The main thing I see is that people take Facebook or Twitter or whatever to be truth. We don’t recognize them as the rumors and gossip they are. I don’t think it’s actually easier to live in a bubble due to these things–you would be in that bubble before, too.
No, if it’s easier, it’s because even the big media tries to appeal to one bubble or the other. It’s not natural grouping of friends, which has always happened.
Well, first off, I vote to discard and make fun of the idea that we are “in a post-truth era.” That’s the kind of self-indulgent, pseudo-intellectual claptrap I decided to leave behind forever, back when I was a teenager. It’s one of those ideas which uses the trappings of a “scientific observation” to try to hide a prideful refusal to accept responsibility for one’s part in the mess we’re in.
I do think we are in more of a mess than we have been ever before in my lifetime at least, but I would suggest that it is sort of like a weather situation. That is, when there’s a cold front moving through, and a lot of warm moist air hanging around, we get rain or snow. How intense it is, depends on a lot of other factors, such as how warm it WAS, how cold the cold front is, how fast it’s moving, and so on.
Right now, we seem to have a number of “anti-truth” factors intersecting at the same time. In the past, when one or even both candidates spouted lies and half-truths, the bulk of the mass media would react by pointing them out, and directly questioning the politicians about their errors. But now, with the ability of various factions to fund their own mass media representatives, as well as to fund their own “scientific support,” there is no clear demarcation between who is after the ACTUAL facts, and who is pushing an agenda.
In addition, by chance, both of the major political parties have decided to make factuality and honesty, secondary concerns, to gaining power. Why that is, is difficult to pin down. It might be because, with all the ability of people to both find or leak ACTUAL scandalous events, and the ability of almost anyone to manipulate the internet (by making up multiple “verification” sites), it’s harder than ever to find a group of people who DON’T have “feet of clay,” or corrupt or even despicable members.
In short, we do seem to be suffering from a “perfect storm” of anti-truth. However, like the weather, factors are bound to change and evolve, so there will be no such thing as a permanent “post truth era.”
…Really? Both of them?
The topic reminds me of some of Adam Curtis’ documentaries, including the latest one:
It’s not impossible that Heritage.Org could produce a valid report. (Even a stopped clock is right twice a day!) But this report starts out with paragraphs complaining about Obama’s waste of taxpayers’ money. When it finally gets around to discussing results, the authors choose words from synonym:dismal rather than presenting methodology and numbers.
I’ll concede that their point actually might have some validity! But if that is “the best description of the study” you can find, I think we should just ignore it.