REFACT

by

REFACT (v.)

I am coining the word “refact” to suggest that if we don’t like a fact, we (1) ignore it (2) suppress it (3) remove it (4) discontinue it and / or (5) suspend anyone who refuses to “refact.” Refacting adds to or subtracts from any ideas, vocabulary, verbal, or visual communication, the refactor does not like. In this case, the “refactor” begins with a person using a refactor process. [Computer code writers use the term for rewriting existing text.] —->
To refact history, statistics, legacies, or accomplishments is achieved by the online or in print refactor who adjusts terms or verbiage toward a point of view. If a person is unaware that refacting is taking place, they will assume what they read, hear, or see is correct, since the refact is unopposed.
A refact may also resurrect a past point of view which is now viewed as acceptable. The refactor who did not agree with the original source can now accept it because it is refacted to fit the (1) situation, (2) person, or (3) cultural moment. As refacting grows, it eliminates facts, making every fact an enemy, combated by a cultural influencers, who now oversee the acceptance or rejection of anyone who cares to refact the refactor.
Refacting is nothing new. Humans have been dodging responsibility for actual, authentic accountability since Adam uttered, “The woman!” and Eve cried, “The serpent!” and Cain questioned, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” When we see refacting, no matter if it has historic connections, we should call it out. Freedom must be vigilantly defended in every time and place, the necessity of repetition.
My copy of TIME arrived this week. There is no more clear worldview statement than the three words atop the masthead. I am simply pointing out that one’s beliefs are driven by one’s assumptions. The conversation is refacted here by pointing out the creational world should be our all consuming focus, our religion. The cathedral is nature. The belief is naturalism. Obeisance to dictates from the high priests of environmentalism is worship. [Of course, this is NOT to say that care for creation is unnecessary! See my biblical basis for creation care here, an emphasis on God’s immanent care for His world here, or the beauty of God’s creation here.]
Ultimately, the worship of the earth is simply another act of “refacting.” In biblical terms, an idol. God through Moses warned of this idolatry early in Israelite history (Deut 4:17-19). And given the prevailing worldview of evolutionary causes, it is hypocritical to say we should save the earth when, if evolution is true, perhaps any climate concerns are simply part of evolutionary history; we should let the planet take its evolutionary course. It strikes me that care for the planet is human selfishness apart from a transcendent care given by The One who has made all things. On the other hand, the “environmentalism” could be simply another way to control populations, reserving resources, dictated by an elite, whose sole purpose is control.

But the worst kind of “refacting” comes from journalism. Lester Holt accepted Edward R Murrow Award for Lifetime Journalism (embedded speech in The Hill from which the following statements are taken, down to the word “Note”) Holt called out misinformation permeating the political media ecosystem and separate facts from falsehoods forcefully to combat that trend.

“I think it’s become clearer that fairness is overrated. Before you run off and tweet that headline, let me explain a bit. The idea that we should always give two sides equal weight and merit does not reflect the world we find ourselves in. That the sun sets in the west is a fact. Any contrary view does not deserve our time or attention.”

Holt referenced “recent events” like the Jan. 6 rioting by supporters of former President Trump and conspiracy theories that have grown online about the coronavirus pandemic as examples of moments that require journalists to dismiss falsehoods and focus on provable truths.

Decisions to not give unsupported arguments equal coverage time “are not a dereliction of journalistic responsibility or some kind of agenda,” Holt said. “In fact, it’s just the opposite.” 

“Providing an open platform for misinformation for anyone to come and say whatever they want, especially when issues of public health and safety are at stake can be quite dangerous. Our duty is to be fair to the truth … we need to hear our leaders’ views, their policies and reasoning. It’s really important. But we have to stand ready to push back and call out falsehoods.”

Note that in order to combat what Holt calls “misinformation,” “fairness,” “truth,” or “falsehoods” the journalist becomes the sole arbiter of debate. Holt and his journalist cohort will tell us what is or is not true. Holt’s statements should be cause for great concern.
“Refacting” has no place in the Hebraic-Christian worldview. Among much that could be said about facts, truth, bias, journalism, and honesty, here are two summary, biblical, statements:

Biblical commands demand the authority of multiple witnesses (Num 35:30, Deut 17:6, 19:15, 2 Cor 13:1, 1 Tim 5:19). Truth-telling matters in every human sphere, especially journalism, where what people read, they believe. Those who speak, write, and opine bear great responsibility.

All things should be considered. Every side of an issue should be fairly represented. Objectivity and accuracy is paramount. Accusations against individuals should not be ascribed to “unnamed sources.” Witness and accused must confront each other. [Deut 19:15-18, Prov 18:17]

Much more to come on “journalism” in days to come. The first three paragraphs were originally cited in social media on my Facebook platform (20 April 2021).

Leave a Comment