tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/alternative-facts-36071/articlesAlternative facts – The Conversation2022-07-05T12:15:55Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1846232022-07-05T12:15:55Z2022-07-05T12:15:55ZBuying into conspiracy theories can be exciting – that’s what makes them dangerous<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471454/original/file-20220628-14476-p4rpam.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=30%2C22%2C5007%2C3330&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A protester holds a Q sign as he waits to enter a campaign rally with then-President Donald Trump in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., in August 2018.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/QAnonEventVegas/a4e2c53c530b45b8b3a6b1bce25ba084/photo?Query=qanon&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=107&currentItemNo=31">AP Photo/Matt Rourke</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Conspiracy theories have been around for centuries, from <a href="https://theconversation.com/most-witches-are-women-because-witch-hunts-were-all-about-persecuting-the-powerless-125427">witch trials</a> and antisemitic campaigns to <a href="https://archive.org/details/proofsofconspira00r">beliefs that Freemasons were trying to topple European monarchies</a>. In the mid-20th century, historian <a href="http://c250.columbia.edu/c250_celebrates/remarkable_columbians/richard_hofstadter.html">Richard Hofstadter</a> described a “<a href="https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/">paranoid style</a>” that he observed in right-wing U.S. politics and culture: a blend of “heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy.”</p>
<p>But the “golden age” of conspiracy theories, it seems, is now. On June 24, 2022, the unknown leader of the QAnon conspiracy theory <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/technology/qanon-leader-returns.html">posted online</a> for the first time in over a year. QAnon’s enthusiasts tend to be ardent supporters of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-rise-of-a-conspiracy-candidate-65514">Donald Trump</a>, who made conspiracy theories <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98158-1">a signature feature of his political brand</a>, from Pizzagate and QAnon to “Stop the Steal” and <a href="https://theconversation.com/birtherism-trump-and-anti-black-racism-conspiracy-theorists-twist-evidence-to-maintain-status-quo-174444">the racist “birther” movement</a>. Key themes in conspiracy theories – like a sinister network of “pedophiles” and “groomers,” shadowy “bankers” and “globalists” – have <a href="https://theconversation.com/qanon-hasnt-gone-away-its-alive-and-kicking-in-states-across-the-country-154788">moved into the mainstream</a> of right-wing talking points.</p>
<p>Much of the commentary on conspiracy theories presumes that followers simply have bad information, <a href="https://www.wired.com/video/watch/why-you-can-never-argue-with-conspiracy-theorists">or not enough</a>, and that they can be helped along with a better diet of facts.</p>
<p>But anyone who talks to conspiracy theorists knows that they’re never short on details, or at least “<a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-no-such-thing-as-alternative-facts-5-ways-to-spot-misinformation-and-stop-sharing-it-online-152894">alternative facts</a>.” They have plenty of information, but they insist that it be interpreted in a particular way – the way that feels most exciting. </p>
<p><a href="https://rels.sas.upenn.edu/people/donovan-schaefer">My research</a> focuses on how emotion <a href="https://www.dukeupress.edu/religious-affects">drives human experience</a>, including strong beliefs. In <a href="https://www.dukeupress.edu/wild-experiment">my latest book</a>, I argue that confronting conspiracy theories requires understanding the feelings that make them so appealing – and the way those feelings shape what seems reasonable to devotees. If we want to understand why people believe what they believe, we need to look not just at the content of their thoughts, but how that information feels to them. Just as the “X-Files” predicted, conspiracy theories’ acolytes “want to believe.”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A blue and green poster shows a UFO above a forest and the words 'I want to believe.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471693/original/file-20220629-17-oifdvm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471693/original/file-20220629-17-oifdvm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=803&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471693/original/file-20220629-17-oifdvm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=803&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471693/original/file-20220629-17-oifdvm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=803&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471693/original/file-20220629-17-oifdvm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1009&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471693/original/file-20220629-17-oifdvm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1009&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471693/original/file-20220629-17-oifdvm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1009&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Our desire to feel a certain way can drive our beliefs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/i-want-to-believe-with-background-for-world-royalty-free-illustration/983343934?adppopup=true">Olexandr Nitsevych/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Thinking and feeling</h2>
<p>Over 100 years ago, the American psychologist <a href="https://psychology.fas.harvard.edu/people/william-james">William James</a> <a href="https://www.uky.edu/%7Eeushe2/Pajares/JamesSentimentOfRationality">noted</a>: “The transition from a state of perplexity to one of resolve is full of lively pleasure and relief.” In other words, confusion doesn’t feel good, but certainty certainly does.</p>
<p>He was deeply interested in an issue that is urgent today: how information feels, and why thinking about the world in a particular way might be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12522">exciting or exhilarating</a> – so much so that it becomes <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20211001-i-feel-like-i-ve-lost-him-families-torn-apart-by-conspiracy-theories">difficult to see the world in any other way</a>.</p>
<p>James called this the “<a href="https://www.uky.edu/%7Eeushe2/Pajares/JamesSentimentOfRationality">sentiment of rationality</a>”: the feelings that go along with thinking. People often talk about thinking and feeling as though they’re separate, but James realized that they’re inextricably related.</p>
<p>For instance, he believed that the best science was driven forward by the excitement of discovery – which he said was “<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2246769?seq=1">caviar</a>” for scientists – but also anxiety about getting things wrong.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A black and white photograph shows two men posed next to each other in suits." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471481/original/file-20220628-25-i03jlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471481/original/file-20220628-25-i03jlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471481/original/file-20220628-25-i03jlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471481/original/file-20220628-25-i03jlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471481/original/file-20220628-25-i03jlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=543&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471481/original/file-20220628-25-i03jlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=543&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471481/original/file-20220628-25-i03jlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=543&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Psychologist William James, right, next to his brother, the famous novelist Henry James.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/henry-james-novelist-and-his-brother-psychologist-william-news-photo/514865914?adppopup=true">Bettmann/Bettmann via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The allure of the 2%</h2>
<p>So how does conspiracy theory feel? First of all, it lets you feel like you’re smarter than everyone. Political scientist <a href="https://www.maxwell.syr.edu/directory/michael-barkun">Michael Barkun</a> points out that conspiracy theory devotees love what he calls “<a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520276826/a-culture-of-conspiracy">stigmatized knowledge</a>,” sources that are obscure or even looked down upon.</p>
<p>In fact, the more obscure the source is, the more true believers want to trust it. This is the stock in trade of popular podcast “<a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/01/21/1074442185/joe-rogan-doctor-covid-podcast-spotify-misinformation">The Joe Rogan Experience</a>” – “scientists” who present themselves as the lone voice in the wilderness and are somehow seen as more credible because they’ve been repudiated by their colleagues. Ninety-eight percent of scientists may agree on something, but the conspiracy mindset imagines the other 2% are really on to something. This allows conspiracists to see themselves as “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3790">critical thinkers</a>” who have separated themselves from the pack, rather than outliers who have fallen for a snake oil pitch.</p>
<p>One of the most exciting parts of a conspiracy theory is that it makes everything make sense. We all know the pleasure of solving a puzzle: the “click” of satisfaction when you complete a Wordle, crossword or sudoku. But of course, the whole point of games is that they simplify things. Detective shows are the same: All the clues are right there on the screen. </p>
<h2>Powerful appeal</h2>
<p>But what if the whole world were like that? In essence, that’s the illusion of conspiracy theory. All the answers are there, and everything fits with everything else. The big players are sinister and devious – but not as smart as you.</p>
<p>QAnon works like <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/qanon-game-plays-believers/2021/05/10/31d8ea46-928b-11eb-a74e-1f4cf89fd948_story.html">a massive live-action video game</a> in which a showrunner teases viewers with tantalizing clues. Followers make every detail into something profoundly significant. </p>
<p>When Donald Trump <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-usa-trump-quotes-fact/factbox-selected-quotes-as-u-s-president-trump-tests-positive-for-covid-19-idUSKBN26N0QJ">announced his COVID-19 diagnosis</a>, for instance, he tweeted, “We will get through this TOGETHER.” QAnon followers <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/03/trump-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory-qanon">saw this as a signal</a> that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/opinion/qanon-hillary-clinton.html">their long-sought endgame</a> – Hillary Clinton arrested and convicted of unspeakable crimes – was finally in play. They thought the capitalized word “TOGETHER” was code for “TO GET HER,” and that Trump was saying that his diagnosis was a feint in order to beat the “deep state.” For devotees, it was a perfectly crafted puzzle with a neatly thrilling solution.</p>
<p>It’s important to remember that conspiracy theory very often <a href="https://theconversation.com/conspiracy-theories-fuel-prejudice-towards-minority-groups-113508">goes hand in hand</a> with racism – <a href="https://forward.com/culture/502541/four-reasons-why-a-racist-and-antisemitic-theory-has-become-so-popular-and-why-we-need-to-stop-it/">anti-Black racism</a>, <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/18/great-replacement-the-conspiracy-theory-stoking-racist-violence">anti-immigrant racism</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-antisemitic-conspiracy-theories-contributed-to-the-recent-hostage-taking-at-the-texas-synagogue-175229">antisemitism</a> and <a href="https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/trump-resurrects-conspiracy-theories-about-huma-abedin/story-AQPr91YlOXfeHWsTt4AMLK.html">Islamophobia</a>. People who craft conspiracies – or are willing to exploit them – know how <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/0048721X.2020.1810817">emotionally powerful</a> these racist beliefs are.</p>
<p>It’s also key to avoid saying that conspiracy theories are “simply” irrational or emotional. What James realized is that all thinking is related to feeling – whether we’re learning about the world in useful ways or whether we’re being led astray by our own biases. As cultural theorist <a href="https://news.uchicago.edu/story/lauren-berlant-preeminent-literary-scholar-and-cultural-theorist-1957-2021">Lauren Berlant</a> <a href="https://thenewinquiry.com/trump-or-political-emotions/">wrote in 2016</a>, “All the messages are emotional,” no matter which political party they come from.</p>
<p>Conspiracy theories encourage their followers to see themselves as the only ones with their eyes open, and everyone else as “sheeple.” But paradoxically, this fantasy leads to self-delusion – and helping followers recognize that can be a first step. Unraveling their beliefs requires the patient work of persuading devotees that the world is just a more boring, more random, less interesting place than one might have hoped.</p>
<p>Part of why conspiracy theories have such a strong hold is that they have flashes of truth: There really are elites who hold themselves above the law; there really is exploitation, violence and inequality. But the best way to unmask abuses of power isn’t to take shortcuts – a critical point in “<a href="https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ConspiracyTheoryHandbook.pdf">Conspiracy Theory Handbook</a>,” a guide to combating them that was written by <a href="https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/conspiracy-theory-handbook/">experts on climate change denial</a>.</p>
<p>To make progress, we have to patiently prove what’s happening – to research, learn and find the most plausible interpretation of the evidence, not the one that’s most fun.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/184623/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Donovan Schaefer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Overcoming conspiracy theories isn’t just about information. A scholar of religion explains that the emotions they inspire are part of their appeal.Donovan Schaefer, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, University of PennsylvaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1534492021-01-19T19:08:26Z2021-01-19T19:08:26ZAs Joe Biden prepares to become president, the US still reels from the deadly consequences of ‘alternative facts’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379422/original/file-20210119-20-1umlm0e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/AP/Patrick Semansky</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Every four years on January 20, the US exercises a key tenet of democratic government: the peaceful transfer of power. This year, the scene looks a bit different.</p>
<p>If the last US presidential inauguration in 2017 debuted the phrase “alternative facts”, the 2021 inauguration represents their deadly consequences. After <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/13/qanon-capitol-siege-trump/">conspiracy-theory inspired violence</a> laid siege to the Capitol Building where lawmakers met to confirm the election results, more than 20,000 troops now patrol the US Capitol to ensure the transition goes ahead smoothly against calls for insurrection.</p>
<p>The threat of disinformation and alternative facts has taken many forms over the past several years, from conspiracy theories about climate change to <a href="https://www.ghsn.org/Policy-Reports">COVID-19</a>, culminating in a <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-documents-conspiracy-theories-terrorism-160000507.html">2019 FBI memo warning</a> about the threat of “conspiracy-theory driven domestic extremists”, particularly around elections. </p>
<p>It follows years of warnings from national security <a href="https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/09/03/troops-white-nationalism-a-national-security-threat-equal-to-isis-al-qaeda/">practitioners</a> and scholars about the growing risk of domestic extremists. More recently, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-12/asio-briefing-warns-far-right-is-exploiting-coronavirus/12344472">as reported</a> by the FBI and ASIO, these groups have used the global pandemic to recruit and radicalise new members, seizing on the isolation and uncertainty to offer a sense of community and clarity of purpose. </p>
<p>The conspiracy theory that drove the violence at the Capitol Building has been building for the past four years. During this time, US President Donald Trump has decried any <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/alternate-reality-trump-plays-his-old-litigious-hand-in-fight-for-survival-20201107-p56cdf.html">contest</a> he does not win as fraudulent.</p>
<p>More recently, he has called his supporters to action, warning that there will be “<a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-said-there-will-be-no-god-if-biden-is-elected/ar-BB19edMV">no God</a>” and “<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55640437">no country</a>” without him as president. Though the attack only lasted a few hours, the consequences will linger for years. </p>
<p>As Joe Biden prepares to become the 46th president of the United States, managing the fallout from it will be one of his gravest challenges.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/as-us-election-day-nears-the-outcome-wont-be-simply-a-matter-of-political-will-148441">As US election day nears, the outcome won't be simply a matter of political will</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The long-standing threat of right-wing extremists</h2>
<p>This threat appears to have been taken seriously by long-standing national security <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/12/trump-stochastic-terrorism-violence-rhetoric/">experts</a> and scholars. But action against it was hindered under the Trump administration.</p>
<p>Starting in 2017, federal funding for tackling white nationalist and other far right extremist activity was cut, including <a href="https://apnews.com/article/534c01d60a50492ab3e1e616c3c71720">university research</a> and non-profit deradicalisation organisations such as<a href="https://www.newsweek.com/far-right-alt-right-neo-nazis-life-after-hate-628829">Life After Hate</a> </p>
<p>Last year, <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/dhs-whistleblower-white-supremacist-threat/index.html">a whistleblower report</a> from the Department of Homeland Security alleged senior intelligence officials were instructed to modify intelligence assessments to match Trump’s rhetoric and modify the section on White Supremacy in a manner that made the threat appear less severe. </p>
<p>During 2020, diverse groups <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/08/capitol-riot-trump-forecast-encouraged/">stormed state legislative buildings</a> to evade COVID-19 mitigation efforts and intimidate lawmakers at the behest of Trump. </p>
<p>Despite these public signs of growing extremist violence, even some lawmakers appeared to be caught unaware by the Capitol insurrection. In an opinion piece just after the event, Republican Senator Susan Collins <a href="https://bangordailynews.com/2021/01/11/opinion/contributors/democracy-prevailed-over-the-rioters-who-sieged-the-capitol/">wrote she</a> first assumed the attack was coming from Iran. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379430/original/file-20210119-14-16g16ta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379430/original/file-20210119-14-16g16ta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379430/original/file-20210119-14-16g16ta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379430/original/file-20210119-14-16g16ta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379430/original/file-20210119-14-16g16ta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379430/original/file-20210119-14-16g16ta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379430/original/file-20210119-14-16g16ta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Trump supporters breached the Capitol on January 6, claiming the election result was fradulent.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/AP/ John Nacion/STAR MAX/IPx</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Trump has demonstrated that conspiracy theories can drive electoral and fundraising success. Having started his political campaign with the “birther” conspiracy theory, challenging the citizenship and eligibility of American-born Barack Obama, Trump also cast shadows over his Republican rivals, including Ted Cruz, by accusing Cruz’s father of being <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36195317">linked to the man who killed JFK</a>.</p>
<p>Similarly, Trump will end his administration on a conspiracy theory, one that has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/who-died-in-capitol-building-attack.html">already cost</a> five lives. Despite recent backlash from <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/10/business/citigroup-bluecross-commerce-bank-pac-donations/index.html">business leaders</a> in America, Trump <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/12/trumps-bogus-election-fraud-claims-fundraising-usd200-million-since-election-day.html">fundraised more than $200 million </a> after election night on the basis of his refusal to concede defeat. </p>
<p>Recent Congressional races have further demonstrated the success of Trump’s template. Holocaust-deniers in three states ran for office in <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/republican-holocaust-deniers-697379/">2018</a> (all as Republicans). Two <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/03/us/politics/qanon-candidates-marjorie-taylor-greene.html">of the newest members of Congress</a> are members of QAnon, the inheritor of the “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/27/technology/pizzagate-justin-bieber-qanon-tiktok.html">pizzagate</a>” conspiracy theory, in which all who oppose Trump are deep state members of a international child sex trafficking cabal. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-alt-right-believes-another-american-revolution-is-coming-153093">Why the alt-right believes another American Revolution is coming</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The challenge ahead for Biden</h2>
<p>Where then, does this leave policy-making on national and global issues that require sober reflection and good judgement?</p>
<p>Alternative facts have no place in good governance. Their purpose is only to destroy and divide. This is why disinformation has been pursued so aggressively by hostile foreign actors against the US, with <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4673195/user-clip-clinton-watts-testimony-senate-intelligence-committee-hearing-march-30-2017">Russian active measures</a> detailed extensively by the Republican chaired <a href="https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf">Senate Intelligence Committee reports</a>. </p>
<p>Voter fraud, one of the key narratives of Russian efforts in election interference in 2016, has now become mainstreamed in the Republican base, with <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/01/15/biden-begins-presidency-with-positive-ratings-trump-departs-with-lowest-ever-job-mark/">nearly half of respondents expressing doubt</a> about Biden’s win. Public assurances by Republican secretaries of state have had limited impact, culminating in Trump’s taped conversation <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-raffensperger-georgia-call-transcript.html">in which he asks</a> the Georgia Secretary of state to “find” 11,000 votes for him (to win).</p>
<p>Joe Biden should focus on repairing Americans’ frayed trust in institutions and rehabilitate America’s battered reputation. At the same time, he should lead with science and fact, most immediately in tackling the nation’s COVID crisis.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="AAP/AP/Matt Slocum" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379423/original/file-20210119-21-1wpevwn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379423/original/file-20210119-21-1wpevwn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379423/original/file-20210119-21-1wpevwn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379423/original/file-20210119-21-1wpevwn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379423/original/file-20210119-21-1wpevwn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379423/original/file-20210119-21-1wpevwn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379423/original/file-20210119-21-1wpevwn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">One of Joe Biden’s first priorities should be repairing trust in American institutions.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Where conspiracy theories go hand in hand with corruption (such as Trump soliciting an election official to tamper with results), state authorities should pursue charges. Where disinformation has proven lucrative, tools should be explored to remove financial rewards. For instance, non-profit organisations that participated in or fundraised what the <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/12/joint-chiefs-staff-call-capitol-riots-sedition-and-insurrection/6646481002">Joint Chiefs of Staff declared</a> as “sedition and insurrection” could be stripped of protective tax status. </p>
<p>Some of these remedies lie firmly with Congress. <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/12/liz-cheney-trump-impeachment-statement-458394">Impeachment</a> proceedings are already underway which could remove Trump’s ability to run in 2024. <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xiv#:%7E:text=No%20State%20shall%20make%20or,equal%20protection%20of%20the%20laws.">The 14th Amendment</a> could be applied to expel or bar current office holders who participated in the insurrection from running for election again. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-is-impeached-again-in-historic-vote-now-republicans-must-decide-the-future-of-their-party-153196">Trump is impeached again in historic vote. Now Republicans must decide the future of their party</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Trump has recently condemned the violence done in his name. But he has not disavowed the rationale for it. His supporters within the Republican base, media and elected ranks continue to repeat his conspiracy theories on <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com.au/james-murdoch-son-of-fox-news-boss-rupert-outlets-peddle-lies-2021-1">Fox “entertainment” shows</a>, on <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/limbaugh-dismisses-calls-to-end-violence-after-mob-hits-capitol/ar-BB1czamf">AM radio</a>, and now the halls of Congress. More than <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrection-at-the-capitol/2021/01/07/954380156/here-are-the-republicans-who-objected-to-the-electoral-college-count">100 US Representatives</a> voted against certifying the ballots on which they themselves were elected. </p>
<p>The next few years will see investigations, commissions and reports detailing the failures that led up to the Capitol attacks. Any delay in accountability could see even more lives lost to conspiracy theories and those who profit from them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/153449/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer S. Hunt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Among the new president’s top priorities should be restoring faith in institutions and science.Jennifer S. Hunt, Lecturer in National Security, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1488742020-11-23T16:18:23Z2020-11-23T16:18:23Z‘I won the election’ – how powerful people use lousy lies to twist reality<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/370827/original/file-20201123-15-yhy24s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/wilkesbarre-pa-august-2-2018-president-1157861293">Evan El-Amin/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When was the last time you told a lie? If you can’t remember, I’ll give you a clue. Chances are it was sometime today – based on the fact research shows the average person lies at <a href="https://msu.edu/%7Elevinet/Serota_etal2010.pdf">least once a day</a>.</p>
<p>The point of most lies or false claims seems reasonably straightforward: to deceive others (or oneself) into believing what’s false is true. But there is one puzzling (and often misunderstood) type of lie that doesn’t seem to follow this logic. This is what I call the “lousy lie”. </p>
<p>These are the types of lies or false truths that seem so obviously implausible that they don’t seem designed to deceive, but rather, to signal something else. </p>
<p>Such examples would include the Italian nationalist leader, Matteo Salvini’s, recent claim that the Chinese <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/av/52299689">created COVID-19 in a lab</a> – when there is <a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-how-scientists-know-the-coronavirus-came-from-bats-and-wasnt-made-in-a-lab-141850">scientific consensus</a> that it moved from animals to humans. </p>
<p>Or <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/news/525661-russian-foreign-minister-suggests-navalny-could-have-been-poisoned-in-germany">the claims</a> by Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, that Moscow has “reasons to assume” the recent <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43377698">Novichok nerve agent</a> poisoning of <a href="https://theconversation.com/alexei-navalny-poisoning-what-theatrical-assassination-attempts-reveal-about-vladimir-putins-grip-on-power-in-russia-145664">Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny</a> was done by Germans. Novichok was developed by the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s and is the same substance found in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/sergei-skripal-and-the-long-history-of-assassination-attempts-abroad-93021">2018 poisoning</a> of Russian double-agent <a href="https://theconversation.com/sergei-skripal-attack-russian-embassy-is-fuelling-tensions-with-some-very-undiplomatic-tweets-93407">Sergei Skripal</a> and his daughter.</p>
<p>Then there is of course <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-trump-uses-twitter-to-distract-the-media-new-research-149847">Donald Trump</a> and his many number of false statements. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1328200072987893762"}"></div></p>
<p>When academics have, in recent years, written about <a href="https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250107817">false claims</a>, two opposing storylines emerge. On the one hand, there’s the suggestion that people are quite easily deceived - particularly those <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-57821-001">less educated</a> or with <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-19239-015">extreme ideologies and convictions</a>. On the other hand, certain academics – such as the French cognitive scientist, Hugo Mercier, in his book
,<a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/45358676-not-born-yesterday">Not Born Yesterday</a> – believe people are not as gullible as is usually assumed. </p>
<p>But even if we accept that most people aren’t very gullible, there’s still the issue of why there’s so much low-quality, easily detectable lying in the public sphere. And given that many cultures have social norms against lying, how then are these lies able to exist and flourish? </p>
<h2>Power and status</h2>
<p>For my <a href="https://manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9781526151742/">recent book</a>, Knowledge Resistance: How We Avoid Insight from Others, I interviewed numerous social, economic and evolutionary academics in the UK who work on knowledge-based conflicts. I found that some lying - by being so obviously false - is used primarily as a way of bonding and forming loyalty within groups. And in the same way, it can also be used to gain or signal distance from another group.
