Link to new site additions. Fact Checking

Dear Habermas Logo and Link to Site Index A Justice Site

Fact Checking

Home - About Us - What's NEW?

MIRROR SITES: CSUDH - Habermas - UWP
SEARCH: Site Index - Topics Index - Archival Index by Volume
DOUBLE-CLICK any word for definition.

Google

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Created: July 9, 2008
Latest Update: July 10, 2008
E-Mail Icon jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu
patriciaacone@yahoo.com

Checking Your Facts

  • Introduction

    The U.S. contstitutional commitment to free speech means that there is no overall source to which you can turn for "truth." One reason for that is that truth often varies with perspective. So how do you figure out which of the bailout rumors are true and which are not?

    • Humans have yet to discover the one true and forever answer to our problems, in any field. Scientific method helps, but how to measure abstract ideological concepts like loyalty, adherence to family values, empathy, creativity, justice, fairness, etc. prevents our being absolutely unbiased about anything, since our biases and beliefs color our perspectives. That is not a bad thing, as long as we acknowledge that human knowledge is limited, and that as we evolve and grow as humans we learn ever more, and need to be humble enough to recognize that future generations will face new truths that may cast some of our earlier "truths" in doubt (like whether the earth is flat.)

      Susan and I refer to this as the humility of knowledge. Standing firmly on "I KNOW" can get any of us in trouble. But we would call the assertion that any human who absolutely KNOWS something is being arrogant, for it is not given to us to KNOW in that sense. No scientist claims such knowledge. Nor should any of us, no matter how strong our intuitions or spiritual sense or beliefs. Certainly we must act on our beliefs, on our intuitions, on our values. But such actions may one day prove to have been wrong. God, or fate, or the universe (according to your own beliefs) may have the answers; but we humans must continue to search for ever more accurate knowledge and understanding.

      The respect we must accord the Other, particularly in times of crisis, like the current financial meltdown, is probably the greatest tool for living in peace we shall ever encounter. Lots of us are bound to be wrong in the paths we see now to solvency and the future. As humans, the best we can do is to strive for respect for both the Other and for any Higher Power or Authority we are not given to know beyond our faith and beliefs.

      The problem with respect is that it is often seen as weakness. We Americans have a strong tendency to long for the John Waynes of the West who'll whip out their six shooters and make the bad guys cry "Uncle," and the good guys behave. Yes, those are great stories, but real life is rarely that clear cut. Had John Wayne's western image been real, he'd have probably been wrong, just like all of us are sometimes. Even as "the" all wise and all good hero he played, he's not omniscient, not omnipresent. That's human, folks.

      How does this relate to the elections which face us now? Well, we've been fussing about the way the journalists and reporters distort the truth. They may favor women, or men, or whites, or minorities, or the elderly, or the young, or the cosmopolitan city folk, or the small town folk. Sure they do. No one can avoid the limitation of vision found within their own cultural setting. But we've continuously railed against the media for injecting their biases or perspectives into their reporting of current events and issues.

      There's a new phenomenon out there now, in which the media are gathering together in defense of telling the public how it is, what the issues are, who stands in which position on which issue. This morning I put up a link to the FactCheck.org site in which media representatives have tried to give us, the public, a sense of the extent to which facts cited by Senators McCain and Obama, in the first Presidential Debate, on September 27, 2008, were "true" in the sense of accurate and straightforward reporting of things that others had said or on which they had taken positions. Please honor this relatively new effort. Please hold each other and your friends and acquaintances to "checking the facts." This is a serious election. We need a serious attempt at transparency and integrity if we are to judge which paths we are to take in the fairly near future.

  • Discussion Questions

    1. Why is it so important to check facts?

      Consider that if your facts are wrong, you may draw spurious conclusions. Everybody misspeaks or misinterprets some of the time. But if we never go back and check for such errors, even if they seem minor, we could be basing our positions on issues on error. The issues today are too important to let that happen. The media are taking steps towards responsibility and accountability. Support their efforts. jeanne

    2. Should we check more than one of these sites?

      Remember, everyone has a unique perspective. We cannot escape the context within which we find ourselves. But these sites have made an attempt to give a relatively unbaised report of the facts. I'd start by looking at the details on one site, and comparing them to another. If you determine that you are most comfortable with one or the other, then focus on your preference. But at least take a look at their differences and coverage. Not also that the San Francisco Spot Us site is local, while the other two are national. Explore. Lots of choices. jeanne

  • References:

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.
Individual copyrights by other authors may apply.