Post-truth politics (also
called post-factual politics) is a political
culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals
to emotion disconnected from the details of policy,
and by the repeated assertion of talking
points to which factual rebuttals are ignored. Post-truth differs
from traditional contesting and falsifying of truth by
rendering it of "secondary" importance. While this has been described
as a contemporary problem, there is a possibility that it has long been a part
of political life, but was less notable before the advent of the Internet. In
the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, George
Orwell cast a world in which the state changes historic records daily
to fit its propaganda goals of the day.
Amulya Gopalakrishnan,
columnist for The Times of India, identified similarities
between the Trump and Brexit campaigns on the one hand, and hot-button
issues in India such as the Ishrat
Jahan case and the ongoing case against Teesta
Setalvad on the other, where accusations of forged evidence and historical revisionism have resulted in
an "ideological impasse"
"'Post-truth' is
often understood as involving people's emotions rather than their critical
abilities to make distinctions. And I think that might be true but i think
it's important to keep in mind that emotion and truth are not two different
things. Emotion has to do with what we care about and truths have to do with
things that are the case. The two have to work together." -- Kathleen
Higgins
And if the truth is
atomized to the point where I can have my truth and you can have yours, then
how can any of us actually have a conversation? Without a basic set of
assumptions about what's true, we have no starting point for the debates we
engage in. But maybe this is simply, as they say, the "new normal" --
that when it comes to the truth, where you stand depends on where you sit.
Dictionary meaning
Post-truth
A time period or situation
in which facts have become less important than emotional persuasion.
The Problems
Why Does This
Matter? Framing the Problem for Students:
First, have your
students look at the image below. Ask them, “Does this provide strong evidence
about the conditions near the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant? Why or why
not?”
After they answer,
explain that this is one of the problems that the
Stanford History Education Group recently posed to thousands across
the United States that resulted in their conclusion that students — from middle
school through college — are shockingly ill-equipped to manage the emerging
media landscape.
Nearly four in 10 high
school students believed, based on the headline, that this photograph of
deformed daisies provided strong evidence of toxic conditions near the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan, even though no source or location was
given for the photo


Comments
Post a Comment