In this sense, then, these false claims act as a display of power – of not having to submit to truth and facts like the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7427600/">rest of us</a>. </p>
<p>Lousy lying can also be used to communicate social status and make the person appear highly knowledgeable. One <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547">study</a> of climate change sceptics, for example, found that the most scientifically literate people in the group were most likely to strongly endorse climate scepticism. The study also found that, for these “scientific sceptics”, this strong loyalty with their community, through their seemingly sophisticated reasoning, led to them having a high reputation and liking among their peers. Being liked and respected is something humans have <a href="https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199586073.001.0001/acprof-9780199586073-chapter-0010">evolved genetically to prioritise</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Close up of female kid hand crossing fingers behind her back" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/370572/original/file-20201120-19-1awbu6k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=10%2C16%2C3583%2C2376&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/370572/original/file-20201120-19-1awbu6k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/370572/original/file-20201120-19-1awbu6k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/370572/original/file-20201120-19-1awbu6k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/370572/original/file-20201120-19-1awbu6k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/370572/original/file-20201120-19-1awbu6k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/370572/original/file-20201120-19-1awbu6k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">More than just telling a few fibs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/april-fools-day-female-kid-hand-500339272">BlurryMe/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There’s also the fact that even the lousy lie, if told many times, can become part of <a href="https://www.salon.com/2017/01/15/dont-think-of-a-rampaging-elephant-linguist-george-lakoff-explains-how-the-democrats-helped-elect-trump/">people’s view of reality</a>. The propaganda minister of Nazi Germany, Joseph Goebbels famously <a href="https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-goebbels-on-the-quot-big-lie-quot">pointed this out</a>. </p>
<p>This gradual transformation leads to “obvious lies” becoming an uncertainty - echoing the old adage “there’s no smoke without fire”. On the internet in particular, no lie is lousy enough that it won’t be picked up by someone and shared by any number of people.</p>
<h2>Managing misinformation</h2>
<p>Studies also show that false claims have a <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146">higher chance of being spread</a> compared to mainstream beliefs. And that for people sharing such untruths, it can lead to a <a href="https://manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9781526151742/">tighter social bond</a> with others who also believe the false claim. This is most likely because it requires blind commitment and loyalty to truly believe what others perceive as a lie. And with the speed with which things can spread online, such views can become normalised very quickly.</p>
<p>For all these reasons, it would be misguided to treat lousy lying as a “cognitive failure”, as it clearly serves several social functions. To deal with this type of lying, then, fact checking would ideally be combined with efforts to have prominently respected figures from the outsider groups that help perpetuate lousy lies to educate and myth bust false claims. Though, of course, this wouldn’t be easy.</p>
<p>This is important given that, as Twitter and Facebook have intensified their fact checking, millions of social media users have moved to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/11/technology/parler-rumble-newsmax.html">alternative platforms</a> – like Newsmax, Parler and Rumble. And in these online spaces the lies of public leaders can flow freely and disappear into acceptance.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/148874/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mikael Klintman is professor of sociology at Lund University, Sweden. He receives funding from the Swedish Research Foundation (VR) and MISTRA. </span></em></p>Lying can be more than just telling a few fibs. It can also be used to communicate social status and make a person appear loyal to a particular group.Mikael Klintman, Professor of Sociology, Lund UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1257552019-10-24T13:50:59Z2019-10-24T13:50:59ZDonald Trump’s war on facts is the latest play in a long-established tradition to create a post-truth reality<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298325/original/file-20191023-119449-fx03a5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">When facts are fiction.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.shutterstock.com%2Fgatekeeper%2FW3siZSI6MTU3MTg2ODQ5NCwiYyI6Il9waG90b19zZXNzaW9uX2lkIiwiZGMiOiJpZGxfNTE2NTU2NTYxIiwiayI6InBob3RvLzUxNjU1NjU2MS9odWdlLmpwZyIsIm0iOjEsImQiOiJzaHV0dGVyc3RvY2stbWVkaWEifSwidnJleU9rRlNwK25UODMwaHhvN2tJTHg2NHRFIl0%2Fshutterstock_516556561.jpg&ir=true&pi=33421636&m=516556561&src=LRgCMkryRCLEDiYEPVwuJw-1-72">Shutterstock/MIA Studio</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>This is the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/global-series-the-post-truth-era-73183">post-truth age</a>”. Over the past few years, politicians from Europe to South America and the US, have been labelled “<a href="https://theconversation.com/post-truth-leaders-are-all-about-their-followers-69020">post-truth leaders</a>”, with US president Donald Trump becoming the standard bearer for this strange new world.</p>
<p>But post-truth leadership is nothing new. Ever since sociologist and political economist <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Max-Weber-German-sociologist">Max Weber</a> developed his notion of charismatic leadership in the early 20th century, many societies have been infatuated with the idea that leaders ought not to concern themselves too much with factual reality. In fact, leadership has long been “post-truth”, a topic I explore <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Leadership-and-Organization-A-Philosophical-Introduction-1st-Edition/Spoelstra/p/book/9781138917101">in my recent book</a>.</p>
<p>According <a href="https://aeon.co/ideas/charisma-is-a-mysterious-and-dangerous-gift">to Weber</a> (1864-1920), “charismatic leadership” is a form of authority that derives from the attribution of extraordinary qualities to an individual by his (rarely her) followers, qualities that, in a quite literal sense, do not belong to the normal order. This distinguishes charismatic leadership from the authority of law or tradition, which are ordinary forms of domination that do not rely on an exceptional human individual.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://aeon.co/ideas/charisma-is-a-mysterious-and-dangerous-gift">religious origins</a> of the notion of charisma (from the Greek χάρισμα, meaning “gift of grace”) are not coincidental. Weber elevates the charismatic leader to a sphere that is uncontaminated by the reality and constraints of ordinary life. Weber’s charismatic leader is essentially transgressive, one who oversteps the bounds of the present order and whose supporters take these transgressions as proof of their leader’s extraordinary character.</p>
<h2>The ‘wimp factor’</h2>
<p>Such otherworldly expectations can be difficult for leaders to live up to. Prior to his election, former US president George H W Bush was criticised for a lack of “vision”. Indeed, rather than embracing the idea of becoming a charismatic leader, Bush responded with open contempt for “<a href="http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/01/george-hw-bush-and-vision-thing.html">the vision thing</a>”. Newsweek magazine later spun this comment into a famous cover story that framed a feeble Bush in terms of his battle with the “<a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/george-h-w-bush-wimp-766076/">wimp factor”</a>“. This image of a weak leader lacking in vision was to haunt Bush throughout the single term of his presidency.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-surprising-origins-of-post-truth-and-how-it-was-spawned-by-the-liberal-left-68929">The surprising origins of 'post-truth' – and how it was spawned by the liberal left</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The expectation that "real” leaders must have a compelling vision is important for understanding the relationship between leadership and truth. A vision may be seen as a “higher truth” by the leader’s supporters or, alternatively, as a “great lie” by their opponents.</p>
<p>Either way, visions have little to do with facts. A factual statement talks about the actual, about the things that <em>are</em> in the present, or <em>have happened</em> in the past. But the image of the visionary or charismatic leader is of someone who thinks and speaks in grand terms about the <em>future</em>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_IB0i6bJIjw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Such future-oriented speech cannot be fact-checked because it belongs to the domain of the potential, the as-yet-unrealised world of what might yet come to be. Martin Luther King’s “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IB0i6bJIjw">I Have a Dream</a>” speech, for instance, conveys a vision that has come to be seen as a great truth, but it is not, itself, a true or false statement. It is a vision – albeit one of inspiring justice and hope.</p>
<p>More contentious visionary claims, such as Trump’s promise to “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZn8tFbISpo">Make America great again</a>”, are similarly immune to falsification.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XZn8tFbISpo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Indeed, it is unsurprising that politicians who want to be perceived as “great” leaders will often avoid statements that can be fact-checked as they focus instead on captivating their audiences with visions of the world to come.</p>
<p>By avoiding the realm of the factual, leaders can demonstrate that their minds are not shaped by the past or the present. Rather, they already – in a sense – inhabit a glorious future and show the rest of us how we can join them. It is a future where Ronald Reagan’s “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c32G868tor0">Shining City Upon A Hill</a>” will become ever brighter, but will likely also remain ever elusive, a promise that need never be kept.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/c32G868tor0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>And so Trump, as the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html">New York Times wryly observed</a>, is “trying to create an atmosphere in which reality is irrelevant”. For Weber, this is part and parcel of the nature of charismatic leadership: by demonstrating a lack of interest in the past and the present, charismatic leaders create the image that they belong to a higher sphere in order to bring about future change.</p>
<h2>So what’s new?</h2>
<p>While leadership has been a post-truth pursuit for a long time, dating back to well before Weber, there is something strange and new about contemporary post-truth leaders such as Trump. In contrast to Weber’s charismatic leader, who does not concern himself with the factual, Trump and his administration do speak, very frequently, in the language of facts. Of course, these aren’t really facts based in reality, but rather “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSrEEDQgFc8">alternative facts</a>” spun out of a parallel, often fictional, version of how things are.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VSrEEDQgFc8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Indeed, this is something that has <a href="https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2019/number-of-fact-checking-outlets-surges-to-188-in-more-than-60-countries/">fuelled the rise</a> of fact-checking media. Uncovering the falsehoods of a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fpolitics%2f2019%2f08%2f12%2fpresident-trump-has-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days%2f%3f">leader like Trump</a>, who has at least 12,000 to his name according to The Washington Post, is unquestionably a vital task for the preservation of a healthy democracy. But it is equally important to ask what it is he achieves by saying things that are demonstrably false.</p>
<p>The reason why few commentators have asked this question may be because the answer seems to be too obvious to warrant much consideration: by lying about the facts, Trump and other post-truth leaders aim to deceive people into thinking more highly of them and their policies than they deserve. There is, no doubt, some truth to this, but it is not the full story.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/fake-news-emotions-and-experiences-not-more-data-could-be-the-antidote-123496">Fake news: emotions and experiences, not more data, could be the antidote</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Trump’s lies are as much a demonstration of power as they are statements that intend to deceive. Trump’s infamous campaign promise to “<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/455874-lock-her-up-chant-breaks-out-at-trump-rally">lock up</a>” Hillary Clinton if elected was hardly meant to be believed – it was primarily an attempt to create an image of himself as someone whose power stands above the law.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298347/original/file-20191023-119429-133dkmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298347/original/file-20191023-119429-133dkmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298347/original/file-20191023-119429-133dkmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298347/original/file-20191023-119429-133dkmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298347/original/file-20191023-119429-133dkmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298347/original/file-20191023-119429-133dkmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298347/original/file-20191023-119429-133dkmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Obama: a bigger inauguration than Trump. In the real world, at least.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.shutterstock.com%2Fgatekeeper%2FW3siZSI6MTU3MTg3MTU3NiwiYyI6Il9waG90b19zZXNzaW9uX2lkIiwiZGMiOiJpZGxfNDQ4NjM4NTgwIiwiayI6InBob3RvLzQ0ODYzODU4MC9tZWRpdW0uanBnIiwibSI6MSwiZCI6InNodXR0ZXJzdG9jay1tZWRpYSJ9LCJXUE9tUVhEWWlXNjZXRk9UVTdaaDFBc2ZIbE0iXQ%2Fshutterstock_448638580.jpg&pi=33421636&m=448638580&src=TPLzLHnMpSclrDEZ_XTRtA-1-0">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Even the lies that do aim to deceive their audiences, perhaps most famously Trump’s demonstrably false claim that his inauguration attracted a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/06/donald-trump-inauguration-crowd-size-photos-edited">larger audience</a> than that of his predecessor Barack Obama, also show to his constituency that he has no need to conform to the norms according to which ordinary people must abide. In this sense, he is still a characteristic example of the <a href="https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2019/june/trump-s-charisma">transgressive Weberian leader</a>.</p>
<p>What is new in post-truth leadership is not its disinterest in reality, but the way in which it demonstrates its otherworldliness: not by avoiding factual statements, but by showing contempt for their importance. This combative approach to facts may be new but its effect is very much in line with traditional charismatic leadership. For, in demonstrating his otherworldliness, a figure like Trump also creates a faith-based world in which he can define what is true.</p>
<p>The present effort to impeach Trump is not merely a power struggle between the Democrats and the Republicans, and nor is it merely a question of the powers of bureaucracy versus a “rogue” leader. The issue is both broader and deeper: it is a test on a grand scale of how deeply ingrained the Weberian notion of leadership is in the Western world.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/125755/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sverre Spoelstra does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The origins of the post-truth age date back decades, but the real world is now fast fading from view.Sverre Spoelstra, Associate professor, Lund UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1234962019-10-09T08:00:30Z2019-10-09T08:00:30ZFake news: emotions and experiences, not more data, could be the antidote<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294810/original/file-20190930-194824-1078yhu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Can you tell one from the other?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.shutterstock.com%2Fgatekeeper%2FW3siZSI6MTU2OTg3MDg3NCwiYyI6Il9waG90b19zZXNzaW9uX2lkIiwiZGMiOiJpZGxfMTA0ODYzNDI0OSIsImsiOiJwaG90by8xMDQ4NjM0MjQ5L21lZGl1bS5qcGciLCJtIjoxLCJkIjoic2h1dHRlcnN0b2NrLW1lZGlhIn0sIjRZTWJ0Mk04S0l4azRoSVNnWjR1ZWJxUHBpcyJd%2Fshutterstock_1048634249.jpg&pi=33421636&m=1048634249&src=MoKiXo0432PSZdM5ChZAHA-1-17">Shutterstock.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>At a time when public debate around the world is suffering from a collision between facts and “<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/conway-press-secretary-gave-alternative-facts-860142147643">alternative facts</a>”, experts must find new ways to reach people.</p>
<p>According to the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fpolitics%2f2019%2f08%2f12%2fpresident-trump-has-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days%2f%3f">Washington Post</a>, Donald Trump has made more than 12,000 false or misleading statements since becoming US president. Despite this, he remains immensely popular with <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx">his own political base</a>, which is energised by his emotional and often aggressive displays. No amount of raw data appears capable of changing their minds.</p>
<p>In the UK, prime minister Boris Johnson is adopting a similar approach. Despite an already <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/30/monday-briefing-groping-claims-about-pm-overshadow-tory-conference">dubious reputation</a> in matters <a href="https://theconversation.com/boris-johnson-by-numbers-the-new-uk-prime-ministers-career-summed-up-120787">personal and professional</a>, and a number of questionable actions since becoming prime minister, including the <a href="https://theconversation.com/q-a-supreme-court-rules-boris-johnsons-prorogation-of-uk-parliament-was-unlawful-so-what-happens-now-124119">unlawful prorogation of parliament</a>, he continues to excite <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/14/tories-extend-poll-lead-to-12-despite-week-of-political-chaos">political supporters</a> with his ostensible charm and <a href="https://www.indy100.com/article/boris-johnson-andrew-marr-show-interview-surrender-bill-mp-death-threats-9125276">aggressive rhetoric</a> of grit and determination. Similarly, he rarely lets facts get in the way of his message.</p>
<p>No doubt Trump and Johnson are passionate when they speak, but they seem to care little about the truth. Both incessantly repeat their exaggerated, if not always wholly inaccurate, arguments. They routinely exploit their own gut feelings, use animated gestures to <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/4-lies-half-truths-boris-20327728">make unfounded claims</a> and dismiss experts and facts that contradict their views. This is the dark side of a political world which often thrives on hatred, greed and arrogance, resistance to facts and a short-circuiting of reason and rationality.</p>
<h2>Facts aren’t enough</h2>
<p>While it may seem fitting to challenge post-truth politics with quantitative research, statistical data and hard facts, this is unlikely always to be sufficient – at least not when confronting emotive societal problems, such as Brexit or climate change.</p>
<p>Since facts and expert knowledge are frequently dismissed as “<a href="https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/28/castro-on-impeachment-trump-vpx.cnn">fake news</a>” or drowned out in a deluge of “alternative facts”, simply offering more data and facts may not work against politicians and people who <a href="https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128490874&t=1570540628763">show resistance</a> to <a href="https://www.tidningencurie.se/en/nyheter/2016/09/20/when-facts-make-no-difference/">facts that conflict</a> with their <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-facts-dont-matter-to-trumps-supporters/2016/08/04/924ece4a-5a78-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html">prejudices or feelings</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/traitors-betrayal-surrender-british-politics-now-dripping-with-terms-that-fuel-division-124318">Traitors, betrayal, surrender: British politics now dripping with terms that fuel division</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Whether examining Brexit, public austerity measures or the effects of climate change, one limitation is that facts and data generated through quantitative social research are presented as if detached from the people they concern as well as those involved in their production. Far removed from people’s lived experiences, they risk displacing any sense of what it is to be human. As such, they are, perhaps, too easy to dismiss.</p>
<p>So, can qualitative social research – where the focus is not on abstract facts but on what things mean for people in their everyday lives – come to the rescue? As we argue in our new book, <a href="https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.sagepub.com%2Fen-gb%2Feur%2Fembodied-research-methods%2Fbook243820%23description&data=02%7C01%7Cd.knights%40lancaster.ac.uk%7C2e1e93799e0e4b78166008d73a759274%7C9c9bcd11977a4e9ca9a0bc734090164a%7C1%7C1%7C637042148958331847&sdata=CalOnm5Jsmb%2B8dlUzepU3R46wX1iKwP5sKEajmQe2g8%3D&reserved=0">Embodied Research Methods</a>, social scientists do not and cannot rely just on data. When genuinely committed to understanding everyday life, they must also craft rich, nuanced and vivid accounts that flesh out how people live and struggle with the problems they encounter.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294811/original/file-20190930-194832-1ebwrya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294811/original/file-20190930-194832-1ebwrya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294811/original/file-20190930-194832-1ebwrya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294811/original/file-20190930-194832-1ebwrya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294811/original/file-20190930-194832-1ebwrya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294811/original/file-20190930-194832-1ebwrya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294811/original/file-20190930-194832-1ebwrya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Is that a fact I hear?’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.shutterstock.com%2Fgatekeeper%2FW3siZSI6MTU2OTg3MTAwMSwiYyI6Il9waG90b19zZXNzaW9uX2lkIiwiZGMiOiJpZGxfMTQ4NTYwNjY5MiIsImsiOiJwaG90by8xNDg1NjA2NjkyL21lZGl1bS5qcGciLCJtIjoxLCJkIjoic2h1dHRlcnN0b2NrLW1lZGlhIn0sIk9vaW13UFoyb1BaMXRQcjZ1aldCdGxxa21MNCJd%2Fshutterstock_1485606692.jpg&pi=33421636&m=1485606692&src=X1Obg5CT_CATaRLQY91QVQ-1-35">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The renowned sociologist <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-politics-of-truth-9780195343045">C Wright Mills</a> knew this when arguing that social science can only be meaningful to people if it examines societal problems, personal troubles – and <a href="http://infed.org/mobi/c-wright-mills-power-craftsmanship-and-private-troubles-and-public-issues/">how they are connected</a>. As well as through data, alternative facts must be countered by the shared stories, experiences and emotions of real people and how they are affected by the big global issues.</p>
<p>Public austerity measures, for example, are not simply about financial facts. Indeed, when presented merely as economic data, many people can neither identify with nor understand them. Instead, austerity poses problems that compel us to examine how they affect people and families in their daily lives. The experiences of those individuals must be shared. </p>
<p>Similarly, the effects of climate change cannot merely be measured and understood in terms of rising temperatures and sea levels. They also require an examination of how people manage their lives in a variety of ways to adapt to this changing world.</p>
<h2>How people feel</h2>
<p>Whether social scientists interview people face-to-face or engage in participant observations, they uncover – and can share – felt experiences that reveal how the big issues facing the world are truly affecting individuals and communities. This does not mean the research is any less robust than if they had limited themselves to collecting quantitative data. But it does help to make the big issues – and their consequences – more relatable, more real.</p>
<p>This even has implications for how we investigate pending events, such as Brexit. Statistical estimates have already been made to show the likely effects of a <a href="https://www.theweek.co.uk/fact-check/95547/fact-check-what-a-no-deal-brexit-really-means">no-deal Brexit on the UK economy</a> but have been vehemently dismissed by Brexiteers as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/21/brexiteers-project-fear-expert-warnings">scaremongering</a>. Qualitative research can help challenge such dismissals by exploring how people experience and deal with the prospects of Brexit in their everyday lives, and by showing the variety of concerns that drive their views, decisions and actions. While there are never any guarantees in research or politics, qualitative research may connect to people’s lives in ways that raw numbers rarely do. </p>
<p>As world-leading neuroscientist Antonio Damasio <a>has shown</a>, feeling pain and pleasure can help us to make reasonable, rational decisions. As it is feelings of pleasure and pain that make people care about the consequences of their actions, people may be more likely to care about – and strive to understand – qualitative research which evokes such feelings. </p>
<p>This does not mean that we should dress up findings and arguments in strongly emotional claims, but rather conduct and share research in ways that help people connect to, care about and understand the people and issues in the research. As feelings help us care about what is going on, they are an important antidote which can make us question unfounded claims, hasty conclusions and fake news.</p>
<p>If social scientists care about being relevant in the struggle against post-truth politics, we cannot merely rely on quantitative data and raw facts. We also need to do research that connects to, brings to life and fleshes out the struggles of people in everyday life.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123496/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Knights is affiliated with the Labour party</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Torkild Thanem receives funding from the Swedish Research Council. </span></em></p>The world faces a collision between facts and alternative facts – so how do experts get their message heard over the din of fake news?David Knights, Professor of Organisation Studies, Lancaster UniversityTorkild Thanem, Professor of Management & Organisation Studies, Stockholm UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/998112018-07-17T20:01:39Z2018-07-17T20:01:39ZSurvey: In the era of ‘fake news’, Americans would like to change the media model<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227455/original/file-20180712-27015-17oqjjb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4744%2C3158&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Then-Fox anchor Megyn Kelly covering the 2012 Democratic National Convention.
