Our cynicism, potentially a useful protection mechanism against being cheated, has become our acquiescence. We expect our leaders to lie, so they do. As a result, maybe we get the leaders our cynicism deserves. Or, you tell me, am I being naïve for expecting better than this?
It is ironic for me that post-truth has become such a popular word to use in the year that I have stopped teaching postmodernism at A Level, especially as it may have inspired some of my students to take postmodernists more seriously. Still, I would suggest that if you really want a better understanding of post-truth, read up on postmodernism.
Where do the double standards stop? It's not okay for our children to lie, it's not okay for the pillars of industry to make things up, but it's absolutely fine for the new Leader of the Free World?
The news that Oxford Dictionaries has declared 'post-truth' its 2016 international word of the year is not just a sign of the impact it has had on politics. Unless challenged 'post-truth' will become accepted practice with evidence and experts being consigned to history. There is no reason why this cannot apply as much to business communications as politics. Unchecked, it will become how we communicate all the time.
Time was when a newly elected head of state got a "honeymoon period"; a time to ride on the wave of national enthusiasm and renewal. With an electorate sick to the back teeth of the last lot, you got to capitalise on that positivity and get some of the unpleasant stuff done while people still like you. Not this time. In this age, the post-dialup age, your honeymoon period lasts about as long as a Snapchat. If that.
Is Jeremy Hunt the most hated, distrusted Health Secretary of all time? This might be disputed, after all, no one has made
"We have entered an age of post-truth politics." So declared the New York Times last month. They are, of course, not alone