Last week, a renowned historical event was in the news: the sinking of the RMS Titanic.
The story is known around the world: the largest ship in the world, an “unsinkable” opulent masterpiece of technology strikes an iceberg in the dead of night in 1912 on its maiden voyage, sending it to the bottom of the ocean and claiming 1,517 lives.
Last week author Louise Patten revealed what she said was a family secret hidden for nearly 100 years: that the Titanic struck the iceberg due to a steering blunder.
She is the granddaughter of the Titanic’s most senior surviving officer, Second Officer (SO) Charles Lightoller. At the time, Lightoller told U.S. and British investigative panels that he did not know the cause of the accident. He revealed the truth to his wife, Patten’s grandmother, who told her the story when she was just 10 years old. He lied because he did not want to hurt the reputations of his dead colleagues, according to Patten.
What fascinates me about this is the implication that if Patten’s claims are true, fundamental knowledge of this historic event has been kept hidden for nearly 100 years.
If history itself can be wrong, in the context of current events: what is the truth, and how do we find it?
Modern Americans are bombarded by information 24/7, 365 days a year, with the template these days being to keep it short, fast, and constant; less depth, more frequency.
Looking to most news media for help, I am skeptical of the intentions behind the information presented to me, as coverage is often heavily politicized and “spun.” A bias may even be subtle, such as the editorial decision of what angle to emphasize, and what is omitted or downplayed. But I don’t blame the media entirely, as it’s a perpetuating cycle: we watch the ones that are “singing our song,” and they sing the song we want to hear.
Gone is the popularity of the unbiased news anchor, replaced by the outspoken commentator who not only presents the news, but influences our understanding of it through commentary, supported by a cast of carefully chosen pundits. Some of these presentations digress into petty, self-serving behavior.
This approach can be effective and influential, but damaging. The more we accept it the less we question or fact check the sources, becoming instead brothers-in-arms. The commentator’s intentions may change also, as the audience needs to be held, and ratings and revenue maintained.
A concept that I appreciate is expressed well in a Harvard Business Review blog post by consultant John Baldoni, titled “Hire People Who Disagree with You.’
“Leaders who solicit opinions from people who disagree with them are smart enough to realize that they do not have all the answers. ... Executives need alternate viewpoints that are based on facts as well as reason. Good ideas that are contrary to the boss’s ideas must be carefully thought out, supported by data,” Baldoni wrote.
Although directed at business, this is good advice for Americans concerned about national issues. At the very least we can broaden our perspective and understanding of those we disagree with, to find common ground.
We can choose counterweights that have clarity and rationality, strong moral principles and ethics, and unselfish intentions, respecting goodness and virtue. Maybe we’ll get closer to seeing the truth
I have this notion about truth: that eventually, it just simply “is,” needing no interpretation or description.
For it to be seen, maybe we need to settle down, be good to one another, and just get out of the way.
The story is known around the world: the largest ship in the world, an “unsinkable” opulent masterpiece of technology strikes an iceberg in the dead of night in 1912 on its maiden voyage, sending it to the bottom of the ocean and claiming 1,517 lives.
Last week author Louise Patten revealed what she said was a family secret hidden for nearly 100 years: that the Titanic struck the iceberg due to a steering blunder.
She is the granddaughter of the Titanic’s most senior surviving officer, Second Officer (SO) Charles Lightoller. At the time, Lightoller told U.S. and British investigative panels that he did not know the cause of the accident. He revealed the truth to his wife, Patten’s grandmother, who told her the story when she was just 10 years old. He lied because he did not want to hurt the reputations of his dead colleagues, according to Patten.
What fascinates me about this is the implication that if Patten’s claims are true, fundamental knowledge of this historic event has been kept hidden for nearly 100 years.
If history itself can be wrong, in the context of current events: what is the truth, and how do we find it?
Modern Americans are bombarded by information 24/7, 365 days a year, with the template these days being to keep it short, fast, and constant; less depth, more frequency.
Looking to most news media for help, I am skeptical of the intentions behind the information presented to me, as coverage is often heavily politicized and “spun.” A bias may even be subtle, such as the editorial decision of what angle to emphasize, and what is omitted or downplayed. But I don’t blame the media entirely, as it’s a perpetuating cycle: we watch the ones that are “singing our song,” and they sing the song we want to hear.
Gone is the popularity of the unbiased news anchor, replaced by the outspoken commentator who not only presents the news, but influences our understanding of it through commentary, supported by a cast of carefully chosen pundits. Some of these presentations digress into petty, self-serving behavior.
This approach can be effective and influential, but damaging. The more we accept it the less we question or fact check the sources, becoming instead brothers-in-arms. The commentator’s intentions may change also, as the audience needs to be held, and ratings and revenue maintained.
A concept that I appreciate is expressed well in a Harvard Business Review blog post by consultant John Baldoni, titled “Hire People Who Disagree with You.’
“Leaders who solicit opinions from people who disagree with them are smart enough to realize that they do not have all the answers. ... Executives need alternate viewpoints that are based on facts as well as reason. Good ideas that are contrary to the boss’s ideas must be carefully thought out, supported by data,” Baldoni wrote.
Although directed at business, this is good advice for Americans concerned about national issues. At the very least we can broaden our perspective and understanding of those we disagree with, to find common ground.
We can choose counterweights that have clarity and rationality, strong moral principles and ethics, and unselfish intentions, respecting goodness and virtue. Maybe we’ll get closer to seeing the truth
I have this notion about truth: that eventually, it just simply “is,” needing no interpretation or description.
For it to be seen, maybe we need to settle down, be good to one another, and just get out of the way.
