To think "post truth" is an incredibly dangerous phrase...

[MoreBushThanMoss]

... For media outlets/ pundits/ commentators to be using???

It legitimises what is basically lies and propaganda, by suggesting "post truth" goes beyond truth in at best an ambiguous, at worst a positive way, with the subtle subtext that it could be a better reality....

Egs of "post truth" politics - the election of trump. Brexit. The Assad/ Russian response to Aleppo criticism.

None of these are "good things"- and all are egs of dangerous right wing campaigns based on repressing truth, spreading misinformation and bamboozling the public. So should we be sanctioning this atrocious abuse of power/ media / social media by calling it a symptom of the "post truth" era - or calling it what it is- lies?

Discuss

Pudding - how about in the states? Poss in the uk many are a bit more cynical- but in the states people believe the national enquirer

There have always been people who have believed crazy things.

I'm rather torn on the Trump thing, because while he is a disturbing individual, he is pro Russia.

I'm very aware that the good people are really into war mongering with Russia right now and if I want to be seen as one of the good people I should war monger.

I'm not really sure when that happened with Russia but it feels literally Orwellian in the sense of we have always been at war with Eurasia. Except we haven't. I know we haven't and I am not crazy.

To me "post-truth" is not meant to be about manipulating people with lies, a la WMD, etc. It's about the fact that at least some of the electorate no longer seem to care about what is factual anymore.

So for instance, Trump can come out with some old bullshit that is easy to verify as false, but many of his supporters don't care because they like the tone and sentiment of what he is saying regardless of whether it's true or not.

It's not about politicians manipulating people to believe X, Y & Z are true. It's about people feeling that X, Y & Z resonates with them so it doesn't matter if they are actually true or not.

In which case, there is a use for the phrase, because it doesn't mean the same thing as lies.

So should we be sanctioning this atrocious abuse of power/ media / social media by calling it a symptom of the "post truth" era - or calling it what it is- lies?

Its much more complicated than just being lies. And why do you think naming it is sanctioning it?

Post truth (to me) is problematic because it suggests that we are in a state "beyond" or "after" truth. And this could be construed as a positive thing

Yes, that is what post truth means, thats the point. It cannot be construed as a positive thing, that is also the point. You seem very confused. We shouldn't use accurate words for things because that makes it be seen as a positive thing? No, thats not how it works.

I guess also it reflects the growing realisation that people often can't be argued out of entrenched opinions using facts. There's a naive idea that if a person passionately believes X thing that isn't true, then if presented with enough evidence that X isn't true then they will change their mind.

But what we're seeing is that a lot of the time people don't work like that. That they dismiss or disregard the evidence that is contrary to their belief, and not only do they continue with their false belief, in many cases they actually believe more strongly than before!

To me that's what the "post-truth" is all about.

almondpudding
I'm very aware that the good people are really into war mongering with Russia right now and if I want to be seen as one of the good people I should war monger.

How is objecting to bombing civilians in Aleppo war mongering?

It started before the bombing of Aleppo, and objecting to bombing civilians certainly is not war mongering.

I think you've put it really well David T.

It means it is very difficult to find out any information, because even asking for an explanation as to what is happening in a situation and what the points of debate are marks you out as suspicious.

You are supposed to choose a side and repeat the appropriate opinions without explanation.

People accept evidence and views that back up their own opinion and dismiss any that contradicts it.

This is true on all sides of any argument though, and it's used as means to dispute the outcomes of things like Trump and Brexit when in fact it can be applied to both sides in each case.

bollocks

It's about the fact that at least some of the electorate no longer seem to care about what is factual anymore.

That's a picture some folk like to paint - but I think it's more complex. We have been lied to so much, by so many experts, so often, that many of us don't know who to trust any longer.

To state that there were "facts" about Brexit is, in itself a huge oversimplification. Both sides told some whoppers - both sides predicted various things that haven't happened - but some of them may (or may not) still come about. Very few things about Brexit could ever have been known or predicted as certain facts.

As a PP pointed out - in a simple in/out vote and one in which there was such a range of possible outcomes no-one ought to be surprised that people revert to gut instinct in determining how to vote.

I think NotDavidTennant is spot on. When you look at the things Trump said in his campaign, 'we're going to build a wall and Mexico will pay for it', 'Crooked Hilary will be going to jail' etc, it is clear that Trump knew he didn't need to actually fulfil those promises. He seems to think that's part of a legitimate campaign. It's ironic that Hilary Clinton was taken to task for the idea of having a public and private position, when Trump demonstrates the holding of contradictory positions so clearly.

The difference between a wall and a fence seems neither here nor there, TBH.

There won't be a wall or fence and Mexico won't be paying. It's just a gradual retreat from the wall idea. Trumps plans didn't add up at all and he must have known that.

There already is a fence.

I haven't read all the posts yet, but I find this topic fascinating.

I realise that 'truth' as such rarely happened in terms of governments' spins on events and media interpretations, but I think there was a general consensus in the past that the search for 'truth' (with some ambiguity and a realisation that 'truth' was complex and many events were subjective) was a worthy goal to pursue. We still believed that the truth existed and we still cared enough to think it important.

