The assumption is that the trend in American politics after an era of political spin culture and all that we know very well in the political environment has reached “The post-truth policy ‘era. The time when it no longer counts, whether it is true or false, what is said in the political messages and arguments but rather to serving the false messages in such a convincing way it may be followed by many votes, and the arguments that are best remembered by the general electorate.
My personal assessment of the U.S. presidential election campaign is “a big hole in the ground”. All the many “unfair” tricks including the personal and ugly attacks have no place in an election campaign, and certainly not when the choice comes to the deployment of the world’s most powerful president. It’s okay to criticize the politic the candidates are presenting, but not their privacy – in many cases similar to what the gutter press is trying to grab whatever methods are used. And if this fails, we often see a “false” story that can take a long time to get denied either through voluntary means or a lawsuit.
Let a small elite of intellectuals, experts and media with limited audiences tune in to check facts, and explore whether it is true what is said and written. The political discipline is to collect selective facts to confirm political arguments and deliberately omitting others, knowing that the truth thus vanishes in the mist, but the message is more understandable and more convincing.
THE INTERESTING DISCUSSION In the wake of the new political tendency is completely raw speculation to manipulate and distort the truth, which has appeared and touched some of the almost sacred issues in the journalistic tradition: fairness and balance. This is usually a clear mantra to hear both sides of a case and show general fairness in the manufacture of conflicting views. The good question is: If one party says something blatantly false, will the view of this have as much weight as the conflicting point of view? Journalists are taught to think of their own role as a neutral intermediary. The obligatory model for an article to be reproduced is starting with; he says, or she says this,,,,,,,,,, The readers conclude who they believe unless an expert might be able to verify it based on own opinion and conclude, that one party is on the wrong track, thus finding another expert who says the opposite to balance it to the “benefit” of the audience. A lot of journalism is today trying to avoid any kind of responsibility of the truth, but to render different views just fair, no matter how true or false the message is. The confidence in the media is now equal to the confidence in politicians; insofar no one takes the responsibility for the truth more than a balance sheet. People do not want false accusations and political mudslinging. They want real answers.
The concept of fact-check took off in several media’s during the latest election campaigns in Europe. And we are going to see a lot more of it. Accuracy, impartiality and fairness combined with engaging, easy to understand and always updated journalism manifesto in many media journalistic cookbooks. This really means; Keep the audience fascinated, do it in two minutes and 30 seconds, use much complexity and give all parties equally right and time for something new. Journalism must be in a “post-truth policy ‘era and imperative is it to tell the truth and expose the lie to show the complexity and perspective in any kind of political or financial issues.
Mud-throwing, Corruption, Conspiracies and unclean trot have gradually been like “enough is enough” of political and financial scandals, that now caused people on this earth more harm than ever before, why humanity needs to wake up from the many “sleep-walks” where the facts only become a reality and a shock after the damage is done.
Rights are also associated with duties, why it is important to follow the political decisions and who is responsible for what and your interests as well as anything which may be to the benefit of the entire people in the world.