The Post-Truth/Fake News Phenomenon
Although many people believe that we live in a “post-truth” world, I do not share this view. Truth is derived from personal experiences, so I cannot be sure that what I am told about events and people far away is fully true. I can construct a theory of happenings using logic, critical thinking, and unbiased and direct evidence, but without personal experience, I should be open-minded. We live in worlds of truth limited by personal experience.
The varied personal experiences of a diverse world populace unfortunately create ideological polarization. Personal experience has shown me that polarized people tend to be influenced by “fake news” because it is a form of authority rejection. Using US politics as an example, those supporting conservative “fake news” reject the educational, cultural, and economic institutions they see as dominated by uncaring liberal elites: poorer conservatives may use their economic struggles to justify their viewpoint. In contrast, those supporting liberal “fake news” in the US reject who they see as corrupt conservatives in government and their allies in economic institutions: liberals may cite seeing local unions collapse in justifying their viewpoint. Polarized people do not usually seek common ground, as evidenced in the example by sides both seeking economic progress for the poor and still being bitter rivals. “Fake news” often slanders the views of others, but data from biased researchers is used by both sides of most ideological conflicts. It is no wonder that a leader will call a media outlet “fake news” and then the outlet will call a study that leader supports “fake news” as well! Truly fake news, in contrast, is fabrication proven by personal experience. Even objectively fake news should not be suppressed, however. This suppression is a slippery slope to censorship, as new and objectively true news could be labelled as “fake” for the gain of those in power.
Controversy over truth, facts, and news occurs due to human nature and ideological divide. Humans naturally gravitate to information and people that justify their current beliefs through a concept called confirmation bias. Public and online ideological echo chambers reward people who mock the “fake news” of and isolate people from those with differing opinions. These chambers increase the anger of the like-minded without consideration of the experiences of those with opposing viewpoints. Even if an opposing viewpoint is morally wrong, the experiences that cause it should be understood and addressed as part of a healing process. Lack of connection to people with opposing viewpoints is the root of the “post-truth world” phenomenon.
The solution to dismissing claims of a “post-truth world” is multifaceted. Critical thinking that challenges people’s views on politics, religion, and other controversial topics must be promoted by institutions of learning to confront confirmation bias. Moreover, critical thinking is based on logic and evidence: it is not a paranoid and/or hopeless rejection of all things official. In addition, people should travel more to where differing viewpoints and/or cultures abound to intentionally break down echo chambers and experience truth. Discussion between people with differing experiences, viewpoints, and/or cultures, however, must be constructive and compromise-focused in order to produce healing results. These two trends must take place to end the age of polarization and begin the crafting of creative and practical solutions to the world’s problems. As one of these solutions, people can work together to create unbiased news sources that can promote truth derived from personal experience.