truth?

These days, I often wonder if I can actually say I believe in something, with conviction. In Sri Lanka, whatever the media says and whatever had been happening for years now seems to indicate that the hard-nosed decimation of the tigers is an encouraging development. However, every now and then, you come across write-ups and exposes illustrating such horror and tragedy that you invariably start questioning the rationale behind such an act when it is likely to result in an even more tempestuous reprisal.
In chattisgarh, the national and international media, independent bodies, NGOs etc. reveal that the government is carrying out an unprecedented abuse of the tribal population. You enter the cities of chattisgarh, the media and the populace is all praise for the government for having rid them of the power problems, for establishing the state as an industrial power-house, and for taking the fight to the naxalites.
For them, the law-enforcer has to counter the tribal naxalites’ violence with violence and any accusation of excesses is either collateral or manufactured by the naxals. The media in the region is particularly in favor of the establishment, which is attributed by some to fear of the state and by others to true understanding of the ground situation, depending upon their political leanings.
The national media, and even the international media, seems to have a diametrically opposite view of the situation in the state. That the media is always looking for ways to find scapegoats and particularly to blame the establishment for all the ills is a well-known, the Mumbai blasts being a case-in-point.
We do know that the media’s credibility is questionable, but so is that of the government. Everyone knows how conveniently the state distorts the truth to suit itself. So, how do we get to know the ‘truth’? Not everyone can get into Vanni and Dantewada to see for oneself. Are we destined to live in the dark forever, occasionally blinded by some artificial flashes of artificial illumination?