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News#/media/File:2012_DNC_day_3_Fox_News_(7959676796).jpg">Steve Bott/Wikimedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-media-is-a-key-dimension-of-global-inequality-69084">November 2016 article</a>, Nick Couldry and Clemencia Rodriguez (from the <a href="http://www.ipsp.org/">International Panel on Social Progress</a>) stated that “media infrastructure is a common good whose governance and design should be much more open to democratic engagement than currently.” Does the population agree with this view?</p>
<p>In an April 2017 Internet survey of 1,041 individuals representative of the age and race composition of the adult population in the United States, we explored people’s perceptions and use of the media.</p>
<h2>Internet dominates time use</h2>
<p>Let’s start with basics. The survey indicates that the American population spends a significant amount of time on the Internet, a trend driven by the young, the high-income people, and the politically progressive.</p>
<p>What do Americans do on Internet? E-mail is at the top of the things that take the most time, followed by social media. While e-mail leads the list, social-media use is driven by a fraction of avid users, who primarily include the young and the politically progressive.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227467/original/file-20180712-27033-5f0weq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227467/original/file-20180712-27033-5f0weq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227467/original/file-20180712-27033-5f0weq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227467/original/file-20180712-27033-5f0weq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227467/original/file-20180712-27033-5f0weq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227467/original/file-20180712-27033-5f0weq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227467/original/file-20180712-27033-5f0weq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Internet contributes to the growing diversity of sources</h2>
<p>When asked about the sources of news, a striking pattern appears. TV still dominates daily news, but media websites and social media have become much more important than newspapers. Moreover, among the sources that are rarely used, newspapers are now cited by 37% of the respondents. Non-traditional websites and blogs are still trail newspapers, but are now very close. Person-to-person discussions are the news source that is the least relied upon.</p>
<p>Those who identify themselves as politically progressive access all kinds of news sources, whereas those who are relatively conservative tend to rely more on newspapers and magazines than other sources (even controlling for age and other characteristics). Compared to men, women have higher use of the radio, TV, newspapers and magazines, and alternative media. More educated people are relying less on TV news and unsurprisingly, the elderly prefer using newspapers and TV, confirming that there is a trend linked to generations.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227443/original/file-20180712-27021-ooyjjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227443/original/file-20180712-27021-ooyjjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227443/original/file-20180712-27021-ooyjjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227443/original/file-20180712-27021-ooyjjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227443/original/file-20180712-27021-ooyjjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227443/original/file-20180712-27021-ooyjjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227443/original/file-20180712-27021-ooyjjz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Low trust, high concerns</h2>
<p>Given the diversity of sources, how do people value the content? Respondents were asked how much they endorsed certain sentences about the media, from 0 (completely disagree) to 100 (complete agree).</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227444/original/file-20180712-27033-ccqljc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227444/original/file-20180712-27033-ccqljc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=192&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227444/original/file-20180712-27033-ccqljc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=192&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227444/original/file-20180712-27033-ccqljc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=192&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227444/original/file-20180712-27033-ccqljc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=241&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227444/original/file-20180712-27033-ccqljc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=241&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227444/original/file-20180712-27033-ccqljc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=241&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The value of 50 found about the objectivity of the news is worrisome, because it means that, overall, those surveyed neither agree nor disagree with the statement that news are presented in an objective way. And this score does not mean that people have no strong opinion, because there are quite diverse levels of endorsement for various respondents. Men, the conservative, the educated and the more religious are less inclined than the other categories to believe that news are objective.</p>
<p>There is a stronger consensus on the view that news are too focused on the negative.</p>
<p>Similarly, when asked to rank on a scale of 0 to 100 how concerned they are about particular issues with the media, respondents point to influence of the media owners before perceptions of government meddling and commercial tracking. Foreign influence is a lesser issue.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227445/original/file-20180712-27030-103fewd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227445/original/file-20180712-27030-103fewd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=124&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227445/original/file-20180712-27030-103fewd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=124&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227445/original/file-20180712-27030-103fewd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=124&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227445/original/file-20180712-27030-103fewd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=156&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227445/original/file-20180712-27030-103fewd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=156&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227445/original/file-20180712-27030-103fewd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=156&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The conservative respondents are less concerned that the news they get may be controlled by the owners of media or foreign powers. Those with progressive political views are relatively more concerned about their news access being monitored by private corporations for commercial tracking.</p>
<p>Even if our survey was performed before recent events involving <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-impossible-for-facebook-users-to-protect-themselves-from-data-exploitation-93800">Facebook and Cambridge Analytica</a>, our survey shows a strong concern about corporate use of private data as well as government surveillance.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227446/original/file-20180712-27027-1tjcccb.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227446/original/file-20180712-27027-1tjcccb.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=179&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227446/original/file-20180712-27027-1tjcccb.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=179&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227446/original/file-20180712-27027-1tjcccb.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=179&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227446/original/file-20180712-27027-1tjcccb.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=225&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227446/original/file-20180712-27027-1tjcccb.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=225&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227446/original/file-20180712-27027-1tjcccb.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=225&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The politically progressive and middle-aged are more concerned than others about government surveillance and corporate use of personal information. Women and the rich are less concerned than others with hate speech.</p>
<h2>A “liberal bias”?</h2>
<p>When more explicitly asked about media bias in the news, the respondents have a more widely shared view that the bias is toward the left than the right of the political spectrum. But other important bias concerns are expressed about social movements, the government and business interests. Religions and minorities are less of a concern.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227448/original/file-20180712-27036-5jugcu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227448/original/file-20180712-27036-5jugcu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227448/original/file-20180712-27036-5jugcu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227448/original/file-20180712-27036-5jugcu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227448/original/file-20180712-27036-5jugcu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=784&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227448/original/file-20180712-27036-5jugcu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=784&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227448/original/file-20180712-27036-5jugcu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=784&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Unsurprisingly, respondents with strong political views are more likely to feel that there is a bias against their views in the news. The non-white are less likely, and the non-religious more likely, to find a left-leaning bias in the media. The middle class, the more educated, the non-white and the non-religious are less concerned about pro-government bias. Women and politically progressive respondents worry more than others about a pro-business bias. The rich believe that news are too much in favour of protestors whereas minorities think the opposite. Older people are less inclined to believe that the media are disrespectful of minorities whereas the progressives think otherwise.</p>
<h2>The media, a public service</h2>
<p>The current business model for the media in most countries, and particularly in the United States, is as a for-profit, private business. This model is rejected by 80% of survey respondents, with only 13% approving. Surprisingly, perhaps, those who are more willing to pay for news include women, the young and the politically progressive, whereas religious respondents have mixed views – the most religious are more opposed to the private model than the moderately religious.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227450/original/file-20180712-27042-s2r2e8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227450/original/file-20180712-27042-s2r2e8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=138&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227450/original/file-20180712-27042-s2r2e8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=138&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227450/original/file-20180712-27042-s2r2e8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=138&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227450/original/file-20180712-27042-s2r2e8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=174&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227450/original/file-20180712-27042-s2r2e8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=174&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227450/original/file-20180712-27042-s2r2e8.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=174&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The private-business model relies on advertisement as a funding source. This is indeed considered bothersome by 59% of the respondents. Women are less bothered than men.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227451/original/file-20180712-27036-fqy3x1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227451/original/file-20180712-27036-fqy3x1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=218&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227451/original/file-20180712-27036-fqy3x1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=218&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227451/original/file-20180712-27036-fqy3x1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=218&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227451/original/file-20180712-27036-fqy3x1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=273&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227451/original/file-20180712-27036-fqy3x1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=273&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227451/original/file-20180712-27036-fqy3x1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=273&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On a scale from 0 (not important at all) to 100 (very important), respondents strongly support a participatory and inclusive model for the media.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227471/original/file-20180712-27015-1bq2pkm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227471/original/file-20180712-27015-1bq2pkm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=119&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227471/original/file-20180712-27015-1bq2pkm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=119&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227471/original/file-20180712-27015-1bq2pkm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=119&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227471/original/file-20180712-27015-1bq2pkm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=149&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227471/original/file-20180712-27015-1bq2pkm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=149&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227471/original/file-20180712-27015-1bq2pkm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=149&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The politically progressive and middle-aged are more in favour of citizens having a voice in the decisions about management of media, whereas the rich oppose this view. Those who identify as religious and the elderly are relatively unconcerned about creating content for diffusing on the Internet whereas it is favoured by women and progressives. Racial minorities, the middle aged and progressives more strongly support minorities being represented in the media.</p>
<p>People’s critical views about the current situation do not induce a consensus about the most likely future of the media, and all scenarios receive some support. It interesting to see that increased private control of the media is not seen as more likely than increased public control, either by the government or by grassroots journalism.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227454/original/file-20180712-27018-fv72gn.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227454/original/file-20180712-27018-fv72gn.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=277&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227454/original/file-20180712-27018-fv72gn.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=277&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227454/original/file-20180712-27018-fv72gn.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=277&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227454/original/file-20180712-27018-fv72gn.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=348&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227454/original/file-20180712-27018-fv72gn.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=348&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227454/original/file-20180712-27018-fv72gn.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=348&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p><em>This article was co-written by Pariroo Rattan.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99811/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc Fleurbaey and the International Panel of Social Progress have received funding from IFFS for this survey. </span></em></p>Are Americans ready for a new media model? A new survey indicates that, surprisingly, those who are more willing to pay for news include women and the young.Marc Fleurbaey, Professor in Economics and Humanistic Studies, Princeton UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/987382018-06-28T14:34:39Z2018-06-28T14:34:39ZFrom alternative facts to tender age shelters – how euphemisms become political weapons of mass distraction<p>The recent images of children in cages provided yet another reason to throw your head into your hands over America’s inhumane treatment of immigrants. So – for most of us – it was a great relief to hear that Donald Trump eventually gave into pressure and signed an executive order to stop enforcing the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/20/babies-and-toddlers-sent-to-tender-age-shelters-under-trump-separations">laws mandating the separation of children</a> from their parents. But there are still many hundreds of young people detained in the euphemistically termed “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/shortcuts/2018/jun/20/tender-age-shelters-a-new-way-to-describe-the-kidnapping-of-children">tender age shelters</a>” – in reality, prisons for children and toddlers. </p>
<p>Who comes up with these terms? They are not fooling anyone – especially as “tender” and “shelters” have completely different meanings to what is, in fact, the enforced separation of children who are then held in cages. That’s the trouble with euphemisms – they can enrich language, but in the hands of politicians they can be strategically used to mislead and disguise brutal practices, concepts and ideas. Euphemisms – or what are known in some quarters as “<a href="https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/weasel-words.html">weasel words</a>” – are used to conceal the truth of unpalatable situations or practises so that they are easier for the public to accept. </p>
<p>Who can forget “collateral damage” – or rather the incidental deaths and injuries of unintended and non-combatant victims? The euphemism - from the Latin word <em>collateralis</em>, which means “together with” – was adopted by the US military in the mid-20th century to describe the unintentional deaths that occurred “together with” the targeting of legitimate targets. The term was <a href="https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/97000.html">first used in the 1961 article</a> “Dispersal, Deterrence, and Damage” by Nobel Prize-winning economist D.C. Schelling. He argued that weapons could be designed and deployed in such a way as to avoid collateral damage and thus control the war.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"749665745643053057"}"></div></p>
<h2>Aristotelian ‘logos’</h2>
<p>Historically, euphemisms are part of the rhetorical speech styles (from the Greek <em>rhêtorikê</em>) associated with the oratory skills necessary for political speeches, where persuasion is primarily the intended effect. Rhetoric can be defined as the “art of discourse” or, more precisely, the “art of persuasive discourse”. It is the ability to persuade an audience mostly through linguistic strategies.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225118/original/file-20180627-112607-y0hxjh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225118/original/file-20180627-112607-y0hxjh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=803&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225118/original/file-20180627-112607-y0hxjh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=803&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225118/original/file-20180627-112607-y0hxjh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=803&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225118/original/file-20180627-112607-y0hxjh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1009&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225118/original/file-20180627-112607-y0hxjh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1009&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225118/original/file-20180627-112607-y0hxjh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1009&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bust of Aristotle: Roman copy after a Greek bronze original by Lysippos.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia Commons</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This style of speaking dates back to classical times and to Aristotle and his concept of “logos” or how audiences are persuaded by the reasoning contained in an argument conveyed by the speech. “Logos” represents what Aristotle called one of the three “modes of proof” – along with “ethos” (which relates to the speaker’s personality and the audience believing that the speaker is trustworthy and honest) and “pathos” (where persuasion is evoked through emotions, brought on by engagement and empathy). </p>
<h2>Newspeak</h2>
<p>According to Orwell in <a href="http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit">his 1946 essay</a> “Politics and the English Language”, the use of euphemisms also helps to avoid the mental images that more direct language would conjure up. Take, for example, the ambiguous language of “doublethink” and “newspeak” in Orwell’s dystopian 1948 novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called <em>pacification</em> … Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Euphemisms are not just limited to politician-speak, they are very much part of everyday communication and can be found in abundance when dealing with taboo subjects. They help us to politely navigate our way around talk of death, sex, sexual orientation and genitalia. Expressions such as “<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1990.tb00566.x">economical with the truth</a> (read "lies”) and “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-2337,00.html">tired and emotional</a>” (read “drunk”) are now so embedded into our vernacular that no-one pauses to think twice about these indirect word choices. But, for politicians, weasel words are an integral part of the rhetorical toolkit – a style of spoken or written language that functions to persuade.</p>
<h2>Alternative facts</h2>
<p>It didn’t take long for the Trump administration to wheel out one of the more ridiculous euphemisms of recent times. The day after Trump’s inauguration, the counsellor to the US president, Kellyanne Conway, came up with the much-derided “alternative facts” to counter accusations that the then White House press secretary Sean Spicer had lied about the crowd size at Trump’s inauguration. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VSrEEDQgFc8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Politicians of all stripes quickly come to realise how useful it can be to soften the impact of unpopular actions with some carefully chosen weasel words. Former UK prime minister Tony Blair was a great user of euphemisms in his political discourse. Many examples can be found in his interviews and speeches in 2003 to justify the Second Gulf War on Iraq, for example. He spoke of the “liberation of Iraq” (meaning occupation), “peace-keeping” (meaning war) and these could only be achieved by “removing Saddam” (meaning his death rather than forcing him from a position of power).</p>
<p>A decade earlier, the slaughter, torture and imprisonment of Bosnian Muslims in Serbia was described as “<a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethnic-cleansing">ethnic cleansing</a>” when there is nothing purifying about these war crimes. </p>
<p>The US government’s “<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11723189">enhanced interrogation techniques</a>” is another example of strategic word choices to disguise systematic torture. When he was US president, Barack Obama tended to avoid using the word “war”, preferring to use words such as “effort”, “process”, “fight” and “campaign” to describe the military action against ISIS, Iraq and Syria as it lessens the violence that war connotes.</p>
<p>Euphemisms have become part of political discourse that intentionally obscures, misleads or distracts audiences from unpleasant truths. Unfortunately, this is what politicians do with language and this is how they win support for otherwise unpalatable policies.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/98738/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marina Lambrou does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Why don’t politicians just say what they mean? Because we might not like it.Marina Lambrou, Associate Professor in English Language and Linguistics, Kingston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/876062017-11-16T22:26:42Z2017-11-16T22:26:42ZA Robert De Niro Theory of Post-Truth: ‘Are you talking to me?’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194971/original/file-20171116-17112-19pygv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In Taxi Driver, Robert De Niro's character, Travis Bickle, inhabits his own crazy paradigm, yet ultimately events frame him as a hero in the eyes of others too.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxoczOXRi4">YouTube </a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This article is part of an <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/post-truth-initiative-38606">ongoing series</a> from the <a href="https://posttruthinitiative.org/">Post-Truth Initiative</a>, a Strategic Research Excellence Initiative at the University of Sydney. The series examines today’s post-truth problem in public discourse: the thriving economy of lies, bullshit and propaganda that threatens rational discourse and policy.</em></p>
<p><em>Over two days from November 20, the Post-Truth Initiative will host a series of events, including an evening <a href="https://posttruthinitiative.org/aec_events/sydney-ideas-truth-evidence-and-reason-who-can-we-believe/">question and answer session</a> on the 20th with invited guests from around the world. The project brings together scholars of media and communications, government and international relations, physics, philosophy, linguistics and medicine, and is affiliated with the Sydney Social Sciences and Humanities Advanced Research Centre (<a href="http://chcinetwork.org/sydney-social-sciences-and-humanities-advanced-research-centre-sssharc">SSSHARC</a>), the <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/environment-institute/">Sydney Environment Institute</a> and the <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org/">Sydney Democracy Network</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Many of the commentaries on post-truth have attempted to locate the sources of it. Where does post-truth discourse come from, and who is responsible for producing it?</p>
<p>Looked at this way, post-truth will never be found. It does not exist there. There is nothing new about politicians and the powerful telling lies, spinning, producing propaganda, dissembling, or bullshitting. Machiavellianism became a common term of political discourse precisely because it embodies Machiavelli’s belief that all leaders might, at some point, need to lie.</p>
<p>Lying is not an aberration in politics. Political theorist <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/strauss-leo/">Leo Strauss</a>, developing a concept first outlined by Plato, coined the term “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie#Leo_Strauss">noble lie</a>” to refer to an untruth knowingly propagated by an elite to maintain social harmony or advance an agenda.</p>
<p>Questions about the agents of post-truth, and attempts to locate the sources of political bullshit, are just not grasping what is new and specific about post-truth. If we look for post-truth in the realm of the production of disinformation, we will not find it. This is why so many are sceptical that the concept of post-truth represents anything new. Not all haystacks contain needles.</p>
