Who watches who?

The eyes of the world were on Japan today, in particular the city of Nagano as it was our turn to run with the Olympic torch. We had watched the problems in London, Paris and Frisco and tried to make sure it didn't happen here and spoil the ceremony. We had many riot police in sportswear running alongside the flame as backup to the regular police and although some protesters chanted as is their right and a few things were thrown which in my opinion is not right and only five arrests were made. I think that we clearly showed that we had it under control. This is a fact that I'm particularly pleased about since we are the first Asian nation to have the honor of bearing the flame. Relations between China and Japan have improved recently and while I will admit that we don't have a very good history, I do hope we have a great future together.

Today was not about politics and in my opinion the world media have blown out of proportion this Tibetan incident. Tibet is Chinese territory and they have the right to maintain their control, although we all hope it is humane and not bloody and violent like Burma. But I do blame the world media for creating an unbalanced view of the whole affair.

What do you know?
The camera never lies? Oh but it does and in this computer familiar world most people today are aware of touched up photographs and even before the computer world our history is full of photo hoaxes and out-right lies. The printed or spoken word is exactly the same. Wherever you live, you will rely on news services to tell you what's happening in the world but who watches the watchers? We tend to trust our own local news reporting, our TV news and our newspaper that we buy to tell us the truth and report unbiased as to what's going on in the world. Yet think for a moment. You know in your heart there is another place or another country that has different news, or censored state news, or a different version of a History book. So here we see that there are opposite sides of a coin at once. A faithful and trustful news (where ever we are) and that unreliable news that those people over there have access to. It is a natural human instinct to believe what we think we know. We are programmed at birth to accept information and trust authority figures like parents and teachers. We trust these people implicitly to teach us truth and its only later in life when we develop the sense of critic and perhaps cynicism that we learn to question some apparent "truths".

What is justice?
Is it the upholding of what is just, fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law. Conforming to the principle of moral rightness?

Yet you know laws differ from nation to nation and culture to culture.

What is beauty?
Is it the qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit?

We know some people find beauty in things we don't like and some people cant's see the beauty we see. So it lies in the eyes of the beholder right? One mans meat is another mans poison.

So what is truth?
If you and a friend went out somewhere and something happened to you both and then I ask you for your story and tomorrow I ask your friend for his story. I may get two different but honest versions, both being the truth as seen through both pairs of eyes. Back in the courtroom the judge asks both parties for their story and in an argument between honest friends, both have a valid but different point of view.
So it looks like truth can be relative.
Or is it?

Going back to that courtroom again, I often feel that maybe truth can become a casualty and that the outcome of a trial can be decided upon by which of the two lawyers is the most convincing. That's a horrid thought really, that truth can be so abused, distorted or lost in a courtroom! But it certainly gives credit to what I'm saying in that truth is that which we see through our own eyes.
It's perception!
If someone believes in a God they may comfort themselves by says there are a billion other people that believe it along with them as if that gives them credence? But what they don't say is that Earth has 6 billion people and therefore by simple subtraction we see that 5 billion people were not included in that count or don't believe. Is truth here trying to be demonstrated just by the amount or number of people who believe?
Religion tends to be more about faith than truth so I think I'll leave that topic alone.

What about the sky being blue and the sun being yellow?
Everyone can see that right? So that must be true!
Yet science tells us that the atmosphere is gas and invisible to the eye and it's simply the refraction properties of nitrogen molecules when exposed to light waves from the sun that gives it a blue appearance. Once we leave the Earth and journey into space the sun becomes white and the sky becomes black. Like the stars in the night-time sky.
Again perception!
Science is just a series of conventions and accepted theories that appear to be true.... at least until the next scientist comes along and disproves something and presents the new theory.

Look at advertising! They say that product 'A' is better than all its competitors, yet an hour later they say that Product 'B' is the best one of all. They can't both be right and most nations have trade laws that say you cannot make false claims for a product. A friend of yours may use product 'A' and advise you to use it too. Yet another friend will say "No way! Get product 'B', I've used it for years and it's great!" This again leads us back to the courtroom and the two lawyers desperately trying to convince the jury of their own particular claims.... only now its two advertisers trying to convince us. It doesn't really matter if Coke is better than Pepsi, it only matters if they can convince of it! Maybe you know a person that says Pepsi is without doubt the better of the two. You then also know that in their eyes (or on their tongue) it is!

Truth is perhaps not absolute then or even relative, but just something we perceive. A generally accepted truth is a generally accepted convention very much like the conventions of science.
Are my words true?
I believe so but that is of course my own perception. Truth in journalism again may be the perception of the reporter, the interviewer, the editor or the media owner. Here on this internet page is the possessive "MY" blog so I can write what I feel like writing. Whether truth or lies may not be a dispute and you the reader can interpret as you see fit. I also hope that makes you think about why there are so many different views towards the same topic in other places. Because that too is open to interpretation which is a function of perception. Back to the magazines and newspapers, the reporting content is subject to editing that supposedly will configure the article to comply with the publishing legalities and the further guidelines imposed by the individual publishing house. You may have noticed that on a letters page for example where the editing rules are different there may be a small disclaimer that legally states that the views expressed by the letters are not necessarily the ones held by the publishing company.

Here in my blog can I convince you of my truths?
Well to start with I'm not claiming truth for anything. Just because I believe all I've said doesn't mean you have to. God might be real and the Earth may be flat if you choose to believe it. All I say to you is if, like I said earlier, you feel your local media is truth and the media reportage elsewhere is at best suspect and at worst, open lies. Then remember that those people that live there will perhaps accept their local media as true and see yours as untrustworthy.
I don't ask you to change anything that you believe because I don't have any right to do that. I just say don't be sheep and accept everything you read or see on TV. Have a critical moment. They say that every story has three sides. My version, their version and the truth! We already see that truth is possibly a general perception and what one person says or one media company says isn't always necessarily so!

Truth is not only about what is written or said, but also what is not written or said. At the beginning of this post I said how Japan's moment to run with the Olympic flame was a credit to us. But I did not tell you that the original starting point which was meant to be the Zenkoji temple was changed because they refused to be the start point. Instead the Buddhist monks of that temple claimed a sympathy and support to their brethren in Tibet. Being a Buddhist myself I can openly understand that and will not hold their thoughts or wishes as a black mark against them. I perhaps left it out as being not important in my trying to emphasize that all went to plan. But it didn't because of all the little changes that were necessary. Obvious then is that if you have more access to more facts then your judgment can become much wider and perhaps more balanced.
Not only are the apparent facts important, but also the source of the facts and if you choose to watch the world then remember that some vantage points offer a clearer view than some others.
Those that stretch the true better be prepared for the moment it snaps back!

So who watches who?
We all watch others and we see that the others in their turn, watch us too!
But the wisest amongst us watch not only others, but ourselves too!

Additional!
It also occurs to me that that there are some truths out there that I prefer not to know.