The era of free-market fundamentalism has persuaded scholars and workers alike to shun an unprofitable thing like thinking. Even an apparently thinky thing like mindfulness only gains acceptance as a productivity tool. A thinky thing like philosophy? Forget it. Until that persistent human question “what is truth?” acquires market value, it will not again be truly asked. Anyhow. Who has time, and why bother? The “thinking” liberal press has manufactured our answer for us.
Truth is “Independent. Always.” Truth, available at a reasonable cost, “is more important now than ever”. Apparently, “Democracy Dies” in the darkness of lies and, without truth, independence and truly independent journalism, “anxiety and confusion” will reign.
Notwithstanding the recent choice of The Washington Post to insert “Democracy” on its front page, that term is now suggested less frequently in news media slogans. At some point, panel program Q&A dropped the guarantee of “democracy in action” from its website — perhaps due to the diminishing esteem in which democracy is held. Democracy, once more-or-less synonymous for a “truth” partially delivered through dispute and “robust debate”, etc, is now held to be less marketable by The New York Times than “truth” of the unassailable sort that publication promises.
The Times report last year on the decision of Fox News to drop its “fair and balanced” democratic motto is, in my view, illuminating. The Fox replacement motto “Most Watched, Most Trusted” is assessed by a paper, itself then newly “more important now that ever”, as timid. The Times sees this Fox slogan as evidence of a network nervously rebuilding itself following the death of infamous founder Roger Ailes. I see it as evidence that Fox knows its brand, while liberal outlets are unable to see themselves as most consumers do: fundamentally incapable of truth.
Don’t get me wrong! Fox News is, of course, entirely crammed with crap. But, this media megacolon sure knows how to market its popular constipation. The new Fox motto, adopted in post-Trump months just as the Post, the Times and others adopted theirs, not only abandons its reference to “balance”, a half-promise of truth, but dispenses with any mention of the truth at all.
Unlike The Guardian, Fairfax, WashPo, etc, Fox News does not claim to offer truth. It claims only that it is understood as truth by an awful lot of people. Which, like it or not, is the truth.
The study of truth has been critically endangered by the market. But, belief in sale by truth may never have been more widespread in newspapers of “quality”.
Fox knows, as Steve Bannon knew, that “truth” is defined by the radically unthinking relativists this era has produced. We don’t ask “what is truth?” where such pursuit is seen as unproductive in everyday life — better to be “mindful” than thoughtful — and is disappearing as an academic discipline.
Liberals ask the question no more sincerely than those who are conservative or “alt-right” do. They simply continue to believe that “truth” is a definable thing, is more important now than ever, and is our own prophylactic against darkness, confusion and the disappearance of long and earnest treatises on mindfulness in The Guardian. When it comes to the “truth” of the political class, the Fox producer or consumer may more easily concede: now, it’s all relative. The liberal news producer cannot do the same. Liberal media serves absolutes to an audience largely aware of political bullshit.
Still, the editorials and broadcasts on liberal truth persist.
Last year, Guardian Australia editor Lenore Taylor suggested truth as an effective weapon in the battle against Pauline Hanson. By failing to counter the parliamentarian’s frequent fact-free flights, says Taylor, we legitimise them. We must delegitimise her, the logic goes, through the legitimacy of truth.
I do not question the nobility of this urge. I am, however, moved to point out its futility. In a time where legitimacy of any sort is itself delegitimised, why resort to “truth” — that is, the truth undefined, but still stubbornly sought, by liberal journalism.
It’s difficult to let go of this “truth”, though, no matter how much you might like to. For example, these past few months, I have been offered decent money often to delegitimise the abhorrence Jordan Peterson. If I counter, as others ably have, the viability of his argument or the scientistic approach of his method, what do I produce? Nothing but an endorsement of a “truth” about whose nature we have long since quit thinking.
Denied the conditions in which truth can be considered, all we are left with is bullshit. To counter Pauline is only to legitimise her. To name Peterson the thick git’s intellectual is to endorse him. To retain our shallow liberal faith in truth is to deny its very possibility.
To upturn this age of bullshit is to upturn this age.
There’s a typo in the Fox News motto, it should read:
‘Most Watched, Most Trussed’
Turkeys are trussed, not trusted.
I thought ‘trussed’ meant their balls were being held. Tightly.
Helen, what a great topic! An interesting take on it too.