<p>So where is post-truth located, and how did we get here? Post-truth resides not in the realm of the production, but in the realm of reception. If lies, dissembling, spinning, propaganda and the creation of bullshit have always been part and parcel of politics, then what has changed is how publics respond to them. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/post-truth">Oxford Dictionary definition</a> of post-truth makes this clear; post-truth refers to “circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”.</p>
<h2>The problem with ‘objective facts’</h2>
<p>While this definition captures the essence of the problem, most academics, particularly those working in the humanities, arts and social sciences (HASS), will immediately identify one glaring problem with it. This is the concept of “objective facts”. Anyone with an awareness of the work of Thomas Kuhn, Michel Foucault, or Ludwig Wittgenstein will know that facts are always contestable. </p>
<p>If they weren’t, public debate on complex policy issues would be easy. We could simply identify the objective facts and build policy on them.</p>
<p>Facts are social constructions. If there were no humans, no human societies and no human languages, there would be no facts. Facts are a particular kind of socially constructed entity. </p>
<p>Facts express a relationship between what we claim and what exists. We construct facts to convey information about the world. </p>
<p>But this does not mean we can just make up any facts we please. What makes something a fact is that it captures some features of the world to which it refers. The validity of our facts is dependent, in part, on their relationship to the world they describe. Something that fails accurately to describe something, or some state of affairs, is not a fact.</p>
<h2>Enter ‘alternative facts’…</h2>
<p>What about “alternative facts”? The idea is not as far-fetched as it seems. Kuhn’s <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/484164a">The Structure of Scientific Revolutions</a> is one of the most influential academic texts on the history of science. Kuhn’s concept of paradigms has seeped into public debate. But Kuhn’s notion of scientific “progress” occurring through a change in paradigm not only legitimates alternative facts it depends on them. </p>
<p>Each paradigm, according to Kuhn, has its own facts. Facts in one paradigm are not recognised as facts by adherents of alternative paradigms. Kuhn went so far as to argue that scientists from different paradigms lived in different worlds.</p>
<p>Facts, Kuhn argued, are always relative to the overarching paradigm. As such, Donald Trump and his supporters might claim to be simply occupying a different paradigm. </p>
<p>One can derive a similar position from Foucault’s notion of regimes of truth. Truth, according to Foucault, is relative to the regime in which it is embedded. And regimes of truth differ across time and place.</p>
<p>Or one can approach this via Wittgenstein’s notion of “language games”: unless one understands the rules of the game one is unable to take part. Transposed into contemporary political debate, the left and right each have their own paradigm, regime, truth, or language game.</p>
<p>Even if we do not accept Kuhn’s notion of paradigms, Kellyanne Conway could have meant, as she later <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/03/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts-mistake-oscars">tried to claim</a>, that the Trump administration simply had a different perspective on the status of the facts, and a differing view of what facts matter. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VSrEEDQgFc8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Kellyanne Conway explains that White House press secretary Sean Spicer offered “alternative facts”.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Admitting the role of academia</h2>
<p>Again, most academics will recognise the validity of this idea. There are always multiple perspectives on complex issues. The facts, as we constantly remind our students, don’t speak for themselves. Which facts are relevant, and what to make of them, is always a matter of interpretation.</p>
<p>Thus, post-truth finds intellectual legitimation in the necessary and critical approach to the construction of knowledge that is taken as a given in academia. Academics necessarily, and rightly, take a sceptical attitude to all truth claims. </p>
<p>We encourage students to express their opinion. We teach them that alternative views are to be valued. Nietzschean perspectivism is the default position of most academics, and we are loath to reach definitive conclusions particularly in ethical and political matters. Indeed, the University of Sydney now implores students to “<a href="https://twitter.com/sjw_nonsense/status/906155654154412032">unlearn truth</a>”.</p>
<p>This idea is not as outrageous as it might sound, although taken literally the consequences of “unlearning truth”, as we are discovering with post-truth politics, could be disastrous. But understood another way, “unlearning truth” is entirely consistent with an Enlightenment ethos.</p>
<p>Kant’s call to arms in the service of Enlightenment was <em>Sapere Aude</em>; dare to know. This was a call for humanity to overthrow its reliance on the church, the monarchy and other sources of authority as providing the secure grounds for knowledge claims. Take nothing at face value, and reason for oneself.</p>
<p>The Enlightenment also promoted the idea of inalienable human rights possessed by every individual and revived the ancient Greek concept of democracy; one person one vote; everyone has their say on political matters. In this context, it is possible to view post-truth discourse as the radicalisation of the Enlightenment. Specifically, in the realm of knowledge production, it is the democratisation of epistemology.</p>
<p>While democracy might be a political principle worth defending, there is a tension between it and the democratisation of epistemology. Democracy needs a population sufficiently well educated to be able to sift through the arguments and reach informed judgements.</p>
<p>This was the great hope of Enlightenment liberalism, particularly in relation to the provision of education. Increased access to education would bring progress and peace. A highly educated populace would make democracy function better.</p>
<h2>Confronting the post-truth paradox</h2>
<p>Despite the fact that by any standards Western populations are better educated than in Kant’s time, we seem to be regressing rather than progressing in terms of democratic practice. This is the post-truth paradox. The more educated societies have become, the more dysfunctional democracy seems to be. The supposed positive link between democracy, education and knowledge appears to be broken.</p>
<p>How can we explain this paradox, and can we do anything about it? Although many have been quick to blame postmodernism for the emergence of post-truth, the problem is much broader than that and infects most of the humanities, arts and social sciences. Postmodernism is only the most radical version of the idea that we should value, and allow a voice to, all opinions. </p>
<p>The political impulse behind this is admirable. Few academics are so arrogant to claim that they possess the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Allowing others, particularly marginalised others, to express “their truth” is seen as progressive.</p>
<p>Although many academics will not embrace the extremes of postmodernism, the ethos behind that approach is understandable to most. This explains why what seems to many outside of the academy to be a lunatic fringe has become so influential within the academy. Foucault, for example, is one of the most <a href="https://philosophyinatimeoferror.com/2016/07/05/most-cited-philosophers-and-others/">cited authors in HASS subjects</a>.</p>
<p>To be clear, I am not arguing that Trump and others in his administration have read the likes of Kuhn, Foucault and Wittgenstein. The problem is worse than that. It is a structural issue. </p>
<p>Increased access to education has suffused these ideas throughout the social field. Few people who have attended universities in HASS subjects in the last 30 years could have escaped exposure to these ideas. The incipient relativism that is the logical endpoint of them is now deeply ingrained in Western societies.</p>
<p>Of course, academics are not the only source of post-truth. But in an important way, they have contributed to it. When measuring our impact on society we only have two options. Either we have some impact, or we do not. </p>
<p>For some time now, those working in HASS subjects have been concerned to demonstrate how their research and teaching matters in practical ways to society. There is a logic to this, as governments increasingly seek to validate funding for HASS subjects on the basis of their supposed <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/research-impact-principles-and-framework">impact</a> on society.</p>
<p>As the supposed guardians of truth, knowledge and the commitment to science, universities cannot have it both ways. If academics make a difference and publics no longer seem to care about facts, truth and reason, then we cannot be absolved of all responsibility for this situation. Indeed, if we do deny our responsibility, we as good as admit that have we little impact on society.</p>
<h2>What can we do about this?</h2>
<p>If universities are the social institutions whose function is to produce and protect knowledge and truth, and if those same institutions are, in part, the source of post-truth, what can we do about it?</p>
<p>First we need to recover our intellectual nerve. We need to situate critical approaches to the production of knowledge in context. We need to go beyond simply introducing students to critique and explore with them the validity of arguments. We need to be prepared to say that some perspectives are better than others, and explain why.</p>
<p>An embracing of multiple perspectives should not lead us to conclude that all perspectives are equally valid. And if they are not all equally valid we need sound epistemological reasons to choose one over the other. In short, we need to re-examine and reinvigorate the Enlightenment impulse.</p>
<p>Second, we need to recover our commitment to objective truth. George Orwell has been much cited as a prescient figure in understanding post-truth. Orwell believed: “The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.” </p>
<p>Yet the concept of “objective truth” has not merely faded out of the world; it has been sent into exile. Few academics embrace the concept today.</p>
<p>This well-founded scepticism towards “objective truth” comes from the confusion between an ontological belief in the existence of objective truth, and an epistemological claim to know it. The two are not synonymous. We can retain our critical stance to epistemological claims about objective truth only by insisting on its status as something that exists but which no one possesses.</p>
<p>As Orwell knew only too well, if the concept of objective truth is moved into the dustbin of history there can be no lies. And if there are no lies there can be no justice, no rights and no wrongs. The concept of “objective truth” is what makes claims about social justice possible.</p>
<p>The irony, of course, is that most academics will claim to be doing just this. After all, most academics will have no problem in declaring climate change to be human-produced, that women remain disadvantaged in many areas of life, that poverty is real, and that racism is founded on false beliefs.</p>
<p>The issue is not that we all make these universal truth claims; it is that in embracing epistemological positions that tend towards relativism, we have denied ourselves a secure ground on which to defend them. In which case, these truth claims appear as nothing other than opinions, perspectives, or expressions of the identity we most value. And if academics cannot ground their truth claims on something other than opinions, perspectives or identity, then how can we expect anyone else to do so?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87606/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Colin Wight does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As Orwell knew only too well, if the concept of objective truth is moved into the dustbin of history there can be no lies. And if there are no lies there can be no justice, no rights and no wrongs.Colin Wight, Professor of International Relations, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/873052017-11-13T23:09:56Z2017-11-13T23:09:56ZOculus and our troubles with (virtual) reality<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194221/original/file-20171111-29352-imh4mm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg announces the launch of Oculus Go virtual reality headset in October.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Handout)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Last month, Facebook-owned virtual reality company, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/11/oculus-go-announced-by-facebook.html">Oculus, announced its new device, Oculus Go</a>. </p>
<p>Go, the successor to Oculus Rift, is a cheaper standalone virtual reality (VR) headset and controller system set for release in 2018. The company boasts that the new system allows users to immerse themselves in over 1,000 games, social apps and 360˚ experiences, and step inside a personal portable theatre to watch movies, TV shows, sports and play games. </p>
<p>At a much lower cost than the previous iteration (US$199 compared to $599 for the Oculus Rift), Oculus Go is likely to become very popular. </p>
<p>Similarly, <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/17/16487936/microsoft-windows-mixed-reality-vr-headsets-guide-pricing-features">Microsoft partners, including Acer, Dell, HP and Lenovo, announced their own headsets</a> in the US$299 to $530 range, built to the technology giant’s specifications. And <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/4/16403276/google-daydream-view-vr-headset-price-release-date-features">Google announced its $99 Daydream View</a> — up in price from $79 for the previous smartphone-headset model.</p>
<p>These increasingly affordable devices are likely to excite many. But VR has long been a part of our popular culture. Throughout its history, new VR technologies have forced us to ask questions about its impact on culture and society.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.uwinnipeg.ca/experts-guide/matthew-flisfeder.html">my research</a> on media, popular culture and ideology, I’ve traced some of the ways that new media have changed how we see and experience reality.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194424/original/file-20171113-27616-1w2qfdj.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194424/original/file-20171113-27616-1w2qfdj.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194424/original/file-20171113-27616-1w2qfdj.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194424/original/file-20171113-27616-1w2qfdj.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194424/original/file-20171113-27616-1w2qfdj.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194424/original/file-20171113-27616-1w2qfdj.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194424/original/file-20171113-27616-1w2qfdj.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/194424/original/file-20171113-27616-1w2qfdj.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Acer is one of several Microsoft partners launching consumer-priced mixed-reality headsets.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Handout)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>VR in popular culture</h2>
<p>Following the arrival of photography in the 1830s, the diorama, and then the panorama, were built structures that reproduced scenes made to look like the real world. Panoramas and dioramas are still used in shopping malls, window displays, museums and galleries to emulate the appearance of the traditional town square.</p>
<p>The arrival of cinema, and then television, truly gave us a new sense of VR. Movies and TV brought scenes, fantasies and fictions closer to us. </p>
<p>The way we tend to imagine new fully immersive VR technology has come from its depiction in popular literature, film and television.</p>
<p>William Gibson’s novel, <em>Neuromancer</em> (1984), deals with a VR “cyberspace” environment called “the matrix.” The book is a precursor to the 1999 film, <em>The Matrix</em>. Other popular sci-fi and cyberpunk films in the 1990s also portray the arrival of immersive VR. These films include Brett Leonard’s <em>The Lawnmower Man</em> (1992), Josef Rusnak’s <em>The Thirteenth Floor</em> (1999), David Cronenberg’s <em>eXistenZ</em> (1999) and Kathryn Bigelow’s <em>Strange Days</em> (1995).</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vKQi3bBA1y8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The Matrix film series helped to create a popular vision of virtual reality.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>Star Trek: The Next Generation</em>’s (1987-1994) holodeck showed a much more optimistic portrayal of the possibilities of VR. But unlike its depiction on <em>Star Trek</em>, VR is used in other works to question the impact of the media and entertainment in creating alternate and possibly harmful realities. Perhaps that’s a reflection of our suspicions about the dangers of media manipulation.</p>
<h2>Propaganda, “fake news” and “alternative facts”</h2>
<p>Recently, the idea of alternate or alternative realities has moved from the fantasy worlds of the big screen to the small real-time screens of the news. The idea of “alternate realities” has been brought into the spotlight by political commentators observing the presidency of Donald Trump. </p>
<p>Trump shows his disdain for the mainstream mass media by calling it the “fake news.” His former campaign manager and now adviser, Kellyanne Conway, coined the term <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/22/politics/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts/index.html">“alternative facts”</a> to support the false claims of former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer. </p>
<p>Spicer had claimed that Trump’s inauguration was the most highly attended in history. This was not true. The idea of so-called “alternative facts” shows that even fact, truth and reality have become politically divisive and contentious topics.</p>
<p>Much of the discussion around so-called “fake news” and “alternative facts” has also looked at the role of social media, such as <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/mark-zuckerberg-regrets-fake-news-facebook_us_59cc2039e4b05063fe0eed9d">Facebook</a> (the parent company of Oculus). Social media has reportedly played a major role in circulating false information that helped to get Trump <a href="https://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/16/13637310/facebook-fake-news-explained">elected</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VSrEEDQgFc8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Donald Trump political adviser Kellyanne Conway coined the term “alternative facts.”</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Part of the problem with social media is that it produces <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/social-media/2016/11/how-burst-your-social-media-bubble">information bubbles</a>. Because of the algorithmic logic of the platform, people end up trapped in feedback loops of information. Users end up only seeing information in their newsfeeds that reinforces — rather than combats or contradicts — their own world views. Because of this, social media seems to have created more opinion-based segregation in society. This flies in the face of the more traditional democratic notion of the public sphere. </p>
<p>In the democratic public sphere, people are supposed to come together to engage in critical rational debate. Instead, corporate new media offers users safe spaces of rhetorical support for their existing conceptions of reality.</p>
<h2>Both sides of the story</h2>
<p>There is also a parallel that runs here with the meaning of “objectivity” in the media — of reporting fairly and without bias. But misconceptions about “objective journalism” might add to the problem. People think that objectivity means showing “both sides” of the story. But what if one side is factually false? </p>
<p>A good example is climate change and the debate between climate scientists, who research the human causes of climate change, and those who deny the “human footprint” in climate change, <a href="https://theconversation.com/eclipse-of-reason-why-do-people-disbelieve-scientists-81068">ignoring the overwhelming majority of research that supports the climate science</a>.</p>
<p>The new U.S. ambassador to Canada, <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/us-ambassador-knight-craft-1.4366936">Kelly Craft</a>, has said that she believes “both sides” of the climate science. But this raises the question: If “objectivity” is merely the attempt to give legitimacy equally to different “views,” what then is the impact on reality? Does this mean that there is no single reality? No single, objective truth? </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2UFtm33dLB8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">U.S. ambassador to Canada Kelly Craft says she believes “both sides” of the climate science debate.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Representing reality</h2>
<p>The history of VR and entertainment new media suggests that our experiences of reality are constantly reinscribed and redeployed with each new form. This means that representations of reality in different media affect how we see the world and our place within it. </p>
<p>Reality’s portrayal and depiction varies depending upon how it is being represented, and by who is doing or producing the representation of reality. It affects our ethical judgments about how to act and treat other people in the real world.</p>
<p>In the Charlie Brooker sci-fi series <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/10/black-mirror-season-three-review-netflix-men-against-fire/505040/"><em>Black Mirror</em>‘s “Men Against Fire”</a> episode, soldiers are implanted with augmented reality technology — a not-too-distant variation on existing forms such as Google Glass, or even Pokémon Go. The technology lets soldiers see their enemy as vicious monster mutants called “roaches.” </p>
<p>But once the technology fails, one of the soldiers is able to see the enemy for what they really are: Human, poor people trying to escape genocide by the dominant group.</p>
<p>The episode reverses the line from art historian and cultural critic, John Berger, who says: “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe.” In the episode, what we know and believe is affected by the way we see things. </p>
<h2>Total entertainment forever</h2>
<p>Obsessions and critiques of new media are already part of popular culture. Green Day’s “American Idiot” talks about media control. Katy Perry’s “Chained to the Rhythm” portrays a culture of conformity led by our new media. Even Father John Misty’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHpV08wI-bw">“Total Entertainment Forever”</a> begins with the lines, “Bedding Taylor Swift/Every night inside the Oculus Rift.” </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eHpV08wI-bw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Father John Misty’s “Total Entertainment Forever” cautions against the perils of virtual reality.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Misty (whose real name is Josh Tillman) sings about the darker side of our emerging new media and entertainment technologies. The song itself is a testament to our over-investment in entertainment and its ability to obscure reality.</p>
<p>As new media and entertainment technologies are normalized, they tend to have an impact on the way that we experience actual reality. This is not to suggest that our entertainment technologies are necessarily dangerous, or that we face a moral conundrum as we enjoy new media. </p>
<p>But it’s worth asking how our mediated practices of enjoyment in the virtual world still have real-world social and political implications. </p>
<p>As VR technologies like Oculus Go become more popular, we might ask ourselves how our immersion in its world of high-definition simulation impacts our experiences of reality.</p>
<p>As we’ve already witnessed through the political implications of Facebook, and its difficulty with so-called “fake news,” such a question is not entirely politically neutral.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dtwpjnuaVTE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The forthcoming film Steven Spielberg film Ready Player One , based on the novel by Ernest Cline, depicts a near future in which people retreat to a virtual reality world called The OASIS.</span></figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87305/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Flisfeder does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Will the arrival and popularity of Oculus Go and other VR systems make us think differently about alternative realities and so-called alternative facts?Matthew Flisfeder, Assistant Professor of Rhetoric and Communications, University of WinnipegLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/846922017-10-05T01:31:01Z2017-10-05T01:31:01ZAlternative facts do exist: beliefs, lies and politics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/187709/original/file-20170927-16428-8ldsd7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The status of facts and their use in politics hasn’t changed as a result of Donald Trump’s election.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Joshua Roberts</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This piece is republished with permission from <a href="https://griffithreview.com/editions/perils-of-populism/">Perils of Populism</a>, the 57th edition of Griffith Review. Articles are a little longer than most published on The Conversation, presenting an in-depth analysis of the rise of populism across the world.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>It is January 20, 2017, mere hours after Donald Trump has been sworn in as US president. The new White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, has been given a tough assignment for his first-ever press conference in the job: he has to stand before seasoned journalists from the domestic and international press, and lie.</p>
<p>The lie he has to tell isn’t like the usual lies that are told in politics, which use subtle hues of meaning to obfuscate the untruth; there is no built-in buffer that allows for any backpedalling should it be exposed. No, the lie Spicer has to tell is one that is immediately verifiable using various kinds of evidence (pictures, videos, statistics on public transport usage statistics). </p>
<p>Spicer has to tell the press, the TV audience, the world, that Trump’s was the largest presidential inauguration in history.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XXoyk4PDZ4I?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Sean Spicer’s first press conference as press secretary.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The press conference goes terribly. Spicer aggressively throws every skerrick of evidence that Trump’s team has come up with in the hours since the inauguration. More than half of the press conference is devoted to discussing the numbers at the inauguration, and how this claim is justified. </p>
<p>And once his angry, meandering task is complete, he quits the room without taking questions. The claim is so egregious that Trump advisor and former campaign manager Kellyanne Conway defends her colleague by suggesting that Spicer, far from claiming things that are factually incorrect, was actually providing “alternative facts”.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VSrEEDQgFc8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Kellyanne Conway coined the term ‘alternative facts’.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Smelling blood, the media attack the phrase “alternative facts” with remarkable vigour. The self-righteous chorus continues for weeks, and swings from disbelief to mockery, from earnest frown to sardonic grin, all while lamenting the state of political discourse in this post-fact age.</p>
<p>But here’s what they missed. In politics, facts are contestable. This has always been the case: the status of facts and their use in politics hasn’t changed as a result of Trump’s election.</p>
<p>In politics, alternative facts exist. And they always have.</p>
<h2>Scientific versus political propositions</h2>
<p>Facts do exist. I am not enough of a postmodernist, nor enough of a nihilist, to claim the opposite. </p>
<p>There are certainly things that are true – that the world is not flat, for instance – whose truth is supported by various kinds of evidence. These might be called “scientific propositions”, because their truth is verified through certain, standardised methods of collecting and interpreting data, and through the reproduction of experimental tests.</p>
