We live in a world saturated with information—and yet, increasingly divided by interpretation. One event, one shared set of facts, can lead to entirely different truths depending on who’s telling the story. This isn’t just spin—it’s perspective shaped by values, ideology, identity, and power.
So, let's take a brief look at this.
Wait! First, THIS...
OK, moving on...
One protest. One set of facts. Three different truths.
Who decides what’s real—and why does it matter more than ever?
Read the blog and see the diagram that breaks it all down.
Which reminds me of a fiction book I wrote: "Three Hells. Three Universes. One Ending."
Take a protest, for example. What to some is a righteous cry for justice may to others be a threat to order. To the media, it's often a balancing act between reporting events and not inflaming tensions. The facts may be undisputed—how many people showed up, what actions were taken—but the meanings drawn from those facts are anything but.
In this blog, we’ll examine a simple yet powerful case: a protest outside a government building. Using a side-by-side diagram, we’ll explore how one shared reality can split into three diverging narratives—each claiming to be the truth. This is more than a lesson in media literacy—it's a reminder that truth is often more about who is looking than what is seen.
How the same set of facts can lead to three different "truths" depending on perspective—presented in a conceptual diagram format.
First off I would like to suggest watching George Clooney's first ever Broadway play transmitted world wide, "Good Night, And Good Luck".
Why? It's very good, it's very timely, and it's what inspired this blog today.
Marvin Kalb, a journalist recruited by Edward R. Murrow, said Murrow believed in truth telling. He believes Murrow would warn today that the three co-equal branches of American government are no longer equal—and that we are now sadly, slipping into authoritarianism.
In a world of “alternate truths,” propaganda, misinformation, and opinion masquerading as news—long past the death of network journalism as a public service—we must learn to understand our world more clearly, and engage with it not just realistically, but humanely.
FACT SCENARIO
Event: A protest occurs outside a government building.
Facts:
500 people gathered.
Windows were broken.
Police used tear gas.
Several people were arrested.
Protest signs read “Justice Now” and “Stop the Lies.”
THREE DIFFERENT "TRUTHS"
Truth A: Activist View
The people rose up against injustice. Police responded with violence. This was a peaceful protest disrupted by state aggression.
-
Tear gas = suppression of free speech
-
Arrests = intimidation
-
Broken windows = provoked or isolated
-
“Justice Now” = moral call to action
Truth B: Government View
A violent riot broke out near a government building. Law enforcement took necessary measures to restore order.
-
Tear gas = crowd control
-
Arrests = necessary legal response
-
Broken windows = criminal acts
-
“Stop the Lies” = dangerous disinformation
Truth C: Media View
A protest turned chaotic today at the capitol. While some marched peacefully, others vandalized property. Police eventually dispersed the crowd.
-
Tear gas = controversial police tactic
-
Arrests = reported without stance
-
Broken windows = headline material
-
“Justice Now” = quote used for both sides
ACCEPTED FACTS (Agreed by all parties)
-
500 people gathered outside a government building.
-
Some participants carried signs reading “Justice Now” and “Stop the Lies.”
-
Windows of the building were broken during the event.
-
Police deployed tear gas.
-
Several individuals were arrested.
DIVERGENT TRUTHS BY GROUP
🟦 Truth A – Protesters / Activists
-
Cause: The protest was a righteous stand against systemic injustice.
-
Violence: Any property damage was isolated or provoked by outside agitators or over-policing.
-
Police Action: The use of tear gas and arrests were acts of repression and state violence.
-
Moral Framing: Civil disobedience is necessary in the face of lies and injustice.
🟥 Truth B – Government / Law Enforcement
-
Cause: The gathering was unlawful or based on misinformation.
-
Violence: Property damage was evidence of mob behavior, not peaceful dissent.
-
Police Action: Tear gas and arrests were necessary and proportionate to restore public order.
-
Moral Framing: Maintaining law and order protects democracy.
🟨 Truth C – Mainstream Media
-
Cause: A protest escalated amid tensions over a controversial issue.
-
Violence: A portion of the crowd turned violent, but many remained peaceful.
-
Police Action: The police response was forceful, and reactions to it are mixed.
-
Moral Framing: The event reflects broader societal divisions and unrest.
Whose Truth Wins?
When facts are filtered through different lenses, they become tools—of justice, control, or narrative. Understanding this divergence isn’t about abandoning truth; it’s about recognizing the forces that shape it.
So the next time you're told what “really” happened, ask: According to whom? What’s their stake? What’s yours? Democracy, justice, and even empathy require more than knowing the facts—they demand we navigate the truths built upon them.
In a world of competing realities, the most powerful act may be to slow down, ask better questions, and seek the patterns behind the perspectives.
No comments:
Post a Comment