Fiction vs. Reality

The world is full of lies. Deliberate, insidious, corrosive lies. They come from many quarters: commerce, politics, the media. They have many sources: the evil, the manipulative, the selfish, and the ignorant. The “very elect” have been, and are being, deceived by these lies, which have been carefully constructed to masquerade as the truth.

Those who spread lies, whether deliberately or blindly, often believe that they are smart, clever, noble, righteous, and patriotic. Those who create lies are either seeking selfish power and gain or they have become entangled in a web of personal compromises that they can no longer escape.

Satan, the Father of Lies, is very pleased with how well his kingdom is currently doing. He is especially pleased that many in the restored Church of Jesus Christ believe, and even defend, political lies and the people who tell them.

Two types of information

When one enters a library, the most basic thing one needs to know is whether one is seeking to read fiction or non-fiction. These two different types of books provide vastly different types of experiences for the reader. They are also typically located in different places in the library and are cataloged for access in different ways.

Fiction is a type of writing that is essentially “made up” by the writer’s imagination. In English class one (hopefully) learned that fiction can be recognized by it’s four elements: Characters, Setting, Plot, and Theme. Fiction tells a story – an invented story. It’s characters, set in some imaginary place and time, interact with each other (plot) in such a way that a central idea (theme) is explored.

In a given story it is possible that one or more of these elements could be based on reality. For example, historical fiction is set in a time and place amidst an event (say World War II) that actually occurred, but the characters and the plot are still inventions of the author’s creative mind.

A more mature understanding

When you ask a middle school student to tell you the difference between fiction and non-fiction, they will generally tell you, “Fiction is fake and non-fiction is real.” That is a simplified definition that they probably picked up in elementary school. Younger students have not yet matured enough to understand subtlety. They see everything in black and white.

Sadly, many adults still see the world as children do. While fiction could perhaps be defined as “fake,” it would be more accurate to say that it is “made up” or “imagined.” Non-fiction is more accurately defined as “information” whose accuracy and “truth” can be checked and proven (or disproven).

Non-fiction is, as the name says, everything in the library that does not contain the four elements of fiction. For example, a cookbook is non-fiction. Would one claim a cookbook to be “real” or “true?” No. It is simply a set of instructions for how to do something. An atlas is non-fiction. It is a book of maps. It has a setting (time and place), but no characters and no plot. A phone book (also non-fiction) has a large cast of characters, and a setting, but, again, no plot, no story.

Still, non-fiction is intended to accurately represent reality. Book publishers (at least the reputable ones) do not publish information to deliberately deceive readers. Books are carefully edited and fact-checked prior to publication. In most cases, the major thing to watch out for is if the information may be out-of-date.

Reporting on actual events

Where this gets complicated is with actual history books (as opposed to historical fiction). History can have all of the elements of fiction: characters, setting, plot, and can even be written to illustrate a theme. The crucial difference is that history actually happened. The writer IS telling a story, but it is not a “made up” or imagined story, it is a retelling of what actually happened to those people in that time and place.

The process of reporting news is very similar to the writing of history. The role of the journalist is very similar to that of the historian. The difference is the time frame in which they work. The journalist’s stories are retellings of recent (usually daily or weekly) events. An historian’s time frame can be much longer.

Trained, experienced, respected historians strive meticulously to report events as accurately as possible. They also include detailed source notes in their publications so that anyone can double check where they got their information.

Journalists, due to the more immediate nature of their work, do not present their sources in a list, but the trustworthy ones do take care to mention where their information is coming from. They will say such things as, “according to…,” “in a recent book/article…,” and “the document says that …,”.

Journalists also have the advantage of being able interview witnesses to (or participants in) events in person. In the audio and visual media, the audience can hear and and see a first person source tell their own story directly. And, of course, the visual media can record and show events as they happened.

Carefully consider the source

In both history and journalism, the key question for the consumer is “Why should I believe your version of these events to be true” (i.e. that the events actually happened as you describe)? Before one uncritically accepts what one hears as being the truth, it is important to examine the quality of one’s sources of information.

The so-called “mainstream media” has come under a lot of (politically motivated) criticism lately, but it is important to remember that it is “mainstream” for a reason. These are the traditional radio, television, and newspaper outlets that have been accepted and trusted over time.

The journalists who work for mainstream media have been trained and are expected to adhere to high standards of journalistic ethics. They are required to have multiple, high quality sources of information for everything they claim as fact, and their work is subject to critical editing, fact-checking, and approval before it is printed or broadcast.

Yes, the mainstream media is less than perfect. It is a big business that is concerned with its viewership, reputation, and profit. You will never see a story on ABC that is critical of Disney, because Disney owns ABC.

But, the mainstream media does not deliberately “spin” events to favor a particular political point of view, and they do not deliberately distort and sensationalize events in order to stir up emotions and anger in their audience. In addition, the mainstream media generally makes a clear distinction between news content and editorial (opinion) content.

None of the journalistic standards of ethics, political neutrality, and fact-checking are present in the right-wing propaganda media. They are exclusively interested in pushing a particular hard-right political point of view and have no compunction about sensationalizing trivial things, distorting facts, or even telling outright lies, to advance their agenda.

People with moral standards should avoid these so-called “conservative” media outlets as meticulously as they would avoid any other source of sin and depravity.