This concept was first introduced to me by studying IB history. In secondary school, we would learn history, and it was interesting and fascinating. Then, we learnt that it's all perspectives. Different historians see the same thing differently. Also, the winners get to shape the narrative for the future. As Winston Churchill famously said, 'history is written by the victors'.
Or did he? Actually no source can be found that he ever said it.
Moving to the present, many issues in modern day are not so clear cut either. It can get pretty annoying how Western commentary often mischaracterise life in Singapore. We read it and we go, yea that's totally not what it's life what do these people know what are they even talking about.
Unfortunately, I suspect that we often make judgement without really understanding things all the time too. There are some world leaders out there I think we can generally agree aren't great...but I often find that as I dig deeper, there are a couple more nuances to the issues at hand. Not that it makes things better, just you start to understand the alternative perspective a little more.
The big one recently - Johnson and prorogation. First reaction would be that it's completely insane, undemocratic, a constitutional crisis. Then you realise that there might be a more strategic element to it. Then you realise that parliament was going to be away for party conferences recess anyway, and that it's normal to have parliament suspended for a bit when a new government takes over anyway. Then it flips around again and you realise the party conference recess could have been delayed and the suspension of parliament is not normally that long, so it is still a political play.
This video explains it. Bear in mind though, tldr news always says they're neutral and do their best to cover both sides of the story fairly, but watch them enough and you'll realise they're not truly impartial. Kinda like the speaker John Bercow really.
What else. The Amazon on fire is covered pretty extensively on the news now. It started off as a sort of conspiracy like thing. THE AMAZON IS ON FIRE, WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT IT! That spread through social media like...a wildfire (heh heh). Then it got picked up by major news media. It garnered the attention of world leaders and celebrities. And they all posted THE AMAZON IS ON FIRE WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING. Macron went so far to bring the issue up in the G7 meeting to address it. Then Brazil president Bolsonaro got upset and rejected aid from Macron. People got upset. EVIL MAN BOLSANARO IS DESTROYING THE AMAZON, THE LUNGS OF THE EARTH.
The problem? It had a whole lot of fake news. Photos were wrong. Facts were wrong. The wildfire isn't actually that out of the ordinary, it was sensationalised. The amazon isn't actually the lungs of the earth.
And then we go one step further and there's fake fake news apparently. The fake news is misleading, and doesn't cover the full story.Yes the original was over the top but the counter reaction isn't a fair characterisation of the issue either.
I'm waiting for the fake fake fake news.
When I think about it, the warning signs were there. If the Amazon being on fire was a serious out of the ordinary issue, there is no way we wouldn't have heard about it initially. The first news source being a sensationalist social media repost of the Amazon being on fire and it was being covered up should have been a telltale warning sign. I caught that actually, and I didn't buy it. But then when mainstream news started selling the story, I was sold too. Then the counter came. Then the counter counter. And I'm just...done.
As I thought about this Amazon fire thing, I discovered another issue where it appears that things were not what I thought it was. It is the auntie prying open MRT door incident. Now this is all speculative at this point and could very well be fake news, but apparently the auntie was chasing after her autistic sister, hence the reaction.
I don't know if it's true, but as I think about it, it could very well be plausible. After all, why would any auntie do what she did? And she obviously looks really frantic, a behavior that is not likely exhibited by someone who got separated from a friend in the MRT.
Once again, the warning signs were there. If we were to pause and think about it, surely something was off. Instead we simply get wrapped up in the crazy auntie throwing her life away narrative.
So yes. Truth is perhaps not a concept so easily grasped. Does truth even exist in a sense of there being one objective version of a given incident that is accurate and complete? Honestly, probably not.
We associate fake news with the exclamations of Donald Trump and the Singapore legislation. That makes us think sometimes that fake news is something that happens in the realm of politics. But in reality we're constantly surrounded by miniature 'fake news' or at least 'fake perceptions' throughout our day.
Maybe we're all more ignorant than we think we are.
What to do from here? Well, I don't think distrusting everything we think and believe is the way to go either. It would just be paralyzing. I suspect we will all still be guilty of believing 'fake news' or at least being ignorant of other facts. But I suspect there is space for us to be more careful in drawing conclusions, and to recognise that objective truth doesn't quite exist, and there will always be more to any story.
---