<p>“Political propositions”, which are directly relevant to the governance of people, are designed to appeal to emotions and beliefs, and so cannot be held to the same scrutiny as scientific propositions. </p>
<p>Beliefs operate in a similar way to facts, insofar as a belief generally requires some evidence at an individual level. And a belief, like a fact, must still be justified by this evidence. However, where feelings and intuition count as evidence for a belief, these are purposefully scoured from scientific discourse.</p>
<p>Contrary to the way hypotheses are tested and reproduced, beliefs are formed with very little recourse.</p>
<p>While the vehemently “rational” may decry beliefs for this reason, they undeniably exist and affect the way people make decisions. Belief can override evidence obtained by other means precisely because it is more personal and, in a sense, more humanistic than the impartial scientific method.</p>
<p>Indeed, the simple statement of facts doesn’t seem to be a particularly good tool for persuading someone, as anyone who has had an argument with a climate-change sceptic will have found. Perhaps this follows from scientific evidence being divorced from daily experience; most people don’t have experience of evolution by natural selection, for instance, as it generally occurs on a timescale that is inaccessible to humans.</p>
<p>And so, if someone doesn’t subscribe to scientific consensus, wouldn’t it be strange for them to base a belief on it? </p>
<p>But belief is even more complicated than this. For instance, the existence of germs is outside the direct experience of most people, yet germ theory predicts the spread of disease in a way that makes sense given people’s observations. Without having seen a germ, most people believe that they exist, and attribute diseases to their presence – instead of, say, an imbalance in the “humours” (bodily fluids that, until the 19th century, were thought to regulate disease). </p>
<p>It is interesting to note that this earlier belief in humours was widely held by lay people and physicians alike, precisely because it explained illness in a way that was intuitive and metaphorically cogent, and it could produce physical evidence in the form of bile, blood and phlegm.</p>
<p>Despite the similarities they may share, scientific propositions are fundamentally different from political propositions. Beliefs are formed on the basis of some information, but it’s limited compared with the information that is used to inform something taken as fact. </p>
<p>To be clear, I am not dismissing belief by claiming it is based on limited information. Rather, I’m pointing out that this a property of any belief held by any individual – and the belief may relate to anything. </p>
<p>I, for instance, believe all sorts of things that make me suspicious of neoliberal economics, but I suspect that’s because my entire adult life has been marked by recession, negative wage growth, and increasing economic precarity and inequality. </p>
<p>My beliefs are informed by not having lived through the period of mining-driven growth that my parents lived through; they are evidenced by a limited perspective. And while I might acknowledge this, I still firmly hold them to be true.</p>
<h2>Alternatives exist</h2>
<p>The major problem with using the term “fact” is that it’s saturated. </p>
<p>What is meant by fact in everyday speech is a statement that is demonstrably true, that has some evidence to support it. </p>
<p>The evidence that is required differs between politics and science, and what may be considered a fact differs in the same way. While the two sorts of facts are utterly different, they are both referred to as facts by those stating them.</p>
<p>This situation might be tenable if either politics or science occurred in some rarefied isolation that meant the term “fact” was unambiguous; that is, if it could only refer to a scientific fact, and couldn’t be used sensibly in political speech, or vice versa. But this isn’t the case: the scientific and political spheres interact, and the two meanings of “fact” follow suit.</p>
<p>Since alternatives exist for any given political belief, and since these are often called “fact”, alternative facts do exist in the politics. We are confronted with them every day.</p>
<p>Spicer claims it as fact that Trump’s inauguration was the most attended in history. Is this the case scientifically? According to the evidence, probably not. And yet for all the ridicule this statement received, there are people who believe Spicer’s proposition to be true. </p>
<p>Perhaps it is believed because the people who were at the rally had never been in a larger crowd, or maybe because those watching at home had never watched, or didn’t remember another inauguration. The point is that the belief that the crowd at Trump’s inauguration was the biggest in history may be a rational one, informed by a certain amount of evidence. </p>
<p>If someone holds this belief based on information they gathered with their own senses, then of course it seems factually correct. </p>
<p>And so Spicer does, in fact, offer alternative facts.</p>
<h2>Not just a historical anomaly</h2>
<p>We do not live in a post-fact world. Scientific and political statements both behave in precisely the same way they did before Trump announced his presidential campaign. </p>
<p>Indeed, facts have rarely mattered in politics as much as appeals to belief have. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified politically by promoting a belief that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, despite an absence of sufficient evidence to support this claim. </p>
<p>People are detained on Manus Island and Nauru based on the belief that doing so will stop people smugglers, and prevent deaths at sea. This continues, supported by both major parties, despite statistical evidence suggesting that this is <a href="https://theconversation.com/resettling-refugees-in-australia-would-not-resume-the-people-smuggling-trade-60253">not the case</a>. Belief is a powerful thing.</p>
<p>In politics, facts have never been what they are in science.</p>
<p>What has shifted, however, is that the claims of the political class are no longer automatically taken to be true. The data bear this out. The Australian Election Study <a href="http://www.australianelectionstudy.org/index.html;%20http://www.australianelectionstudy.org/trends.html">found that in 2016</a>, a mere 26% of respondents agreed that they trusted politicians, the lowest score for this question since the survey began in 1969. The highest level of trust was 48% in 1996, the year John Howard was elected. </p>
<p>A similar sentiment is found in 2016, when 58% of respondents believed that the government was run for a “few big interests” instead of “all the people”, up from 38 per cent in 2007. Satisfaction in democracy is similarly low at 60%, from a high of 86% in 2007.</p>
<p>Where mainstream politicians generally attempted to paint themselves either as paternalistic protectors or honest servants of the people, populist politicians present themselves as agitators, whose primary mission is to expose the lies of mainstream politicians – apparently without regard for how this is achieved. </p>
<p>For example, Pauline Hanson claims that Australia is now being <a href="https://theconversation.com/suburbs-swamped-by-asians-and-muslims-the-data-show-a-different-story-79250">swamped by Muslims</a>. Her statements suggest this claim is the truth, and that it is being concealed from regular Australians by the politically correct, globalist politicians of the major parties.</p>
<p>Hanson <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-the-normal-rules-of-political-engagement-dont-apply-how-do-we-handle-pauline-hanson-65473">flouts the norms</a> of political discourse, and uses this to present herself as one of the people – someone who is supposedly apart from the political class. Ironically, since she appeals to the voting public, Hanson’s facts are presented with precisely the same disregard for truth as her mainstream counterparts.</p>
<p>All politicians are aware of the distinctions being made here. Their awareness is evident in the way that they use appeals to belief, and especially in the way that they use lies. </p>
<p>A lie in a political discourse is nothing to flap about on its own, although this is precisely what happens in the media each time a false statement is made by a politician, or on their behalf.</p>
<p>Lies are not the domain only of populist politicians. Far from it. But populists are easier targets because they aren’t so fickle with the plausibility of their assertions. They are more willing to commit to things that are demonstrably false, even things that might seem trivial to disprove. </p>
<p>Spicer claims the inauguration crowd was historic (it wasn’t), and Hanson claims that Australia is being swamped by whatever ethnic or religious group is the boogieman of the day (it isn’t). Each of these is easily refuted by drawing on statistical evidence, or is at least more easily refuted than the subtler untruths of other politicians – such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/turnbull-uses-south-australian-blackout-to-push-for-uniformity-on-renewables-66275">Malcolm Turnbull’s claim</a> that renewables caused the 2016 blackouts in South Australia. </p>
<p>Yet it’s the populists who are called out, and are portrayed as being fundamentally and irreconcilably different from politicians of mainstream parties. But the lies told by populists are not different in kind to those told by their colleagues; they are different only in degree.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/187712/original/file-20170927-16434-anwdef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/187712/original/file-20170927-16434-anwdef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187712/original/file-20170927-16434-anwdef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187712/original/file-20170927-16434-anwdef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187712/original/file-20170927-16434-anwdef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187712/original/file-20170927-16434-anwdef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187712/original/file-20170927-16434-anwdef.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pauline Hanson flouts the norms of political discourse.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Populists are cast differently</h2>
<p>An error that is often committed by political pundits, particularly those associated with the mainstream media, is to treat populists as irrational. </p>
<p>It’s assumed that the reasonable person selects their actions according to the potential benefits, while factoring in the cost that is incurred by performing them. The reasonable person is rational precisely because they don’t do anything where the cost will outweigh the benefits. </p>
<p>In general, politicians are assumed to be reasonable people, at least in this abstract sense. </p>
<p>The alternative – that politicians are utterly irrational and do not consider the consequences of their actions – may be professed by the more cynical among us, but I doubt it’s truly believed: the thought of the men and women governing our country being irrational is perhaps too frightening for most people.</p>
<p>Populists are called politicians of a different sort to the mainstream politicians who are reasonable people. Mainstream politicians certainly tell lies, but they do so strategically – in ways that are difficult to expose – so that the expected cost of uttering them does not outweigh the expected gain.</p>
<p>On the other hand, populists are cast as irrational because they tell lies that are very likely to be uncovered. Knowing full well that an adversarial press will attempt to verify their statements, and will give them flak if they can’t, populists continue to present alternative facts. </p>
<p>For any reasonable person, it would appear that the cost of lying in such a blatant fashion far outweighs any perceivable benefit. These populists must be stupid, or ignorant, or insane.</p>
<p>This is mistaken because it assumes, most optimistically, that the populist is deficient and can’t calculate the loss they incur from making this utterance; or, most pessimistically, that the populist isn’t even aware of the potential for loss to begin with. </p>
<p>In fact, populists are just another breed of politician, and as such weigh their utterances very carefully. </p>
<p>The statements Spicer made about the inauguration crowd are demonstrably false, but they weren’t meant to gain traction with the mainstream of voters. They were carefully calculated to gain enough support from a certain class of elector.</p>
<p>Indeed, it would appear that such claims are designed to draw flak from mainstream political discourse, because this can in fact be an asset. </p>
<p>The careful, strategic, and highly rational deployment of lies in the political context is so effective and damaging because politics has been pronounced as a discourse of truth; a lie is rendered a highly newsworthy event, one that allows voices that would otherwise be ignored to be broadcast nationally.</p>
<h2>Why are lies told?</h2>
<p>Despite earnest proclamations to the contrary, simply crying “lie” every time a lie is told achieves nothing. </p>
<p>What would be more interesting, and arguably more valuable to public discussion, is a clear investigation of why certain lies are told in certain circumstances. That is, the lies are less interesting for their content than for the reasons they are told. This view would allow us to focus on the strategic function of presenting an alternative fact.</p>
<p>It is instructive that, in each of the cases above, the speaker is sensitive to demonstrating their claim as fact.</p>
<p>Spicer pointed to the fact that the grass in the National Mall was covered by white temporary flooring, so that the contrast between the dark silhouettes of people and the ground was greater than in previous photos of inauguration crowds (therefore it only seemed as if there was more empty space in the crowd).</p>
<p>When questioned on the nation being “swamped by Asian migration”, Hanson points to the Sydney suburb of Hurstville as an example of noticeable Asian migration, where there was a 10% increase in the population of people who identified as Chinese between the 2006 and 2016 censuses. She suggests that we just have to look at Hurstville to see how prevalent Chinese migration is, because Chinese migration is prevalent there. </p>
<p>But the broader numbers do not reflect Hurstville’s migration patterns: in the same period, there was a <a href="http://profile.id.com.au/georges-river/ancestry?BMID=50&EndYear=2006&DataType=EN&WebID=310&StartYear=2011">4.5% increase</a> of people who identify as Chinese in New South Wales, and a 3.4% increase nationally.</p>
<p>While these examples are lies, they still present themselves as facts, grounded in evidence, in an attempt to conform to the (somewhat lax) standard of factuality in politics – not unlike mainstream political statements.</p>
<p>Spicer and Hanson wish for their assertions to be understood as facts, and to be a part of the mainstream political discourse. We shouldn’t ask: “Why did they not tell the truth?”. Rather, we should ask: “why that lie?”; “why at that time?”; and the same question that’s asked of every mainstream politician: “what’s in it for them?”.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>You can read other essays from Griffith Review’s latest edition <a href="https://griffithreview.com/editions/perils-of-populism/">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84692/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lochlan Morrissey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In politics, alternative facts exist. And they always have.Lochlan Morrissey, Research Associate, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/778882017-05-30T10:53:13Z2017-05-30T10:53:13ZBeing more media savvy won’t stop the spread of ‘fake news’ – here’s why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170301/original/file-20170522-25068-h75iqt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/fake-news-concept-showing-printed-newspaper-578816998?src=J_BowO5LMMmxdCouQ-VgAA-1-28">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>“<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/18/what-is-fake-news-pizzagate">Fake news</a>” is the buzzword of 2017. Barely a day goes by without a headline about president Donald Trump <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/04/trump-fake-news-fox-ratings-237968">lambasting media “bias”</a>, or the spread of “<a href="https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/welcome-era-alternative-facts/#">alternative facts</a>”.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=fake+news">Many articles on the subject</a> suggest that social media sites should do more to educate the public about misinformation, or that readers should think more critically about the sources of news stories before sharing them. But there are fundamental problems with this. First, there isn’t a clear definition of what “fake news” really is. And second, it overlooks important aspects of people’s psychological makeup.</p>
<p>“Fake news” can be classified in a number of ways and represented as a series of concentric circles. First, in the centre of the concentric model, we have actual fake news. These are the stories that we commonly see shared on sites such as <a href="http://newsthump.com">News Thump</a> and <a href="http://www.theonion.com">The Onion</a>. These satirical stories are written for comedic purposes and are put together to entertain.</p>
<p>Next, we have propaganda articles. Typically, these pieces do not actually contain any real news value. They may, for example, detail an individual’s past behaviour and suggest that that it reflects something about their current intentions. Alternatively, these pieces may contain some kernel of truth, but this may be twisted in such a way that it totally misleads audiences and misrepresents a story’s true news value. </p>
<p>These propaganda articles take numerous forms. The Huffington Post, for example, <a href="http://www.fellowpress.com/2016/10/22/huffington-post-runs-trump-caveat">included a caveat</a> about Donald Trump’s alleged bigotry whenever mentioning him in a story before the US election last November, while British readers will likely recall the Daily Mail’s much-maligned attacks on former Labour leader Ed Miliband’s <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/a-man-who-hated-britain-ed-miliband-accuses-daily-mail-of-appalling-lie-about-his-father-ralph-8852106.html">late father in 2013</a>, calling him a “<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2435751/Red-Eds-pledge-bring-socialism-homage-Marxist-father-Ralph-Miliband-says-GEOFFREY-LEVY.html">man who hated Britain</a>”.</p>
<p>Finally, and occupying the outermost ring of the model, there are the stories that are technically true, but reflect the subtle editorial biases of the organisation publishing them. This reporting is commonplace within the mainstream media, through selective storytelling and politically-driven editorials. Whether this is reflected in the left-wing bias of The Guardian or the right-wing approach of the Murdoch media empire, this practice is less malicious and more a political interpretation of events.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170128/original/file-20170519-12221-1he40v4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170128/original/file-20170519-12221-1he40v4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170128/original/file-20170519-12221-1he40v4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170128/original/file-20170519-12221-1he40v4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170128/original/file-20170519-12221-1he40v4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170128/original/file-20170519-12221-1he40v4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170128/original/file-20170519-12221-1he40v4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170128/original/file-20170519-12221-1he40v4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A concentric model of ‘fake news’.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A tale of two biases</h2>
<p>Despite the widespread use of the label, only one of these rings – the central and smallest group – is legitimately “fake news”. Stories in the outer two rings are not necessarily “fake”, and they may or may not actually be “news”. But if particular companies take editorial positions on particular issues, that in itself is not a problem. The important issue is how we interact with these viewpoints.</p>
<p>The meme of “fake news” provides a new and socially approved way of indulging some of our core psychological and political bias. <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-confirmation-bias">Confirmation bias</a> is a label used by psychologists to describe the tendency that people have to search for and interpret information in a way that corresponds with their preexisting beliefs, preferences and attitudes. Quite simply, we are more inclined to believe a story, and share it with others, when its content <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/contemporary-psychoanalysis-in-action/201612/fake-news-why-we-fall-it">corresponds with our opinions</a>. Similarly, we are more likely to brand stories we don’t agree with “fake news”.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170347/original/file-20170522-25027-1bv2aab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170347/original/file-20170522-25027-1bv2aab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170347/original/file-20170522-25027-1bv2aab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170347/original/file-20170522-25027-1bv2aab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170347/original/file-20170522-25027-1bv2aab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170347/original/file-20170522-25027-1bv2aab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170347/original/file-20170522-25027-1bv2aab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Yes, I totally agree.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?src=Rixi_FYIZ4dNaEcdRmPicQ-1-0">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It all comes down to who we are. The idea of <a href="https://revisesociology.com/2016/06/20/giddens-modernity-and-self-identity-chapter-two/">ontological security</a> suggests that people are motivated to maintain a clear and consistent sense of their own identity and the environment around them. When they are confronted with a story that goes against their view of the world, therefore, they impulsively reject its core messages. </p>
<p>That said, there are clearly some stories that we may disagree with, but which also feature key arguments that make logical sense. If this is the case, <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jarret_Crawford/publication/256050159_The_Ideological-Conflict_Hypothesis/links/0a85e52f111edd4dca000000.pdf">we seek to discredit the sources rather than the argument</a>. We attribute ulterior motives to them in order to bolster “our” side. In the current climate, we call them “fake news”.</p>
<h2>The way forward</h2>
<p>Data shows how online communities are increasingly becoming <a href="http://cn.cnstudiodev.com/uploads/document_attachment/attachment/681/science_facebook_filter_bubble_may2015.pdf">ideologically pure “echo chambers”</a>. This trend contributes to a rising intolerance of anything that does not quite fit with a particular worldview. People share things that match their beliefs, and disparage anything that does not. What’s more, with the click of a button or the swipe of a smartphone, individuals can now block, unfriend, and unfollow anybody promoting “deviant” views. We cleanse the chamber from within.</p>
<p>It is clear, then, that being more “media savvy” is unlikely to counter innate psychological biases. But there is a need for more diversity of opinion within social networks. Research suggests that contact between groups can lead to <a href="http://www.in-mind.org/article/intergroup-contact-theory-past-present-and-future">reduced polarisation and conflict</a>. It is only by confronting legitimate opposing viewpoints on a regular basis that we can truly recognise fake news when we see it. Quite how we do this in an era of political polarisation, however, remains an open question.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77888/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Craig Harper does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>People are hardwired to dismiss opposing views as ‘fake’.Craig Harper, Lecturer in Human Psychology, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/775632017-05-30T05:01:01Z2017-05-30T05:01:01ZTrump demands a post-post-truth response<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170078/original/file-20170519-12237-1fvde5b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">We cannot stand outside the fray, but instead must engage in the ‘post-truth’ debates about politics and knowledge.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ricricciardi/33093276772/">Richard Ricardi/Flickr </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This article is part of an <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/post-truth-initiative-38606">ongoing series</a> from the <a href="https://posttruthinitiative.org/">Post-Truth Initiative</a>, a Strategic Research Excellence Initiative at the University of Sydney. The series examines today’s post-truth problem in public discourse: the thriving economy of lies, bullshit and propaganda that threatens rational discourse and policy.</em> </p>
<p><em>The project brings together scholars of media and communications, government and international relations, physics, philosophy, linguistics, and medicine, and is affiliated with the Sydney Social Sciences and Humanities Advanced Research Centre (<a href="http://chcinetwork.org/sydney-social-sciences-and-humanities-advanced-research-centre-sssharc">SSSHARC</a>), the <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/environment-institute/">Sydney Environment Institute</a> and the <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org">Sydney Democracy Network</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Is Donald Trump post-truth, post-modern or simply preposterous? What started as an academic contretemps erupted into a media spasm, and escalated into political warfare, has now reached impeachable levels of <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-trump-could-be-removed-from-office-under-the-us-constitution-77983">high crimes and misdemeanours</a>.</p>
<p>How did we get here? The question of truth first became weaponised in the culture wars of the 2016 US presidential campaign. The Oxford Dictionaries fired the shot heard around the infosphere when it announced its <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2016">Word of the Year</a> was “post-truth”:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Oxford Dictionaries took pains to distinguish the word from a particular event or assertion (like post-war or truthiness) to better identify the character of an age (like post-national or post-racial). Among all the “posts” mentioned in the lengthy press release, “post-modern” never gets a nod. </p>
<p>Perhaps the editors were sensitive to the <a href="http://sk.sagepub.com/books/consumer-culture-and-postmodernism-2e/n1.xml">definition of post-modern</a> provided by its lesser-known rival, the <a href="https://thepointmag.com/2010/examined-life/the-updated-dictionary-of-received-ideas">(Updated) Dictionary of Received Ideas</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This word has no meaning; use it as often as possible.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No matter. Where semioticians fear to tread, pundits and academics rushed in, linking post-truth to post-modernists, post-positivists, post-structuralists or any other “postie” who bore the cursed sign of relativism.</p>
<h2>Playing the philosophical blame game</h2>
<p>I witnessed more than a few scholars making these links at the 2017 annual meeting of the International Studies Association (ISA) in Baltimore. The meeting came just weeks after <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html">Trump’s executive order</a> limiting entry from seven Muslim-majority countries into the US. </p>
<p>Trump’s post-truth directive ignored the alternative facts that the terrorists in the recent rash of attacks had come from countries not on the list; that extensive vetting was already in place; and that an American was a thousand times more likely to be killed by a criminal than a terrorist. </p>
<p>It was no small irony that the protests and debates swirling around Trump helped make this ISA meeting one of the best. Among many noteworthy moments, the distinguished scholar roundtable for <a href="http://politicalscience.jhu.edu/directory/william-connolly/">William E. Connolly</a> did a good demo job on the post-truth/modern mash-up. </p>
