Post-Truth Politics: What role do media outlets play and should we be more critical of them?
As the conflict in Gaza raged, questions were raised about its portrayal in Western media. While news outlets may seek to report on matters with neutrality and objectivity, some allege that this approach produces a propaganda campaign whereby politicised narratives are legitimised rather than questioned and critiqued. Outlets also stand accused of selectively reporting factual events without context, and reporting misleading information and falsehoods.
Image: Asiapacificreport.nz
To this end, we must question the extent to which Western media outlets act as vehicles for ‘post-truth’ reporting instead of being objective sources of factual truths. Is this, however, an accurate assessment of Western media? Can we define our current media landscape as existing in a ‘post-truth world’?
What is “post-truth”?
‘Post-truth’, the Oxford English Dictionaries word of the year in 2016, is defined as something:
relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.
Its rise in popularity coincided with the election of Donald Trump and characterised the ‘fake news’ and ‘alternative facts’ age ushered in under his presidency. The philosopher and publisher of Post-Truth, Lee McIntyre, has further defined ‘post-truth’ as an aversion to objective facts which politicians use to assert power and political dominance.
Politicians, McIntyre asserts, aren’t just lying or engaging in ‘spin’. Instead, they challenge “the existence of reality itself” by amplifying ideologies that create an adverse reaction to the truth. This amounts to a form of “ideological supremacy” and “political domination” as people are compelled to believe things regardless of any evidence against them.
Whether it be denying science or denying the results of a democratically-held election, the era of post-truth politics poses an almost existential problem for society. The violent insurrection of the United States Capitol, a direct consequence of Donald Trump’s false stolen election narrative, highlighted the dangerous consequences post-truth narratives pose to democratic institutions and societal harmony.
Although ‘post-truth’ is a term almost exclusively reserved to describe the actions of politicians, the role that media sources play in furthering this era of politics has also been scrutinised. Outlets such as Fox News and Newsmax have repeatedly used lies to enact an emotional response in their viewers, regardless of whether this response is warranted. However, ‘impartial’ news organisations are also alleged post-truth sources.
Is the media furthering post-truth narratives?
Although “impartial” media organisations like BBC News pride themselves on their objective and factual reporting of events, the framing of their reporting could contribute to post-truth politics. Annabelle Lukin, Associate Professor in Linguistics at Macquarie University, has argued that reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict tends to objectify violence and dehumanise victims through the use of terms favoured by militaries and official state narratives. By referring to violent military activity as “campaigns”, describing the death of non-combatants as a “death toll”, and labelling the violence as a “conflict”, news organisations keep up “the illusion that this violence is symmetrical”.
This was highlighted on May 10, when a New York Times article on police raids on the Aqsa compound had its abstract serially edited.
In the excerpt below, the police violence and resistance against it are described as “clashes”, and the context of the situation is severely lacking.
This reporting may be evidence of a post-truth media sphere, as it presents the audience with a misleading picture of events and seemingly aligns with Western hegemonic media reporting on the region. As Branko Marcetic, a Jacobin staff writer puts it, the result of this kind of reporting is audience apathy. Audiences have their views reinforced as this reporting confirms “what many […] already feel after years of being bombarded with similarly framed mainstream reporting: it’s all too complicated for a normal person to get their head around, so why bother?”
It may not evoke an emotional response in the same way that the lies and ‘alternative facts’ of Donald Trump did. However, it does create apathy and detachment from events, particularly when some would argue that, as an international community and as citizens of countries with a vested interest in the region, we should hold potentially influential politicians and diplomats accountable.
Final Verdict
To define genuine neutral and objective reporting on the conflict as ‘post-truth’ is incorrect, as the facts of the matter are not subordinate to appeals to emotion and personal belief. There are numerous examples of reporting that highlights the violence and human cost whilst being critical of police and state actions. The Financial Times, in particular, have given context to the conflict and reported on the violence and resistance to it.
To use McIntyre’s definition of ‘post-truth’, impartial media outlets are not seeking to assert ideological and political dominance. Instead, they report on complex and difficult matters impartially and objectively (albeit without moral condemnation). Some would argue that the desperation of the situation and the human cost demands reporting with a clear moral stance.
Unfortunately, as seen by the various examples of misguided and misinformed ‘infographics’, doctored footage and false evidence, perhaps the most pertinent post-truth source is those who seek to impose their moral stance. This kind of reporting is more closely aligned with the ‘ideological supremacy’ and ‘political domination’ of post-truth narratives, as they compel people to believe things regardless of the evidence against them.
For impartial media organisations to oppose post-truth reporting, objectivity must perhaps be connected with context and language that better illuminates issues.