Are We Witnessing A ‘Post-Truth' Nadir In Media Influence?

The issue of ‘fake news’ has barely been out of the news in recent weeks. With this in mind, we asked two historians to offer their perspectives on the ‘post-truth’ era and explore the rocky relationship between politicians and the press

- Chris Bowlby

In the wake of the bitter and provocative campaigns before the EU referendum in the UK and the presidential election in the US, both Oxford Dictionaries and The Economist declared ‘post-truth’ the word of 2016. Its use spiked dramatically as commentators expressed concern that emotional appeals and personal prejudices, rather than facts and expert judgment, were shaping public opinion. Central to these anxieties was the belief that the media had abdicated its responsibility to provide an accurate, thoughtful and balanced discussion of political issues, and had been overwhelmed by propaganda and ‘fake news’ – some of it potentially planted by foreign governments or activists.

Have we really entered a new ‘post-truth’ era that marks a decisive break with the past? Looking back across the past few centuries,it is hard to identify a period of restrained, scrupulous and civilised political debate that would form the golden age from which we have fallen. From the 17th century onwards, writers and politicians such as John Milton, Thomas Jefferson and John Stuart Mill articulated a powerful vision of a free, independent and responsible press facilitating the rational exchange of opinion and ideas between equal citizens. But that was always more of an aspiration or ideal type than a description of reality.