Truth and hypocrisy
In the cover of a recent issue of Time magazine is the headline, "Is Truth Dead?" It refers to US President Donald Trump and his administration's audacious handling of truth and falsehoods since taking office and even during the election campaign.
I am particularly ribbed by the following comment in Polizette: "Time magazine asking if truth is dead is like Brutus casually asking if somebody stabbed Caesar." (Polizette is a section of an American news, opinion, and commentary website branded as "a cultural and political web destination for conservatives and independents.")
If I may continue with a further quote: "Their (Time's) apocalyptic overreaction to every Trump Tweet has become so commonplace that even Nate Silver can predict it. Instead of "Is Truth Dead," the cover should ask, 'Is Truth Dead Yet?' Because Time magazine has been trying to kill it for years."
I'm not endorsing such stinging rebuke of Time over its "Is Truth Dead?" feature. But the commentary against the widely-circulated and well-established weekly magazine gives rise to some interesting questions about hypocrisy and the mainstream media.
Notice, for example, how directing our attention to the spread of online trolls has somehow given some in the media industry a respite from public scrutiny over their own more sophisticated ways of manipulating the truth.
Trolls in the internet spread fake news. That damages the truth, even only briefly before it is almost certainly exposed as fake sooner or later. Hoaxes and rumors are like stationary or slow-moving prey. They are easy to kill.
But when trusted journalists single out and report a statement which was actually said but they deliberately miss out on certain essential information or context, isn't that more damaging to the truth? As purveyors of information the public can use, don't we owe it to the public to be conscientious of how our reports and headlines may be understood by our readers?
We can go further by looking into the influential and vested interests behind those who appear to take the high road. That requires a more sophisticated grasp of analyzing propaganda techniques. And there lies the tricky part. Not many people can see through the web of contradictions and inconsistencies that are present in that level.
If they ask you: Is truth dead? Take a good look first who is asking.
***
I commend the community in Cebu and Bohol for their continued vigilance in the face of threats from terrorists. That some members of the Abu Sayyaf have survived the encounter in Inabanga, Bohol, last week and are currently at large should keep everyone guarded but calm.
I don't know what went into the mind of the members of this group for daring to penetrate the heart of Central Visayas which has a long history of repelling sea raiders from the south. It could be to ease the pressure of military operations in Sulu and Basilan.
It could be that disrupting the ASEAN pre-summit meetings is too tempting to pass up. Or it could be that the terrorists found a weak spot in our defenses that they could exploit and get away with. Defense officials and analysts have yet to give us a full briefing of how the terrorist threat came to a head in Inabanga which led to that violent encounter over a week ago.
In any case, we must remain vigilant in the wake of these threats without necessarily disrupting our daily activities. I know I said earlier that hoaxes and rumors are easy to identify and slay. So all the more we should not spread them in the guise of verifying such information.
We in Cebu are also fortunate to have a Muslim community that is working with the authorities in policing their ranks against extremists. Needless to say, community solidarity is the best defense against terrorism.
- Latest