<p>Political scientists who live by the causal code were faulted for being overly casual about the means of transmission by which post-modern ideas suddenly came to infect Trump, his fellow travellers and the political habitus. Since Trump does not seem to read continental philosophy – or books in general – Steve Bannon, his éminence grise (who looks greyer as his eminence diminishes), took most of the blame. </p>
<p>But the best evidence dug up by the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/world/europe/bannon-vatican-julius-evola-fascism.html?_r=0">paper of record</a> was a 2014 speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in which he lauds Italian proto-fascist Julius Evola. </p>
<p>Since Evola shares with Nietzsche a critique of modernity, this clearly makes Bannon a fellow post-modernist/truthist. No matter that Bannon cites pre-modernist sources like Sun Tzu and the Bible as his texts of choice for the civilisational battle (with fellow holy crusader Vlad Putin) to save “the Judeo-Christian West”. </p>
<p>Connolly et al summarily dismissed the charge of relativism as “untimely” – and silly. </p>
<p>Relativism, Nietzsche’s “<a href="http://www.historyguide.org/europe/madman.html">breath of empty space</a>”, is not some malignant creation of post-truth philosophers or politicians; it presents as a historical condition of diverse origins, beginning with the death of God and other adjudicators and executors of a universal or transcendental truth. This might constitute a repudiation of philosophical realism (based on a <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/">correspondence theory of the truth</a>), but Nietzsche did not reject physical realism (based on empirical facts) or political realism (based on contestable judgments). </p>
<p>Indeed, Nietzsche scorned the “<a href="http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/TWILIGHT_OF_THE_IDOLS_.aspx?S=11">coward before reality</a> … [who] flees into the ideal”. He openly expressed his preference for realists such as Thucydides and Machiavelli over the likes of Plato and Hegel. </p>
<p>Continental philosophers influenced by Nietzsche (Heidegger and Schmitt notwithstanding) were less concerned with the dangers of relativism than with metaphysical truths deemed above and beyond human critique. </p>
<p>One would think, if thinking clearly, that the epistemic as well as political certitudes preceding and engendering two world wars, the Cold War, the global “war on terror” and the war on Islam were more pernicious than the cosmopolitanism, subjectivism and relativism that putatively taint all things post-truth/modern.</p>
<h2>Beware easy post-truth finger-pointing</h2>
<p>The takeaway from the roundtable was that the identification of a historical or social condition should not be confused with endorsement of an epistemological or political doctrine.</p>
<p>Tarring the post-truthist/modernist with the claim “all is permitted” or “there is no truth” makes for a nice sound bite but does violence to a sophisticated argument for subjecting all truth-claims to more rigorous forms of verification. Invoking a transcendental, universal or objective authority to resolve contradicting stories or disputable facts is not sufficient. </p>
<p>Such certainty is ahistorical: the “<a href="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/">self-evident truths</a>” of America’s founding fathers, based on first principles of natural law and sanctified by heavenly commandments, can, fortunately for humanity, prove to be untrue; otherwise slaves would still be slaves, women would not have the vote, etc. </p>
<p>What is notably missing from the narcissism of Trump and solipsism of his fellow Truthers is any sense of ethical responsibility towards ways of seeing or being in the world that differ from their own. An ethics that begins in response to relativism necessarily entails a mutual recognition – rather than the eradication or assimilation – of difference and otherness. </p>
<p>This kind of ethics cannot be delivered by command from above or by invocation of universal principles; it emerges as a condition of co-existence among those who differ on such matters as the truth. </p>
<p>Other post-truth/modern encounters on ISA panels, at hotel bars and even a few street-side produced new questions. Why were so many scholars, who put a premium on material or structural explanations for global events, now eager to infer such power upon ideas, especially when they emanated from a marginal school of thought like post-modernism?</p>
<p>Why were so many of these same scholars willing to accept “slam-dunk” facts about war crimes and WMDs in the run-up to the Iraq War? To form unholy alliances in support of invasions that spawned many second- and third-order global crises, including the rise of ISIS and the nationalist fevers that fanned Trump’s victory? </p>
<p>If, as the exculpatory refrain goes, they only knew then what they know now. But a purblind adherence to rationalism and positive evidence that excludes affective or cognitive preferences keeps us from knowing the truth, both then and now. </p>
<p>How much history is needed, from Vietnam to Watergate to Iran-Contra to the Iraq War, to show that “fake news”, “alternative facts” and “post-truths” weren’t born of continental philosophy? That disproving a lie is no substitute for creating a counter-narrative? That more than sweet reason is needed to unmask false consciousness? </p>
<p>By the end of the ISA meeting, a kind of déjà vu had set in: had we not witnessed this conflation before, of diagnosis and disease? Where <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation">Baudrillard’s precession of simulation</a> was deemed responsible for the Gulf War; <a href="https://revisesociology.com/2016/09/21/foucault-surveillance-crime-control/">Foucault’s critical regard of surveillance</a> for the rise of Big Brother; <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time%E2%80%93space_compression">Virilio’s elevation of pace over space</a> for the erosion of the sovereign state; and <a href="http://www.textetc.com/theory/derrida.html">Derrida’s insistence that nothing exists outside the text</a> for everything else – except Nazism, which was Nietzsche’s fault.</p>
<h2>A duty to re-enter the fray</h2>
<p>Et voilà, it came to me on the long flight back to Australia. Post-truthists/modernists must re-enter the political fray, not only because they are best equipped to counter the simulations, surveillance, speed and signs of Trump and his followers. </p>
<p>We need to embrace rather than run from the “post-truth” debate because ideas, discourses and methods might not define the truth but they do matter in politics. </p>
<p>We need to challenge the political science “quants” whose polls got it so wrong, giving Bernie Sanders supporters and other independents the excuse to maintain political purity by not voting.</p>
<p>We need to challenge the neoliberals whose promotion of the idea of globalisation helped produce the economic inequalities and cultural resentments that “primed the pump”, as Trump would say, for his victory. </p>
<p>Most importantly, we must repudiate the petty narcissism of attacking those closest on the political as well as epistemic spectrum, and form a real popular front against the faux populism of Trump and the neofundamentalism of Mike Pence that is likely to follow Trump’s fall from power.</p>
<p>We must, in other words, become post-post-truth. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article draws on the author’s opening comments from the <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/arts/ciss/global_forum/index.shtml">Global Forum on Peace and Security under Uncertainty</a>, which is sponsored by the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences and the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Sydney and the Carnegie Corporation of New York. A short video about the global forum is available on the <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/arts/ciss/">Centre for International Security Studies (CISS) website</a> and below. Full panel recordings will be available on the <a href="https://projectqsydney.com/">Project Q website</a>.</em></p>
<figure>
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/219448613" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The CISS Global Forum: Peace and Security Under Uncertainty.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>You can read other pieces in the post-truth series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/post-truth-initiative-38606">here</a>.</em> </p>
<p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/democracy-futures">Democracy Futures</a> series is a <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org/democracy-futures/">joint global initiative</a> between The Conversation and the <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org/">Sydney Democracy Network</a>. The project aims to stimulate fresh thinking about the many challenges facing democracies in the 21st century.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77563/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Der Derian does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Pundits have been keen to link post-truth to post-modernists, post-positivists or any other ‘postie’. They should turn their energy to forming a real popular front against Trump’s faux populism.James Der Derian, Michael Hintze Chair of International Security, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/774202017-05-18T14:11:49Z2017-05-18T14:11:49ZAcademics can’t change the world when they’re distrusted and discredited<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168732/original/file-20170510-28071-1hvts20.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Academics find themselves in a world filled with people who aren't interested in facts.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There have been persistent <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/sep/23/academics-leave-your-ivory-towers-and-pitch-your-work-to-the-media">calls</a> for academics and scientists to venture forth from academia’s ivory towers to engage with a wider audience on the critical issues facing society. It’s a reasonable argument. Academics stepping out of their traditional roles to disseminate scientific knowledge can offer great value to <a href="http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20160530142606345">public policy debates</a>.</p>
<p>By occupying public forums and social media platforms as public intellectuals and thought leaders, academics can contribute significantly to making the world a better place.</p>
<p>But not all academics want to be public intellectuals and those who do, don’t always have the necessary <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Public-Professor-Research-Change-World/dp/1479861391">skills</a>. That can be dealt with through training, encouragement or incentives. But the real challenge for academics in the public sphere is that we’re living in a <a href="http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/02/pursuing-veritas-in-a-post-truth-era/">post-truth world</a>. This describes a world where objective facts – scientific evidence – doesn’t influence public opinion. Instead, appeals to emotion and personal beliefs set the agenda.</p>
<p>Populist movements are on the rise. Their supporters distrust the establishment, elites, authority and official sources – including highly qualified academics. The post-truth world is a post-expert world.</p>
<p>If, as <a href="http://www.businesshardtalk.com/single-post/2016/07/07/Why-We-Don%E2%80%99t-Trust-Experts">research</a> suggests, people trust their Twitter and Facebook friends more than institutions such as the mainstream media, then experts may have no option but to immerse themselves in popular culture. They will have to engage on social media platforms, building new alliances and finding ways to build trust. </p>
<h2>Post-truth politics</h2>
<p>Post-truth politics and the mistrust of experts are not new. Some post-colonial African leaders have been <a href="http://democracyworks.org.za/african-leaders-are-masters-at-post-truth-politics/">described</a> as post-truth strategists, “manipulating the truth, distorting facts and fashioning alternative realities to cover-up their failures, to enrich themselves and stay in power”. </p>
<p>And politicians the world over have always been adept at manipulating popular opinion and discrediting scientific evidence that contradicts their ideological agendas or thwarts their political aspirations.</p>
<p>During his time in office former South African president Thabo Mbeki’s administration snubbed scientific evidence about the treatment of HIV/Aids. This had <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/researchers-estimate-lives-lost-delay-arv-drug-use-hivaids-south-africa/">devastating consequences</a>.</p>
<p>The country’s current president, Jacob Zuma, has also dabbled in post-truth. Zuma has referred to urban black intellectuals as “<a href="http://www.news24.com/Archives/City-Press/Zuma-scolds-clever-blacks-20150429">clever blacks</a>” on many occasions. When questioned in 2014 about corruption and the use of state expenditure for his private <a href="http://www.enca.com/elections-2014-south-africa/zuma-nkandla-not-issue-ordinary-voters">residence</a> he said that only “very clever and bright people” were concerned with the issue.</p>
<p>He has effectively driven a schism between rural black voters, where most of his support base lies, and the so–called “clever” urban black elite, many of whom are now calling for his <a href="http://www.news24.com/elections/news/the-clever-blacks-have-spoken-phosa-20160805">resignation</a>.</p>
<p>So how can academics adapt to a world in which populism trumps truth, perhaps more than ever before? </p>
<h2>Social media drives post-truth</h2>
<p>Some have <a href="https://theconversation.com/defending-science-how-the-art-of-rhetoric-can-help-68210">argued</a> that experts need to be schooled in the art of persuasive rhetoric. This will allow them to counteract junk science and anti-intellectualism. But there’s really no amount of training in persuasive communication that can prepare academics and scientists for engaging with dissenters on sites like Facebook or Twitter.</p>
<p>And it’s very <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21706498-dishonesty-politics-nothing-new-manner-which-some-politicians-now-lie-and">evident</a> that the internet, especially social media, is the main driver of the post–truth era.</p>
<p>There’s an overwhelming amount of contradictory information on the internet. Many people find it easier to retreat into their social media echo chambers that bolster their pre-existing beliefs and value systems than to engage with new ideas. </p>
<p>Professor Mary Beard, the Cambridge University classicist, is a case in point. She took part in a BBC1 panel programme in 2013 and cited a report that claimed immigration had brought some benefits to the UK. Her statements, based on evidence-based research, unleashed a torrent of sexual taunts and horrific verbal abuse. This illustrates how evidence can clash with individuals’ beliefs and create a severe “<a href="https://daily.jstor.org/the-backfire-effect/">backfire effect</a>” that is further amplified in the post-truth digital space.</p>
<p>Dr Stella Nyanzi in Uganda illustrates the severe backlash that academics face when they take on powerful forces. Nyanzi has run afoul of Uganda’s President and First Lady with a series of radical and explicit posts on Facebook. These led to <a href="https://dailynewslagos.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/ugandan-human-rights-activist-stella-nyazi-jailed-for-calling-the-president-a-pair-of-buttocks/">her arrest</a> on charges of cyber harassment under Uganda’s Computer Misuse Act 2011. After four weeks in prison she was finally released on bail. Amnesty International has <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/05/uganda-stella-nyanzi-free-but-ludicrous-charges-must-be-dropped/">called</a> for all charges against her to be dropped. </p>
<p>The internet is a democratic space in that it can be accessed by almost anyone. The problem is that for every qualified academic and expert you find online, sharing information based on peer-reviewed, highly scrutinised research, there’s a snake oil salesman, pseudo-scientist, hate-mongerer and conspiracist who wants to <a href="http://theconversation.com/how-social-media-and-human-nature-have-spawned-hoaxes-and-hate-mongering-70929">spread false</a>, misleading, anti-science information to the masses. And, as Nyanzi’s case illustrates, powerful politicians might prefer those who don’t bring evidence to the table.</p>
<p>How, then, do academics and scientists fight distrust and denigration whilst bringing cutting edge, evidence based research to public policy debates? </p>
<h2>Adapt or die?</h2>
<p>Rapid advancements in digital technology and communications dictate that the “genie is out of the bottle”. So withdrawing when your research and evidence is attacked online may not really be an option. Just like Nyanzi, Beard chose to escalate her intellectual interaction on Twitter – as <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/weird-and-wonderful-world-academic-twitter">many academics</a> are doing. She pushed back at her detractors and has been described as a <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/01/troll-slayer">“troll slayer”</a>.</p>
<p>It’s evident that even academics who’ve been wary of public engagement may not have the luxury of remaining invisible any more. They will have to rethink their traditional roles, functions and develop new ways of being. This may come more naturally as younger researchers – millennials – move into the academy. This generation tends to be more at ease with the cut and thrust of social media than the current crop of “baby boomers”.</p>
<p>There are however, clearly complex challenges – and even dangers – for the academic as a public intellectual in the post-truth information age.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77420/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lyn Snodgrass does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Populist movements are on the rise. Their supporters distrust the establishment, elites, authority and official sources. The post-truth world is a post-expert world.Lyn Snodgrass, Associate Professor and Head of Department of Political and Conflict Studies, Nelson Mandela UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/775452017-05-15T00:05:01Z2017-05-15T00:05:01ZInoculation theory: Using misinformation to fight misinformation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169163/original/file-20170512-3682-1g3a9fh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A shot of fake news now and your defenses are raised in the future?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/syringe-medical-injection-hand-palm-fingers-345038330">funnyangel/Shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As a psychologist researching misinformation, I focus on reducing its influence. Essentially, my goal is to put myself out of a job.</p>
<p>Recent developments indicate that I haven’t been doing a very good job of it. Misinformation, fake news and “alternative facts” are more prominent than ever. The <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2016">Oxford Dictionary named “post-truth”</a> as the 2016 word of the year. Science and scientific evidence have been under assault.</p>
<p>Fortunately, science does have a means to protect itself, and it comes from a branch of psychological research known as <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0042026">inoculation theory</a>. This borrows from the logic of vaccines: A little bit of something bad helps you resist a full-blown case. In my <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799">newly published research</a>, I’ve tried exposing people to a weak form of misinformation in order to inoculate them against the real thing – with promising results.</p>
<h2>Two ways misinformation damages</h2>
<p>Misinformation is being generated and disseminated at prolific rates. A recent study comparing arguments against climate science versus policy arguments against action on climate found that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.12.001">science denial is on the relative increase</a>. And recent research indicates these types of effort have an impact on people’s perceptions and science literacy.</p>
<p>A recent study led by psychology researcher Sander van der Linden found that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008">misinformation about climate change</a> has a significant impact on public perceptions about climate change. </p>
<p>The misinformation they used in their experiment was the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/11/29/revealed-most-popular-climate-story-social-media-told-half-million-people-science-was-hoax">most shared climate article in 2016</a>. It’s a petition, known as the Global Warming Petition Project, featuring 31,000 people with a bachelor of science or higher, who signed a statement saying humans aren’t disrupting climate. This single article lowered readers’ perception of scientific consensus. The extent that people accept there’s a scientific consensus about climate change is what researchers refer to as a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489">“gateway belief,”</a> influencing attitudes about climate change such as support for climate action.</p>
<p>At the same time that van der Linden was conducting his experiment in the U.S., I was on the other side of the planet in Australia conducting my own research into the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799">impact of misinformation</a>. By coincidence, I used the same myth, taking verbatim text from the Global Warming Petition Project. After showing the misinformation, I asked people to estimate the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming, in order to measure any effect.</p>
<p>I found similar results, with misinformation reducing people’s perception of the scientific consensus. Moreover, the misinformation affected some more than others. The more politically conservative a person was, the greater the influence of the misinformation. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169203/original/file-20170514-3692-mlnqwj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169203/original/file-20170514-3692-mlnqwj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169203/original/file-20170514-3692-mlnqwj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169203/original/file-20170514-3692-mlnqwj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169203/original/file-20170514-3692-mlnqwj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169203/original/file-20170514-3692-mlnqwj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169203/original/file-20170514-3692-mlnqwj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169203/original/file-20170514-3692-mlnqwj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Response to misinformation about climate change.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Cook et al. (2017)</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This gels with other research finding that people interpret messages, whether they be information or misinformation, according to their preexisting beliefs. When we see something we like, we’re more likely to think that it’s true and strengthen our beliefs accordingly. Conversely, when we encounter information that conflicts with our beliefs, we’re <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246">more likely to discredit the source</a>.</p>
<p>However, there is more to this story. Beyond misinforming people, misinformation has a more insidious and dangerous influence. In the van der Linden study, when people were presented with both the facts and misinformation about climate change, there was no net change in belief. The two conflicting pieces of information canceled each other out.</p>
<p>Fact and “alternative fact” are like matter and antimatter. When they collide, there’s a burst of heat followed by nothing. This reveals the subtle way that misinformation does damage. It doesn’t just misinform. It stops people believing in facts. Or as Garry Kasporov eloquently puts it, <a href="https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/808750564284702720">misinformation “annihilates truth</a>.”</p>
<h2>Science’s answer to science denial</h2>
<p>The assault on science is formidable and, as this research indicates, can be all too effective. Fittingly, science holds the answer to science denial.</p>
<p><a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0042026">Inoculation theory</a> takes the concept of vaccination, where we are exposed to a weak form of a virus in order to build immunity to the real virus, and applies it to knowledge. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2005.11679045">Half a century of research</a> has found that when we are exposed to a “weak form of misinformation,” this helps us build resistance so that we are not influenced by actual misinformation.</p>
<p>Inoculating text requires two elements. First, it includes an explicit warning about the danger of being misled by misinformation. Second, you need to provide counterarguments explaining the flaws in that misinformation.</p>
<p>In van der Linden’s inoculation, he pointed out that many of the signatories were fake (for instance, a <a href="https://youtu.be/T6Et5aenOLg">Spice Girl was falsely listed as a signatory</a>), that 31,000 represents a <a href="https://skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm">tiny fraction</a> (less than 0.3 percent) of all U.S. science graduates since 1970 and that less than 1 percent of the signatories had expertise in climate science.</p>
<p>In my <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799">recently published research</a>, I also tested inoculation but with a different approach. While I inoculated participants against the Petition Project, I didn’t mention it at all. Instead, I talked about the <a href="https://youtu.be/WAqR9mLJrcE">misinformation technique of using “fake experts”</a> – people who convey the impression of expertise to the general public but having no actual relevant expertise.</p>
<p>I found that explaining the misinformation technique completely neutralized the misinformation’s influence, without even mentioning the misinformation specifically. For instance, after I explained how fake experts have been utilized in past misinformation campaigns, participants weren’t swayed when confronted by the fake experts of the Petition Project. Moreover, the misinformation was neutralized across the political spectrum. Whether you’re conservative or liberal, no one wants to be deceived by misleading techniques.</p>
<h2>Putting inoculation into practice</h2>
<p>Inoculation is a powerful and versatile form of science communication that can be used in a number of ways. My approach has been to mesh together the findings of inoculation with the cognitive psychology of debunking, developing the Fact-Myth-Fallacy framework. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wfq0Xrgsn_4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Denial101x lecture on debunking myths.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This strategy involves explaining the facts, followed by introducing a myth related to those facts. At this point, people are presented with two conflicting pieces of information. You reconcile the conflict by explaining the technique that the myth uses to distort the fact.</p>
