THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?

• truth: the true or actual state of the matter; conformity with fact or reality; verity.
• reporter: a person employed to gather and report news, as for a newspaper, wire service, or television station.

I recently watched a very interesting documentary called Weapons of Mass Deception. It was very enlightening for several reasons. The director, Danny Schechter, is a media critic. That means he analyzes how journalists and news agencies report the news. In this film he scrutinizes how the Iraq war was covered, from 9/11 until 2004, when the film was released. I'll be honest, I'm not naive when it comes to news. I have known for a long time that the business of reporting news is just that-a business. For some time, the focus has been on the bottom line. How much can we make off this war, or this natural disaster, or this trial? Although there were many specific things, like the alleged attacks on journalists by American troops (more on that in a moment), I didn't know about, there really wasn't any smoking gun revealed in this movie. Let's face it, hindsight is 20/20 and if we (as Americans) are honest, we are as culpable for the lack of unbiased news that we watched. We wanted to see the nighttime bombing of Baghdad. We did not want to see the civilian casualties of our cluster bombs. We were hungry for an enemy and when our government pointed the finger at Saddam Hussein, we breathed a unified 'go get him!' They fed us the bait and we took it. Then they reeled us in. 'They' being a combination of the media, the military, and our government. So did Mr. Schechter wow me with unprecedented revelations? No. Should this film be watched? Absolutely, now and again in 2 years, and another 2 years, and another, and another. We need to be reminded of what went wrong and why.
But just as Schechter points to a lack of bias by news agencies during the war, we should try to be as unbiased as possible when watching this film. Case in point-the afore mentioned 'attack' on journalists. The film shows footage taken by reporters of an American tank firing on a hotel that was known to be housing said reporters. The military stated, at the time, that the battalion was fired upon by someone in that region and they were acting in self-defense. The film makers ask you to listen and recognize that there are no shots heard prior to the attack. And this is true, you can't hear anything; however, the footage shown is edited! The tank is first shown with it's gun aimed away. The film cuts to an interview with a survivor. When the edit comes back to the footage, the gun is now aimed directly at the hotel. I'll admit, I'm not a military advisor, but I don't think the gun on a tank can move in a flash. So where is the footage of the tank's gun aiming at the hotel? And what does it show? The fact is that the footage, as shown, is terrifying. I can't imagine what it's like to watch as a 120mm gun fires directly at me, but I have an idea after watching the film. So was the truth of that incident shown? I'm not sure. After thinking about what I had seen, I don't think so. The fact is I wasn't presented with a completely unbiased view of what happened. That footage was edited to evoke a specific response and it was successful.
So what is the truth? I've been thinking a great deal about 'truth' lately. What I believe is that the truth lies in between either side of a story. It is human nature to interpret things, but what is often lacking is the gathering of facts from both sides. That was the failure of the American public during this war. We let our emotions drive our judgements and now we want answers from the people we feel duped us. Let's face it folks, we duped ourselves!