Dipak Kurmi
(The writer can be reached at dipaknewslive@gmail.com.)
The internet and social media landscape are rife with highly opinionated content on current affairs, often rooted in serious inaccuracies or outright falsehoods. The exasperation deepens as we confront an ever-growing onslaught of such inputs, laden with venom and hatred. Termed as fake news, alternative facts, and disinformation, this era has been dubbed by some as one of post-truth. In this digital realm, opinions fueled by emotion and ideological values take precedence, relegating facts and evidence to a secondary role. The frustration peaks when faced with opinions that contradict our own, while those aligning with our beliefs serve as validation. Truth is depreciated, and facts are dismissed as socially constructed with ulterior motives. Such clashes in beliefs echo historical occurrences of false rumours and inaccurate allegations driven by theological convictions. Notably, figures like Galileo and Joan of Arc fell victim to baseless accusations. Even the term “post-truth” itself is not entirely novel; in the 1700s, French pamphleteers employed “post-verite” to rally popular support.
The printing press made it possible to disseminate opinions, facts, and ideas globally. It opened avenues to explore alternative worldviews, diverse opinions, and detailed presentations of facts and evidence in a more rigorous manner. However, this accessibility came with prerequisites: the ability to read, access to printed materials, and the patience and concentration required to delve into textual details. Within the realm of knowledge, two loosely separated subjects emerged, catering to the interests and utility of the average person. The first set revolved around specialised knowledge grounded in facts, observations, empirical analysis, and tests for falsifiability—the scientific method. This encompassed the type of knowledge found in school-level textbooks with a higher degree of rigour. Conversely, in the liberal arts, such as history, and even more so in literature (except for grammatical rigour), the rigour diminished. The second set of knowledge focused on contemporary events, often referred to as news. These news items represented embryonic facts of history, potentially gaining historical significance later on. It is in the dissemination, presentation as facts, and interpretation of news that the most instances of deviations from verifiable facts and objective assessments arise.
The current conflict in the Middle East illustrates a significant divergence in the news coverage, with varying accounts of what was bombed, who carried out the bombings, and the toll in terms of casualties. This divergence is followed by a profound divide between notions of right and immorality, where pre-existing empathy for either Israel or Palestine colors individual perspectives. This conflict has the capacity to transport us back to the annals of the twentieth century or even earlier, introducing a layer of complexity to the facts of history and clouding the motivations behind certain international decisions. The arguments surrounding the conflict become increasingly passionate and, at times, unreasonable—reminiscent of the fervour associated with supporting a football club and harbouring animosity towards a rival.
The media, starting initially with print and later evolving into electronic formats, has its origins rooted in the necessity for an intermediary to deliver news with a certain degree of reliability. The credibility of good newspapers was once synonymous with balanced presentations of facts and opinions grounded in evidence. However, even within this domain, competition and the economic pressures of survival, often reliant on advertisements from commercial entities, have eroded credibility. Media houses were often categorized as conservative or liberal, right-wing or left-wing, further complicating the verifiability of news. Instances like that of William Hearst in the late nineteenth century in the United States underscored the potential manipulation of public opinion through fabricated news pictures, leading to politically and commercially motivated gains. Although the advent of live television reduced the likelihood of total fabrication, the current landscape introduces new challenges with artificial intelligence and deep fake technology, enabling the creation of visuals that are entirely and convincingly fabricated.
The internet, ushering in the information and communications revolution, shattered the intermediation traditionally carried out by formal media houses. News is now accessible from a myriad of private sources, but with this abundance comes a proliferation of inaccuracies and falsehoods, firmly establishing the prevalence of fake news. New technology has paved the way for a post-truth world in two distinct ways. Firstly, it empowers individuals to communicate their feelings, opinions, and emotions to a global audience without the responsibility of validating their assertions through facts, evidence, or analysis. Often, these opinions tend to be extreme and vicious, overshadowing more balanced and evidence-based perspectives in the cacophony of voices. The rapid and widespread reactions to news are staggering, and the signal for constructive debate gets lost amid the act of hurling stones. Secondly, technology’s contribution lies in its ability to fabricate ‘facts’ that are essentially lies. It allows someone with a vendetta, for instance, to create and share a manipulated image depicting the targeted individual delivering a hateful speech filled with lies and profanities. Over time, people may come to believe that the accused indeed made those pronouncements. While there are ‘fact-checkers’ attempting to verify the authenticity of such claims, few take the trouble to check, and the credibility of these fact-checkers often remains untested.
The world we currently inhabit is one of post-truth, where we find ourselves inundated with content that challenges our comfort zones and preconceived notions. Yet, greater perplexity arises when faced with issues where our opinions or feelings are not firmly established, leaving us in a state of uncertainty regarding the truth or the more likely scenario. In this milieu, the ability to shape opinions and garner support for a cause takes centre stage. In the realm of politics, power is derived from the capacity to amass overwhelming support on the internet. Political parties often find it advantageous to maintain a cadre of dedicated workers tasked with monitoring the internet for dissent against their worldview. Furthermore, these workers are instrumental in crafting content that aligns with and reinforces their party’s ideological stance.
The contemporary post-truth era introduces a newfound ability to mobilise support and instigate action, often with disruptive and, at times, violent consequences. This landscape is characterised by an unwillingness to entertain alternative beliefs and opinions, leaving individuals either bewildered or coerced into silence. Unavoidably, this era paves the way for the ascent of authoritarianism, where truth is defined by the proclamations of a charismatic leader, echoed by their followers. Dissent and critical questioning are deemed unacceptable for public intellectuals, derailing public discourse and civic engagement. In a time dominated by universal deceit, the act of arriving at and speaking the truth emerges as a revolutionary endeavour.