What I find disturbing is that 'post-truth' is often used in accepting or quietist ways - as in 'it's all post-truth now' (ironic false laugh). We accept that there will be spins and lies as part of the patina of politics and media and that 'this is how it is'. We sit back and accept and watch.

I sense that we're all caught up in some way in a postmodernist perspective on the world where we see it as spectacle, as something we view via social media (I bet George Orwell is kicking himself that he didn't see that one coming) and comment on, rather than live. The shock of the napalmed girl in Trang Bang Vietnam has long disappeared and media is something consumed for entertainment. The line between reality and entertainment is blurring, as is the line between fiction and non-fiction.

This is tied in with consumerism too. In a society that is bizarrely post-post-materialist we struggle for the basics (mortgages, stable jobs) whilst being lured into consuming products and experiences that are a project of and for the self. It's all about the individual and individual interpretations.

Call me an old-fashioned modernist, but I still maintain that 'the truth is out there'.

almondpudding I love your posts and agree 100%.

The problem with the reporting of the Syrian war, is that the media very, very consciously plays down the deaths at the hands of the US or Britain while playing up all the deaths at the hands of the Russians. The reporters were weaping so much for the militants in East Aleppo that I was surprised when I found out that most of these militants are Al Qaida and ISIS.

I do think that when mainstream media talk about post-truth they are trying to make us believe that if we'd only rely on them and not go looking around the internet for information, we would be getting solid truth. But almondpudding says, they all spread lies. In fact, I feel I have a lot better chance of knowing what is really happening now that I don't have to just rely on media like the BBC and the Guardian.

Interesting thread.

When I was at university in the late 1990s post-structuralism was all the rage. We were supposed to use it to analyse and interpret literature.

We studied Jacques Derrida and I remember wondering if I had entered a parallel universe at times - he claimed there is no such thing as truth.

It scares me to think this may be becoming mainstream.

he claimed there is no such thing as truth.

Mayeb he had a point - truth is pretty hard to find in relation to politics - and whilst Trump has carried it to an extreme, it's been that way for some time.

always been post-truth

Contradiction in terms?

I think what Derrida meant was that there is no such thing as 'truth', not that it is simply hard to find, or has been obscured by lies.

Once upon a time, a British politician being a liar or financially corrupt was a big deal - it shocked us and it wasn't tolerated. The scandals of the past that have driven people from public office are things we shrug our shoulders at now. We have accepted , to the point where we are no longer even surprised that politicians are often morally bankrupt when it suits them to be.
If you want to lay the blame, I think the whole wmd thing and expenses scandals are a good place to start. Throw into the mix, the press hacking scandal and you get a situation where the public don't believe a damn thing the experts tell them, even when they are telling the truth.
That leaves people to make important choices based on their own experiences/opinions.

I disagree that Brexit voters and Trump supporters did so because they come under this post truth system.
The Americans I know jumped in full well knowing why they wanted Trump as President. It surprises me that so many people outside of the US think and believe (a) Obama has been a popular President and well liked by most Americans and (b) that Hilary Clinton was a great candidate. These views are definitely more widely held outside the States.
Also re Brexit: I think people who voted to leave did so not because of reportings in the media about immigration and issues surrounding this but because they smelled something fishy. Not everyone is a supporter of globalism and the EU was very much burying the UK into the one nation, one belief, one way system.
You don't have to read false reports in the media about immigration to not want this. You can just believe in better for your country the signing them it up death via the EU.
I do think post truth problems were highlighted by Hillary Clinton supporters who joined her parade, who followed the actors and famous Hollywood individuals who claim to know what's best for their country and therefore endorsed Clinton. I think people who watch lots of tv and follow celebs (as their idols and friends) do tend to believe what the media tell them and that's why Clinton almost won. And that's why Clinton thought she had won. Thankfully the public do think for themselves and think beyond following these celeb cultures and we don't have to see Hillary Clinton leading the US. By the way she herself got the celebs on board to help push her campaign (think about those free concerts). I am so pleased that the voting public saw through her though.
I definitely think this very scenario happened in the UK with Tony Blair back in the late 1990s. He pushed the celeb culture - think New Labour, New Britain. There was so much false hype when he came in to power. Initially it was a boost to the economy as everyone got so excited and hopeful, as they joined the hype, but the balloon has certainly popped and if you look at how popular or unpopular he is now (as we see what he really got up to while he was PM).
Post truth requires us to be sucked into living and breathing the media and the ideas being pushed by a select few. Although we have gone there and yes it's been made worse recently by fake news articles appearing on social medja platforms) I think we are now coming out of a post truth time as people realize news channels, news articles and social media is not truth today.
Truth is a myth these days. Opinion is what we see, and I think people are actually getting fed up with opinion. I think there will be a shift away from the mass media as we see it operating today.

Aderyn2016 I agree about WMD etc, but the scene for that was set by the Thatcher years.

Even the few who resigned got given plum jobs as soon as she thought no-one was looking. .