"Feeling" the News
What kinds of news are we consuming?
The unrecognized appeal of emotionally-charged news presents an opportunity to cling to information that speak more to emotion than to objective truth.
“I doubt that many people in American politics are acting on the facts, everybody on both sides is acting on the things that move them emotionally the most.”
​
The quote above (credited to Stephen Colbert during a 2010 New York Times interview) captures the tendency of human beings to respond more quickly to emotion, rather than cold, hard facts. Narratives, anecdotes, and other emotionally laden content is a quick sell for the impulsive mind, preferring concrete narratives to abstract principles. And, in response to Mr. Colbert's quote, I'd argue that people do not actively choose to seek out emotion over fact.
​
Instead, when consuming information, individuals seek out truth.
​
After all, no one aims to stay informed by actively seeking misinformation. This pursuit of truth is reflected in the general concern for the spread of misinformation, specifically by the 51% of Americans who claim to have encountered inaccurate information in some form or another.
​
And yet, despite such concern, misinformation continues to have a significant influence in the digital news media landscape.
​
This wealth of misinformation has not gone unnoticed. There has been no shortage of complaints to the executives of social media networks, noteworthy newspapers, or online news platforms to protect users from misinformation and demand more nuanced reporting, free of bias. But at the end of the day, there may be more to the power of misinformation and its mysterious influence.
​
That nuance can be found in the meaning of truth, and, most interestingly, how we define it for ourselves.
In a media landscape wrought with discussion of "fake news," "alternative facts," and "post-truth" politics, the idea of truth seems to appear more subjective than its name suggest. For this, the bias and human nature of the individual may be to blame, more so than any news organization.
​
​
​
The "Truthiness" Is...
​
Navigate the Project.
"Feeling the News"
"Truthiness," as explained on
The Colbert Report (2005)
On October 17, 2005, the first episode of the satirical comedy series, The Colbert Report aired on Comedy Central. Stephen Colbert, appearing as a caricature of conservative political pundits often seen on TV, heads the political satire as "America's most fearless purveyor of 'truthiness.'" It was in this first episode that Colbert coined this word, truthiness.
​
Beyond the recognition that the word received at the time (it was recognized as "word of the year" by the American Dialect Society in 2005 and Merriam-Webster in 2006), its surprising capacity for long-lasting relevancy is reflected in the applicability of "truthiness" to our news media landscape today.
​
More specifically, Colbert re-visited truthiness on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert in November 2016, in response to the rhetoric surrounding newly-elected president Donald Trump. He defines truthiness as:
​
​
"Truthiness (noun) - The belief in
what you feel to be true,
rather than
what the facts will support."
- Stephen Colbert, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
November 18, 2016
Colbert first introduced the concept of truthiness in response to the discussion of U.S. politics and its increasingly growing hostility toward fact-based reporting in the early 2000's. Colbert explained the word as such in The Colbert Report's first episode, as noted below.
​
​
“Now, I’m sure some of the ‘word police,’ the ‘wordinistas’ over at Webster’s, are gonna say, ‘Hey, that’s not a word!’ Well, anybody who knows me knows that I’m no fan of dictionaries or reference books. They’re elitist. Constantly telling us what is or isn’t true. Or what did or didn’t happen. Who’s Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was finished in 1914? If I wanna say it happened in 1941, that’s my right. I don’t trust books—they’re all fact, no heart … Face it, folks, we are a divided nation … divided between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart … Because that’s where the truth comes from, ladies and gentlemen—the gut ... The truthiness is, anyone can read the news to you. I promise to feel the news, at you.”
​
- Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report
October 17, 2005
​
​
As Colbert (satirically) explains, truthiness is the idea that the personal attitudes held by an individual, or "truth that comes from the gut," can be justified over objective fact, simply because it aligns with the individual's beliefs.
Its basis lies in emotional relevance, rather than objective fact. There is some truth in emotional relevancy, notably as a reflection of someone's life experiences--ones that are in no way made up. They do, on the other hand, have the power to shape an individual's worldview, and influence attitudes. And while emotional relevance has validity, it may only hold power in certain contexts.
​
And this brings us to our own role in engaging in misinformation. How much power should our own worldview yield in consuming information, and how much power does it currently hold?
What degree does our belief in the validity of emotional relevance hinder us from believing objective fact?
​
The answer may lie in the power of the self and our desire to speak our own "truth". An empowering sentiment, though one that may leave us vulnerable to misinformation that speaks to our "gut," sometimes deviously so.
