August 26 2008: The Nature Of Truth
Filed under Asian-ness & Media & Uni/Work
In my Contemporary China class today, we were examining the nature of truth. Does truth exist in Western media reports, does it exist in Chinese media reports? What is fact, what is truth, what is real, and what isn’t? We supported our discussion with a brief exercise. In two groups (one representing Western media, the other representing Chinese media), we each came up with a brief article on two issues: unrest in Tibet and troubles on the Olympic torch relay.
As part of the latter group of Chinese journalists, we wrote these short articles:
Recent acts of terrorism, wanton violence, thievery, and attacks on innocent civilians, by a minority faction of Tibetan separatists have disturbed the peace of China’s western region. These acts were sparked by the continuing duplicitous behaviour of the false leader, the Dalai Lama. It is believed that these acts are an attack on China’s growing economic strength. Chinese peacekeepers in the region have been helping to maintain stability in the face of these criminal acts, protecting social and community unity.
Community groups of Chinese sons and daughters based overseas been showing their support in displaying the glory of China along the path of the Olympic torch. Groups have organised bus trips to points along the path, and people have made the support of the torch a priority in their lives – dedicating time from their studies and careers to show their support in person. Foreign governments have also shown great belief in the power and might of the Chinese, with support of China’s Olympic glory by providing escorts along the path. Our Olympic slogan of “one world, one dream” has become reality.
It may seem like mindless propaganda, but read it again. There’s not one word of untruth in either article, it’s merely that the focus isn’t what one would find in non-Chinese reports.
There has been violence, looting, and attacks on civilians in Tibet. The Dalai Lama has thrown the legitimacy of his position into question by deciding to choose his successor before he dies (traditionally, the next Dalai Lama is supposed to be reincarnated after the death of the previous Dalai Lama, not chosen before the death). Chinese troops have been protecting civilians from the riots. Chinese expatriates were skivving school and work in order to support the path of the Olympic torch. There were organised community trips to go support the torch relay. Foreign governments did provide escorts for the torch relay.
Everything in the articles is true. It’s a lesson in learning to draw truths out from two opposing biases. What you read in Western media reports isn’t the whole truth, just like what you read in Chinese media reports isn’t the whole truth either. It’s selective truth. Combine the two, throw in some salt and pepper, maybe a bit of soy sauce, and you might get some semblance of reality.
Which is why they make you “swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” in court.
But how do we know if we really have the whole truth even when we listen to both sides of the story?
Reply: You never do, unless you’re actually in the situation yourself. It’s really about using your own judgement about what seems believable and what doesn’t - coming up with the most believable truth. The key is to consider all points of view - only taking your sources from Source A, without considering Source B, Source C, Source D, etc, isn’t the best way to get the full picture.
Vickie on August 26 2008 #
The best example of this you’ll ever see is in Derry. Within about 500 metres there are two museums, both focussing on the Troubles, and specifically on Bloody Sunday and the events leading up to it. They report the same events, the same facts, and yet the impression you walk away with about what really happened and the repercussions of certain actions will be vastly different from each.
But that’s the nature of truth - depending on where you stand, things look very different. One man’s freedom fighter is always another’s terrorist.
Rebekah on August 26 2008 #
This reminds me of what we were doing in my Geography class a couple of weeks ago. We weren’t being taught to take information from multiple sources (quite the opposite): we were being taught only one side of the story regarding recent South African history. It irritated me because while I agreed that apartheid was terrible and unjust, I didn’t think that meant incidents of ANC-perpetrated violence were merely “white propaganda” like my teacher insisted. The government can say a lot of things, but they can’t just make up car bombs going off in the streets of Johannesburg. It really happened, and people were really there to die or see the debris left behind. When the South African government accused the ANC of terrorism, there was some truth in it (even though the ANC had a “noble” cause — the white people terrified of the black majority, and who can cite these attacks as proof their fear is justified, aren’t going to see it that way!).
Reading about and trying to understand multiple points of view is always the best way to go, in my opinion. People should be prepared to look at why people feel the way they do, even if they disagree.
So… I guess I agree with you. :)
Jessica on August 26 2008 #
I think truth is such a vague term…but to me, truth is fact–it’s something that’s undeniably correct, so I do find some “untruths” in those above articles. By untruths, I mean things that cannot be proven as wholly true. Thus, any biases can create untruth. For example, “false leader,” can be an untruth. One group of people consider it true and another group consider it false. It’s not a fact, and not entirely true, since that term is claimed to be wrong by another group.
I just think that when people read articles, they have to read between the lines; know the hidden nuances the writer is trying to direct his or her readers to believe and only pick out the facts.
Yingna on September 1 2008 #