For Morris the truth was to find the order of historical photographs, which would reveal that Fenton either removed numerous cannonballs from the road, or placed them there. The question then, of why it matters if we know the correct order, seems to be about historical integrity. That we are not allowed to make accusations, or fill in the holes of our knowledge of truth as we please. He makes this sound completely logical, and I find myself on his defense while he talks to the disputing players of his research. His research is intense and technological. And his ideas about why history matters, and why we can not assume anything without extensive research is compelling enough to continue to read all three blogs without knowing the correct order until the last page of part three. And in the end, Morris' work proves that the original order of the photos was correct and Fenton did placed the cannonballs on the road then snapped the second picture. But his final thoughts are to say that, although he was wrong about his idea, he revealed this historical truth due to factual evidence- the placement of rocks in the background- rather former statements about Fulton's character. By this he is saying that historical integrity may not change what we knew, but it will shed light on why it is we have come to know what we do.
Wallace uses truth to make us question ourselves. It is the ruth about Lobsters that makes us (or me at least) question consuming them so nonchalantly, especially in mass quantities at the Main Lobsterfest. It is almost the same argument as Morris', that truth should drive our understanding of the world around us, only way more relevant to me, and probably most people for that matter, since not everyone is as interested in two photograph from the 1800's that have hardly been mentioned in most history classes. I do however know many people who boil and eat lobsters, so for me this essay hit closer to home in understanding why the truth matters, or how we have come to routinely boil lobsters to death in result of a "posh" meal. A direct way that Wallace lets the truth speak for itself, is when he disputes the Lobsterfest's lobster IQ test that says "There is no cerebral cortex" in lobsters, "Which in humans is the area of the brain that gives the experience of pain." Wallace's expresses that this statement is skewed by showing that lobsters reactions to the pain is enough to know they feel it. And that their squirming around in the pot and pushing the lid to escape is a human-like response enough to negate the cerebral cortex statement.
Wallace forces you question the morality this meal by using the truth about the process, then relating these gourmet meals to art, as most chefs would. From there he asks, in other words, if such a painful death, only to be consumed and soon forgotten by humans is art at all. His quest for the truth comes in much of the same forms as Morris'. That is research, science, and logic to make readers question how it is we have come to adapt certain practices at all, weather it be assumptions about historical events or the current practices of "preparing" animals for consumption.
Both Morris and Wallace have a deep understanding of how to make the reader do as much thinking as the writer. In Morris' piece he did not simply do the research to prove himself wrong, he was giving the reader on their own task to question the order of photos, and the research to prove it wrong. He does this by giving you entire scripts of conversations with all people involved in the research, rather than summarizing and suggesting what was said. Morris also uses a great deal of visuals for the reader to better follow along and understand what research is being done to find the truth about the photos. Wallace forces the reader to think and question by directly clustering questions about morality to the point that the reader can't help but to do the thinking to some of these questions, rather than subconsciously skipping over one or two rhetorical questions in the middle of a paragraph. For example on page 241 he writes :
"So then here is a question that's all but unavoidable at the Worlds Largest Lobster Cooker, and may arise in kitchens across America: Is it all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure? A related set of concerns: Is the previous question irksomely PC or sentimental? What does "all right" even mean in this context? Is the whole thing just a matter of personal choice?"
Both of the articles were extremely compelling to me since I am a history major and regularly thrive on research much like Morris' and have recently become a vegetarian, so Wallace powered my motivation yet again. In this way these articles grabbed my attention early (Wallace's a little later, when I realized the intention of his review) and proved to me that even when you think you know so much about a particular subject or concept, theres always more to know, different ways to understand, or commonly accepted ideas to be challenged. The lasting impression I got from the articles in relation to one another is that we must participate in thinking about the information we have. Not just to accept it, but to understand what we know from the inside out in order to defend and preserve it, even if the information stays the same and our understanding only extended. And, if we happened to have gotten it wrong (historical facts, or inhumane "gustatory pleasures), then we are able and encouraged to reassess and modify accordingly.