​
​
​
"Your Truth" vs. "The Truth"
​
The difference between "your truth" and "the truth" lies at the heart of misinformation laced with emotion, anecdote, and fear-mongering tactics. In other words, any clickbait article that has come across your Facebook feed.
​
But, before we dive in to the repercussions of emotionally-charged news for our digital news media world, its best to truly understand the difference between "the truth" and "your truth." While few would be so bold as to claim that the Panama Canal was built in 1941, as Mr. Colbert mentioned, the spirit of such "truthiness" lives in today's information landscape, less noticeable and often more powerful.
​
​
To begin, let's start simple.
"The truth" is anything proven by objective fact. Think scientific evidence, current events, and other simple, supported facts.
​
"Your truth," on the other hand, is a bit more complex. It is most commonly used as a term of empowerment, validating an individual's life experiences as a way to promote change and seek justice. Its power has been courageously deployed by activists hoping to encourage others to take control of their circumstances, spurring individuals to speak against the system that wronged them. Its power lies in its subjectivity.
​
This inherent subjectivity, however, can also be used as a weapon against objective fact. If the power of "your truth" lies in its claim that your experiences, beliefs and attitudes are deserving of validation, what's to say that another cannot use the same explanation to exclaim falsities or hurtful comments?
​
The inherent subjectivity that empowers someone to own "their truth" also supports the case for another to mask misinformation as "truth."
​
In this case, "your truth" is similar to "truthiness," in that it speaks to what feels to be true based on someone's own life experience. Sometimes, "your truth" may align with "the truth." It is in the absence of this alignment, however, in which confusing the two proves troublesome.
​​
​
Case: Jenny McCarthy and the
Anti-Vaccine Argument
​
In the late 2000's, actress, model, and TV personality Jenny McCarthy made headlines as she made appearances on a number of talk shows, claiming that her son, Evan, contracted autism from a vaccination he received as a baby.
​
And yet, there is no scientific evidence to support a link between vaccinations and autism. There is, however, evidence to support the decreasing reports of measles and mumps since the widespread use of vaccinations.
​
So how was McCarthy able to achieve such widespread awareness of her claim? Besides sheer controversy, McCarthy argued that she was sharing her "own truth," citing her own personal experience with hospital visits and caring for Evan as support.
​
McCarthy's argument was true to her own worldview and her perception of her circumstances. It was not, however, objectively true. Still, many sympathized with her argument and emotional plea for action, despite claims that she was spreading misinformation.
Jenny McCarthy's 2008 book,
Mother Warriors: A Nation of Parents Healing Autism Against All Odds,
In response to accusations that her claims stood in direct opposition to scientific evidence, McCarthy countered, "My science is named Evan, and he's at home. That's my science."
​
​
The case example of McCarthy and the anti-vaccination argument illustrates the consequences of putting 'your truth' in direct opposition to 'the truth.' With such an example, it is important to remember that both are, for the most part, sources of empowerment. That is, the two can sometimes be in alignment, and are not always mutually exclusive.
It is when 'your truth' stands in direct opposition to 'the truth,' as it did in McCarthy's case, that poses a problem.
​
Going forward, how can you ensure that you are engaging with both ​'your truth,' and 'the truth' in their correct respective contexts, without provoking the spread of misinformation and subsequent incomprehension?
​
​
​
The Linguistic Power of Belief
​
Throughout this section, we have explored different interpretations of truth, both subjective and objective. The concept of 'truthiness' introduced our stake in things that we believe to be true based on emotional relevance. The distinction between 'your truth' and 'the truth' further illustrated how two interpretations of truth can conflict with one another, provoking uncertainty of what 'truth' actually means.
​
How can we accurately categorize the truths we acknowledge, whether subjective or objective, without unintentionally opening the gate to misinformation or possible incomprehension?
​
One way is to directly compare 'the truth' and 'your truth' in the context of a single topic, as a way to evaluate our understanding. Given that having understanding requires a deeper sense of awareness and comprehension than merely being informed, analyzing the two in relation to one another may prove useful in testing our own understanding of an issue. As such, consider the following question:
​
Can you readily tell the difference between
the truth and your truth?
​
While this may be an easy question to answer of your own thoughts and opinions, it becomes a bit harder when evaluating those of others. As such, I'd argue that using the language of 'the truth' versus 'your truth' does not provide the most universal consideration for how we perceive truth, both objective and subjective. And without a universal definition of truth, our ability to spot misinformation becomes compromised.
​
To take the distinction between 'the truth' and 'your truth' one step further, compare 'knowledge' and 'belief.' Ask yourself the question below, and consider how your thought process or response may differ from that pertaining to the previous question.
