“When a man knows, he can speak truth. He who does not know cannot speak truth: know the nature of knowledge.” – Chandogya Upanishad
When you have two conflicting accounts of the same event, who do you believe? Never take one person’s word – investigate yourself, and come to your own conclusion based on the evidence available.
The reason I have shifted to a biweekly schedule is because I have been caught up in a national debate about freedom of the press. While I have dealt with levels of stress in the past similar to those I am experiencing now, this is a different kind of stress. Even as a writer, I cannot quite put into words how this is different, but it is a quite different beast indeed.
I serve as the editor-in-chief of my university’s student newspaper, a post I have held for over three years – and proudly so. At the center of this story is claims of inaccuracy that, for the most part, hold no water. The record is clear about this, but that record is disparate and at times obscure. People who prop up lies as reality rely heavily on the average person taking their words at face value. Much of the ink spilled about me these last few months, if taken at face value, paints me as a conniving liar.
But I value truth and honesty above all else, and I have made these values central to my identity. I hold them ever closer to my heart with each passing year. The notion of purposefully spreading lies and misinformation is unconscionable to me, and it is exceedingly difficult not to take such accusations as an attack on my character.
Fortunately, the record speaks for itself. A core aspect of my leadership these last few years has been transparency in reporting, and it seems that most of my peers understand and appreciate this. It seems that most, in general, understand this – there is an increasing amount of reporting on the media war at my university, and the majority of that reporting supports our claims. But not everyone agrees.
To me, this story could not be any clearer cut. Perhaps it is because I am a part of the story, but I struggle to see how anyone analyzing the same evidence I have could come to a different conclusion. Normally this diversity of thought and opinion would be welcome, but when differentiating between truth and lies, there is only one conclusion in line with reality.
There is one large subset of people left unspoken of: those who throw up their hands and criticize both sides for arguing in the first place. These obligate centrists – not necessarily in a political sense, but often so – do a disservice to society and to themselves. Many see the hatred and vitriol that debates over truth can produce, but instead of joining the side of truth, they condemn both truth and lie and often offer no alternative. Forming an informed opinion is nearly always better than refusing to.
In sum, do your own research, and be critical of claims, but understand that some claims have more merit than others. If an agenda can be identified in the claimant, and that agenda is not truth or the common good, those claims must be scrutinized.
