Mazzaglia: When the truth becomes cloudier
By Frank Mazzaglia/Local Columnist
Are you confused about what you read in the newspaper and see on television? You are not alone. That's because "Fake news" depends a lot on your version of truth.
The primary purpose of a free press in a democratic society is to keep a watchful eye on the government so that citizens will be better educated about who to vote for. It's the reason why the founding fathers insisted that the individual states provide mandatory education so that the nation would have a literate society capable of insuring the continuance of a free people.
The media was supposed to be neutral in order to be a fair broker. In fact, the media was never intended to tell us what to think. Rather than that, the media is intended to tell us what to think about. In the end, good journalists seek the truth.
That's why the decision to leave out significant news may be even more telling that what is in the news. The alleged brutal rape of a 14-year-old girl in the boy's room at a Rockville, Maryland, elementary school by an 18-year-old illegal immigrant was both shocking and newsworthy. However, because it destroys the narrative of the liberal message, the incident is entirely and deliberately overlooked.
In our younger years, when everything was so clearly black and white, truth was pretty simple to discover. With time, however, truth grew more cloudy because of so many complicated circumstances that required consideration. That's why the older we get, the more we can appreciate the famous words of a frustrated Pontius Pilate who washed his hands before asking, "What is truth?"
When Trump alleged that former President Obama had "wiretapped" the communications of his transition team "without evidence," it became the subject of sharp denials. Now, after all that we find that there was, in fact, a form of surveillance. It was Aristotle who said that no matter how hard we tried, truth had an extraordinary way of always coming out.
Philosophers tell us that truth is positive agreement between mind and object. Advocacy journalists, on the other hand, tell us that truth is whatever convinces you to think the way they do. So now come the so-called fact checkers. The only problem, of course, is who checks the fact-checkers? Facts and alternate facts in our divided country generally depend on what comes closest to what people want to believe. People are not stupid. When a paper has a number of front page stories bashing President Donald Trump, features insulting illustrations, and contains a majority of one-sided opinion pieces, the editorial position of that paper is clear.
The American people are hungry for the truth. Imagine a newspaper that took the lead in taking the truth seriously. Just think about how many people would appreciate a newspaper which was so committed to the truth that it criticized both the Democrats as well as the Republicans in an even-handed way. "Truth" and "trust," after all, emerge out of a common root.
A newspaper that deals exclusively in truth is more likely to gain a sharp increase in its readership. More to the point, if the media were more evenhanded and criticized the left as well as the right, this nation would not be so divided. How could it be when a fair press pointed out the wrinkles in both sides?
The blame for one-sided convenient news cannot be blamed on editors and reporters. The real problem is a complacent public. A public that accepts what it knows is a cheap appeal for tightly locked minds. That strategy is self-defeating because the overwhelming number of people would rather turn away from a newspaper rather than read political bunk.
Perhaps a newspaper that defiantly dedicates itself to the truth at the expense of both sides is too much to ask, but my hunch is that it would be an overwhelming success.
Frank Mazzaglia can be reached at frankwrote@aol.com.