every individual in Beatles historiography has a preferred version of the band’s story which they seek to promote. The versions of some individuals just fit better than others do with what the most credible evidence tells us.

So, without further ado, lets start by analyzing the source credibility of the most polarizing figure in all Beatles historiography: Yoko Ono.

A note: Just because I include an observation regarding Yoko’s overall credibility does not mean that it is an issue singular to her: numerous credibility issues apply, either equally or to varying extents, to various Beatles and Beatles insiders. Also, these observations apply to Yoko’s statements, primarily interviews, rather than her depiction by journalists or biographers. For this reason certain issues, such as her gender and race, which have  influenced her overall depiction are not included.

Yoko Ono:

1. Hearsay. Yoko was on the periphery of the Beatles circle from 1966 (or, perhaps, earlier, depending on whether you believe Paul’s claim that she approached him before she met John) to Summer 1968. That means that Yoko missed the majority of the band’s functioning years, and didn’t enter the studio until 1968. If you date the Beatles’ existence to the origin of July 1957 — the date John met Paul — that means that, for the first eleven years, Yoko was absent or only, for a period of two years, peripherally involved. That, in turn, means that when she retrospectively offers John’s statements and recollections on events that she was not present for (say, Hamburg, or the “Rubber Soul” sessions) and *that we have no other independent (as in, not Eliot Mintz) corroborating sources reinforcing that John said such statements* — Yoko’s recollection of John’s comments are hearsay. They are, by definition, a “second-hand statement that can’t be proven.” It does not mean that he didn’t say them, but they aren’t fact, and they also don’t qualify as unverified eyewitness testimony. Those statements she makes regarding events she was present for, and which we have no corroborating evidence for, qualify as unverified eyewitness testimony.
2. Drugs. This is one of those afore-mentioned issues that applies to the general credibility of all four Beatles and, with the exception of George Martin, virtually all Beatles insiders as well. However, this issue is particularly relevant regarding John and Yoko, because of the type of drugs they used, primarily heroin, and the extent to which they used them. The drug issue is two-fold: first, it impacts both their overall credibility as sources during the breakup-period because of heroin’s impact on their observational skills and emotions, and, second, impacts all interviews given under the influence of any heavy drug. Given that Yoko has since admitted to using heroin in 1980, this impacts her interviews from that time period as well.
3. A pattern of self-promotion *which knowingly promotes an inaccurate version of events*. There are numerous examples of this — and, again, I want to stress that I am not singling Yoko out regarding this observation; she is simply the first to be evaluated, but far from the only one this particular issue is attached to — as evidenced throughout the decades.
4. A consistent self-identification of victimization. By this point, most Beatles writers would regard it as irresponsible to evaluate John’s statements, particularly from the breakup era, without accounting for his well-known tendencies of jealousy and insecurity. *In my reading* (and there are many of you who may disagree) I would argue that many of Yoko’s statements, *particularly from those time periods in which she was using heroin, with all its attendant psychological issues* project a consistent pattern in which Yoko pervasively views herself, and often John, as the victim(s) in virtually every situation. That is not to say that Yoko did not receive reprehensible treatment by the press and some fans, or that she was not, to a certain extent, victimized. But, in my analysis of her overall source credibility, this identification of herself as a victim has to be accounted for when analyzing Yoko’s public and private statements.
5. Inconsistency among statements/accounts of events: Another issue that applies, to a varying extent, to almost all Beatles sources.

Those are the general issues taken into account when evaluating Yoko’s overall credibility, before examining her interviews and statements as individual sources, running through further checklists. Given Yoko’s stature as a lightning rod, what do you make of these evaluations? Are there any you would care to add, or disagree with? (And now, time to grade research papers).