<p>We used this approach on a large scale in a free online course about climate misinformation, <a href="http://sks.to/denial101x">Making Sense of Climate Science Denial</a>. Each lecture adopted the Fact-Myth-Fallacy structure. We started by explaining a single climate fact, then introduced a related myth, followed by an explanation of the fallacy employed by the myth. This way, while explaining the key facts of climate change, we also inoculated students against <a href="https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Fact_Myth_Fallacy.pdf">50 of the most common climate myths</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169022/original/file-20170511-32624-m2rtfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169022/original/file-20170511-32624-m2rtfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169022/original/file-20170511-32624-m2rtfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=779&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169022/original/file-20170511-32624-m2rtfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=779&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169022/original/file-20170511-32624-m2rtfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=779&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169022/original/file-20170511-32624-m2rtfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=979&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169022/original/file-20170511-32624-m2rtfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=979&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169022/original/file-20170511-32624-m2rtfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=979&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Denial101x lectures adhering to Fact-Myth-Fallacy structure.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Denial101x</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For example, we know we are causing global warming because we observe many patterns in climate change unique to greenhouse warming. In other words, human fingerprints are observed all over our climate. However, one myth argues that climate has changed naturally in the past before humans; therefore, what’s happening now must be natural also. This myth commits the fallacy of jumping to conclusions (or non sequitur), where the premise does not lead to the conclusion. It’s like finding a dead body with a knife poking out of its back and arguing that people have died of natural causes in the past, so this death must have been of natural causes also.</p>
<p>Science has, in a moment of frankness, <a href="https://theconversation.com/communicating-climate-change-focus-on-the-framing-not-just-the-facts-73028">informed us that</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-does-research-say-about-how-to-effectively-communicate-about-science-70244">throwing more science at people</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-communication-training-should-be-about-more-than-just-how-to-transmit-knowledge-59643">isn’t the full answer to science denial</a>. Misinformation is a reality that we can’t afford to ignore – we can’t be in denial about science denial. Rather, we should see it as an educational opportunity. Addressing misconceptions in the classroom is one of the <a href="https://apps.weber.edu/wsuimages/geography/Cook,%20Bedford%20and%20Mandia%20Case%20studies%20in%20ABL%20JGE%202014.pdf">most powerful ways to teach science</a>.</p>
<p>It turns out the key to stopping science denial is to expose people to just a little bit of science denial.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77545/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Cook does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Does science have an answer to science denial? Just as being vaccinated protects you from a later full-blown infection, a bit of misinformation explained could help ward off other cases down the road.John Cook, Research Assistant Professor, Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/766532017-05-04T07:54:29Z2017-05-04T07:54:29ZHow universities can earn trust and share power in the bitter post-truth era<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167685/original/file-20170503-21616-19gp0y6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Universities can take a stand.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/573113302?src=XWimLqj5Cthnc9mBfgP3QQ-1-10&size=medium_jpg">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>James Baldwin, the author, playwright and social critic, whose life is depicted in the remarkable 2016 film <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/jamesbaldwin">I Am Not Your Negro</a>, once said: “It is certain, in any case, that ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have.” Alongside Baldwin’s commentary, the work of <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Origins_of_Totalitarianism.html?id=zLrKGGxBKjAC">Hannah Arendt</a> teaches us about the “banality of evil”: that everyday, ordinary people are capable of acts of barbarity, cruelty and injustice if the leaders and circumstances around them normalise those behaviours. She famously said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In these conditions, of course, we are all in grave danger. The enemy of a civilised and decent society, a society in which democracy, human flourishing and social justice have a chance, is power plus ignorance normalised. Where this occurs, we should not be surprised to witness a world where spectacle, bravado and celebrity triumph over “truth”; where “alternative facts” triumph over evidence, data, human experience and testimony.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VSrEEDQgFc8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>We are already on that path. Today, we witness the devaluation of expertise and experts, knowledge and reason, critique and dissent. <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/michael-goves-guide-to-britains-greatest-enemy-the-experts/">Michael Gove’s infamous 2016 statement</a>, declaring that “people in this country have had enough of experts”, is just one example. He may have meant it as a throwaway remark, or something peculiarly restricted to the debate over Brexit, but it sounded much more general, and it lodged, like a thorn in the side, in the body of experts who had been so lightly dismissed. </p>
<p>With the election of the new US president, and political and social turbulence on a national and international scale, we are witnessing renewed attacks on the very institutions and values which support critical thinking, robust analysis, informed agency, and on the structures necessary to defend and maintain democracy and knowledge-driven societies.</p>
<p>Britain is often spoken of as a “knowledge economy”. This needs experts as surely as a manufacturing economy needs makers, as an agricultural economy needs farmers, and as a hunting and gathering economy needs hunter-gatherers. So, if people have had enough of experts, have they had enough of the knowledge economy, too? Who are these “people” anyway? How should universities, as institutions of expertise and knowledge, respond? </p>
<h2>The burning issue of trust</h2>
<p>In November 2016, the British Science Association pulled together a group of senior representatives from academia and industry (some might even call them experts) to debate the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2016/nov/09/how-can-we-rebuild-trust-in-scientific-experts">burning issue of trust in the 21st century</a>. How much did Gove’s quip capture the public mood? Was public trust in experts being eroded? Were experts and expertise itself under threat? Could we ever hope to win that trust back?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.britac.ac.uk/users/baroness-onora-oneill">Dame Onora O’Neill</a>, professor of philosophy at Cambridge University, questioned whether Gove had really captured anything other than his own confusion. She pointed to <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3685/Politicians-are-still-trusted-less-than-estate-agents-journalists-and-bankers.aspx">recent public attitude surveys</a> which showed that scientists and doctors were still much-trusted members of society – leagues ahead of journalists, estate agents and politicians. </p>
<p>But she also questioned the blind placing of trust in something as abstract as “science” and a “scientist”. Trust was meted out, case by case. All that we can hope for is that an astute person would bestow trust on someone, perhaps an expert, who is demonstrably trustworthy. Blind, unconditional trust in anything or anybody doesn’t help society at all. And if scientists, and academics more generally, don’t engage with the public in meaningful ways, they are very unlikely to be trusted. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167684/original/file-20170503-21641-3gfp3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167684/original/file-20170503-21641-3gfp3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167684/original/file-20170503-21641-3gfp3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167684/original/file-20170503-21641-3gfp3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167684/original/file-20170503-21641-3gfp3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167684/original/file-20170503-21641-3gfp3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167684/original/file-20170503-21641-3gfp3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Michael Gove may have had enough of experts … but what about everyone else?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/michael-gove-giving-speech-london-united-558196201?src=lAuzBQ3ctXdaFy6Cv7GGAQ-1-16">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Whether or not we believe there has been an erosion of trust in experts, it has always been incumbent on such experts to engage with the public – to share knowledge and to ensure that the way in which knowledge is being driven forward benefits as many people as possible. But are our knowledge engines – principally universities – <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-should-reach-beyond-the-science-bubble-1.21514">really working for the good of the many in society</a>? Or have they become hopelessly elitist, self-serving machines to generate knowledge – and power – for a slim sector of society to the detriment of the rest? </p>
<p>Despite the growth in science, knowledge and global higher education, the world is profoundly unequal, with social, geographical, ethnic, gender and other divisions, including income and wealth. </p>
<p>Even within Britain, the fourth largest economy in the world, the gap between rich and poor is <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/24e88c30-bc5f-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080">larger than it was in the 1970s</a>. Last year, Oxfam published a report showing that the world’s <a href="http://www.oxfam.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2016/01/62-people-own-same-as-half-world-says-oxfam-inequality-report-davos-world-economic-forum">richest 62 people owned as much wealth</a> as the bottom half of the world’s population – 3.6 billion people. Billions of people globally are being left behind. What, if anything, has higher education achieved for them?</p>
<h2>Driving social change</h2>
<p>The potential for universities to be instigators of social change, to level the field a little when it comes to knowledge capital, can extend beyond the bounds of the campus. There’s a strong civic and philanthropic drive behind the desire to increase the social and economic impact of our research and teaching. </p>
<p>But it’s not just about discoveries that might have a positive economic benefit, or a positive impact on health and well-being of people more generally. The way we carry out research and scholarship, and generate and share knowledge, could – with effective engagement – be something much more beneficial and relevant to society as a whole. </p>
<p>There’s a growing recognition that universities can only achieve this by working purposefully and effectively with external partners, civic society organisations, business, and wider publics. Engagement is increasingly seen as something that is not only essential to excellent research, and to teaching – but as part of universities’ social and civic responsibilities. Universities are knowledge institutions and brokers. Part of their democratic and enlightening function is to make knowledge relevant, accessible and useable to people everywhere. But the benefits of research have not been distributed evenly through society. Researchers may be convinced they are acting for the public good, but they need to test that assumption. </p>
<p>So there’s a note of caution to be sounded here. We might think we know how to engage with the public, but do we really know what people would like from us and how they would like us to engage? And how they would like to influence the direction of research and education? </p>
<p>There won’t be a one-size-fits-all solution for effective engagement across and within institutions. And we boldly suggest that the solutions will be discovered through a bottom-up rewiring of the system – and a re-energising of social responsibility in research – supported from above, and from outside. If we can achieve that, then through that exchange of ideas, knowledge and trust, power really could be shared more widely, for a change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76653/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Saul Becker is affiliated with Citizens UK. The views expressed in this article are his own.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alice Roberts does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Despite the claims of populist politicians, academics and experts can drive positive social change.Alice Roberts, Professor of Public Engagement in Science, University of BirminghamSaul Becker, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/760272017-04-18T15:21:21Z2017-04-18T15:21:21ZThe state of South African journalism: There’s good news and there’s bad news<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164830/original/image-20170411-26715-16fbhzj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">South Africa's media landscape has changed fundamentally.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Wits University’s Journalism and Media Studies Department have just published their latest State of the Newsroom report. The annual publication maps key developments in the South African media landscape – from changes in circulation and audiences, to shifts in media ownership, digital trends in the newsroom, transformation of the news media, political, legal and regulatory issues, and the status of media freedom in the country. Politics and Society Editor Thabo Leshilo asked the editor and lead researcher …</em></p>
<p><strong>What is the “State of the Newsroom” report and what does it say?</strong></p>
<p>State of the Newsroom 2015-2016 is called <a href="http://www.journalism.co.za/stateofnewsroom/"><em>Inside/Outside</em> </a> to try catch the dynamic of multiple sources of media and news that we are confronted with, a lot of it falling outside of the “mainstream” news. </p>
<p>Although we still have “newsrooms” in the normal sense of professional journalists and media houses, we also have very vibrant independent media sites and projects – The <a href="https://www.thedailyvox.co.za/">Daily Vox</a>, <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/">Daily Maverick</a>, <a href="http://www.groundup.org.za/">GroundUp</a>, or projects like <a href="http://www.witsjusticeproject.co.za/">The Justice Project</a> that “write into the news”.</p>
<p>During the recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/south-african-student-protests-are-about-much-more-than-just-feesmustfall-49776">#FeesMustFall protests</a>, students and academics <a href="https://twitter.com/NMMUFMF">reported </a>from the frontline using social media, and were a source of news from the coalface of the protests for many people. The #FeesMustfall protests showed how independent news producers, like The Daily Vox, could cover unfolding events <a href="https://www.facebook.com/thedailyvox/posts/1021472407978175">more effectively</a> than the mainstream media, and how student social media impacted on the coverage offered by the mainstream. </p>
<p>All of this makes us ask: What exactly do we mean by the “newsroom” today? This State of the Newsroom tries to contribute to the discussion on this phenomenon. </p>
<p><strong>Are there causes for concern? What are the most significant ones, especially in the era of fake news?</strong></p>
<p>If we look at the media landscape generally, there are good and bad signs. For instance, the <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.za/">Press Council</a> is reinvigorating itself and now has an ombudsperson for online media. The <a href="http://www.sanef.org.za/">South African National Editors Forum</a> has been vocal on issues of media freedom. There are new measurements for broadcast statistics. </p>
<p>I think the diversity of content available is undeniably a good thing. But retrenchments also continue, and newspaper <a href="http://www.bizcommunity.com/PDF/PDF.aspx?l=196&c=15&ct=1&ci=157443">circulation is down</a>. For the first time free newspapers declined in circulation too. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164799/original/image-20170411-23215-tq9rcl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164799/original/image-20170411-23215-tq9rcl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=820&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164799/original/image-20170411-23215-tq9rcl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=820&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164799/original/image-20170411-23215-tq9rcl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=820&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164799/original/image-20170411-23215-tq9rcl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1030&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164799/original/image-20170411-23215-tq9rcl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1030&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164799/original/image-20170411-23215-tq9rcl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1030&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The government has bungled the <a href="http://www.channel24.co.za/TV/News/etv-wins-digital-tv-box-case-as-court-slams-minister-as-confused-20160531">digital terrestrial television process</a> – again. Of course, the SABC remains a mess, and the desire by the state to control what’s news is felt increasingly, whether through its <a href="http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/media/2015/10/19/zuma-defends-call-for-media-appeals-tribunal">Media Appeals Tribunal proposal</a>, or <a href="https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/apcs-written-submission-south-africa-cybercrimes-a">draft legislation</a> that tries to tighten the grip on the free flow of information in the public interest.</p>
<p>Other signs of concern are the influence management has on editors. Editorial independence in the newsroom is being corroded. </p>
<p>As far as <a href="http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2017/04/17/Huffington-Post-SA-blog-calling-for-white-men-to-be-disenfranchised-a-%E2%80%98sad-day-for-journalism%E2%80%99%E2%80%9A-says-Media24-boss">fake news</a> goes, in some ways I think it’s a red herring. I hope that it will only make news consumers more critical and start to question the veracity of what they read through habit. So I think there’s an upside to fake news. </p>
<p>More worrying is when it starts to look like deliberate propaganda. This goes hand-in-hand with the willingness of political parties and other public speakers to be less than truthful with the facts, or deliberately feeding the public false facts. </p>
<p><strong>What is your view on the growth of alternative news platforms, including the ANC’s in-house news service and the government’s increased use of social media to report on themselves</strong></p>
<p>I think we need to be careful about calling some of these initiatives “alternative”, which in South Africa has a positive, politically progressive history in terms of news media. I have mentioned some initiatives that could be described in this way. </p>
<p>But we are also seeing in South Africa what happens all over the world: social media and the internet being used by the state and its allies and supporters to create a counter-narrative to what’s out there. Perhaps we should call it propaganda 2.0. There’s nothing necessarily unusual about that. </p>
<p><strong>What are the positives and dangers associated with such alternative news platforms as seen against the role of a free press in a democracy?</strong></p>
<p>I think we need to start at the beginning and ask ourselves: What does a free press really look like? What do we want? Does the <a href="http://www.un.org/en/events/pressfreedomday/windhoek.shtml">Windhoek Declaration</a> on press freedom matter anymore? Do journalists care about our human rights? Are they prepared to be watchdogs to those rights? And if they aren’t, is our press free? </p>
<p>Just as there’s no point talking about a free press if there is unfettered state control, there’s no point talking about a free press if our editors are told what’s in the public interest by advertisers and managers. We have the constitutional guarantees, and indices such as <a href="https://freedomhouse.org/regions/sub-saharan-africa">Freedom House</a> more or less say we are free. Certainly more than other Africa states such as Angola or The Gambia or Zimbabwe.</p>
<p>But we also know that <a href="http://www.giswatch.org/en/country-report/communications-surveillance/south-africa">journalists are surveilled</a> – or at least feel they are which is as bad – and that reporters are kicked out of press conferences, and increasingly coming under physical threat when covering events: from students, from party supporters, from police or private security firms. So there’s no generally accepted idea, of a free press floating around.</p>
<p>At the same time, what contribution the media can make to democracy is not necessarily being answered by what’s being published by mainstream media. Instead, as Levi Kabwato, one of the authors in this year’s State of the Newsroom who looked at transformation in the press found, editors say this kind of thing:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I received more threats from owners and executives than from politicians in my entire term as editor. The people we had to be careful of were the owners. I received more threatening letters from companies than politicians. Owners are the real threat to media freedom.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We have to think of transformation more broadly than just how many black people or women are employed in a newsroom, or in terms of ownership. It’s about content too – what’s covered, and why. </p>
<p>This is why the independent and alternative media platforms are so interesting. Just look what <a href="https://www.thedailyvox.co.za/who-we-are/">The Daily Vox</a> says about itself. It wants to: “put the young citizen at the centre of news”. Or <a href="http://www.groundup.org.za/about/">GroundUp</a>: “We report news that Is in the public interest, with an emphasis on the human rights of vulnerable communities.” And they are doing it with a fraction of the budget that big media houses have at their disposal. Good journalism doesn’t necessarily have to cost money.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76027/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan Finlay is a lecturer in the Department of Journalism and Media studies at Wits University.</span></em></p>The growth of new, vibrant, independent media sites and projects in South Africa have challenged conceptions of what a newsroom is. On limited budgets, some even fare better than mainstream media.Alan Finlay, Lecturer: Journalism and Media Studies, University of the WitwatersrandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/757822017-04-07T08:06:23Z2017-04-07T08:06:23ZIt was Big Tobacco, not Trump, that wrote the post-truth rule book<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164420/original/image-20170407-29393-17q9s11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Smoking ... and mirrors.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?src=_0MsRT1k_ZxE8X2h3u4QmQ-2-31">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>After two chaotic months as president, Donald Trump is widely credited with rewriting the political rule book. We are witnessing Trump’s new era of post-fact politics, where distraction and obfuscation are central, and critical stories are dismissed as “fake news”.</p>
<p>Thousands of column inches have analysed the new president. The Guardian calls him “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/21/donald-trump-distraction-technique-media">a master of distraction</a>”. Rolling Stone argues he has “<a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-on-trump-the-destroyer-w473144">stoked chaos</a>” by creating “hurricanes of misdirection”. But while his leadership style has been criticised for being chaotic and made up on the hoof, we have actually seen it all before. It comes straight from the tobacco industry’s <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/eef2e2f8-0383-11e7-ace0-1ce02ef0def9">cynical playbook</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"846854703183020032"}"></div></p>
<p>Let’s go back to mid-December 1953, to the New York Plaza hotel. Here took place a meeting between the presidents of four of the largest tobacco companies in the US and John Hill, founder of public relations (PR) company, Hill and Knowlton (H&K).</p>
<p>The tobacco industry was in crisis. Three years earlier in the UK, two esteemed epidemiologists, Richard Doll and Austin Bradford Hill, had published a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2038856/">paper on a causal link between smoking and cancer</a>. And now, Reader’s Digest, then the world’s most read publication, ran an article entitled “<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/ArchivePorn/comments/3d1idp/cancer_by_the_carton_a_december_1952_readers/">Cancer by the carton</a>”, taking the scientific findings mainstream. </p>
<p>How were these companies going to stop smokers from giving up in droves? The answer: the most creative and well-resourced public relations campaign ever seen. The PR strategy devised at the Plaza in 1953 was all about a two-pronged public relations campaign in order to “get the industry out of a hole” and to “stop public panic”. <a href="http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf">One memo outlined</a>: “There is only one problem – confidence, and how to establish it; public assurance, and how to create it.”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164153/original/image-20170405-14626-1kya34t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164153/original/image-20170405-14626-1kya34t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164153/original/image-20170405-14626-1kya34t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164153/original/image-20170405-14626-1kya34t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164153/original/image-20170405-14626-1kya34t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164153/original/image-20170405-14626-1kya34t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164153/original/image-20170405-14626-1kya34t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cancer by the carton?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/box-full-cigarettes-365771690?src=uHw1pLP1FUFjdVbfD-iR7w-1-1">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By January 1954, the industry had published “<a href="https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0268.pdf">A Frank Statement</a>” in 448 media publications across the US, reaching some 43m people. The statement cast doubt on the science linking smoking with ill health and pledged to smokers that it would create the now defunct Tobacco Industry Research Committee, hiring the best scientists to get to the truth. What it did not say is that the committee would support “<a href="http://archive.tobacco.org/Documents/980126minnesota.html">almost without exception, projects which are not related directly to smoking and lung cancer</a>”. Obfuscation and diversion were key to the strategy, as were “alternative facts”.</p>
<h2>Cloak of smoke</h2>
<p>The ensuing campaign to deny any health impact from smoking would last for decades and be replicated by the fossil fuel companies and some in the food and drink industry. Despite heavy criticism, these methods are still in play today from politicians speaking about climate change to Trump and Brexit.</p>
<p>Throughout the second half of the 20th century, the tobacco industry, guided by the PR gurus at H&K, was learning to divert attention all the time. In 1968, an executive from H&K reiterated the best media angles for the industry magazine, Tobacco and Health Research: </p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf">The most important</a> type of story is that which casts doubt in the cause and effect theory of disease and smoking. Eye-grabbing headlines should strongly call out the point – Controversy! Contradiction! Other Factors! Unknowns!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The following year, one now well-quoted internal memo from <a href="http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft8489p25j&brand=ucpress">Brown and Williamson</a>, a subsidiary of British American Tobacco (BAT), outlined how: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Doubt is our product since it is the best way of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The industry kept the <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1408824833">controversy</a> alive by <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Doubt-Their-Product-Industrys-Threatens/dp/019530067X">sowing doubt</a>.
