In using the internet and social media, all of us have come across highly-opinionated content on current affairs, some based on serious inaccuracies, others on outright falsehoods. The exasperation mounts when we see an exponentially growing barrage of such inputs, often spewing venom and hatred. These are referred to as fake news, alternative facts, and disinformation. This era, as some people suggest, is one of post-truth. What is happening on the internet and social media is marked by opinions based on emotion and ideological values where facts and evidence have little importance. We are often irritated and upset when confronted with opinions we despise. We feel vindicated when we see opinions that are close to our own and use the same as evidence to validate our own beliefs and positions. In all these, truth is devalued and facts dismissed as socially constructed with some ulterior motive. Such conflicts in beliefs are not new. Human societies have experienced false rumours, or inaccurate allegations based on theological beliefs. What happened to Galileo or Joan of Arc are well-known examples of allegations that were incorrect. Even the term, post-truth, is not really new. In the 1700s, French pamphleteers used post-verite to garner popular support.

The advent of the printing press made it possible to spread opinions as well as facts and ideas worldwide. We could read about alternative world views, differences of opinions, and the presentation of facts and evidence in more detailed and rigorous ways. Of course, it entailed the ability to read, access to printed material, and patience and concentration to go through textual details. We can think of two loosely separated sets of subjects in which the average person would have interest and use for. One would be knowledge in a more specialised sense based on facts, observations, empirical analysis and tests for falsifiability — the scientific method. For instance, the knowledge that would percolate down to school-level textbooks. The rigour would be less when we read texts in the liberal arts, such as history, and much less (except the rigour of grammar) in literature. The second set of knowledge could be thought of as contemporary events that we loosely refer to as news. News items are embryonic facts of history which might be later considered as having historical significance. It is in the dissemination of news, its presentation as facts, and its interpretation as opinions that create the maximum instances of deviations from verifiable facts and objective assessments.

Consider, for instance, the current conflict in the Middle East. There is considerable variety in the news presented on what was bombed, who bombed, and who and how many were killed. Then comes the great divide between what is right and what is immoral — prior empathy for Israel or for Palestine colours our views. It can take us back to the past — the twentieth century, or even earlier. The facts of history, and what motivated certain international decisions, become more blurred and the arguments murkier. It becomes as passionate, and as unreasonable, as the reason for supporting a football club and hating a rival.

The origins of the media, first the print and, then, much later, the electronic media, could be traced to the need for an intermediary to purvey news to us with a certain amount of reliability. Good newspapers were thought to be credible with balanced presentations of facts and opinions based on evidence. Even in this sector, competition and the economics of survival based on advertisements from commercial entities diluted credibility. There were media houses that were dubbed as conservative or liberal, right-wing or left-wing. The verifiability of news was difficult. There were also instances like that of William Hearst in the late nineteenth century in the United States of America where the owner forced fabricated news pictures to whip up public opinion and start a war from which he gained politically and commercially. Later, the advent of live television reduced the possibility of total fabrication but now Artificial Intelligence and deep fake technology allow for visuals that are completely and convincingly fabricated.

The arrival of the information and communications revolution, along with the internet broke the intermediation done by the formal media houses. News is available from a very large number of private sources and opinions and abounds in inaccuracies and falsehoods. Fake news has come to stay. New technology has enabled the world of post-truth in two distinct ways. Technology enables anyone and everyone to communicate to the world at large his/her feelings, opinions and emotions, without having the responsibility to validate any of it through facts, evidence, or analysis. More often than not, these opinions are extreme and vicious. It can represent multiple sets of opinions on any issue. The ones that are more balanced and evidence-based get drowned: the signal for a debate gets lost in the act of hurling stones. The speed and the scale of the reactions to news are astonishing. The second contribution of technology is its ability to create ‘facts’ that are simply lies. It can enable someone who dislikes this writer, for instance, to create and post a picture of him delivering a hateful speech with lies and profanities. People begin to believe that it is indeed the accused who made those pronouncements. Yes, there are ‘fact-checkers’ who will try and find out if the claim is false or fake. But few take the trouble to check; moreover, the credibility of fact-checkers is not tested.

What we now have is a world of post-truth where we are constantly bombarded with content we do not like or are comfortable with. However, what is more confusing is that on issues where we do not have a strong opinion or feeling, we are left undecided about what is the truth or what is more likely to have occurred. In such a world, the ability to shape opinions and, hence, support for a cause becomes important. Politically, power comes from the ability to gain overwhelming support on the internet. It is often in the interests of political parties to have a set of dedicated workers who monitor the internet for dissent against their worldview. They also create content in support of their party’s ideological position.

The ability to create support and action is new to the contemporary post-truth era. It can be disruptive with violent outcomes. It is a world where other beliefs and opinions are not entertained. We are left confused, or made to remain silent. Inevitably, this era aids the rise of authoritarianism. Truth is what the great leader proclaims and his followers echo. The public intellectual has no right to dissent or to raise critical questions. Public discourse and civic engagement are derailed. In times of universal deceit, arriving at the truth, and speaking the truth, is indeed a revolutionary act.

Anup Sinha is former Professor of Economics, IIM Calcutta