Recently a New York Times reporter was fired for fabricating stories. This problem is being treated as an isolated incident. It isn’t.
In order to detect a lie, one must first be able to recognize the truth. That’s a bigger problem.
A long time ago, Pontius Pilate asked, "What is truth?" (John 18:38). His sarcastic remark is typical of one who didn’t want to find the truth. In fact, he questioned the very existence of truth. And then he washed his hands in an attempt to avoid responsibility for his actions.
Pilate was the Roman official in charge of Judea at the time of the Crucifixion. But if he were alive today, he might be equally "successful" as a journalist, a professor, a lawyer, a corporate accountant, or — of course — a politician. He might be an effective environmental or health activist.
Yes, Pilate would fit right into today’s world. His question wasn’t meant seriously, but it was a good one. What is truth?
Is truth something external, that we try — however clumsily — to discover? Is truth something hidden that we attempt — however imperfectly — to reveal?
Or is truth something internal that we fabricate to suit ourselves? Is truth something we concoct to further an agenda?
Are we like scientists, who perform experiments to test whether their theory holds water? Are we like detectives, who search for evidence that will lead to the criminal?
Or are we like writers of cheap fiction, who string words together because they sound good and sell books? Are we like lawyers and judges, who take the evidence that detectives uncovered and cover it up again?
In short, do we alter our ideas to fit reality? Or do we pretend to alter reality to fit our ideas? Are we seekers after truth, or pushers of an agenda? We can’t be both.
Bankers and accountants used to be boring men in conservative suits. Creative people went into literature or the arts. But now some of the most creative people go into banking and accounting.
This may explain why we have so few great novels, paintings or symphonies, but so many corporations with quarterly reports that look better and better — until the day bankruptcy papers are filed.
Not explained, however, is how investors can know where to put their money, if financial reports become candidates for the Pulitzer Prize in fiction.
During the O.J. Simpson trial, boring prosecutors piled up a mountain of blood, DNA, hair, fiber and shoeprint evidence. But entertaining defense lawyers made the evidenc "disappear," then replaced it with fascinating speculation about "Colombian drug lords."
Even worse, one of the victims — Nicole Brown Simpson — predicted her own death in a diary written in her own hand. But the jury never saw it, because the judge ruled it "hearsay," though handwriting experts could have authenticated it.
This explains how the defendant was acquitted and goes around signing autographs. Not explained, however, is how justice can be served when physical evidence "disappears" while jurors are distracted by intriguing fictions.
Most print and TV journalists don’t like President Bush, the war in Iraq or our military. So well-educated readers of a major newspaper never learned that the president holds an MBA from Harvard Business School. They were told the war was going badly, though we reached Baghdad in three weeks with relatively few casualties on either side.
And now they read that the rescue of captured soldier Jessica Lynch was staged by our troops for the benefit of TV. The source for this story was the notoriously biased BBC, which based it on statements by Iraqi personnel.
First-hand accounts and photos by our people aren’t believed, but second-hand accounts from enemy personnel are taken at face value. Really?
A liberal agenda explains this lack of objectivity. Not explained, however, is how the public can be informed if some news is suppressed while the rest is slanted.
Cancer Society officials exaggerated a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer. They felt that encouraging mammograms was so important that this justified lying.
Anti-smoking activists discuss the multibillion-dollar "costs" of smoking. But if people die of smoking, they tend to die in their 50s and 60s, while they are still contributing to their pensions and Social Security. Had they lived into their 70s and 80s, they would have cost society more in pension, health and nursing home fees.
And after so much furor about second-hand smoke, an authoritative study in the British Medical Journal now finds no risks. But the study is ignored by activists.
Zeal for health explains these misstatements. Not explained, however, is how people can trust health "experts" who slant their advice to suit their biases.
Global warming is now accepted dogma. It is difficult to get a grant or tenure at a university if one questions the dogma.
But evidence shows that the Middle Ages were warmer than today — and there was virtually no industry then. Changes in global climate are closely correlated with variations in energy output by the sun. But did you read that in the paper or see it on TV?
Fear of environmental damage may explain biased reports, though a desire to control people is a better explanation. Not explained, however, is why we should believe dire predictions when the "prophets" ignore scientific data.
Despite past experience that deficit spending may help shorten recessions, anti-administration economists now claim that cutting taxes is dangerous and what is needed is a tax increase.
Yet if high taxes strengthen the economy, the pre-Civil War South should have been an economic powerhouse. After all, what is slavery if not a 100 percent tax rate?
Animosity to Republicans may explain this reversal of past advice. Not explained, however, is how we can trust our economic well-being to "experts" whose advice is like a flag flapping back and forth in the political wind.
Omitting the abuse scandals, many clergy are more interested in spreading liberal dogma than in preaching God’s word. Of course, for many liberals, liberalism is their religion, so as far as they’re concerned, it is a religious message.
Not explained, however, is why congregants must tolerate sermons and services devoid of traditional values or spiritual content.
An apparently kindhearted person opposes the death penalty for murderers on religious grounds, but hopes that "God takes Bush." A seemingly compassionate person worked with the disadvantaged, but wishes that the president "becomes disabled."
Yet when discussing the 9/11 terrorists, they claim we must "understand." Their attitude is explained by hate for political opponents overcoming love for their country.
Not explained, however, is how nice people became so filled with hate.
Universities, high schools and even elementary schools fill kids' heads with anti-American, anti-religious ideas. But test scores have fallen for a generation. Devoting all the time to liberal agendas explains the lack of emphasis on academic subjects.
Not explained, however, is why parents should scrimp and save to pay for prestigious schools and colleges that undermine their kids' values.
What is truth?
The world is a complex and dangerous place. We need accurate information if we hope to prosper, or even survive.
We had better be careful as we answer Pilate's question. A good rule is not to rely on people whose regard for the truth is as low as that of Pilate himself.
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.