Dan Jacob

CEO , The IDIA Group

This conversation is closed.

Should newspapers be truth vigilantes?

Arthur Brisbane, Public Editor for the New York Times wrote an interesting article OpEd today (January 12, 2012) asking "Should the New York Times Be a Truth Vigilante?"

The article can be found here: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/should-the-times-be-a-truth-vigilante/

In a time where people are being bombarded with information, what role (if any) should newspapers play in correcting un-informed, egregiously inaccurate statements? What implications would this have?

To quote Brisbane:

"...[People] look to The [New York] Times to set the record straight. They worry less about reporters imposing their judgment on what is false and what is true.
Is that the prevailing view? And if so, how can The Times do this in a way that is objective and fair? Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another? Are there other problems that The Times would face that I haven’t mentioned here?"

Interested to hear your thoughts on this one...

  • thumb
    Jan 13 2012: Newspapers, like other media, are held hostage by corporations who do not want us to know many things that are true..

    Facts are not perspective.
  • Jan 23 2012: I'd reframe the idea as "Fact Vigilantes" rather than "Truth Vigilantes".
    • Jan 27 2012: Cheers Dave, narrowing the scope of the question in that way has helped me answer the larger one.

      The following statement is true:
      the US military spends millions of dollars annually funding entomologists.
      “What, in the name of (insert preferred deity/profanity here), are they doing?” You may well ask. I did. We should have asked a mountain of questions first ‘though. We should have checked our facts. Here’s some we could check before we start asking other questions:
      1.Do they?
      2.How many million?
      3.What’s an entomologist?
      Let’s imagine we have complete co-operation from the US military. Let’s imagine we can afford the army of forensic accountants. Let’s imagine the relevant curriculum was taught and the accrediting bodies did their job. Let’s imagine we asked all the relevant questions, to the right people and in the right places; and got sufficient answers to establish the truth of the statement.
      You could even just ask George W. Korch Jr, Ph.D. at the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Preparedness and Response, if he’s still there (just ask for George Korch, you can drop the Lieutenant Colonel).

      Cool, so what’s he going to say? How, yes, millions have been spent protecting you from disease vectors, in bio-defence and other things vital to national security. Interestingly, it’s quite possible he doesn’t know about the “other things”.
      So who can find out for you? A truth vigilante? A blogger, a newspaper, Fox? For reasons that should be obvious to you by now: they can’t. Let alone should.
      Good news America! There are people that can. They’re not truth vigilantes. They’re highly paid and motivated truth bureaucrats. They’re not self-appointed. You’re about to elect the most important one in the world. Choose wisely please.
  • thumb
    Jan 13 2012: Hi Dan,

    A good time to revisit here at TED Conversations, the condition of the 4th estate, the pillar of democracy.

    Without a functioning 4th estate there can be no democracy.

    At a time when we need truth and accuracy and balanced coverage more than ever it is so disappointig and frustrating to see the bias, inaccuracy and huge gaps in coverage in old stand bys like the New York Times.

    We have visited this with Alisa Miller here at TED Conversations in two or three excellent long conversations and once or twice have visited it via discussion about coverage of a specific major world event. All concluded ,more or less, that it is very hard work to seek and know the truth on any issue.

    We have never visited the financial side of that..whether there is a sufficient market for truth, or at least unbiased factual reporting, that newspapers and broadcast journalism can be profitably independent of corporate sponsorship and advertiser maniipulation.

    Do "we the people" really care enough about the truth to pay for it?

    At our several TED conversations on this we all referred to the growing importance of citizen journalists but that too is a very mixed world most often tainted by opnion, rarely balanced, and frequently light on facts and accuracy.

    So a truth seeker has to wade through a lot of questionable material outside of offical print and broadcast journalism as well.

    Maybe we need a good housekeeping seal of approval for both citizen journalism and for conventional print and broadcast journalism. If we had that, most of what is treated as journalism would be reclassified as "entertainment" or "political speech"
  • Jan 27 2012: I suppose I parse the word "truth" fairly narrowly as a more subjective philosophical concept than an objective experiential one. i.e. We may all agree on the facts but wildly differ on the truth of their meaning.

