Post-Truth Society

Post-Truth Society?

I came across a new expression the other day, new to me that is, and it immediately sprang connections in my mind with a few other themes on which I'm inclined to ruminate. The expression was «the post-truth era», which is apparently the era we are in. What I think it means is an era in which truth, or any semblance of it (we're not talking about absolutes here) is of little consequence. So politicians, for instance, can tell blatant lies in the almost certain knowledge that they will get away with them with impunity. Others of consequence, such as powerful companies, have not infrequently done the same in the past, but not with certain knowledge of impunity and probably having consulted their copious legal and PR teams beforehand. So the post-truth era is new in the UK, and possibly in any modern democracy and I find its implications both intriguing and nefarious.

What does total disregard for the truth, for that is what it is, imply? To me it implies a total contempt for anyone with any intelligence and a belief that the lies being told will be believed by a significant perecentage of those hearing/reading them. For that to be effective we need a very significant number of people who are very gullible or ill-educated or who believe it is in their interest to claim to believe the lies. In the post-truth era, lies are obviously believed to be effective and so the necessary conditions must hold true. And belief in the efficacy of lies implies to me a total contempt for society.

One of the things I love about the small rural village in which I live is the pervading sense of community, of the importance of this small society. It was Margaret Thatcher who said that there was no such thing as society (so, anarchy or what?) and she also who in essence legitimised the importance of wealth in the British mindset. I have no problem with the legitimacy of creating wealth, or even accumulating it, but in the absence of any concept of society wonder what restrictions there might be on the way it should be made (we Brits abolished slavery around 200 years ago). The banker I mentioned in my last posting volunteered that people had asked him why no one had forseen the 2008 crash. His answer was that the banks were making so much money that they didn't want it to stop and didn't care to look ahead. So much for caring about society. The upshot, I think, is a tendency towards a culture that reveres wealth and asks few questions about how it is made.

What has happened in the interim, in the UK and USA certainly and no doubt elsewhere, is that the

wealth gap between the richest and poorest sectors of society has grown enormously. At the same time, and in part to help wealth creation, public sector budgets and hence public sector services, have increasingly been cut. The result has been to further increase the wealth gap and create a large under-class of poor and often ill-educated people who feel disenfranchised. That in turns means a large group of people open to exploitation in the post-truth era and hence the rise of populism and unchallenged blatant lies. In past times these conditions have given rise to political extremes, revolution and fascism/communism. Let's hope it doesn't happen this time around.

Even worse, this situation seems to be reinforcing itself and there appears to be no effective policical will to check or reverse it. That does not paint a pretty pciture for the future.

Phonetic English

Let's accept that language changes continuously and very often not in ways that purists and conservatives like. So it is with spelling and we all make spelling mistakes from time to time but......... My stance on this is that people should know the rules at any one time and so know if they are breaking them and have an intended reason for doing so. I don't expect the popular media to know the rules, let alone follow them or have knowing reasons for not doing so, but I do expect the more responsible media to do so. So it was with some dismay that I read in an ITN news bulletin about police stopping a car because of a suspect «tire» and a report in The Independent of people who «sort» refuge. These points can be dismissed as the moans of a grumpy old man but beware the instructions on anything dangerous such as use of medication or electrical goods. I haven't yet seen «discrete» and «discreet» confused on anything dangerous but have little doubt that that time will come. And I often wonder what some people think inflammable means. Interestingly, if an actionable incident were to occur as a result of a spelling mistake, a learned judge would be called upon to make a ruling and I wonder what arguments he/she would encounter.