Thanks to media, the Truth isn’t out there

Wednesday, December 2, 1998

Thanks to media, the Truth isn’t out there

IMPORTANCE: Personal gain, spite, survival motivate lies, making
it hard to be honest

Lost among the debris of half-baked theories, Truth exists
within the realm of ideas. Meanwhile, in this mundane world, Truth
becomes corrupted by ulterior motives of personal gain, spite and
survival.

According to dear Greek philosopher Plato and his dank,
crumbling allegory of the cave, overall truth can only be witnessed
through the limited perspective of an individual. In the framework
of the allegory, each participant is chained in such a way that
they can only see the fraction of the cave, and behind them
performers cast various grotesque shadows on the wall from a light
source which is Truth. Therefore, only a fraction of what is
actually occurring is observed and understood. (This is just a
brief, incomplete summary of the Allegory, which was cut down to
serve my evil purposes.)

The media, which try to fulfill the role of the performers in
the Allegory, inundate our lives with stories of those who
misrepresent issues, events and people.

Ultimately, the media, claiming to be objective, place various
slants on stories, which cast people in a certain light. This
taints the public’s opinions of certain political figures, for
better or for worse. In the end, an instrument of supposed
objectivity becomes a manipulator of Truth.

Last week, U.S. House Speaker-Elect Bob Livingston called for an
early impeachment vote for our beleaguered president, Slick Willy,
a.k.a. Bill Clinton. Allegedly, our great leader lied under oath
about the Lewinsky affair. Most people don’t seem to care. (What do
you expect from a society of free individuals who don’t vote but
watch "The Jerry Springer Show" religiously?)

On Nov. 24, the Los Angeles Times ran a story called "U.S.,
Mexico move against immigration scam artists." Apparently, scam
artists promised legal U.S. residency to illegal immigrants,
swindling them out of thousands of dollars. On the front page of
this very same issue, there was an article reporting the corruption
among top Japanese officials involving payoffs.

Sure Billy, the scam artists and the Japanese officials were
caught, but in an age when lying is almost expected, these stories
don’t generate that much interest. Juxtapose the recent
presidential scandals to Richard Nixon’s Watergate cover-up. In the
span of about 20 years, the American public has grown increasingly
lax in the standards that they have for the president.

Surprisingly, Nietzsche is in some sanatorium today. So, Oscar
Wilde agreed to fill in as the substitute theorist. (The agreement
was that I wouldn’t spread any more rumors about him.) Wilde wrote
in "The Importance of Being Earnest" that in "matters of grave
importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing." (Wilde is
quite the wild, witty Irishman.)

Mankind has not suddenly become dishonest. Technology permits us
to quickly disperse information to the point of overkill. And
lately, due to the sensationalistic journalism surrounding the
Clinton Scandal, it seems that lying is exponentially worse today
than ever before.

Do you really think Honest Abe was all that honest?

Sometime in our not-so-distant past people aspired to be honest
and truthful. These goals have not changed. So it seems that
America is stuck in this huge cave focused intently on the what the
media project before us.

As the media cast slants on various stories, their message comes
into focus. Honesty is not always the best policy.

So it seems that the media create a paranoia in the public that
lying is contributing to the gradual decline of civilization, when
lying is actually something that human beings have done since the
dawn of time.

But does that justify lying?

Here we find ourselves on very tenuous ground. Some argue that
lying to protect innocent people is justified. Since, in this case,
Truth alone cannot protect the innocent, one can infer that Truth
itself can occasionally be used for less than virtuous means.

For example, several weeks ago at a family gathering, I was
minding my own business, eating massive quantities of Korean food,
when several elderly female relatives descended upon me to pester
me about getting married. Feeling somewhat vengeful (because of all
the comments I had suffered as a child pertaining to my unladylike
behavior), I told them my earnest plans to avoid marriage at all
costs. This did not sit well with my well-meaning aunts. (My
devious mind toyed with other ideas to share with them, but I was
not ready to be disowned.)

This is an ugly example of how one can use Truth for spiteful
purposes. This is a case of when refraining from Truth would be in
the best interest of those around me.

Some aspects of the media frown on Kenneth Starr’s supposedly
over-zealous persecution of the president. My intentions were
clear, but are Starr’s? Is he truly a champion of Truth? These
questions remain unanswered, but does this excuse outright
lying?

No, it does not.

Truth appears so absolute in the realm of ideas, and yet human
beings manage to manipulate it to their purposes in this reality.
Some place their faith in religion, which provides them an adequate
version of Truth. Others seek Truth in philosophy.

In his work "The Critic as Artist," Wilde wrote, "(To) know the
truth one must imagine myriads of falsehoods. For what is truth?"
So here we are, a society intently searching for the meaning of the
half-truths around us. Identifying what is false is just as
difficult as identifying what is true.

What a mad world! Regardless of whether a lie is committed to
protect someone or to exact revenge, a lie is still a lie. Now, the
consequences of being caught lying is what mutates into some
unidentifiable mush. The media have managed to dilute the moral
significance of lying. Lying can be overlooked because, in the
great scheme of things, it’s not as morally reprehensible as
murder. (This is of course examining lying in the empirical sense
because we are not looking at lying in the context of other
possibilities, such as crimes of passion.)

I find that I often lie out of "necessity." There are certain
lies that I tell because the consequence of telling the truth is
worse than telling the lie. Back in my foolish high school days, I
learned that one could be guilty of lying by omission. A friend of
mine at the time was caught for committing a seemingly harmless
prank, which turned out to be not so harmless after all. This
friend ended up suspended for it and I had information that could
have possibly lessened his punishment, but it would have
incriminated others.

A few years after I graduated, a cheating scandal broke out at
my high school involving a large number of honor students.

Apparently, a few people cooperated with the school
administration to reveal all those involved in the cheating. True,
these people were ostracized for their deed, but I ask you, which
is morally sound: to keep silent or to speak?

That moment in my senior year was a great personal failure that
still haunts me today.

It’s amusing how much meaning lies have – depending on the
situation. For what is truth?Julianne Sohn

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]