    I differ with you a little on just how "not self-appointed" or elected officials tend to be. To suggest that a largely white, upper class male with an advance college degree (very often in law) is representative of who the American people want to represent them seems unlikely. There is a screening process which tends to eliminate anyone outside that demographic with a few obvious exceptions. However, even the exceptions tend to be more a matter of appearance than substance. Through our own ignorance and apathy, we have allowed ourselves to be taken over by an small, narrowly self-interested oligarchy.
  • Jan 23 2012: : I think it all depends on the readers who read newspapers regularly.
    Even though I don't know much about New York Times(since I read Korean newspapers more), the things that have to be improved and changed are distributive throughout all of the media.

    Personally,I prefer to read several kinds of newspapers as long as I can read, and compare those articles one another, and then organize the facts I recognize and the common position toward the same affair.

    Because depends on the newspapers I choose to read, the reporter's take on how they perceived and analyzed the affair are more or less, or sometimes totally, different.

    I suppose New York Times might not be able to be totally truth vigilantes,
    So are other newspapers.

    But only you can be a "self-vigilantes(so to speak)" only if you try hard not to be biased by one single article.
    Simple put, rather than just blaming problems that are found in one single kind of newspapers, why don't you be more active to find out the truth and try to be more suspicious of the single story that are found in an article.

    It's all up to you, if you ask me.

    (Sorry for suggesting irrelevant opinion,btw.)
    • Jan 24 2012: And I'm sorry for my use of idiom in the previous comment.
      It's interesting how our opinions differ on the usefulness of the excercise. Perhaps it's because of our methodologies?
      You choose to read newspapers: I had to be bribed with a wage.You choose which newspapers to read: mine were randomly assigned. You choose which articles to read: I had to read every word or face the sack.
      We've hardly read a word and already our opinions have been biased by choice and coercion.
      Maybe we could control those and many other variables with randomisation?
      Do we read a newspaper today or not? Toss a coin. Which newspaper? Roll a dice. Which article? Roll a 6, we read it. Info roulette.
      Nice aphorism btw. Like it a lot.
  • thumb
    Jan 18 2012: Dan,

    Absolutely.

    But any institutions success at being "truth vigilantes" is inextricably intertwined with the cultures within which they exist.

    As journalist Ryszard Kapuscinski puts it:

    "We are (all) taking part in something of which we are both witness and creators"

    Which means all who are affected by news media, communicate via it, or produce news must defend truth, and act, as you put it, as "vigilantes" for truth.

    More critically, all must communicate with truth in all actions, and amplify the truth as persistently and publicly possible via whatever means -- and media is arguably the most publicly powerful means there is, these days.

    Andrea
  • thumb
    Jan 14 2012: Newspapers shouldn't be truth vigilantes, because reporting without a bias is impossible (though they should try their hardest to do so). Newspaper readers should be the real truth vigilantes. It's up to you, the reader, to know what you're reading and who wrote it, and how both those things affect perception of the truth.
  • thumb
    Jan 13 2012: Mass news media is dying. Slowly but, most assuredly, surely.
  • thumb
    Feb 2 2012: The media relies too much on individuals' ability; it can never be completely objective unless the world becomes a utopia.
  • Feb 2 2012: I think that the pursuit of an unbiased, realistic media is a great start for an accurate depiction of the worlds activities.
  • thumb
    Jan 27 2012: Agree with David about Fact Vs TRUTH.
    To survive newspaper have to in the erea of social network and connectivity....
  • Jan 23 2012: I've got to say no.

    For several years I got paid to read national newspapers. On any given night it may have been: The Times, Guardian, Sun, Wall Street Journal (International ed.), Express. Colleagues would read the others. We'd then collate the articles on any given subject. Finally: attempt to produce a summary of those articles.

    Getting the truth after it's been through a newspaper is like getting a mackerel after it's been through a shark.
    Sure, you can have a good go at picking the bones out. You'll have to sift through a lot of faeces and everything's going to smell fishy afterward.
  • thumb
    Jan 22 2012: Even given what you say or even some of what you say is true. I would argue that globally, people are becoming wiser and taking responsibility for themselves. The experts are relevant but not exclusive in the wisdom required to evolve from where we are to a more suitable (and truly democratic) democracy. This will come from the people and not the powerful. Even "infotainment" evolves us, if only by teaching us what we do not want in order to inspire the creation of what we do want.
  • thumb
    Jan 22 2012: All people should pursue the truth to the greatest extent they are capable of it. Sources of news should list their facts and analysis and include their sources and apply the scientific principal to vetting "truth" by attempting to prove anything presented as a fact and opening up to public evaluation of their process of verification. That is the best approximation of truth I can imagine being possible at our current society, hopefully this too will evolve with the rest of our social evolution over time.

