[mosura]

We never lived in a truth biased world.

This whole “post-truth” talking point exists because one power system is concerned about the erosion of their ability to impose their pile of lies on a particular society. It is itself post-truth in nature.

For cultures that were historically more honest this is more of a shock, but that only ever applied to a tiny minority globally.

[exasperaited]

We lived at least in a consensus reality world, where most people with some basic education agreed on most things that were obviously true, and most people had a shared sense of the fuzzy boundaries of fact and opinion.

We now do not, and it has nothing to do with power systems [0] and everything to do with a newfound facility to mislead at scale, which states and individuals alike will use.

[0] except that elements of one power system —- west coast tech firms —- are inventing the very tools of this destruction of consensus.

[mosura]

> most people with some basic education agreed on most things that were obviously true

Indoctrination.

Part of it is to make you not see it for what it is.

[progval]

Do you have examples of lies that the majority was indoctrinated to believe?

[mosura]

Religion.

The fact there is intense disagreement about what is “obviously true” between countries shows that this is still happening.

The beliefs of the masses are simply shaped to suit political interests.

Concrete example: “boys should be circumcised”. If the answer was objectively obvious to educated people why does the US have such a different position on it than Europe?

[mallowdram]

Any mythic/causal statement (lightning causes fire) is a lie of folk science.

[groundzeros2015]

Belief in western liberalism and democracy

[mallowdram]

Mosura is correct, there was never a consensus reality world. Consensus post-domestication is built from coercion into centers. This requires a steady diet of myth or religion that explains phenomena. If you think consensus is agreeing that this particular god made that lightning, then consensus is ultimately devolutionary. Myth is unfortunately the basis for causality: this statement stands in for the correlational phenomena we're witnessing. Once we were subsumed by myth, status and hierarchy became dominant to truth statements. Look at everything you see here, status controls statements and their validity. There's never a correlational reality accessible through cause and effect statements competing for domination. The myth never solves the phenomena, but kicks it downstream into what appear to be more accurate forms like news. But if you study news, history, law etc, these are mythic constructions that embed cause and effect locally, rather than solve the initial phenomena (like murder).

We have to face truth constructions are lures in folk science societies like ours, they are not valid. Science is not understood (correlational thinking) or accepted b a majority of the population anywhere on this planet.

[AnimalMuppet]

We lived for a while in a world where reporters cared about the truth about the events they were reporting on. Now we live in a world where reporters care about their ability to mold what they report on to fit their preferred narrative.

Those two worlds are not equivalent.

[mosura]

> We lived for a while in a world where reporters cared about the truth about the events they were reporting on.

You only lived in a world where you couldn’t tell that they didn’t. All that changed is your awareness of their biases.

[AnimalMuppet]

Nope. I mean, they always had biases, and they affected what they said, but much less so than today. Then they tried to not be affected by their biases, and now they don't.

So, while it's not binary, it's as I said before: The difference really matters.

[groundzeros2015]

It’s that their narrative formation was so dominant and without alternative that it just felt true.

[hearsathought]

> We lived for a while in a world where reporters cared about the truth about the events they were reporting on.

Who is we? I nor anyone I know never lived in such a world. Maybe there was a time when I was naive and brainwashed enough to believe we lived in such a world. But such a world never really existed.

> Now we live in a world where reporters care about their ability to mold what they report on to fit their preferred narrative.

It's always been that way. The oldest newspaper in the US ( NY Post ) was created by Alexander Hamilton to push his political agenda. Nothing has changed since. Newspapers exist to push the narrative of the elites who control them.

> Those two worlds are not equivalent.

Agreed. One of those world is a fantasy and the other is reality.

[AnimalMuppet]

In the US, from at least 1950 through at least the 1970s, there was such a thing.

You had, for example, the editor of the New York Times who, knowing that his reporters leaned left, deliberately steering the editorial policy to the right, trying to have the net result be unbiased. He literally had them put on his tombstone "He kept the paper straight."

Was it perfect? No. But it tried.

I have lived through it ending. As I have said, the difference matters. You see that in the distrust for the media. You see it in our civic discourse, where the two sides can't agree on basic facts because they can't trust anyone to tell them something that is not just one side's narrative.

But to all those who have replied, claiming that unbiased reporting is a fantasy, that everybody is pushing a narrative: When you say that, are you sure that you haven't bought someone's narrative? Or is that a narrative that you are deliberately trying to create?

[hearsathought]

> In the US, from at least 1950 through at least the 1970s, there was such a thing.

Is this a joke?

> You had, for example, the editor of the New York Times who, knowing that his reporters leaned left, deliberately steering the editorial policy to the right, trying to have the net result be unbiased.

Who is talking about editorial policy. We were talking about news. Right?

> He literally had them put on his tombstone "He kept the paper straight."

Wow that must mean it is true. That reeks of overcompensation. Doesn't it? But you are right, the NYT is not biased at all. Never has been... Fox News said they were "fair and balanced". If they said it, it must be true right? Believe the branding. Hey, the Truth Social platform has the word "truth" in it. So that must mean it was created to push truth to the public. Right?

> You see that in the distrust for the media.

There have been many periods of deep distrust of media.

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day." -- Thomas Jefferson

Through the yellow journalism years. To the ww1 and ww2 years. And beyond.

> When you say that, are you sure that you haven't bought someone's narrative?

I'm sure.

> Or is that a narrative that you are deliberately trying to create?

It's not a "narrative". It's the truth. It's basic history and reality. What do you think newspapers and media were created for? What do you think they exist to do? Do you think Rupert Murdoch created fox news to push "truth"? Do you think a banker created the NYTimes to inform the public of "truth"? Do you think politicians created the nypost and washington post to expose "truth"?

You are trying to push a narrative. I'm just telling you what the news industry is. It's an obvious fact anyone could see if they just took off their politically driven blinders.