There was “no substantial evidence”, “no clinical evidence”. <a href="http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf">The debate was</a> “unresolved” and “still open” as nothing had been “statistically proven” or “scientifically established”. There was “no scientific proof”. It was clinical and cynical. “A demand for scientific proof is always a formula for inaction and delay and usually the first reaction of the guilty,” conceded the head of research at BAT in 1976.</p>
<p>Another way was to seek alternative facts. In 1970, Helmut Wakeham, head of research and development of Philip Morris, wrote: “Let’s face it. We are interested in evidence which we believe denies the allegations that cigarette smoking causes disease.”</p>
<h2>Cue: Trump</h2>
<p>Nine years later, in 1979, Trump purchased an 11-story property which would become Trump Tower, just three minutes’ walk from the New York Plaza. By now, the industry was also denying the evidence of the health harms of secondhand smoke. Once again, the industry set up organisations to conduct research and divert attention away from the truth. To further confuse the debate, it set up front groups who acted on its behalf and smokers’ rights organisations to promote industry arguments.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164155/original/image-20170405-28300-1bwgkzp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164155/original/image-20170405-28300-1bwgkzp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164155/original/image-20170405-28300-1bwgkzp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164155/original/image-20170405-28300-1bwgkzp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164155/original/image-20170405-28300-1bwgkzp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164155/original/image-20170405-28300-1bwgkzp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164155/original/image-20170405-28300-1bwgkzp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Trump: blurring the truth.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/houston-february-25-2016-president-donald-536498485?src=2wIZPBJYVey9f9W8qGAlMg-1-37">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="http://www.trumptowerny.com/trump-tower-new-york">Trump Tower</a> was finished in 1984, the year that forms the title of George Orwell’s famous novel. This novel depicted a dystopian future of censorship, Big Brother and manipulated truth. </p>
<p>The public began to understand the true level of the tobacco industry’s own manipulated truth via the <a href="http://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-fs-msa-overview-2015.pdf">1998 Master Settlement Agreement</a>, which forced previously private internal documents to be made public. The legal ruling forced the closure of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, which was described as an example of “a sophisticated public relations vehicle based on the premise of conducting independent scientific research – to deny the harms of smoking and reassure the public”.</p>
<p>In 2004, the year that Trump and his tower gained notoriety in the popular television series The Apprentice, research by the UK epidemiologist <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7455/1519">Sir Richard Doll estimated</a> during the industry’s 50-year denial campaign, some 6m people had been killed by tobacco <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Smoking-Kills-Revolutionary-Life-Richard/dp/1909930040">in the UK alone</a>.</p>
<p>Since its internal workings were exposed in the 1990s, the tobacco industry has tried to reposition itself as responsible, as the corporate and political playbook evolves. But whereas once the tobacco industry courted scientists, both the Brexiteers and Trump have been quick to attack experts. “People in this country have had enough of experts,” said <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c">Michael Gove</a> at the height of the Brexit campaign.</p>
<p>Trump and his advisers seem to have taken the playbook to a new level. After a row over the size of his inauguration crowd, Trump’s advisor Kellyanne Conway was widely criticised for using the term “alternative facts”.</p>
<p>Her use of the term has spawned its own <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts">Wikipedia page</a>, which notes “the phrase was extensively described as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian">Orwellian</a>”. By January 26, 2017, sales of the book <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four">Nineteen Eighty-Four</a> had increased by 9,500%, which <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times">The New York Times</a> and others attributed to Conway’s use of the phrase.</p>
<p>However, the industry got there first. Brown and Williamson even developed a cigarette brand called <a href="https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=zsgv0139">“Fact”</a>, which allowed it to twist the language of smoking and health, and an advertising agency developed “current fact” and “<a href="https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=ltwg0138">alternative fact concepts</a>”.<br>
“Is Fact a safer cigarette?” <a href="https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=ltwg0138">asked one document</a> from the 1970s. “Critics of smoking claim that cigarettes are dangerous. We don’t agree … That’s not a claim. That’s a Fact.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75782/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>At the University of Bath, Andrew Rowell receives funding from ODA. He is also a director of Public Interest Investigations</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karen Evans-Reeves receives funding from Cancer Research UK and is a member of the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies. </span></em></p>If you want to know how to spin alternative facts, just ask the PR gurus who kept the world smoking.Andrew Rowell, Senior Research Fellow, University of BathKaren Evans-Reeves, Research Fellow, Tobacco Control Research Group, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/744432017-03-20T19:17:23Z2017-03-20T19:17:23ZWhen politicians listen to scientists, we all benefit<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161460/original/image-20170320-6100-19xbpwp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Scientists address the prime minister at last year's Science Meets Parliament.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mark Graham</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Trump administration has just confirmed the appointment of Scott Pruitt, a known <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/03/09/epa-chiefs-climate-change-denial-is-easily-refuted-by-the-epas-website/?utm_term=.7991e3bbdeb7">climate change denier</a>, as head of the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agency.html?_r=0">US Environmental Protection Agency</a>.</p>
<p>Elsewhere, in 2014 the government in Sweden misrepresented research on the state of the wolf population to <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/challenge-the-abuse-of-science-in-setting-policy-1.16580">justify hunting them</a>.</p>
<p>And in the United Kingdom in 2006, a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/nov/08/news.politics">parliamentary committee</a> found that the government “twisted” science for political purposes. More recently, Nobel Laureate and Royal Society president Paul Nurse lamented <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30744203">politicians ignoring scientific evidence</a>. </p>
<p>Are we seeing a shift in the way that some politicians use or misuse scientific expertise?</p>
<p>Science has evolved over many centuries to become an integral part of modern society, underpinning our health, wealth, and cultural fabric. Yet scientific evidence is often wilfully disregarded by politicians worldwide.</p>
<p>They often cherrypick or ignore the science when it does not accord with their political agenda. We have seen “<a href="https://theconversation.com/seeking-truth-among-alternative-facts-72733">alternative facts</a>” supplant scientific and other evidence bases in this “post-fact” era.</p>
<p>While surveys continue to show that the vast majority of people still support and believe in the <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/">benefits of science</a>, the recent politicisation of science has at best raised seeds of doubt, and at worst has polarised many people’s worldview.</p>
<p>Perhaps politicians are simply reflecting a tendency for the people to allow their worldview to influence <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/survey-finds-us-public-still-supports-science-1.16818">which scientific facts they believe</a>.</p>
<p>Perhaps there is a justification for excluding political appointees to public office who, like Scott Pruitt, are on record for denying the science that is crucial to their decision-making?</p>
<p>After all, while they represent and reflect their electoral peers, politicians have the added responsibility of appointing people who make informed decisions and public policy based on sound evidence.</p>
<p>So it is important now, more than ever, to reinforce with politicians the need to value and respect science in the development of evidenced-based policy.</p>
<h2>Science in the house</h2>
<p>In Australia, a key connection between science and politics is the annual “<a href="http://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/what-we-do/science-meets-parliament/">Science meets Parliament</a>” event, which began in 1999, and which today is organised by <a href="https://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/">Science and Technology Australia</a>. </p>
<p>This unique event brings together hundreds of scientists and the <a href="https://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/event/science-meets-parliament-2017/">Australian parliament</a>, and owes its success to the way in which it saturates parliament with science for two days. </p>
<p>There are three key outcomes of <a href="http://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/what-we-do/science-meets-parliament/">Science meets Parliament</a> that highlight its significance:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Scientists both young and old convey the excitement and the benefits of science to parliamentarians, thereby helping to close the “virtuous cycle” that supports science in society</p></li>
<li><p>Scientists, at the same time, develop an appreciation for the process of government, contributing significantly to their professional development</p></li>
<li><p>Lasting networks are created between parliamentarians and scientists. They go beyond the <a href="http://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/what-we-do/science-meets-parliament/">meetings at Science meets Parliament</a>, and enable scientific engagement with the parliament to extend more broadly, both geographically and throughout scientific and parliamentary careers.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>These linkages are the key to ensuring the ongoing contribution of science to government decision making, and thereby to enhancing the role of science in our society.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161461/original/image-20170320-6100-1ps0uej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161461/original/image-20170320-6100-1ps0uej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161461/original/image-20170320-6100-1ps0uej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=294&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161461/original/image-20170320-6100-1ps0uej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=294&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161461/original/image-20170320-6100-1ps0uej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=294&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161461/original/image-20170320-6100-1ps0uej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161461/original/image-20170320-6100-1ps0uej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161461/original/image-20170320-6100-1ps0uej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=369&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scientists speaking with Greens MP Adam Bandt.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mark Graham</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In science, as in industry, it is also important to innovate continually in our governance processes. Without this, the political system cannot respond to the changing needs of the community. Engagement through events like <a href="http://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/what-we-do/science-meets-parliament/">Science meets Parliament</a> is a key part of that evolution.</p>
<p>Equally, individual scientists need to play a role in everyday life to communicate their science, whether to key decision makers or the wider community, in order to counter “alternative facts”.</p>
<p>In schools, workplaces, community groups and at dinner parties, scientists should convey the consensus view of science even if it lies outside their immediate expertise.</p>
<p>Any scientist with an informed perspective of the state of scientific knowledge on climate change, genetically modified foods, nuclear science or evolution can contribute to enhanced understanding in the wider community. </p>
<p>Whether through Science meets Parliament or as individuals, all scientists have a role to play in countering those who seek to cherrypick and subvert the science that underpins our modern, evidence-based society.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74443/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ken Baldwin receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>Today is the start of Science Meets Parliament, which helps our nation’s leaders embrace the latest scientific evidence.Ken Baldwin, Director, Energy Change Institute, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/724692017-03-02T01:39:16Z2017-03-02T01:39:16Z‘Alternative facts’: A psychiatrist’s guide to twisted relationships to truth<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158963/original/image-20170301-5494-ru9aai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2038%2C1512&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Does your nose grow if it's a falsehood, not a lie?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/5477733246">Thomas Hawk</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The phrase “<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/22/politics/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts/">alternative facts</a>” has recently made the news in a political context, but psychiatrists like me are already intimately acquainted with the concept – indeed, we hear various forms of alternate reality expressed almost every day. </p>
<p>All of us need to parse perceived from actual reality every day, in nearly every aspect of our lives. So how can we sort out claims and beliefs that strike most people as odd, unfounded, fantastical or just plain delusional?</p>
<h2>Untruths aren’t always lies</h2>
<p>First, we need to make a distinction often emphasized by ethicists and philosophers: that between a lie and a falsehood. Thus, someone who <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/#TraDefLyi">deliberately misrepresents what he or she knows to be true</a> is lying – typically, to secure some personal advantage. In contrast, someone who voices a mistaken claim without any intent to deceive is not lying. That person may simply be unaware of the facts, or may refuse to believe the best available evidence. Rather than lying, he’s stating a falsehood. </p>
<p>Some people who voice falsehoods appear incapable of distinguishing real from unreal, or truth from fiction, yet are sincerely convinced their worldview is absolutely correct. And this is our entree into the psychiatric literature.</p>
<p>In clinical psychiatry, we see patients with a broad spectrum of ideas that many people would find eccentric, exaggerated or blatantly at odds with reality. The clinician’s job is, first, to listen empathically and try to understand these beliefs from the patient’s point of view, carefully taking into account the person’s cultural, ethnic and religious background.</p>
<p>Sometimes, clinicians can be wildly mistaken in their first impressions. A colleague of mine once described a severely agitated patient who was hospitalized because he insisted he was being stalked and harassed by the FBI. A few days into his hospitalization, FBI agents showed up on the unit to arrest the patient. As the old joke goes, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you!</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159026/original/image-20170301-5540-1ka8qw3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159026/original/image-20170301-5540-1ka8qw3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159026/original/image-20170301-5540-1ka8qw3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159026/original/image-20170301-5540-1ka8qw3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159026/original/image-20170301-5540-1ka8qw3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159026/original/image-20170301-5540-1ka8qw3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159026/original/image-20170301-5540-1ka8qw3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159026/original/image-20170301-5540-1ka8qw3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">As strongly as she believes, it doesn’t make it true.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/young-woman-telling-her-friends-story-207125380">Talking image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>When what you believe is wrong</h2>
<p>We can think of distortions of reality as falling along a continuum, ranging from mild to severe, based on how rigidly the belief is held and how impervious it is to factual information. On the milder end, we have <a href="http://professionaltrainingresourcesinc.com/wp-content/uploads/Paranoid-Delusions-vs-Paranoid-Ideas-vs-Overvalued-Ideas.pdf">what psychiatrists call over-valued ideas</a>. These are very strongly held convictions that are at odds with what most people in the person’s culture believe, but which are not bizarre, incomprehensible or patently impossible. A passionately held belief that vaccinations cause autism might qualify as an over-valued idea: it’s not scientifically correct, but it’s not utterly beyond the realm of possibility.</p>
<p>On the <a href="http://doi.org/10.4103/0972-6748.57851">severe end of the continuum are delusions</a>. These are strongly held, completely inflexible beliefs that are not altered at all by factual information, and which are clearly false or impossible. Importantly, delusions are not explained by the person’s culture, religious beliefs or ethnicity. A patient who inflexibly believes that Vladimir Putin has personally implanted an electrode in his brain in order to control his thoughts would qualify as delusional. When the patient expresses this belief, he or she is not lying or trying to deceive the listener. It is a sincerely held belief, but still a falsehood.</p>
<p>Falsehoods of various kinds can be voiced by people with various neuropsychiatric disorders, but also by those who are perfectly “normal.” Within the range of normal falsehood are so-called <a href="http://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1010709">false memories</a>, which many of us experience quite often. For example, you are absolutely certain you sent that check to the power company, but in fact, you never did.</p>
<p>As social scientist Julia Shaw observes, false memories “<a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/how-false-memory-changes-what-happened-yesterday/">have the same properties as any other memories</a>, and are indistinguishable from memories of events that actually happened.” So when you insist to your spouse, “Of course I paid that electric bill!” you’re not lying – you are merely deceived by your own brain.</p>
<p>A much more serious type of false memory involves a <a href="http://www.memorylossonline.com/glossary/confabulation.html">process called confabulation</a>: the spontaneous production of false memories, often of a very detailed nature. Some confabulated memories are mundane; others, quite bizarre. For example, the person may insist – and sincerely believe – that he had eggs Benedict at the Ritz for breakfast, even though this clearly wasn’t the case. Or, the person may insist she was abducted by terrorists and present a fairly elaborate account of the (fictional) ordeal. <a href="http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/cognitive-disorders/confabulation-bridge-between-neurology-and-psychiatry">Confabulation</a> is usually seen in the context of severe brain damage, such as may follow a stroke or the rupture of a blood vessel in the brain.</p>
<h2>Lying as a default</h2>
<p>Finally, there is falsification that many people would call pathological lying, and which goes by the extravagant scientific name of pseudologia fantastica (PF). Writing in the Psychiatric Annals, Drs. Rama Rao Gogeneni and Thomas Newmark <a href="http://doi.org/10.3928/00485713-20141003-02">list the following features of PF</a>:</p>
<ul>
<li>A marked tendency to lie, often as a defensive attempt to avoid consequences. The person may experience a “high” from this imaginative story-telling.</li>
<li>The lies are quite dazzling or fantastical, though they may contain truthful elements. Often, the lies may capture considerable public attention.</li>
<li>The lies tend to present the person in a positive light, and may be an expression of an underlying character trait, such as pathological narcissism. However, the lies in PF usually go beyond the more “believable” stories of persons with narcissistic traits.</li>
</ul>
<p>Although the precise cause or causes of PF are not known, some data suggest <a href="http://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.106.025056">abnormalities in the white matter of the brain</a> – bundles of nerve fibers surrounded by an insulating sheath called myelin. On the other hand, the psychoanalyst Helene Deutsch argued that <a href="http://search.proquest.com/openview/8c8791514f5a1ecfa6e4a5c1013372c9/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1820984">PF stems from psychological factors</a>, such as the need to enhance one’s self-esteem, secure the admiration of others or to portray oneself as either a hero or a victim.</p>
<h2>Who cares about facts anyway?</h2>
<p>Of course, all of this presumes something like a consensus on what constitutes “reality” and “facts” and that most people have an interest in establishing the truth. But this presumption is looking increasingly doubtful, in the midst of what has come to be known as the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/in-a-post-truth-election-clicks-trump-facts-67274">post-truth era</a>.” Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, described ours as a period in which “up is down and down is up and everything is in question and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/politics/donald-trump-truth.html?_r=0">nothing is real</a>.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158976/original/image-20170301-5507-ug5g29.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158976/original/image-20170301-5507-ug5g29.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158976/original/image-20170301-5507-ug5g29.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158976/original/image-20170301-5507-ug5g29.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158976/original/image-20170301-5507-ug5g29.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158976/original/image-20170301-5507-ug5g29.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158976/original/image-20170301-5507-ug5g29.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158976/original/image-20170301-5507-ug5g29.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Are lies becoming our rose-colored glasses?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/yamagatacamille/4124052288">Christian Bucad</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Even more worrisome, the general public seems to have an appetite for falsehood. As writer Adam Kirsch recently argued, “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/15/books/lie-to-me-fiction-in-the-post-truth-era.html?_r=0">more and more, people seem to want to be lied to</a>.” The lie, Kirsch argues, is seductive: “It allows the liar and his audience to cooperate in changing the nature of reality itself, in a way that can appear almost magical.”</p>
<p>And when this magical transformation of reality occurs, whether in a political or scientific context, it becomes <a href="https://theconversation.com/unbelievable-news-read-it-again-and-you-might-think-its-true-69602">very difficult to reverse</a>. As the writer Jonathan Swift put it, “<a href="http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/">Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it</a>.”</p>
<p>Psychiatrists are not in a position to comment on the mental health of public figures they have not personally evaluated or on the nature of falsehoods sometimes voiced by our political leaders. Indeed, the “<a href="http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blogs/deconstructing-and-reconstructing-goldwater-rule">Goldwater Rule</a>” prohibits us from doing so. Nevertheless, psychiatrists are keenly aware of the all-too-human need to avoid or distort unpleasant truths. Many would likely nod in agreement with an observation often attributed to the psychoanalyst Carl Jung: “<a href="http://www.azquotes.com/quote/675269">People cannot stand too much reality</a>.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72469/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ronald W. Pies does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Alternate realities don’t just exist in politics – and not all falsehoods are lies. Distortions of the truth can range from a normal part of human nature to pathological.Ronald W. Pies, Professor of Psychiatry, Lecturer on Bioethics & Humanities at SUNY Upstate Medical University; and Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Tufts University School of Medicine, Tufts UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/733322017-02-27T15:25:40Z2017-02-27T15:25:40ZAfrica has a long history of fake news after years of living with non-truth<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157572/original/image-20170220-15882-jhr9ro.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>US President Donald Trump’s election and his disdain for the mainstream media has been seen by some as the triumph of <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21706525-politicians-have-always-lied-does-it-matter-if-they-leave-truth-behind-entirely-art">post-truth</a> politics.</p>
<p>Post-truth politics is a culture in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/16/post-truth-named-2016-word-of-the-year-by-oxford-dictionaries/?utm_term=.7f696bb73b4c">emotion and personal belief</a>. </p>
<p>Not only is Trump deliberately <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-us-media-enemy-of-the-people-fake-news-rant_uk_58a806c7e4b07602ad5500c2">picking wars</a> with America’s mainstream media, he is forcing it to be <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-president-media-attack-false-facts-fake-news-hillary-clinton-same-happen-to-him-a7586041.html">more introspective</a> by placing it in the same category as fringe outlets that supported his candidature through <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/11/17/alt-right-media-donald-trump/">fake news</a>. </p>
<p>The American experience and the debates it has triggered on <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/eliane-glaser/postpolitics-and-future-of-left">post-politics</a>, post-truth, fake news and <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/the-pointless-needless-lies-of-the-trump-administration/514061/">alternative facts</a> are relevant in Africa where <a href="http://www.fes.de/fulltext/iez/00710a01.htm">truth regimes</a> remain both loose and contested. </p>
<p>It is important to recognise that in Africa, the idea of a post-truth era – which by implication presupposes the existence of an era in which “truth” was self-evident – is folly. </p>
<p>On much of the continent mainstream news media has traditionally struggled on the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/01/african-journalism-stifled-lack-resources">credibility index</a>. </p>
<p>The post-truth era is therefore anything but new within the African context. This explains the emergence of <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8389020.stm">alternative regimes</a> of communication and sites of “truth”. </p>
<p>These range from rumour to popular cultural forms such as plays and popular music. </p>
<h2>Post-independence years</h2>
<p>After gaining independence in the early 1960s, most African governments systematically set about <a href="https://cpj.org/blog/2010/07/50-years-on-francophone-africa-still-striving-for.php">decimating</a> the private news media. </p>
<p>Governments invested heavily in state-owned media, which were seen as important channels through which to husband power. </p>
<p>By owning mainstream news media governments were able to “invent” the truth or delegitimise it when it was perceived as threatening the status quo. </p>
<p>For example, in Kenya during the Jomo Kenyatta and Daniel arap Moi administrations the state directly controlled mainstream news media <a href="https://muse.jhu.edu/article/430690">through ownership</a>. It was thus able to determine what passed as legitimate news.</p>
<p>In the latter years of the Moi presidency and during Mwai Kibaki’s rule ownership was primarily through <a href="https://muse.jhu.edu/article/430690">proxies</a>. </p>
<p>And Kenya’s current president Uhuru Kenyatta directly owns a <a href="https://internews.org/research-publications/factually-true-legally-untrue-political-media-ownership-kenya">media group</a> that includes a newspaper, radio and TV stations. </p>
<p>But the last two decades have seen a shift. The <a href="http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/12931/8/African%20Journalism.pdf">liberalisation</a> of the media sector has spurred the growth of a strong and powerful private media. </p>
<h2>Private media enters the fray</h2>
<p>New legislation has seen the establishment of thousands of private media companies. The role they have played in creating and sustaining a discourse of democratic reform on the continent cannot be ignored. </p>
<p>In countries such as South Africa, Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria, the private news media have been – to varying degrees – effective in calling their governments to account. </p>
<p>But it’s important to remain alive to the private media’s limitations. For example, the state remains the single largest <a href="http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/12931/8/African%20Journalism.pdf">media advertiser</a> in sub-Saharan Africa. </p>
<p>The Kenyan and South African governments have been known <a href="http://mg.co.za/article/2014-12-11-state-poised-to-wield-advertising-axe">to withdraw advertising</a> from critical newspapers. </p>
<p>Indeed, the Kenyan government has this week <a href="https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2001230743/jubilee-declares-advertising-blackout-on-local-media">withdrawn all state advertising</a> from privately owned newspapers.</p>
<p>This manipulation of the private media by governments contributes to the varying <a href="http://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/august-2010/african-media-breaks-%E2%80%98culture-silence%E2%80%99-0">levels of distrust</a> that many on the continent feel towards mainstream media. </p>
<p>The other major development in recent years has been the proliferation of new media. A new core of media communicators, including bloggers and citizen journalists, have sprung up and are changing traditional practice. Their effect has been amplified by the emergence of social media.</p>
<h2>Social media opens up new site of struggle</h2>
<p>New media has become a site of news production and distribution that is impossible to ignore. This is particularly true of social media.</p>
<p>Made more attractive by visual forms such as memes, the growth in the use of social media has been phenomenal. </p>
<p>Twitter and Facebook have made it possible for audiences <a href="https://issafrica.org/research/situation-reports/encouraging-political-participation-in-africa-the-potential-of-social-media-platforms">to circumvent</a> state-controlled information infrastructures. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.howafricatweets.com/Press-Release/International-Press-Release.pdf">recent survey</a> found that one in 10 of the most popular African hashtags in 2015 related to political issues. In America and the UK the figure was only 2%. </p>
<p>People are now able to tell their own stories and share experiences with unparalleled audacity, unencumbered by the limitations faced by private media. </p>
<p>Cases of political wrongdoing, like corruption, are <a href="http://www.dw.com/en/nigeria-tracking-corruption-via-social-media/a-19550026">routinely uncovered</a> by individuals on Twitter, Facebook and in blogs. </p>
<p>The profile that social media has gained in Africa over the last few years is making governments anxious. Many are investing in either technical infrastructure or legislation <a href="http://mgafrica.com/article/2016-09-22-how-african-governments-are-increasingly-clamping-down-on-the-internet-to-control-their-citizenry">to muzzle it</a>. </p>
<p>But users are exploiting loopholes to engage in various forms of propaganda and to monetise their outlets through click bait. </p>
<p>The challenge is that the ethical and legal considerations demanded of stories published in the mainstream media are not necessarily extended to stories published online. </p>
<p>The legislative loopholes are also being exploited by governments, institutions and organisations. </p>
<p>In South Africa, there were <a href="http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2017/01/25/How-the-ANCs-R50m-war-room-flopped">reports</a> that the governing African National Congress had plans to plant “fake news” in the new media to discredit its opponents in the last local elections. </p>
<h2>The answer</h2>
<p>At a time when new technologies provide unlimited opportunities for the dissemination of information, opportunities for disinformation are just as limitless. </p>
<p>Interventions such as <a href="https://africacheck.org/">Africacheck</a> and <a href="http://ewn.co.za/">Eyewitness News</a>, which attempt to identify fake news, are positive developments that must be encouraged. </p>
<p>But making fact checking yet another industry may simply institutionalise fake news. </p>
<p>My view is that the solution lies in the strengthening of the continent’s news media in its various forms, thus making it less beholden to vested political and economic interests.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73332/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>George Ogola does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In Africa, the idea of a post-truth era - which by implication fundamentally presupposes the existence of an era in which ‘truth’ was self-evident - is folly.George Ogola, Senior Lecturer in Journalism, University of Central LancashireLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.