Media has always been our primary source of the truth since we were born. Up until recent times, most people had an instinctive trust for the news, like they would never lie. In common social interactions, seeing something in the news or hearing something on radio was considered enough evidence to the truth of any subject being discussed. However, things have changed. The last three decades or so (depending on where you're reading this from) have seen a serious shift in the way media reports the truth, and this is the subject of today's post.

I am not here to imply that the media lies to us deliberately; maybe they do, maybe they don't. I am not here to call some huge malicious conspiracy to shape public opinion, although there have been small scale versions of these executed in different parts of the world. Neither am I here to point out specific facts that have been altered during reporting or presentation by different personalities and entities; that would be tedious and pointless to my argument, as mistakes are common to humans. What I am here to do is illustrate a pattern of behavior in the media industry that, at present, is less concerned about the truth and more about other factors that are secondary to the main goal of journalism.

Disclaimer

I am not a journalist per se, and neither am I talking about journalism as a profession here. I am simply going to look at how the truth is reported in the media, how it is received by we, the audience and the implications of this exchange upon the integrity of these and other similar institutions in our society.

So, lets get to it

First off, what is truth? To tell you the truth, I do not know. Let's see, hmm 🤔 I believe a fundamental essence of truth is that it should be objective. To put it simply, the truth should not depend on the person involved. There can only be one truth. Relativists are welcome to dispute this, but even physics determines that the laws of physics are the same regardless of the frame of reference.

In essence, truth is consistency between the external physical occurrence of events and the internal personal narration of said events. Since we can never fully control external variables, sometimes we make deliberate internal decisions to alter our narration of said events, when the outcomes suit such alteration.

We can already see the peculiar component rearing its head in the mix;

Outcomes

Humans alter the truth when the outcomes of truthfulness are disadvantageous to them. A kid will lie about eating the hidden cookies because they know they will be in trouble. But surely, you may say, a media house is not some child that can just lie to people about, say, the stock market, because it is afraid of making some losses. You are very right. They do not.

Outcomes are tied to purpose. A child purposes to be good, therefore will work to avoid a bad outcome. With the media, it is a little more complicated. Previously, the media purposed to be truthful, and therefore worked to avoid outcomes of falsehood. However, more recently, the media has become another profit-making industry. Money is the new purpose, and the outcome to avoid is making a loss. Enter the new champion of modern media;

Sensationalism

To make money, the media has discovered that it is not just enough to tell the truth. They need more people to tune in to their specific truth over another media house's truth. It does not mean that either side is actually lying, since there can only be one version of the truth. Rather, it means that media houses figured out a bunch of tricks of sorts to make sure some people are always tuned in. Among these tricks, perhaps the most successful one is sensationalism.

Sensationalism is the emphasis on information that invokes an emotional reaction in an audience. You might have noticed that the news barely has time to report good things these days, and instead wait for bad news then its "Breaking News!" on every station. Good news makes people wish the good was happening to them and most will not be inclined to feel anything about it, to avoid being called envious. very few will actually feel genuinely good for a stranger on TV who stumbled on some luck, unless they escaped death or something cataclysmic. When the news is bad, however, we all rush to wonder "what if it was me?" and it immediately helps us form an emotional attachment. It is not just about good and bad news, however. Sometimes the meanings of statements are misinterpreted, taken out of context or misconstrued in a manner that appeals to a particular demographic.

Understandably, media houses need to make a buck to stay afloat. In that context, sensationalism appears harmless, even necessary. However, such practices have an actual impact on the audience's perspective on things. In the United States, it has led to the development of a conspiracy theory-fueled alt-right which is informed by a set of media houses that have repeatedly lied, ignored certain facts and even made up statistics to create a false but plausible narrative. In Kenya, we have just been through an election whose early tallying period was characterized by statements like "whoever is winning the election depends on the station you're watching". We have seen audiences go up in arms against each other based on baseless statements made on the news, propped up by a few unrelated facts here and there. In essence, it is no longer about how can the media better deliver the truth to audiences. Now it is about how the media can use the truth to get ahead financially. This, dear readers, is the danger of the post-truth era of modern journalism.

Long read? Follow me on Twitter @Cal_Bane where I compress such matters into smaller threads.