    This boils down to crowdsourcing news in the specific sense of crowdsourcing proof of the "truth" being presented by news. I would go further and say that any source of news that is not transparent about the process and open about sources and opposing information (not necessarily opinion) is at least disingenuous if not dishonest and should not be trusted as a source of "truth".

    When this topic closes if anyone is interested in persisting it please consider continuing the conversation here: http://www.wesolver.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing_News
    • thumb
      Jan 22 2012: It's always easier to control--and socially condition--a misinformed (and disinterested) populace. Give the angry mob Superbowl, Nascar, and UFC; when you can keep them busy, and distracted, you are well on your way to running the USA the way it should be run. Those in power believe that the masses are too irresponsible to rule over their own lives, it's for the best if we leave those decisions to the experts. To effectively run a democracy, you need to have a news media that is subservient. The new news media of today is merely there to sensationalize scandal, and entertain--queue in the "infotainment".
  • thumb
    Jan 22 2012: How can the "truth" be written when the only thing about "truth" is that it changes. We need "disclosure" then we can determine our own truth. Honest disclosure.
  • Jan 22 2012: I think that they should report not only objective truths, but actually think about what truths they are publishing too. Then weigh up the importance and implications of what publishing the truth will do. I know one thing that always baffles me is all these gossip magazines which have stories about celebrities love lives. I think that would be the last kind of truth I'd ever want to hear in a newspaper (Luckily the papers I read it's not reached that state yet).

    I would think it's important to try and get such truths out there which will actually be of some importance to the people reading the paper. Make it clear what the article is about straight from the beginning. They should have clear and concise titles, and not go with something because they think it's 'punny' And most of all, offer references to any information that they pull out. The last thing I want to hear is "after a recent study...". Offer a direct link to a source if available. Little things that allow people to chase up the facts if they're interested.
  • Jan 22 2012: Hi Mr. Jacob, Do you live in New York? ( just asking?)
    • thumb
      Jan 22 2012: Hi Tishe,

      Actually, I live in Toronto, Canada. However I am in New York regularly.

      Thanks for taking part in the conversation! Trust all is well.

      Dan
      • Jan 23 2012: Thank you, all is well! I was wondering because, news and newspapers, are different. It depends on the population and the popularity, of said city. My humble opinion. Great question and really interesting responses! :)
  • thumb
    Jan 21 2012: Truth is essential in reporting. Truth in reporting must be unbiased, unflinching, and without reproach. As Albert Einstein said "Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters." Unless a newspaper is devolving into a gossip column on daily events, it must uphold the basic tenant of journalism.

    On the website "Journalism.org" the first Principle of Journalism is :
    " Democracy depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context. Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but it can--and must--pursue it in a practical sense. This "journalistic truth" is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts. Then journalists try to convey a fair and reliable account of their meaning, valid for now, subject to further investigation. Journalists should be as transparent as possible about sources and methods so audiences can make their own assessment of the information. Even in a world of expanding voices, accuracy is the foundation upon which everything else is built--context, interpretation, comment, criticism, analysis and debate. The truth, over time, emerges from this forum. As citizens encounter an ever greater flow of data, they have more need--not less--for identifiable sources dedicated to verifying that information and putting it in context."

    This should not be a hard question, although the term vigilante indicates a desire or need to meet out punishment to those perceived to be wrong-doers, which is inflammatory, and negates the idea of unbiased journalistic integrity.
  • Jan 21 2012: "Vigilante" is a loaded word. But newspaper reporters checking facts, rather than just transcribing what people tell them? That would be doing their job! How did we get to the point where such a thing is controversial?
  • thumb
    Jan 20 2012: I would be happy with the unvarnished facts and allow me to draw conclussions. That I feel is the job of the reporter. Now, more than any other time in history, we have the resources available to research and determine what is our truth.
    Like in politics what I see is not what you see. It is my responsibility to evaluate not the papers.
  • thumb
    Jan 17 2012: The major news media should be immediately abandoned by any society that values its future in favor of the incredible quantities of source material available via the Internet. I get my news from You Tube and several news blogs that censor nothing. The major news outlets are not only corporate, they are cowardly.
  • Jan 15 2012: Yes. "The truth shall set you free." The MEDIA has asked the public to purchase their commodity, information. The public has the moral and civil expectation that what that media is providing is the truth, without alteration. A free press bears the responsibility to be self-policing to maintain the highest standards regarding truth in what it reports as news. To behave otherwise invites censorship, regulation and slavery. I see a similarity of trust/truth responsibilty wherever there exists inherant vulnerabilty In nursing practice, patients are about as vulnerable to harm as a person can become. Any nurse can be abusive at any time and most likely would not be discovered. The media has the same responsiblity to do no harm that a nurse bears. A self-policing media is essential to assure that the public has unfettered access to the truth.
    • thumb
      Jan 15 2012: While a media that regulates itself sounds great, it doesn't sound realistic. It is not in the interest of news organizations to self-regulate, so they won't do it. In relation to your nurse metaphor, nurses are compeled to not abuse patients by the power of the law. Then should the media be compelled to present the truth by the law?
  • thumb
    Jan 14 2012: Truth is easy. (The sun came up this morning. Barack Obama is the president of the U.S. Germans buy and sell things using euros.). So is the opposite of truth, i.e. lies (Mushrooms are 150 feet high and bear pine cones; my next door neighbor is the Nigerian ambassador to Andorra).

