Indonesian politicians have engaged in post-truth politics, framing information and stories by appealing to emotions with very little or no regard to any policy details and objective facts.
While specific stories from RT don't reach many people, they change the mainstream media's behaviour.
It would take a lifestyle upheaval to drop most Australians' household emissions to a sustainable level. Even many of us who urge equitable action on climate change act as if this doesn't apply to us.
Promising scientific consensus is a perilous principle on which to found meaningful engagement between experts and the public.
While climate denialism impedes policymaking in both the US and Australia, there are key differences in their political and public cultures.
People universally believe scientists' solar eclipse calendars, but vaccine warnings or climate predictions are forms of science that strangely do not enjoy equivalent acceptance.
We're living in an alternate political universe of brazen lies and grotesque online spectacles of incivility. Who - or what - is to blame for trolling going mainstream?
Documentaries are vital vehicles for explaining the world.
Reports of facts' death have been greatly exaggerated. Effective communication jettisons the false dilemma in favor of a more holistic view of how people take in new information on contentious topics.
The global food system has been operating in post-truth mode for decades.
People are hardwired to dismiss opposing views as 'fake'.
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.
Rationality doesn't bring people together to make change happen – but powerful stories do.
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.
Beneath simple labels like post-truth, alternative facts and fake news is a complex set of issues. Any debate about the problems needs to start from some common points of reference.
Insisting that science has a monopoly on the truth invalidates dissent and undermines what should be an open dialogue between science and society.
Despite the claims of populist politicians, academics and experts can drive positive social change.
As Solzhenitsyn saw it, simple truths are always a threat to totalitarianism.
It needn't end this way.
If you want to know how to spin alternative facts, just ask the PR gurus who kept the world smoking.