In an age when news is available almost as soon as it happens, there  must be a rigorous approach to understanding the truth of what is being reported.

The most basic aspect of reported news is that it is second hand information. In other words it has been processed, even if it is just a photograph or a short video – the viewer and or image processor has ‘filtered’ the image through the view of the viewer. For instance, if you wish to present a politic march as peaceful, you take photographs of people marching peacefully. If you wish to present the march as antagonistic and violent, you feature the occasion where there was violence. Even if neither of these states occurred it is a simple matter to copy and paste alternative messages on banners or people holding machine guns instead of bags.

What might be good evidence of events is no longer believable and, at the very least, needs substantial corroboration from reliable sources.

We know that the code of ethical journalism requires more than one source of information and all sources must be assessed thoroughly. These sources have the right to remain anonymous if they have reason, as often they do.

I have noticed a trend in some newspapers to directly report ( that is qoute) what other newspapers have reported. I don’t know what agreements or arrangements go on between them but it shows an eagerness to share headline news at the expense of a scoop. Such stories are in effect ‘third hand’ as we know that selective quotations can be misleading and curve the truth.

With the coming of a plethora of choice of news channel on television and radio, the task of the viewer is different. I mentioned to a friend recently that I sometimes watch the Russia Today television channel. He was aghast at the idea anyone of sound mind would do this. I tried to argue that I like to see news stories reported from different points of view.

It is more common for people to have political views of a particular shade and then seek sources the substantiate their opinions. Personally, my feeling is that if views are so fixed then there really is little reason to follow events in the world since the coloured lens through which the are observed will not reveal what is really happening.

Crucial to any rational appreciation of events is to understand facts and statistics. I enjoy the phrase ‘my version of the facts‘ since this is an aberration often prevalent in debate. Many interviews on the radio involve the presenter or interviewer using carefully sourced facts and the respondent basing their counter argument on disputing those facts.

BBC Radio 4 has an radio programme called ‘More or Less’ in which statisticians examine in detail how facts are obtained and what conclusions can be drawn from them – if at all. Frequently they pull the rug from under politicians who have used figures to prove a preconception. The expression ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’ comes to mind because figures are too frequently used to prove a lie.

Prevalent in the United States of America today is the accusation that news is ‘fake’. This is a valid criticism at one end of the spectrum between ‘true’ and ‘false’. Since we were not there and even if we had been we may not have had ring side seat, all reported news includes bias as already described. The question is really, how much bias is included or how true is this? Being ‘fake’ is not a reason to dismiss a view because there is rarely smoke without fire.

For this reason I am eclectic in my sources of information so that I can form a judgement of the ‘mean’ or most likely closeness to truth on the balance of probabilities.

This perhaps is the difference between King Solomon and the rule of a dictator.

A wise ruler will listen to all sides and form an opinion or judgement based on what most likely happened. A dictator cares little for any version of events other than those which support his or her own agenda.

Looking around the global governments today, many are clearly occupied by dictators whether they agree to this appellation or not. Some, even in traditional democracies, are veering towards being those who speak only what they want to hear.