Sunday, July 20, 2008
Monday, March 05, 2007
The Right to Truth in Communications and Reportage, Commentary
Human Rights and Social Justice Conference - University of Winnipeg, February 23-25, 2007
Saturday, Feb. 24 [1:45-3:00] (3) The Right to Truth in Communications and Reportage
Walther Lichem
David Matas
Ben Peterson
Thank you for such a great discussion--you really got me thinking about rights and ethics regarding the many aspects of information management: the different types of information; the connection between scientific evidence/research (and problems within) and journalism, the distinction between information and "truth"; the potential danger of information in the "wrong" hands (eg health information confidentiality, insurance, legal counsel confidentiality, etc); research ethics (the acquisition, analysis, and dissemination of the information); the idea of striving for objectivity where bias is inherent (and often makes for a juicy read--which isn't necessarily a bad thing!); the business of communications and how to report on social issues while staying profitable in a competitive journalistic field.
I struggle with the idea of a "right to truth" because of these very difficult issues, and suggest we deconstruct the phrase. Aren’t we really talking about the ethical and responsible use of information--not to the point of patriarchal control of information/propoganda/censorship/taking control away from someone, but to inform and enlighten? I am not questioning the informed part—people need the relevant info from as many objective sources as possible to make real choices (so they can decide their own “truth”), and certainly not giving people relevant info to base their decisions is not ethical.
However, to me, using “truth” to encapture this can be misguiding. “Truth” is a very emotion-based word; it implies an absolute. In my experience, truth is more of an abstract concept which is very subjective and dependent on the beholder--my truth is different from your truth which is different from the truth of a dictator or a child dying in Africa, for instance. I've come to realize this repeatedly in my medical work and have to continually remind myself of its importance. A quick google'd definition of truth (Merriam-Webster's online dictionary) shows the various meanings and my point:
"...Main Entry: truth ...
1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD ..."
I find it useful to distinguish truth from fact--whereas one can (ideally) determine the accuracy of facts [whether a person meets the established Canadian diagnostic criteria for diabetes or whether someone has blue eyes or whether I ate a peanut butter sandwich today, etc], one can not so easily determine "the truth/Truth", when we're talking about opinions, realities, propositions, ideas, beliefs, or even God as Webster suggests. To me, "truth" attaches a moral judgement on issues and can end up clouding rather than clarifying what we're talking about.
I think the use of the term and our attachment of a right to it potentially takes us further from our "cause" (assuming the cause is global health--which to me embodies basic rights to life and freedoms) in three serious ways:
1) It makes it less easy to put this ideal into practice: Who's truth are we talking about? What are the laws, then, that come out of this right? How does this right get disputed in court? Is it necessary to state this ideal when all our other rights should encompass it? What about when this right infringes on other rights like the right to privacy--the many cases where information should not be shared just by merit of it being known by someone (eg medical and legal confidentiality, etc.)?
2) It may imply that the person giving the information knows the truth (not always the case) and would normally have hidden it, and is therefore “evil”, thus potentially polarizing all involved. There are moral judgments every step of this process, and using emotionally-driven phrases I feel tends to worsen this.
3) It also puts us on the slippery slope of religious/ideologic fundamentalism. I don't doubt that most terrorists believe that their perspective represents "the truth". Ascribing to the concept of a "right to truth" needs to be examined very carefully, here. How do we deal with those people whose "truth" dictates they kill/harm others? Do we say, "There is a universal right to truth, but just not yours?"..."Oh okay, so you killed in self-defense or you were drunk or those people killed your family before your eyes or you thought that person represented a threat to the country--a terrorist...you're right--let's band together and get those people"?!
I think it's better to say what we really mean. I believe people have a right to information that is relevant to their day-to-day choices. I also believe that people have a certain right to privacy as long as the welfare of the public/people is not at risk or harmed because of this right, particularly those unable to stand up for their rights (children, some people with mental disabilities, etc). I further believe that the research, analysis, and dissemination of that information should be responsible and regulated by Codes of Ethics and laws. I also believe that we each have a part in reflecting on how we personally communicate our ideas, acknowledging both our objectivity and subjectivity—our individual “truth”.
I’m still wiping the egg off my face, when to my favourite quote (often in my email signature),:
All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
--Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
I got this response:
“A word of advice from the mildly retarded. Lose the quote about truth and ridicule. It immediately polarizes folks, because depending on the tone of your missive it appears to say that truth is your domain and that everyone else is lying by the simple virtue of engaging you.”
I still love the quote for its principles of human nature: there is always a major resistance to any change, and the outside-the-box thinkers generally are the ones that struggle to change the world. But the response is a wonderful personal reminder to look at how I convey my truth, quite different from everyone around me.