​
Can you readily tell the difference between
what you know and what you believe?
​
The ability (or inability) to answer this question may reveal your awareness level as it pertains to your own objective and subjective truths. That is, the response may reveal which opinions you identify as objective fact, and which you identify as your own personal attitudes, shaped from your life experience. The inability to define beliefs, in this case, illustrates how the language surrounding 'belief' is of better use in mediating our own understanding than the language surrounding 'your truth.'
​
Here are a few reasons as to why the language of 'belief' may prove more helpful in evaluating our understanding than that of 'your truth.'
​
-
'Belief' embraces a forced humility. 'Your truth' sidesteps humility. By claiming to believe something, not only does the individual directly communicate their own conclusions, but also indirectly asserts the validity of other, different conclusions. A belief, therefore, asserts the validity of other subjective truths. 'Your truth,' on the other hand, only acknowledges the individual.
​
-
In this way, differences of belief prove more harmonious than differences of subjective truth. Subjective truths are, just that, subjective. As such, they should not be taken as the end-all-be-all for what is factual. The language surrounding 'belief,' on the other hand, facilitates an environment in which multiple beliefs are able to live together harmoniously.​​
​
-
While there can realistically be mutually exclusive beliefs, there cannot be mutually exclusive truths, whether subjective or objective. This point is perhaps the most important when considering the power of language, and how, regardless of personal intention, claims can be interpreted in different ways depending on the language used. Two beliefs that oppose one another can exist in harmony, specifically because a belief affirms the presence of an opposing belief just as much as it affirms that of itself. Two opposing truths, however, cannot exist together. If that were the case, how would we define truth?
Despite the linguistic power that 'belief' has over 'your truth,' the latter seems to have usurped the former in today's societal discourse.
Rarely to people claim to believe, instead choosing to assert something as their own truth. In doing so, the power of 'belief' decreases, removing humility, affirmation, and acceptance from the discourse altogether.
​
It is important to note, however, that there is a history of beliefs becoming weaponized. There is a spectrum, and the language associated with a 'belief' can be misused just as much as that associated with a subjective 'truth.' The questions we need to answer, then, are in what ways is the language of belief best used, and how has its power for decreased in favor of an increased trend toward subjective 'truths'?
​
Disrespect for the power of belief not only encourages tension and conflict in everyday communication, but can also be corrosive for knowledge itself.
After all, when we don't know what is true, what do we do?
In today's news and information landscape, it is important that we communicate ideas, opinions, facts, and beliefs within the appropriate framework. Doing so can foster an environment in which information is more effectively presented to consumers, and encourages reasonable discourse.
​
​
In what ways is the language of 'belief' best used, and how has its power decreased in favor of an increased trend toward subjective 'truths'?
Disrespect for the power of belief not only encourages tension and conflict in everyday communication, but can also be corrosive for knowledge itself.
​
​
​
Confusion as a Hindrance
​
This section has demonstrated the power of language, specifically that which is emotionally-charged, in communication of information. With the ability to claim our attention and shift our perspective, information consumers need to be aware of the power of language and work hard to use it properly while simultaneously being cautious of its dangers.
​
Take the language surrounding 'the truth' and 'your truth,' for example. Both phrases have positive power. The problem then becomes when 'you truth' stands in opposition to objective fact, as McCarthy's truth did, yet somehow is able to mask itself as objective truth.
​
It is when we confuse our own truth for "the" truth that we enter into a world of confusion and hesitancy as to what is true, laying the seeds for the spread of misinformation.
​
As illustrated by the concept of "truthiness" and McCarthy's own ability to facilitate the spread of misinformation, we develop our own truth as part of our identity. But it is our inability to acknowledge the power of language, and consider its consequences, that can lead us to spread misinformation. If McCarthy would have communicated her story as a 'belief,' rather than a 'truth,' for example, the discourse surrounding her case would've looked quite different. Had she embraced the language of a belief, specifically, she may have prompted a more productive discussion, and subsequent dismantling, of her own argument laced in misinformation.
But, as in McCarthy's case, we want to consume information that reinforces our own truths. If social media provides a platform for how we get our news, the news we choose to read often reflects a desire to confirm our own beliefs. This information can yield one-sided understanding at most, but never full understanding. Understanding, by contrast, requires perspectives different than your own.
​
So how do we reach an understanding?
​
A better question may be, is such an understanding even possible?
​
​
​
Continue to
Our Role in Understanding
​
​
​
