True or false
I was talking to someone this week who had forthright views on the media. He said that he didn't want to hear opinions, comment or interpretation, just the facts, all the facts, unfiltered.
I found this statement rather overwhelming.
There seems to be a limitless amount of information, available 24 hours a day, from a huge array of sources, so, for me, the issue is surely less about accessing data, and more a case of gaining knowledge and wisdom, seeking a way to process it all?
This acquaintance said, though, that he didn't have a problem ploughing through information to establish his response. He said his studies at school, university and then professionally had given him the expertise to divine the details he needed to make his decisions.
But we don't all have that training, confidence or application? Now, more than ever, don't we need to find reliable sources who will help us get to the hub of the matter and respond to the crises affecting us today?
In the past, we've turned to the BBC. But in the lecture delivered by the former Newsnight presenter Emily Maitlis in Edinburgh this week, the integrity of the national broadcaster was brought into question as she claimed that the media in general was no longer in step with the changing face of politics.
It's an eloquent and compelling speech, and I've always rather liked and been inspired and impressed by Maitlis. Not all of her arguments stack up. But why should we expect her to be wholly right? There is rarely a simple solution to anything and life today is complex. But we seem to be losing an ability to debate with consideration and respect, and are always expected to be on one side or another.
Perhaps we shouldn't try to be informed about everything and instead invest our time more thoughtfully. Perhaps we should carefully choose a book on a subject about world affairs, social issues, climate consequences, and dig deep? Perhaps you're already doing that?
Thank you for reading.