Take a fact, composed of several smaller facts, and then remove from the main fact those smaller facts that don’t suit you, your image of yourself, your beliefs or of a situation that your ego can’t handle. Now, stand up and declare at the top of your voice that you are telling the truth and that anyone who disagrees is a misguided fool.
This is worse than outright lying, as it takes underhandedness to a whole new level. You see it in everyday life. We all encounter it and know of it by its colloquial name: Half Truth. Very well used by politicians.
Half Truths are more dangerous, and far more insidious, than lies and are something that historians are constantly confronted with. It is probably why most have little time for politicians. Historians are trained to recognise these little monsters and account for them in their analysis, whilst trying to avoid creating their own half truths. At least the reputable ones do.
And that raises any interesting ethical question for those in Cultural Heritage: how do we avoid creating half truths, when time constraints, budgets and limited human resources force us to pick and choose from historical fact when compiling a report and undertaking significance assessments?
No client wants, or would pay for or provide the time to write a sixteen volume history for each project you undertake. It would be nice, but it will never happen. So, when confronted with this situation, how do we choose which historical facts and information to include, and which to leave out?
A basic approach is to allow facts to be left out only if, by including them, the story and outcomes remain the same. In such a scenario, including them would merely be sugar coating. However if the facts, when left out, create a completely different scenario, situation, history or basis for analysis, to leave them out is completely unethical and one-sided.
This leaves you with two options. The first is to include all the facts that are relevant and necessary, doing the right thing and ensuring that the following analysis will be based upon the best possible information. The other is to omit that which does not suit your preconceived notion or planned result, and then base your analysis and results on the inaccurate data. We would like to see the former used in all aspects of our industry, but unfortunately, it does not always happen. It is up to us all, as professionals, to ensure that we speak up when we see such action and to ensure our own work always includes the relevant information to ensure the best decision is made.
