Often referred to as the Age of Information, this period in
the Earth’s history has seen a revolution in telecommunications which has
allowed us to know in seconds what is happening on the other side of the world.
The range of information available both
on the internet, via satellite TV channels and mobile phones and other devices
is truly staggering. Deciding what
article to read or programme to watch is one problem with only so many hours in
the day. Many have honed their speed-reading
skills to make life easier. The other problem is knowing what to believe when
there is so much conflicting information. How do we decide what is the truth
and what is fiction?
From an early age we learn to mimic our parents and as we
get older we are taught to do as we are told by them and the other adults that
surround us. We aren’t usually
encouraged to think for ourselves or make our own decisions, at least not until
we reach our teenage years. Most of us
who have gone through the school system have been forced to memorise facts and
reproduce opinions that have been approved by the respective educational
institutions of the country we have grown up in. The educational policies have
themselves been influenced by the prevailing political bias and religious dogma
of that society. Rarely are we ever allowed to question anything at school nor
are we encouraged to develop our own opinions.
We are considered ignorant and like empty vessels that must be filled in
order to be able to regurgitate the belief system of the status quo. Like our parents and many generations before
them, we then become compliant members of society who live our lives according
to accepted norms. If we have questions
or doubts we always refer to people in authority such as teachers, the medical
profession or government officials. We also get our answers from mainstream sources such
as newspapers and the television news. We rarely question if this information
is true or correct. These established
sources are like the modern version of village elders. We put unquestioning
faith in them as though they are kindly guardians who have our best interests
at heart.
For example, in the United Kingdom the BBC is the longest
running television channel. Funded
partly by the state and partly by a compulsory license fee paid by everyone who
owns a television, the BBC is a greatly admired and loved national
institution. Sometimes referred to as
‘Auntie Beeb’, the organisation has a reputation for impartiality and well-researched,
high-quality programmes. It’s authority
as a source of factual information, as well as fair and balanced opinion, is so
ingrained in the national psyche that people rarely question whether the ideas
presented in its programmes are true. So are the programmes objective or do
they have a hidden agenda? It’s usually possible to detect a bias, although it's much less noticeable if the facts are presented in an emotive way with
music and the interviews are edited so that only the parts that support the
chosen argument are shown. Also the use
of ‘expert’ testimony is very convincing and lends credibility to the
arguments, however flawed.
As an example of this, the BBC’s programme, The Conspiracy
Files: 911 – The Third Tower, attempted to appear as though it was a well-balanced
presentation of the conspiracy theories and an analysis of the ‘facts’ around
the collapse of Building 7, the third tower to fall on 11 September 2001.
Although the programme initially outlined some of the big questions about the
official story, its attempt to debunk the conspiracy theories was incomplete,
misleading and, at times, glaringly inaccurate to anyone who has taken the time
to find out the facts. (See: A Case in
Point above.) But due to the BBC’s huge influence on the British public,
it is quite probable that those viewers who had doubts about the official
report before the programme, had them laid to rest by the end.
Another example is the BBC’s documentary investigation of
the events on the Mavi Marmara the Turkish aid ship that was attempting to
deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza. The
ship was stormed by Israeli naval forces at 4.30 on the morning of 31 May 2010 and
resulted in the death of nine activists on board. Called ‘Panorama: Death in
the Med’, the programme is blatantly biased in favour of Israel from the
outset. The programme begins by painting
the Israeli naval commandos as an elite force that is legitimately defending
Israeli interests. There is little mention of the fact that the Mavi Marmara
was in international waters and therefore the boarding of the ship by the Israeli
forces was illegal in the first place. The
program then goes on to portray the activists on board as extremists who
deliberately laid a trap for Israel while implying that the Israelis were the
innocent party. The presenter, Jane
Corbin, attempts to explain the situation in Gaza but does not explain fully the
devastating effect the illegal blockade is having on the people who live there
and why activists would risk their lives to help them. Mention is made of the fact that Hamas refuses
to recognise Israel’s ‘right to exist’ but there is no explanation of the fact
that Hamas said it would recognise an Israel based on 1967 borders. Nor did
Jane Corbin explain that Israel is gradually colonising Palestinian land
through the building of illegal settlements. Interestingly, Jane Corbin’s husband is John
Cradock Maples, former MP and president of the Conservative Friends of Israel.
So from these two examples we can see that even those sources
of information that promise to give us an unbiased view of the world can be
unreliable. There are many
other examples such as the lies told by our leaders and then propagated in the
newspapers about WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) in order to get support for
the war in Iraq, but there are too many to go into here. Of course, there are also some truthful,
accurate and well-researched articles and programmes out there but how do we
tell which ones they are? We can read widely from many different sources: books, the
internet, newspapers, magazines and journals and by watching alternative TV
channels and programmes on-line. From that information we can begin to build a complete picture of
events without relying on one opinion. Most articles include an opinion, even
if it is not presented as such. We need
to learn how to detect this and not allow it to colour our view of the
world. We need to develop independent thought
and choose consciously how we see events.
Our greatest tool in this is our own intuition. Although we have not
been encouraged to develop it because it is not generally believed that it exists, this ability that we all possess cannot be
underestimated. We instinctively know if
something is right for us. We only need to trust it. And if we listen to it, that little voice
inside of us gets stronger each time and soon we will be using
it daily in our decision-making process. I truly believe that this is the way we are evolving and that within a relatively short time it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for us to be fooled at all.