    Fair is *not* easy! Objective is in the eye of the beholder.

    Which truths are 'relevant' depends entirely on one's feelings. Some care if Lindsay Lohan is dating and consider celebrity marriages a critical part of their lives. Many don't give a dang if an earthquake wipes out entire villages in Java.

    Media constantly try to find what kinds of facts -- or stories, or lies -- appeal to their audience(s) and try to deliver them. And folks spend money to get what they want. End of story.

    If you want truth, go outside... don't read or watch TV or listen to the radio.... and watch and listen. At least that way you eliminate *some* of the filters. (I can't see infrared as butterflies do, or hear trans-sonic vibrations of the air as bats do -- and that's fine!) If I want to know what's going on in London, England tomorrow -- and only want the truth -- I need to fly there. I bet the sun will rise there, too. And I'll bet that a wad of euros won't work if I try to buy some fish and chips.....
  • Jan 14 2012: I think WE should be truth vigilantes.

    As to newspapers they should be too. But even if they are, newspapers (not to mention other media) spread truth too late.

    Of course, nobody can be everywhere at all times. We have to have the initiative to tweet, text or email someone with first hand information. Better if they are witnesses.

    It's not about how corrupt or true information from media should be. It's about fine tuning how we pass on or receive information. We have the resources for a global community. Contact someone you trust then confirm what the paper says.

    If your neighbor got robbed, would you wait for the thing to land on your lawn?
    The paper should be truthful but it obviously should not be the primary source of information.

