Blog is given by Barad sir .

 Explain the concept of Post-truth as discussed in the the blog.

 Introduction: 

 After much discussion, debate, and research, the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year 2016 is post-truth an adjective defined as 'relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief'. (Source: Oxford Dictionary).

According to Merriam-Webster, "post-truth" is an adjective that describes a situation where people are more likely to accept an argument based on their emotions and beliefs, rather than one based on facts. For example, you might describe politics as post-truth.

The term "post-truth" refers to a condition where objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief. It suggests a societal shift away from prioritizing factual accuracy towards narratives that align with individual or group perspectives, even if they contradict verifiable evidence. This concept gained prominence due to critiques of how political discourse and media narratives increasingly prioritize emotional resonance over factual accuracy, influencing public perception and decision-making processes.

In 2016, during significant political events like the U.S. presidential election and the Brexit referendum, a relatively unknown term gained widespread attention. Its use in political discussions surged dramatically, leading Oxford Dictionaries to name it "Word of the Year." The term refers to situations where objective facts hold less influence on public opinion compared to emotional appeals and personal beliefs. This article begins by examining this original definition and will conclude by suggesting an updated version based on the article's findings.

The concept of "post-truth" refers to a situation in which emotional appeals and personal beliefs have greater influence on public opinion than objective facts. This term suggests a cultural shift where truth and facts are no longer central in shaping public discourse or political decisions. Instead, feelings, beliefs, and opinions take precedence, and facts are often dismissed or manipulated to fit personal or political agendas.

Two central questions regarding post-truth:

post-truth a new phenomenon?

If it is a new development, then it represents an innovation in how people engage with information. In this case, understanding what makes it different from previous approaches to truth, facts, and knowledge is crucial. This might involve examining how the rise of digital media, social networks, and political polarization have created an environment in which misinformation spreads more easily, and people are more likely to trust sources that confirm their pre-existing beliefs.

If not new, why has the term gained prominence now?

If post-truth is an existing phenomenon, rebranded for contemporary use, then the question shifts to understanding why it has gained attention in modern times. Possible factors include the rapid spread of information in the digital age, political crises, and growing public distrust in traditional institutions, such as the media and government. These circumstances may have amplified the prominence of post-truth behaviors, making it more visible and warranting the adoption of a new term to describe it.

Thus, whether post-truth is new or not, it has become a key concept in understanding the current era because of the significant role emotions and beliefs now play in shaping public and political life, often at the expense of objective truth.

MEDIA :

The impact of new media technologies, particularly social media, on democracy and authoritarianism has been widely debated. Optimistic perspectives argue that social media fosters democratization by enabling greater political participation, enhancing access to information, and encouraging the exchange of diverse viewpoints. These platforms are seen as tools that empower individuals and facilitate grassroots movements, especially during political events like elections. They are believed to promote transparency and accountability in democratic systems.

However, more skeptical approaches highlight the potential for social media to be used in harmful ways. In authoritarian regimes, these technologies can be harnessed for surveillance, censorship, and the manipulation of public opinion. Social media can amplify disinformation, polarize societies, and contribute to the radicalization of individuals, all of which may undermine democratic processes. There is also concern about the ways in which social media influences voter behavior during elections, with targeted campaigns and fake news potentially swaying the electorate.

Thus, from a skeptical standpoint, while social media can serve as a tool for emancipation and political engagement, it also poses significant risks to democracy, particularly through its misuse in authoritarian contexts and its potential to distort electoral processes.

The claim that new internet technologies and digitalization are part of social movements and influence political events has been criticized in various ways. Many argue that the changes brought by these technologies have been misused and now pose threats to democracy. They see the Internet and social media as major dangers to both governments and individuals because they are used by millions of people worldwide. Examples include fake social media accounts creating social unrest and spreading misinformation during events like the 2016 U.S. election, Brexit, and elections in countries like France, Germany, and Turkey.

Example:

In the context of elections, the frequently intellectual discussion of truth in politics takes a more pragmatic turn. Politicians use distorted truth as a trick to win over voters. All kinds of Media platforms play pertinent roles in this evil-doing. Though they may not always be apparent lies, the media's presentation of reality may significantly impact public opinion because it is carefully crafted to sway public opinion. Indian media funded by the BJP agenda is using a "CNN Effect," leading the targeted Hindu voters not towards truth but into a realm beyond. Modi and his party politics involve making assertions without substantial evidence to support their validity. Post-truth political narratives, which are based more on skewed religious sentiments and beliefs than on objective facts, are being heavily promoted by the Indian media. Indian media and BJP representatives covered up Modi's "anti-Muslim" hate speech with a lie. By bringing up the global issue of immigrants into the limelight, they lied, saying that by infiltrators, they meant illegal immigrants in the country.

Geographers have started to engage with post-truth politics, particularly in the context of increasingly polarized political and social environments. In 2018, the editorial collective of Dialogues in Human Geography explored the limits and possibilities of dialogue, particularly in response to the rise of Right-wing populism and fascism. They questioned the idea that academics should always remain neutral or engage in dialogue with those promoting "alternative facts." Instead, they argue that scholars should recognize.

Objective facts, or absolute truths about reality, do not exist independently of our interpretations. It challenges the view of positivism, which holds that facts are observable and can be known directly through experience or empirical study. Instead, it argues that all knowledge is shaped by interpretation, meaning we cannot know things as they are "in themselves" without the lens of human perception and understanding.

In simpler terms, the idea is that there are no pure, neutral facts; everything we know is influenced by how we interpret and understand it. This emphasizes the role of subjective perspectives in shaping our understanding of the world.

References:

 https://jstor-mkbu.refread.com/

 https://jstor-mkbu.refread.com/

 https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2017/01/post-truth-word-of-year-2016.html?authuser=0