Saturday, Feb. 24 [1:45-3:00] (3) The Right to Truth in Communications and Reportage
Walther Lichem
David Matas
Ben Peterson
Thank you for such a great discussion--you really got me thinking about rights and ethics regarding the many aspects of information management: the different types of information; the connection between scientific evidence/research (and problems within) and journalism, the distinction between information and "truth"; the potential danger of information in the "wrong" hands (eg health information confidentiality, insurance, legal counsel confidentiality, etc); research ethics (the acquisition, analysis, and dissemination of the information); the idea of striving for objectivity where bias is inherent (and often makes for a juicy read--which isn't necessarily a bad thing!); the business of communications and how to report on social issues while staying profitable in a competitive journalistic field.
I struggle with the idea of a "right to truth" because of these very difficult issues, and suggest we deconstruct the phrase. Aren’t we really talking about the ethical and responsible use of information--not to the point of patriarchal control of information/propoganda/censorship/taking control away from someone, but to inform and enlighten? I am not questioning the informed part—people need the relevant info from as many objective sources as possible to make real choices (so they can decide their own “truth”), and certainly not giving people relevant info to base their decisions is not ethical.
However, to me, using “truth” to encapture this can be misguiding. “Truth” is a very emotion-based word; it implies an absolute. In my experience, truth is more of an abstract concept which is very subjective and dependent on the beholder--my truth is different from your truth which is different from the truth of a dictator or a child dying in Africa, for instance. I've come to realize this repeatedly in my medical work and have to continually remind myself of its importance. A quick google'd definition of truth (Merriam-Webster's online dictionary) shows the various meanings and my point:
"...Main Entry: truth ...
1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD ..."
I find it useful to distinguish truth from fact--whereas one can (ideally) determine the accuracy of facts [whether a person meets the established Canadian diagnostic criteria for diabetes or whether someone has blue eyes or whether I ate a peanut butter sandwich today, etc], one can not so easily determine "the truth/Truth", when we're talking about opinions, realities, propositions, ideas, beliefs, or even God as Webster suggests. To me, "truth" attaches a moral judgement on issues and can end up clouding rather than clarifying what we're talking about.
I think the use of the term and our attachment of a right to it potentially takes us further from our "cause" (assuming the cause is global health--which to me embodies basic rights to life and freedoms) in three serious ways:
1) It makes it less easy to put this ideal into practice: Who's truth are we talking about? What are the laws, then, that come out of this right? How does this right get disputed in court? Is it necessary to state this ideal when all our other rights should encompass it? What about when this right infringes on other rights like the right to privacy--the many cases where information should not be shared just by merit of it being known by someone (eg medical and legal confidentiality, etc.)?
2) It may imply that the person giving the information knows the truth (not always the case) and would normally have hidden it, and is therefore “evil”, thus potentially polarizing all involved. There are moral judgments every step of this process, and using emotionally-driven phrases I feel tends to worsen this.
3) It also puts us on the slippery slope of religious/ideologic fundamentalism. I don't doubt that most terrorists believe that their perspective represents "the truth". Ascribing to the concept of a "right to truth" needs to be examined very carefully, here. How do we deal with those people whose "truth" dictates they kill/harm others? Do we say, "There is a universal right to truth, but just not yours?"..."Oh okay, so you killed in self-defense or you were drunk or those people killed your family before your eyes or you thought that person represented a threat to the country--a terrorist...you're right--let's band together and get those people"?!
I think it's better to say what we really mean. I believe people have a right to information that is relevant to their day-to-day choices. I also believe that people have a certain right to privacy as long as the welfare of the public/people is not at risk or harmed because of this right, particularly those unable to stand up for their rights (children, some people with mental disabilities, etc). I further believe that the research, analysis, and dissemination of that information should be responsible and regulated by Codes of Ethics and laws. I also believe that we each have a part in reflecting on how we personally communicate our ideas, acknowledging both our objectivity and subjectivity—our individual “truth”.
I’m still wiping the egg off my face, when to my favourite quote (often in my email signature),:
All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
--Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
I got this response:
“A word of advice from the mildly retarded. Lose the quote about truth and ridicule. It immediately polarizes folks, because depending on the tone of your missive it appears to say that truth is your domain and that everyone else is lying by the simple virtue of engaging you.”
I still love the quote for its principles of human nature: there is always a major resistance to any change, and the outside-the-box thinkers generally are the ones that struggle to change the world. But the response is a wonderful personal reminder to look at how I convey my truth, quite different from everyone around me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
