I'm afraid some people here are overly naive or idealistic about the nature of the Truth
tm, treating it as though it were something universally black and white.
One's motivation for revealing the "truth"
does matter.
I'm sure we're more than aware that there are many different ways to
tell the truth.
Take the domestic Singapore story of alleged child abuse at a pre-school centre. As I explained in my
post, while it's true that the centre operator did not immediately offer to show the parents the CCTV video of the incident, that is because their standard operating procedure was to review the video first.
This is to ensure
fair treatment for teachers accused of mishandling children. There are often instances when unreasonable parents would raise the hue and cry for perceived abuse, when in fact no such act occurred.
The truth was that the childcare operator was trying to be fair and careful. But, told in a different way, enraged parents would quickly jump to the conclusion that it was trying to cover up wrongdoing.
It all comes down to the way you spin the story. So, yes, story angling
does matter.
When you see the "truth" from a different angle, other "truths" may appear. That is the nature of truth. It is not absolute.
======
So, in the case of Edward Snowden, how do we know, for example, if he is telling the whole truth? In fact, the indications are that he has yet to reveal everything he purportedly found out.
And, lacking insight into the "big picture", how do we know for sure that Snowden fully understood the context of what he is revealing?
Why do we take his word at face value, and not give the other side the chance to reply, to explain?
All this is not to downplay the seriousness of the spying revelations. The concerns are real.
But, seriously, I wouldn't make Snowden out to be a big hero any more than I would regard Julian Assange as a hero.
Especially not after I've read further about their backgrounds.