The same event can be evaluated very differently depending on where we are and the point of view. There is a different characterization so that one side describes it as white and the other side can easily describe it as black. As such, one hesitates whether we speak the same language. It is certain that the place and point of view of the person has a role in this, but an activity offered by one side can be seen as a burden to our people from the opposite side. The odd thing is that when they are supporters of these two different characterizations, it is often difficult to find the truth or to understand the true nature of the event, especially the understanding of society. Not only does it become harder to understand the truth, but different evaluations of the same phenomenon are emerging in society. In other words, everyone is different. How true is such a situation needs to be considered.
When everyone's right is different, it becomes unclear what is right and what is wrong. People's perspectives, feelings of belonging are effective in evaluating events. It may not have anything to do with it, but it makes it difficult for society to understand each other because it prevents people from meeting correctly. In the meantime, considering the influence of the media in the direction of societies today, those who have the power of the media can present their mistakes to the society like u, then those who are presented to the society can find supporters.
It is of course incomplete to explain the fact that some groups can present the wrong to society as if they were right and find supporters only by the power of the media. The important thing I think is to move away from the sense of justice. Because those who have a sense of justice present the event to the society as it is, and evaluate and do accordingly. Especially if there is a struggle for power, even with the figures, it can be presented to the society as a false right. For example, import and export figures are announced each month. For example, it can be said that we have had a successful month in foreign trade by looking at the increase in the export figure, and on the other hand, we can draw attention to the increase in imports and say that our foreign trade deficit has widened. Both sides express the truth, but on the two sides approaching the event from two different dimensions, it is watched from the real society.
While the investments realized with the build-operate-transfer model, which are on the agenda in recent years, are considered as investments made by the government without a penny from the state's coffers, while the opposition draws attention to the content of the agreement reached with the investor, a certain number of bridges made under this model have been made to pass a vehicle. Because the fees are high, the commitment is far below the figure, stating that the difference between the citizens who never used the bridge is taken through tax. So, on both sides, he makes an assessment by looking at one side of the incident. The same applies to motorways. Since the collected taxes are used in other fields, they are not sufficient for the investments and the construction and operation transfer method is used. In this case, the state will do, the citizen is overwhelmed. In short, an investment made by one party as a great service can become a new burden on the citizen's shoulder from another perspective. As a result, we can say that even though we use the same language, we do not understand. However, our agreement is not difficult. Just be fair, the figures are not distorted, the event somehow transferred to society.