 |
During this time of discussion, there were many great ideas brought up, but the underlying question of what are the dangers of a single story or source must be pondered. One problem with a single source is that there is complete bias from the creator and that the reader must accept what is being told to him, for he knows no other way. A parallel of this truth comes from the book 1984, written by George Orwell, it is about a totalitarian government that holds a monopoly on all information and with this stranglehold of power, they are able to tell their citizens whatever they like and the citizens must go along with it because they don't know any better, thus open to whatever lies they are fed. An example from this book would be the Ministry of Truth in general. The reason for their existence was to blot out any errors that Big Brother made in newspapers, books, and broadcastings because they wanted to show the people that Big Brother is always right and there should never be a reason to question them. Since Big Brother was the only outlet of news and information, lies could be fed be fed to the public and it would be soaked up as fast as a sponge absorbing water, with no conscience challenging it. The biggest problem with a single source is that one cannot tell if it is the truth or a bundle of lies unless there are other sources that back them up. Personal bias has a profound effect on single sources in that it lets the reader in on only what the writer wants them to know, throwing everything else out deeming it unnecessary information. From this, I hope you gain the knowledge to challenge whatever is told to you until there is further sources to back it up.
Wow, Korey! That was very good. I enjoyed reading your response, and I especially enjoyed how you concluded it. By almost challenging your reader to go out and try to look at situation without bias pulled your response together very nicely. As far as your body though, it was very well written, but that’s beside the point. I absolutely agree with you, on the fact that the information fed to us could easily be what the author of the information wants us to hear and thus he leaves out all the counter arguments that would weaken his stance. Without that counter argument the readers ARE forced to accept this perception of historical reality and are unable to determine the truth on their own. That allows for the question, has our history that we know been altered to benefit a specific entity, and/or was it something recent …perhaps?
ReplyDelete