Welcome to the Ministry of Truth

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?"

Truthiness?

Disclaimer: It's going to be hard for me to focus this post, so be prepared for some rambling on my part. It's been a day full of provocative things to think about.

This morning I attended a panel discussion about "finding fact in the age of truthiness." The discussion was led by Tom Bivins, The John L. Hulting Chair in Media Ethics at the University of Oregon. The main goal of the panel was to discuss the place of opinion in news journalism and how that place has changed and will continue to change over time.

First, I would like to mention that the word "truthiness" was apparently invented by Stephen Colbert. Google defines it as, "In satire, truthiness is a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts."

This is the difficulty that journalism faces today, and it's a two parter. One, readers are choosing their own truths -- they decide what they want to believe despite evidence or facts, and part of this is enabled by technology. When you can customize your online news to only show you the news stories you care about, or only subscribe to news that leans in your direction of thinking, you aren't getting the whole news. Two, journalists might have a tendency to report on things because it "feels" true without backing it up with facts and evidence. This type of reporting might appear rather opinion based, or point of view based, when in actuality, it's just bad reporting.

"People now can order their own news through the web," panelist Mike Hunsacker said. "The business of journalism has to work much harder to build and audience and sustain an audience. If there is no audience, there is no service."

Panelist Mike Fancher said that good faith with readers is the essence of journalism. It's hard to establish that faith when you can't even establish an audience. "In a world of such constant bombardment of information, journalists are struggling to figure out what grounds they stand on, so they are turning to this opinion journalism," he said. "It's not a good ground for journalism to stand on."

Another interesting point, made by panelist Lee Wilkins, was that journalism as a profession has lost its moral high ground. Journalists have forgotten how to fact check and dispute bad information or wrong facts -- instead they are relying on their idea of truthiness. "I can look at Jon Stewart and see better in depth reporting than on the front page of the New York Times," she said. Why? Because Jon Stewart isn't afraid to tell his audience when they have been lied to by the media. "To say something is a lie is not opinion," Wilkins said. "Lies can be proven."

So is opinion without a place in journalism? No, not entirely according to the panel. "If we are willing to say from the start that we have an agenda in our reporting, then it's journalist and it's honest," Fancher said.

And this is where blogs come in. As panelist Mike Hunsacker said, this is why blogs are so rich. "They give us the ability to dig deep into the material," Hunsacker said. "You aren't just verifying and attributing sources. You can take your readers directly to the source, show them the documents and the interviews and let them see for themselves."

While I stated earlier that new technology could be driving readers away from good journalism, Fancher noted that so many good things can come of technology and journalism, mainly because of the blog. "In the digital world, there is the opportunity to layer and layer information," he said. In the interactive internet world, the opportunities are wonderful but we have to seize them."

Not only can they layer your stories, bloggers also have the ability to post news every minute of every day. Not many newspapers can do that. However, journalist bloggers must have the same level of truth and accuracy as traditional journalists. Otherwise, their opinions are no different than anyone else's -- and we all know what they say about opinions.