Posted by
Duffbert on Friday, March 28, 2008 12:44:03 AM
This week we heard Hillary Clinton's tale of her visit to Bosnia in the 1990s - a story she has told multiple times on the campaign trail to bolster her message of experience over her Democratic rival Barack Obama. Shortly thereafter, due to numerous eyewitnesses, and even video tape of her trip, her story was exposed as a "tall-tale" - actually a complete fabrication of the events and conditions surrounding the trip in question. In short, she was caught in a lie, though she and her campaign staff prefer to say that she misspoke. The difference between a lie and misspeaking is based on the intent of the person telling the story. It is hard to believe that the vast differences in so many elements of her story can be the result of a simple error - to the vast majority of thinking Americans, these differences clearly illustrate intent to deceive.
This intent to deceive also seemed fairly evident in the famous quote by Bill Clinton - "that depends upon what the meaning of 'IS' is...". However, that was a different time - a time when the mainstream media was sympathetic to the accused. Today, of course, Hillary has lost the favor of the MSM that her husband enjoyed for his tenure.
So what of it? Who really cares? All politicians/people lie, don't they? I, for one, DO care! If the truth truly becomes "all relative" to the individual, what happens to our nation and our trust? What dangers lie ahead?
Today, as hinted at above, we have a biased mainstream media. That bias is evident to those that supplement their information with other sources of differing opinions. To those that rely solely on the MSM that bias is just another "conspiracy theory". We also have a rapidly growing "New Media" available on the internet where anybody with a computer and an internet connection can sit in their basement and publish whatever they want - fact or fiction. The challenge with this new media is that credibility is in the eyes of the beholder, as no vetting or fact checking is required. Much like with the MSM, there are those that rely solely on their favorite New Media sites for their information.
There are a few big reasons why the current reliance on MSM and New Media concern me. First, relying on one source for anything without questioning its facts or motives is dangerous. There are increasingly more sources that deliberately blur the lines between news and opinion, and those of us that are in a hurry fail to identify differences due to indifference and lack of ability.
Second, technology and presentation often supersede substance. How many of us are more apt to believe something that looks polished and professional, over something that looks thrown together and ugly? Sometimes we don't even bother to read what we immediately prejudge to be "unattractive" - regardless of the information contained within. Unfortunately, this leaves the door wide open for dubious behavior by those with the most money. The funding of George Soros has been tied to many flashy PR campaigns, Non-profit think-tanks, and activist groups. Yes, boys and girls, money can definitely influence thought.
Finally, this appeal of technology, especially through technological advancements could lead to further obfuscation of the truth. Right now, anyone can get a hold of Photoshop and alter digital photos. My own mother has been able to scan in pictures from the days of my grandmother, and fix damaged pictures by copying arms from one side of a person to the other, and even removing the habit of my aunt (a former nun). Sure, due to her skill level I can see the obvious alterations, but what if a professional were doing it with much better equipment? How long before anarchists in our society start "photoshopping" good people into crime scenes, and other disreputable photos?
I've painted the picture of a pretty dire situation indeed. So what is the solution? The truth is I don't know. One thing that I've been doing is just to start standing up for the truth when I see it, and discrediting lies. This could start with something as simple as fact checking those partisan emails that get sent around saying "Candidate X was a serial killer, and his/her secret goal is to steal the world's television remotes". I don't care if I disagree with Candidate X, I go to a couple fact checking sites, get their information, and forward it back to ALL on the sender's email list. Another thing I do is try to read every article with a critical mind. Whenever the author presumes to know what is in a person's heart, without completely supporting it with facts I discount the opinion. No one knows what is in a person's heart without spending a lot of time with that person, and walking in their shoes. I also try to check the items in that article that are communicated as facts. Are they really? Well, if they are they should be verifiable.
It takes work, and thoughtful perseverance, but it also helps me make better decisions in my quest to protect the truth.