‘Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the
present controls the past’- 1984, George Orwell.
‘Believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you see” -Edgar Allan Poe
“Unless I see the nail marks in his hands, and put my
fingers where the nails were, and put my hand in his side, I will not believe” - Thomas, the apostle (John 20:25)
It’s less than 10 years since David Roberts coined the term
‘post-truth era’… or maybe it’s more than 10 years and it was Steve Teisch… post-truth,
alternative facts and similarly counter-intuitive terms, have entered common
usage while some of the world appears to have moved to a common acceptance
that the truth is not only subjective, it may be unimportant, it is inevitably
inconvenient and apparently, something of the past.
As Julius Caesar burned the great library of Alexandria, the
greatest collection of recorded knowledge on the flat map of the time, he may
have wondered what use is there in gathering the knowledge of the world if a flame
can obliterate it… and shortly thereafter, if a scribe might create a new and
more convenient version of the past?
We now have the wits of the world at the touch of a button- but
it’s worth is considerably diminished because that information can be subverted,
denied or simply outweighed by a number of unreliable and sometimes
indistinguishable sources at the touch of another button.
Orwell aptly described the process by which the victor not
only writes history, but once in power can consistently rewrite it to suit their changing needs. In 1984, the Ministry of Truth
issues the news of the day couched in terms of a fluidly changing history which
makes sense of the present, to appease and control the reader- new wars are not
begun, they are perpetuated; new alliances not struck, the parties have always
been loyal. The Ministry of Truth prints the lies needed to support the current
belief.
That distribution of a manipulative message to support and
develop a particular set of beliefs, we sometimes call propaganda. That word literally
comes from the propagation of the church's message by the cardinal members.
It is unsurprising then that the same church which invented propaganda in
the 17th century, is the one which deems the opposing team- the dark
forces of this world- to be led by the ‘father of lies’. While ‘propaganda’ was
the term used by one side of the political world to describe campaigns of
misinformation in opposing states- it’s pertinent to remember that the word belongs
to the team which governs the democratic side of the equation, while
declaring all other forms of government as unequal, unfair, and untenable.
Where am I going with this?
Misinformation, propaganda and lies are not new… and they’re
not the tools of the enemy. Nor is the truth old news. It is fixed in reality.
However, after the event, as history, truth is prey to those in power. That’s
important, because if the truth changes, the past changes- and our acceptance
of what is and is not acceptable as a society, changes.
Our access to information is so broad as to appear infinite,
but the sources of information within that scope are factionalised, sometimes constrained
and always open to influence. This is also not new.
While I detest the opinionated filters of news and commentary across the political spectrum, I can tolerate the range. I can sift the scat to weigh and measure the falsities and facts, and seek a truth of a kind.
There are things happening in the world now, which are
acceptable and were not in the past. Some of these things are simply the nature
of passing time. However, some of the messages being promulgated by our
leaders today are a distortion of the truth, based upon a distortion of
history which supports actions outside the moral scope of those which we- or
at least I- had previously agreed as a part of a civilised society.
Right now, there are movements in some political spheres
which aim not just to deceive- to provide misinformation or propaganda
supporting one side of an argument- but to absolutely discredit and then remove
the other side of the argument. To remove the opportunity for opposition or
dissent.
If we allow the sources from which we seek information to be reduced, threatened or manipulated- if we depend too heavily on some sources and not others- then the ways in which we access and filter our truth must diminish and become vulnerable to the control of those who desire it.
Over the past few years particular people in positions of
power have discredited news providers and journalists globally in order to
reduce credibility of their critics- criticisms often earned by fragrant disregard
for decency and law.
I watched this week what appeared to be a government
endorsed act of intimidation on their own public broadcaster, in a country of
which I am a citizen. The types of criticism normally levelled at
non-democratic states for media censorship were validly directed toward the
Australian government. It isn't new- it is part of a pattern of government
behaviour over a decade involving progressive changes to media laws, to
structures and funding, and documented incidents of interference, with the aim
of manipulating public perception, concealing ethically questionable behaviour,
and curbing criticism and debate.
When asked this week for a reaction to federal police raids
on media organisations, raids with the stated aim of identifying ‘whistle-blowing’
media sources, the prime minister of Australia responded, “It never troubles me
that our laws are being upheld”.
On the contrary- when the media is being attacked using
civil institutions, for exposing breaches of law committed on behalf of our
government; and when our laws themselves are being amended to allow fundamental
perversions of justice- then we should all be troubled.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-11/killings-of-unarmed-afghans-by-australian-special-forces/8466642
