It has long been understood in the news business that being the first to publish a story conveys significant advantages, not the least of which can be financial. But there are other advantages as well, such as the ability to shape public perception on a particular issue. Breaking news doesn’t come with a counterpoint; it simply tells the story that the reporter seeks to convey. Unfortunately, there’s no requirement that the first to report has ensured that the report captures all pertinent and relevant facts. Generally, the requirement is simply that whatever facts are presented are understood to be correct.
We are now in a dangerous time that has grown out of our instant gratification lifestyle, where the first account of a story that we receive becomes the de facto truth – especially when it fits into our preconceived notions and biases. We don’t wait for the rest of the story to come out, and then when the rest of the story does finally hit the presses, we likely either ignore it or discount it because we preferred the earlier version better. And for those who benefit from this polarization of world-views, this simply creates a greater incentive to push out the storyline first and establish the narrative. Ten-second sound bites that capture ten percent of the picture can overwhelm the whole truth, when the whole truth takes a month to research and ten minutes to present.
There’s a reason why our legal system has two sides in a courtroom together. Proverbs 18:17 declares “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” and we see this proven again and again as we completely accept the first storyline. Yet there is almost always more to the story, and sometimes what comes out in the end is that the very first storyline was complete rubbish resulting either from a fabrication or sloppy, ideologically-driven reporting.
Alas, this isn’t just an issue when we are taking in the news (no matter the format). We do this in our daily lives as well. It is just too easy to hear the first presentation of a situation and allow that to become the correct version, especially if that version triggers an emotional response. If we don’t pause for a moment and attempt to get the other side of the story, we can become guilty ourselves of falsely accusing someone in our own hearts. Even worse, if we were told something with the hope that we could provide advice, we might send someone down the wrong path. It takes time to get both sides and see the full picture, and we seldom concern ourselves with the damage that can be done by acting on partial or incorrect information.
If the situation allows (and it almost always does), would you resist that natural urge to accept the first version of a story as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Allow for further exploration of the issue including some cross-examination before reaching a verdict, even if your own personal biases push you in a certain direction. You may ultimately spare yourself the embarrassment of needing to apologize for a hastily-formed opinion that turned out to be wrong.
Peace and blessings – Pastor Aaron