https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2016/sep/19/the-idea-post-truth-society-elitist-obnoxious
The article is based on the Post truth society, particularly surrounding the EU Referendum. There's an argument suggesting that we are moving away from believing confirmed facts and policy details an are much more interested in something that appeals emotionally. Brown even suggests that topics that caused the referendum such as Immigration and public spending were not discussed during the campaign due to the aforementioned reason. There is also reason to believe that experts are not longer as respected as they once were.
o 85% of people want politicians to consult professionals and experts when making difficult decisions
o 83% want government to make decisions based on objective evidence
o The higher the level of education the higher the EU support.
o Those aged 65 and over were the highest 'leave voters'
o London voted remain (60%)
I personally believe that it's not the audience who don't want the facts, its the lack of faith in them due to an abundance of 'fake facts' during the EU referendum for many the ultimate appeal was the £50 million a day for the NHS of they were to choose to leave. Less than 24 hours after the result Farage himself said that this could not be promise. Politics now is more based around lies to try an appeal to an audience, there seems to now be more of a desire to be in a powerful position that to actually help people, for years the manipulation of information has had a negative impact on everyone and the movement towards an emotional appeal is because it is ironically more trustworthy than expert calculations. This was particularly evident on social media during the referendum where opinions and debate cast on sites such as Twitter was more sought after than debates on TV, even though the rise of new and digital media has caused a decline in TV consumption there is a definite argument to suggest that the increased internet debate on the EU referendum was because there were 'ordinary' peoples views, unedited views. However people choose who they follow and can easily unfollow those that don't share the same views so rather than debates occurring there may have been more of an 'echo chamber' where the same views were thrown around repeatedly. Nevertheless people were more inclined to favour things that often didn't include facts from the experts which raises the question: Has social media benefited the audience when it comes to politics? rather than simply having powerful people feed you the same information the audience is exposed to other views which is more positively influential than just being exposed to 'fake facts' and potentially even makes politics more fair for those whom aren't receiving facts that haven't been manipulated to suit a party.
The article is based on the Post truth society, particularly surrounding the EU Referendum. There's an argument suggesting that we are moving away from believing confirmed facts and policy details an are much more interested in something that appeals emotionally. Brown even suggests that topics that caused the referendum such as Immigration and public spending were not discussed during the campaign due to the aforementioned reason. There is also reason to believe that experts are not longer as respected as they once were.
o 85% of people want politicians to consult professionals and experts when making difficult decisions
o 83% want government to make decisions based on objective evidence
o The higher the level of education the higher the EU support.
o Those aged 65 and over were the highest 'leave voters'
o London voted remain (60%)
I personally believe that it's not the audience who don't want the facts, its the lack of faith in them due to an abundance of 'fake facts' during the EU referendum for many the ultimate appeal was the £50 million a day for the NHS of they were to choose to leave. Less than 24 hours after the result Farage himself said that this could not be promise. Politics now is more based around lies to try an appeal to an audience, there seems to now be more of a desire to be in a powerful position that to actually help people, for years the manipulation of information has had a negative impact on everyone and the movement towards an emotional appeal is because it is ironically more trustworthy than expert calculations. This was particularly evident on social media during the referendum where opinions and debate cast on sites such as Twitter was more sought after than debates on TV, even though the rise of new and digital media has caused a decline in TV consumption there is a definite argument to suggest that the increased internet debate on the EU referendum was because there were 'ordinary' peoples views, unedited views. However people choose who they follow and can easily unfollow those that don't share the same views so rather than debates occurring there may have been more of an 'echo chamber' where the same views were thrown around repeatedly. Nevertheless people were more inclined to favour things that often didn't include facts from the experts which raises the question: Has social media benefited the audience when it comes to politics? rather than simply having powerful people feed you the same information the audience is exposed to other views which is more positively influential than just being exposed to 'fake facts' and potentially even makes politics more fair for those whom aren't receiving facts that haven't been manipulated to suit a party.
No comments:
Post a Comment