    Get on your feet and find the truth. Don't pay a writer to do that for you when you can do it yourself.
  • Jan 14 2012: Responding to Mr. Brisbane's question, "Is it possible to be objective and fair when a reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another?" All critical thinking separates facts from beliefs where facts are indisputable and all who view agree. Facts are, therefore, objective. A reporter cannot correct one fact over another, but a reporter can correct inaccurate beliefs by introducing facts. It seems too many reporters stoke inaccurate beliefs by failing to dig for the facts, omitting facts altogether, or introducing their own beliefs into their report of events.
  • thumb
    Jan 13 2012: Absolutely. The initial purpose of newspaper was to spread the knowledge necessary to live day to day to everyone you could get to read your paper. Now it's become more about selling the papers and ads than about selling the facts. I will say that consumers are to blame for this as well as the papers, for how else could they stay afloat if not for the money they garner from our willing hands.
  • thumb
    Jan 13 2012: We already have enough of people's opinions with all the blogs and electronic media so I suggest the newspapers to be more like magazines ... more commercial and entertaining (meaning better shots, better writers, better editing and original ideas). Otherwise they would just become another electronic source of info ... paper publishing is still considered credible but for how long?
    • Jan 14 2012: Silvia, magazines are not newspapers, they serve different purposes or at least should do so. There is enough commercial things out there to keep one entertained. A good newspaper has all those things you mentioned (better shots, better writers, better editing and original ideas). The newspaper should not be taken for granted, like most of my generation (we in our 20's). Paper publishing will always be considered more credible, it has a face, an identity that you can hold accountable, while internet postings do not, you have no idea who is behind them and if you can ever find them or demand a justification for what they wrote, something I find to be very important now a days with all the hacks out there saying what ever they want without thought.
      • thumb
        Jan 14 2012: Thanks for your opinion, Tiago. Seems to me that I dislike today's newspapers because they are really repulsive at least in my country.
  • Jan 13 2012: Truth, the word is a bomb in itself. There are realities that can change depending on one's perspective, however what Journalists should try and unravel is the truth according to no perspectives, the pure truth, the one that has a begining, a middle and an ending. When one searches for a murderer, there are many clues, various angles, but narrow it all down and you discover the truth, that so and so killed him/her. That is the turth newspapers should fight to uncover. Who is to blame for the economic crises, who caused 9/11, who is responsible for this and that and the other. Sooner or later it all comes down to a single reality, the truth, not something precieved. Truth, real truth is not based on one's reality but rather that common reality that binds us all together. What's wrong is wrong, what is right is right, now the punishment due to the reasons for such actions can differ according to one's reason for carrying such an act out.
  • Jan 13 2012: Vigilante. The word is based on self glorification, not truth or the search thereof. It focuses merely on what one precieves to be true, on what one believes in, without the global picture of things. New media has become in some way tied to this word Vigilante. So my answer is no. Newspapers should stand for the truth and not precieved ideas or beliefs.
  • Jan 13 2012: Great subject! I would suggest for journalist all over the world to create such an oath for truth, principles, balance and fairness. Todays media is a tool of establishment and serves its purposes. Lets start there then they find a new place for them in society.
  • thumb
    Jan 13 2012: I looked at the Times article. I found it very depressing that the Times has lost sight of what journalism is. So many "news" sources are no more than mouth pieces for one side or another. There is a section in the paper called Editorials where the newspaper can comment about news from the paper's position. If the articles are "corrected" within the news article itself to align with someone's opinion on the journalistic side of the line, then no news will be trusted.
    Both politicians and diplomats know how to "speak between the lines." Sometime this is a useful strategy to sound out the other side without actually speaking out the question directly. It would be irresponsible for the Times or any reputable news source to change the words said into what was meant to be indirect. Of course this function of language can be used for nefarious purposes, and that is where the Times should editorialize to their heart's content, backing up their position with facts. If the original statements is in fact false, or a lie, then that In itself becomes news. The proper procedure at that point would be a fact filled news article or editorial putting the truth out there where people can see it clearly. News is history. It is totally irresponsible for a newspaper to restate any person's words so that they would be more "true." It would be just as wrong to editorialize within a news report. The news is the truth, even it what the person said is wrong, a lie, a slander, or an exaggeration. If I told a reporter "I believe Jodie Foster will get her fourth Oscar for her performance in Carnage. and it was reported as "Jon said "Jodie foster will probably get her third Academy Award for her performance in the movie Carnage." the article might be more correct, but it would not be what I said.
    I believe people want more truth, and less moderation and equivocation by the both the media and the politicians.
  • thumb
    Jan 13 2012: I have the romantic and outdated view that the media was established as the source of impartial information so that the public would have an avenue by which to monitor the government, to ensure that the government remained accountable to the people.

    In order to maintain this, we the people have to have a hunger for that information. In the last twenty years we have steadily engorged ourselves more and more on an unhealthy diet of entertainment. Fox News, born from a purported desire to provide balance to what they claimed was an unbiased media, actually changed media into purveyors of opinion, rather than fact. Now, we have this endless buffet of various viewpoints, rather than any unbiased, straight-up, "just-the-facts-ma'am" this-is-what-happened news.

    In short, newspapers shouldn't have to be truth "vigilantes" - if the public demanded they be simple truth tellers instead of spin-doctors, then everything would be fine. But we must first retrain our appetite for information, not opinion.

    (All these food analogies . . . can you tell I skipped breakfast this morning?)
  • thumb
    Jan 13 2012: No one can guess what the Times would face should they act as stated. We can guess, but before someone decided to try and fly we all thought they would fail too. Here we are flying all around the world! It's all gotta start with someone.
    • thumb
      Jan 13 2012: Hi Valerie
      I think you missed the point. The Times was asking their readers it they (the readers) thought it would be ok if the Times went ahead and corrected statements made by politicians that were not 'true.' I think the people deserve to make up their own minds about whether a statement is true or not. If the news paper wants to editorialize, it should do it in the Editorials section, not within the news article itself. The news is the news, and editorials are not news. Separation between news and commentary is a requisite of the Democratic process.
      It is not the job of the newspapers to find and print the truth. It is their job to report the news. If a politician tells a lie, then that is news. But it is wrong to call him a liar in the news article itself. Print the lie. Editorialize on it showing fact and figures in the Editorials. Or, if some other politician comes out with the fact and figures, that is also news. The bottom line is that news should not be created nor edited by the news reporter.
  • thumb
    Jan 13 2012: Wouldn't it be wonderful if the media made it their job to find and print the truth! If that were the case perhaps politicians and corporations, those in the spotlight or having influence would be held accountable for their actions in a public manner hopefully making them reconsider some of the things they are doing! Great start to getting our world back together.
  • Jan 13 2012: The answer to your question is; absolutely not!

