![Picture](/uploads/1/4/2/5/14259486/post-truth_orig.jpg)
“Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”. This is the meaning behind 'post-truth', the 2016 word of the year, as chosen by Oxford Dictionaries. Particularly in a political sense, post-truth has taken the world by storm this year and become the new media buzz word. But what does it mean for journalism, or society as a whole?
Not only is this an acknowledgement that emotions and personal belief trump hard, solid facts, but this is society pleasantly accepting, or condoning, this fact. Is it not dangerous to live in a world where facts, which are ultimately derived from proof and evidence, mean nothing? Will this filter into newsrooms and result in journalists no longer looking for evidence to corroborate a story? Has this already happened? Will this lead to juries convicting suspects based on how that suspect makes them feel or what they think of that suspect just by looking at them? Is a post-truth world one in which democracy has a place, or will election campaigns be nothing more than smear campaigns? I think we have already had a taste of that.
Choosing a word that reflects the passing year in language, Oxford Dictionaries stated that the use of 'post-truth' increased by 2000% over its usage in 2015. 'The prefix in post-truth has a meaning more like 'belonging to a time in which the specified concept has become unimportant or irrelevant',' said the Oxford Dictionaries website. In essence, the concept of truth is no longer relevant to, or no longer has a place in, society. Yikes.
Rest assured, Tamlyn Jolly writer, editor, proof reader does not subscribe to this concept and will continue to provide fact-based, well researched pieces, as can be seen in my many examples of work.
Not only is this an acknowledgement that emotions and personal belief trump hard, solid facts, but this is society pleasantly accepting, or condoning, this fact. Is it not dangerous to live in a world where facts, which are ultimately derived from proof and evidence, mean nothing? Will this filter into newsrooms and result in journalists no longer looking for evidence to corroborate a story? Has this already happened? Will this lead to juries convicting suspects based on how that suspect makes them feel or what they think of that suspect just by looking at them? Is a post-truth world one in which democracy has a place, or will election campaigns be nothing more than smear campaigns? I think we have already had a taste of that.
Choosing a word that reflects the passing year in language, Oxford Dictionaries stated that the use of 'post-truth' increased by 2000% over its usage in 2015. 'The prefix in post-truth has a meaning more like 'belonging to a time in which the specified concept has become unimportant or irrelevant',' said the Oxford Dictionaries website. In essence, the concept of truth is no longer relevant to, or no longer has a place in, society. Yikes.
Rest assured, Tamlyn Jolly writer, editor, proof reader does not subscribe to this concept and will continue to provide fact-based, well researched pieces, as can be seen in my many examples of work.