Maybe it won’t seem like it, but I have never spent more time and involved more people in an article than I did for this month’s story about South Bruce in the wake of its DGR debate. I was determined to get the facts straight and to write an article that was respectful to both sides. I interviewed seven community members that were at the heart of the issue and from across the spectrum of opinion, pored through press releases and Facebook posts from the last four years and the article was fact checked by nine people. Nearly all of them made corrections.

So, this month I’ve been thinking a lot about facts, about truth. In Teeswater’s DGR debate, both sides felt they had the best information and were working in the best interests of their community. They both felt the other side was being misinformed, with an ulterior motive. It all made my head hurt; it made my heart ache. I didn’t think I could even write the article but, in the end, if both sides are equally unhappy with it, then perhaps I’ve done my job properly. 

Truth is defined as “that which is in accordance with fact or reality,” but our perception of reality is shifty. I wonder if our versions of reality have more to do with who we trust as the source of information. Because trust is deeply subjective, personal and ultimately, emotional, it would mean that we aren’t thinking with our brains anymore. In other words, no matter how hard we try, fear will trump facts. 

Modernist philosophy proports that the world can be known impartially through science and reason, that there is objective truth. Post-modernism (as strange as that sounds, I know) rejected this idea and instead argues that truth is relative, that it is socially constructed. It rejects “meta-narratives” like religion or history because it argues that everyone has their own unique perspective on the world, so no single perspective can claim it is absolutely true. Post-modernism philosophy emerged in the wake of the Second World War, and I guess that kind of makes sense. It wasn’t reflected in the culture, however, until the 1960s, which I have been told were a good time for many people. 

Here is the kicker though. While there are inevitably many perspectives about reality, the one with the most power or resources can start to dominate in the media. In 1949, the U.S. enacted the Fairness Doctrine which required news broadcasters to report controversial topics in a balanced way, providing equal airtime to opposing viewpoints. However, it was repealed in 1987 on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment (the one about free speech) so now the news is allowed to say anything it wants, literally. 

There doesn’t appear to be anything stopping media outlets (or individuals) from completely fabricating news to mislead, prank or create revenue. We now call this “fake news.” In Canada, we have journalistic standards as best practices and some laws that protect against the extremes of defamation, fraud or hate speech, while other  countries have regulations about creating or perpetuating fake news. While there are websites that exist simply to report their fact checks on Donald Trump’s statements, there are no laws in the U.S. that protect its citizens from misinformation.  

And we, the unsuspecting people, now live in a time when we can’t trust the things we see, let alone read. With digital imaging technology, we can see photos of things that didn’t even happen, videos of people speaking that aren’t even real. These are called “deep fakes” and it can be very difficult to identify if they are real or not. 

To me, it feels like the foundations of reality are crumbling under our feet. What is the truth, and would we even know it if we saw it?

I’m hopeful that we can turn things around. Perhaps we can’t influence the larger forces of the global media and digital technology at this stage, but we can start flexing our discernment here at home in our communities. It means questioning our biases, actively seeking out sources, and considering opposing views to our own. It will require all of us to take responsibility for the information we share with others.  And all of this is emotional, let’s not kid ourselves that what we consider facts are not somehow influenced by our gut. It will require some soul-searching. 

And when we get to a place in which there is no way of knowing what is true or what isn’t, especially when it comes to nuclear radiation and the long future or other things that are too big to fully understand … then perhaps we stop presuming we have any facts at all. 

One of my most favourite quotes, especially when I’m overwhelmed by the complexity of (mis)information these days, is by Robert Brault: “Today I bent the truth to be kind, and I have no regret, for I am far surer of what is kind than I am of what is true.” 
I took great care with the Teeswater DGR story, and I consider writing for The Rural Voice a tremendous responsibility to share the most accurate information I can with you all. But I’m a human, so I have my biases too. I will do my best, and will remain open to your feedback! ◊