It’s official definition? It’s an adjective, “Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”
Given what has happened in the past year, it’s no surprise that this word was chosen, given the rise in politics that have adapted more to the soundbite tactics of Twitter than to factual news articles, and given the eminence of “fake news” during this election cycle. It’s also no surprise that the rise in “post-truth”-ism is directly facilitated by the rise in social media and digital technology—like I had mentioned in an earlier blog post, social media fragments the distribution of information, meaning that anyone could report their own news and not necessarily have it edited and fact-checked by a news corporation. Some bits of information may “seem” as if they’re news—mostly because they have a thousand Facebook shares, or because they bear a legitimate-sounding headline.
According to an article on BBC, AC Grayling, a renowned philosopher, acknowledged the vast changes in the dissemination of news, saying that “’All you need now is an iPhone. Everyone can publish their opinion - and if you disagree with me, it's an attack on me and not my ideas.” An Al-Jazeera article also pointed out that there was little flexibility or true communication in social media, saying that “It deprives people of human contact and the accompanying intimacy and exchange of opinions, which could lead to changing a wrong impression or correcting an inaccurate belief.”
“Post-truth” politics and journalism is a phenomenon that doesn’t affect just journalists—it touches all of us, and that same BBC article has accused the “post-truth” state of news as causing damage to “the whole fabric of democracy”.
What’s curious to me is that politics—or American politics, at least, has always been shaped around the tenet of “truth” and honesty. We have “Honest Abe” as a winning campaign slogan; we pass down the story of how George Washington admitted to chopping down his father’s favorite cherry tree. What do we do now, now that “post-truth” is becoming the hallmark of American politics?
For me, “post-truth” has an ominous tone. Throughout my life, I’ve always heard a certain few “post“ words over and over again. Post-9/11. Post-WWII. Postmodern. Each time I’ve heard those words, it’s always also brought on a ponderous sense of finality, as if it was impossible to return to that “pre” world, as if was an event that had unraveled beyond the capability to return to its original state. I wonder if “post-truth” will have the same effect. Can we ever return or revert back to an honest world, and correct the inflammatory mistakes we’ve made? Or have we completely and irrevocably moved past the truth, and into the digital world of deceptive madness?
How important is truth to you, and do you believe that everyday media affects that?
Hi Christina, what's popping? :) Ok so first impression of your blog post-- cringing-- not cringing at your post but just the idea of the word "post-truth." Now I get it, the concept is legitimate and all but really, this word seems sketchy. When I hear "post-truth," the words "postmodern" and "ambiguous" immediately pop into my head. Let's just say, I don't like that combo.
ReplyDeleteThe whole idea surrounding this, as you put it, is ominous and personally, it just irks me. I have the same questions as you-- WHAT IS TRUTH BEFORE "IT" AND HOW DOES ACKNOWLEDGING IT OR NOT ACKNOWLEDGING IT HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE POST TRUTH?
Sorry for the caps but I really would like an answer---
Oh and to answer your question, truth is something I struggle with almost everyday. In a world where technology and "fake news" plasters my feeds, I'm never really sure what is the truth. And of course, I rely on others to confirm concepts so that they can be true in my mind... but that is also extremely faulty.. so honestly, I'm not really exactly solid on what or how I find truth-- I kind of just hope everything isn't a lie...