I’m convinced that voters have never had much understanding of truth beyond ‘information to be relied upon’, and that has held throughout three or so centuries of modern democracy. I believe the way most citizens know what to rely on is either through lived experience, or through some trusted authority telling them which information to rely on (or else hiding contesting information.)
Yet for most of that time, neither media nor politicians have been paragons of truth. The role of popular media as guardians of truth seems to have been a self-appointed 20th century innovation, and only ever half-hearted at that.
Yet unless dubious information is contested promptly and assiduously it’s very hard to undo the damage of ignorance and deceit. If we find out in hindsight, we’re typically distracted by other things, so a lie or a piece of glib intellectual laziness only has to work for a while to be effective. I don’t believe I’ve seen the popular media good at prompt, assiduous truth-testing, except on a handful of popular but contentious topics.
If something has changed in modern times, I think it’s that we now have multiple professions more adroit at manipulating sentiment than once they were: the lies and ignorance are no longer simply dishonesty and laziness, but increasingly effective nidges to action or inaction, as desired.
I’m sorry that I can’t comment on Jordan Peterson as I could on Richard Dawkins, whom I’ve seen you cite in the same breath. I simply haven’t had enough exposure to his thought. I won’t argue that there’s no such thing as ‘scientism’, but would point out that term has been reappropriated many times for diverse purposes ranging from the philosophical to the political and religious — to the point where any scientist one doesn’t like can be called ‘scientistic’ in the same sense that any human being who offends in any way while possessing testicles can now be ascribed ‘toxic masculinity’. It would be helpful if you defined which meaning you intended so I knew better how to interpret it.
I’m also interested in what you as a journalist believe truth is, and how you verify it. My general gist is that the communications sector treats truth as a sort of corroborated authority: eyewitnesses, primary sources or respected experts in consensus on some proposition, with only a light sweep to see if it’s consistent with other accepted information. Is that the way you see it? What do you think truth should mean, and whose responsibility is it to effect that change?
Finally I understand that you see truth abused by power (I agree that it is — often), and want a revolution to destroy the power abusing it. But what I don’t understand is how the tyranny of socialised decision-making that you favour, could ever support truth over agreeable but less honest alternatives such as populist appeasement and short term committee-careerism. Have you any thoughts on that? Examples to show how it works?
I’ve always been a fan of a sound, well-reasoned logical argument, myself. In these days of “show me the evidence”, and calls to authority, opinion or hearsay, it’s interesting to me that logical argument doesn’t even rate a mention.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is that the logical basis for many arguments, (political decisions, taxation changes) is hidden in proprietary “modelling”. “Trust us” is all we can expect.
Andrew wrote: In these days of “show me the evidence”, and calls to authority, opinion or hearsay, it’s interesting to me that logical argument doesn’t even rate a mention.
Diligent, methodical explorations in general don’t rate a mention, Andrew (logic being only one of these, but among the first devised.) The modern way is to seize on what you’d most like to believe, grab whatever information of whatever quality supports it and bellow about it at the top of your lungs while insulting the character of whoever disagrees and is silly enough to want to engage you.
There’s a case to be made that in matters of public importance, you have to be tall enough to go on the ride in the first place. For me, the height-bar is simply this: if you have a conviction, what reasonable tests would convince you that you are wrong, and who beside your identity-group, would you trust to perform them? If the answer is ‘none’ or ‘nobody’, then the discussion is all about influence, and nothing about truth.
The problem is that argument takes time and thought. We don’t do that anymore. The abundance of useless information provided by the internet and our human inability to process it all within 30 seconds leaves the truth declarations up to spin masters and marketers.
Nor is truth even necessary these days. If Trump has taught us anything it is that truth doesn’t even matter. He didn’t even bother deny saying that he “just grabs them by the pussy” and yet he was still elected POTUS by the most openly pious and christian electorate in the world. You can now say anything at all and if it is accidentally true it is only a bit of a bonus.
Only a bit, though.
So it sounds like we counter bullshit with our own weapons grade bullshit…
Erm… yeah…The conditions are bad for countering bullshit with facts & for cleverer insights poking holes in lies, in a world set up to make sure that is so. But leadership matters. If there is no perceived choice people do go-along-to-get-along/ can’t-beatem-so-joinem. … That’d be why so much money & planning has been spent buying influence & shutting out other voices. But not all of us have given up thinking, & I’m always amazed how far a good insight/ idea will travel., and how fast. So speak your truths & don’t roll over for the Idiocy-Leviathon just yet.