    'Vigilante' is a pejorative word which, for me, conjures up visions of unjustifiable, deeply flawed and biased persecution of the innocent, e.g the Ku Klux KLan. My understanding of the role of a journalist is that they are to be an unbiased reporter of facts (facts are always true) and I would be wary of confusing that role with that of a columnist, whose raison d'etre is to write entertaining pieces.

    With 24 hour rolling news services, the internet, smartphones, mobile communications devices et al, newspapers are not the only means of informing oneself. Perhaps the question ought to have been rephrased thus: Are newspapers still relevant? Objective reporting is the quintessential characteristic of a newspaper report and as soon as the concept of balance is introduced, the reporting has been irrevocably tainted. Lies may be printed in the name of balance and truth is subsumed with the apparent need to present both sides of a story.

    Worthwhile journalism requires a total indifference to the influences which can dilute the facts being reported upon. How any newspaper (especially one of the stature of the New York Times) can pose the question about objectivity and fairness, suggests to me that The Times has reached a point where closure is the only option. It no longer serves the people whom it purports to serve. It is merely a rudderless hulk without direction nor a valid reason for its existence and its destiny will be to produce vapid puff pieces which please nobody.
    • thumb
      Jan 13 2012: My understanding is that "the role of a journalist is that they are to be an unbiased reporter of facts (facts are always true)" also. I think the point is that this is not what is happening.
  • Jan 13 2012: Yes! Although newspapers are suffering from reduced revenue and readership, they should downsize as much as needed and maintain a strong role for accurate and unbiased reporting. Unbiased? If you want to be a fair reporter and editor, then remain in the middle.

    Newspapers cannot carry the load alone with the fast-paced changes in communication. We need truth vigilantes in all media. And, we need wise discernment. Who will step up and be wise?
  • Jan 12 2012: Yes.
  • thumb
    Jan 12 2012: Problem is...what is truth? It's all a matter of perspective.
    • Jan 12 2012: Ya knows it, when ya speaks it.
    • thumb
      Jan 13 2012: Hi Heather
      This attitude, "it's all a matter of perspective." is one of the reasons the media is able to foist so many half truths on people. It is said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. But we must have faith in the people. We must believe that there are truths upon which our democracy can be founded. If too many people believe that there is only sand under our feet, then we as a free society are doomed..
      • thumb
        Jan 15 2012: Hi Jon, There's a difference between news stories which detail "facts", and those dealing with "comment and analysis" of those facts. Most newspaper stories are a mixture of both which is why they end up being half truths. Truth is a subjective concept and the question uses this word rather than the word fact. However, when a media organisation sets itself up as a "truth vigilante" they run the risk of ending up like News Corp in the UK - having humbling experiences.
        • thumb
          Jan 18 2012: hi Heather
          You say: "Truth is a subjective concept." I heartily disagree.
          Truth
          1. [n] - conformity to reality or actuality 2. [n] - a true statement 4. [n] - a fact that has been verified
          Fact
          1. [n] - an event known to have happened or something known to have existed 2. [n] - a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened 3. [n] - a concept whose truth can be proved 4. [n] - a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred

          Be that as it may, I believe there is a growing opinion that 'authorities' should control what the 'public' has access to. This is something that people who believe in Democracy must oppose. For years the undeveloped nations have grown stronger by copying the best ideas of the West. Now it seems the 'intelligentsia' is trying to use the worst. Censorship, Dictatorship, Social Stratification, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, and the implementation of the 'Police State.'
          In all those instances, control of the press was a prerequisite. The 'Big Lie' is a concept that has worked in many modern totalitarian regimes. A compliant Press is one the the best ways to bring on a future we don't want. We might agree that the press is often biased. But we can not condone any step toward a Press that knowingly 'corrects' what ever was said. We must let the liars lie, the cheaters cheat, and hope that the people are able to see the truth. That's a fact.