Would I Lie to You

Or

Truth & The Internet

Or

Why it is Essential, Absolutely Essential to Believe in Nothing

Two flashpoints, one a revolution, the other a civil war, are currently being endured by two nations in the glare of the world's media, and commentators, and bloggers, and alternative media. I speak of Syria and Ukraine.

I think one thing can be said with confidence nowadays: for anyone who takes more than a passing interest in news and current events, the authoritative voice of the so called "Main Stream Media" (MSM), whether that voice be coming from the BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, RT or whichever MSM channel you may follow or watch, has been eroded until the reports from each of these channels are merely part of the general clamour that envelopes the unfortunate subjects of their attention like some kind of miasma of clashing opinion and claim and counter claim. 

Two particular incidents sum up how elusive the truth seems in modern times, and how difficult it is to discern the true nature of the course of events that are unfolding before us.  The first was the chemical attack that took place in August 2013 in Syria.  Who was it who bombed the civilian population of Syria and left men, women and children so horribly scarred?

Was it the government forces under Bashar Al-Assad? Was it the opposition to the government including but not limited to the Free Syrian Army?  Or was it an outside force with an agenda one way or the other?  The Americans, the Israelis, the Iranians?  Depending on which theory, perspective or account you read, you will get a different answer.

The second incident took place in February 2014 in the Ukraine, when civilian protesters were cut down by snipers during the demonstrations and riots that brought down Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.  Who was responsible for the murders?  Or was it government forces as they tried to clamp down on the rioters?  Was it the rioters themselves, deliberately targeting the most vulnerable members of the population in order to frame government forces and thus facilitate their insurrection?  Again, according to the source you choose, the answer will be different.

It was once said that "The first casualty of war is the truth", but now, in this internet age, when everyone is given a voice, we can have as much truth as we like - or are we simply getting more perspectives than any one of us can handle?

Revolution - Then and Now

Another thing I wonder is - now we have so many perspectives on world events - was there ever a self-contained revolution within a country, not influenced by outside forces, who were fooling the people of that country into believing that they were improving their lot while all the while plotting to betray their hopes and leave them in an even worse position?

Was it anything like this in the old days?  Like, for instance in the French Revolution?

"Revolution is brewing but it is all the fault of the Deist Americans, who wish to bring Europe under the thrall of their Godless regime. I read it in this British Broadcasting Parchment."

"Nonsense!  The revolutionaries are controlled by the British Empire, who together with the Germans, wish to control the French through anarchy and chaos, I read it in the News of the Fox."

"Gentlemen!  Let us put aside our cynicism and drink to the will of the people! Here's to the victory of liberty and hope!"

"Perhaps you're right.  Anybody would think, listening to us that France was heading towards terror and then dictatorship!"

"Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Cheers!"

Talk to the People?

I did have a thought that speaking to the people of an affected country might solve the problem.  Surely no one could have a more authentic voice than, say, a Syrian, or a Ukrainian? And that is true - but only to an extent. That's because people are complex creatures. Often they don't know what they want. Or if they do know what they want, they might not want the same thing as the next person. And even if they do want the same thing, they might not agree on the best way to get it. I heard it said recently, ask any two Ukrainians how they feel about the current crisis, and you'll get about eleven different answers.

And ultimately countries don't fall into a state of revolution and civil war because their situation is straightforward.

You Couldn't Handle the Truth

The other problem is the multi-faceted nature of the truth. One man works in the Sun and says he was hot. Another man works next to him in the shade and says he was cold. Who is telling the truth? Both of them are.  Just as one person may say to you, "Putin is being aggressive, territorial, and risking war", while another person may say to you "Putin is defending his country," and both of them are telling the truth as well.

So, in the end, where are we? Nearer the truth, or more confused than ever?

Well, as regards mainstream media, my advice would be, listen to what they say, but assume that what they are telling you is the beginning of the story, and very far from the be all and end all.  Also, what they don't tell you can be just as significant as what they do.

Look to alternative news sources then, but remember that they can be just as driven by an agenda as the MSM.  But they can also fill gaps in the "official" story, and they can give you a perspective that the mainstream have either accidentally or deliberately ignored.

And indeed listen to what the people at the sharp end are telling you, but remember - just as my portrait of Britain, as a member of the Green Party, will be different from the portrait described by Joe Bloggs of the UK Independence Party - so you may not get a full picture from one voice;  or two, or three or even four.

And then choose what you want to believe.

Or not believe.