The value of having the right words at the right time is enormous.
If patriotism is a refuge for a scoundrel then so is a bleat for democracy. Even Indira Gandhi, who had no great regard for the word, declared (sometime in the mid 80s) that the word had lost its meaning. As another correspondent put it : perhaps democracy, in terms of presenting point of view is now a case of countering bullshit with our own weapons grade bullshit!
“the Post, the Times and others … not only abandons its reference to “balance”
… but dispenses with any mention of the truth at all.
phew – what a relief! I was beginning to think it was just me (witnessing this stuff)!
I am not so sure as to your exemption of The Guardian but I agree “The study of truth has been critically endangered by the market” It is ironic because information has never been easier to obtain yet we have yr10+ students who are literally (I’d put it at 40%) unable to read the daily notices of their school. They might recognise the words but to anticipate fluent reading is to court disappointment. As for reading-for-comprehension: – its a lost cause. Objections to the NAPLAN test for writing (anyone)? Another damned prat intends to destroy what remains of critical thinking : https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/bizarre-naplan-writing-test-measures-all-the-wrong-things-us-expert-says/ar-AAvEtrn Just consider the use of his adjectives (absurd, bizarre etc). Then there is this gem : “Students should use the best word to convey meaning” which according to the prat will occur ‘naturally’, one presumes, without learning vocabulary (known as word-lists, apparently, nowadays) – but I digress.
“Fox knows, as Steve Bannon knew, that “truth” is defined by the radically unthinking relativists this era has produced.”
Agreed – more or less – but who is at fault here. The Gonsky supporters? Perhpas those who wanted the systems changed in the first place (circa early 80s). In point of fact the “realativists” insist that the ‘truth’ cannot be known or, alternatively, there is no such thing as ‘truth’. Why were they not knocked back into line 30 odd years ago. As an aside I have my own suspisions.
You have provided a partial answer, Helen; viz. “In a time where legitimacy of any sort is itself delegitimised” [to what can one appeal – my parahprase]. Simple – I would have thought : a waltz with Ayer or Russell would be a good start.
Lastly, just how does one “delegitimise the/an abhorrence” or is the infernce that the abhorrence is in fact legitimated in (in the first palce)? It could be that we’re playing with relativism but are so far up a particular canal there is no longer an index to relativism or indeed any sense of comparision.
I don’t think this particular observation is worthy of you Helen : “Nothing but an endorsement of a “truth” about whose nature we have long since quit thinking.” I can barely believe that I read it. Let’s take a breath. Do you think any of the characters of Dicken’s or Hugo or even Hardy had a fraction of a clue as to the significant scientific or political developments that were occurring in the nineteenth century. Those who did have a clue (e.g. Huxley – to name one) bounced Robert FitzRoy (RN) – among others – all over the floor at the Oxford Union debates of the 1860s.
Thus, the assertion : “To counter Pauline is only to legitimise her” is just plain silly; one could say irresponsible. As for Peterson it seems to me that you have to make your objections to his ideology clear and then you will be understood. As it is, except for a point there and there, you are not making any sense.
Kyle wrote: In point of fact the “realativists” insist that the ‘truth’ cannot be known or, alternatively, there is no such thing as ‘truth’. Why were they not knocked back into line 30 odd years ago.
They were. Philosophers were quick to point out that insisting only relativism is true is an absolutist statement, and hence absurd.
They were ignored.
During the Science Wars (a fight between scientific realists and postmodernist critics in the 1990s), scientists slamdunked the pomos, shredding any pretence they had to academic integrity, and in modern times sociologists like Bruno Latour, who first promoted the idea that science could be a social construct, are now bitterly regretting it, recognising that every whack-job ideological fundamentalist — political, religious or flat-Earther — can now drive a truck through the epistemological hole that argument opened.
But how many communications professionals know any of this? How many academics in the humanities have learned from it and improved their methods?
Helen believes that corporate greed has corrupted truth, but I believe laziness and conceit in the humanities white-anted knowledge first, and that we’re reaping the costs of profound intergenerational intellectual failure. If greed were the only problem, we could regulate our way out. But how do you teach evidence-based critique to generations of communicators who still cannot say how to distinguish knowledge from cherry-picked evidence?