In George Orwell's 1984, his main character Winston works at the Ministry of Truth. It is where all the so-called newspapers, books, and other articles of writing are kept, and changed. It is Winston's job to go back and "correct" errors in old articles. These can include who Oceania is at war with. And Winston appears to be the only one who realizes that Big Brother can change history by changing the papers and history books.
We certainly aren't in a world that operates under such a system, which is not what the title of this post was to suggest. Rather, we are in a world where readers get to choose their own truth. They decide what they want to believe and what they don't. Sure, people have been doing this since the beginning of time, but with the advent of the internet and new technology, choosing your truth is even more prominent than before.
I sat in on a panel of graduate students from the University of Oregon earlier today, discussing this idea of choosing your own truth. One panelist brought up Newt Gingrich's interview on Meet The Press, where he called the Republican Medicare plan right-wing social engineering. Afterwards, Newt tried to reverse his statements, saying the media blew them out of proportion and he was set up. Here we have an example of someone saying one thing, then saying something else and picking which of the two is actually true. He is picking his own truth. And the audience is just supposed to go along with it.
However, audiences today are changing. We are a younger generation with different interests, likes, and hobbies. Facebook was created in our lifetime. So was twitter. Where and how we get our news is different than our parents. My freshman year in college, the topic of Scientology was brought up. A friend of mine said if you want to know about Scientology, just watch the South Park episode. So I did. And over the years I have discovered that if you want to know about almost anything, there is a South Park episode about it. And it's accurate.
"Satire has a long history of shining a light on truth," panelist Jacob Ditmer said. As an example, take a look at John Lithgow reading Newt's press release on the Stephen Colbert show. Shows like Colbert's, or the Daily Show, make news a performance. It's entertaining and satirical, but it's accurate. As an audience, these shows appear to be good truths to pick.
Another issue the panel touched on that I want to mention here was the idea of technological determinism. Does technology determine social behaviors in the people using it? Is it the video games, cell phones, and unlimited access to the internet that causes things like school shootings, bullying, and sexting? Or is it just easier for policy makers to legislate solutions for these societal problems by blaming the technology?
"People can make bad decisions," panelist Mara Williams said. "The idea that the online sphere should be feared doesn't allow for positive connections that can happen too." It seems we only look at the bad, and then choose the technology (the video game, the cell phone) that caused it, instead of the people. Does that sound like the truth, or "truthiness?"
No comments:
Post a Comment