Oxford Dictionaries has declared "post-truth" as its 2016 international word of the year by, which defined the word as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”

The disinformation and misinformation are posing a threat to liberal democracy as misinformation or constructed fiction is being used to manipulate public opinion and decision making. Dissemination of disinformation, misinformation and conspiracy theories is in the current environment closely connected with the internet as one of the main distribution canal for sharing and distributing information. Not that only anyone can “produce” and disseminate information to wide public but also algorithms that are running the social media favor speeding disinformation a misinformation. In this environment we do not face just “war of information” but a “cognitive war [1]” where our (human) cognitive predispositions are exploited and misused for someone’s purposes.

It is another situation with dictatorship or regimes were the media (television and/or newspapers) are fully under control of the regime and thus setting the narratives and influencing public opinion (as in Russia or Hungary).

[1] Term used by NATO:  https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2021/05/20/countering-cognitive-warfare-awareness-and-resilience/index.html

Definition

What is a definition and what purposes definitions serves is by itself very interesting topic and it is quite important for understanding the usage of language and declared knowledge.

Generally definition is understood as (from: dictionary.cambridge.org):

• a statement that explains the meaning of a word or phrase

• a description of the features and limits of something

 it is defined as (from www.lexico.com):

• a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary

The term comes from latin: dēfīnītiō meaning a limiting, defining, definition, explanation or boundary or limits.

In this sense, we would like to point out that the “definition” is actually a concept to set a boundary (limits) for “communication” purposes. We are using definitions to be able to communicate and understand each other so if anyone says something the other understands the meaning (with all the references behind it). Some definitions are based on common use of the term and some are based on scientific findings. But all are founded on common agreement between the users (even with disagreement the communication is about setting up a boundary).

As always with definitions, we could find different concepts and approaches. To conceptualize some of the key terms to suite our purposes we propose to use following terms in following meaning:

First we should point out two main distinction lines:

• 1st question of deliberateness, purpose and intention

• 2nd question of facticity (false and true)

Misinformation vs. Disinformation

• Misinformation: false information that is spread (or received), regardless of whether there is intent to mislead.[1]

• Disinformation: deliberately misleading or biased information; manipulated narrative or facts; propaganda [2].

So the difference is in the intention. But as the disinformation can be driven by biases and the purposefulness or intention can be little tricky question. Important about disinformation is that it does not have to concern just an information but also narratives or propaganda that is framing the issue in deliberated (intended) direction.

There is no consensus how to define term Fake news and that’s also because the meaning evolved over time. It used to be used to describe satirical (made up) content which was not intended to inform and so it was not actually news at all. Currently we can point out two different usage of the term:

• Fake news taken literary: literary “fake news” as deliberately fabricated false information. We could say fabricated lie.

• Fake news as general term: generally false and/or misleading information.

As “fake news” are mostly not entirely false (fabricated lie) and “real news” is not always flawless [3] it is not easy to establish strict line between these two [4]. By this we are getting to the question: What is fact, what is false and true? We are proposing following definition of the term fact and explaining why in the comments below:

• Fact as data: fact as data representing or describing events or properties of something that exists or existed. Fact as basic data gathered about events or properties prior to interpretation*.

[1] From: www.dictionary.com

[2] From: www.dictionary.com

[3] Potthast, M., Kiesel, J., Reinartz, K., Bevendorff, J., & Stein, B. (2017). A stylometric inquiry into hyperpartisan and fake news. from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.05638.pdf (see on page 4)

[4] As we can for example see at the fact checking pages like Snopes which are rather using scale to distinguish “true” and “false” statements (see alto below the practical part)..

What is then the truth? Oxford dictionary is in one of the definitions saying that true or truth is “that which is in accordance with fact or reality“. As we showed how it is with facts we would hesitate to use such a definition because it is masking that the “facts” are just pointing out on something in the reality but they are not reality itself. And then we can arguably hesitate to use the term “true”. Of course it is and will be still called “true” something corresponding with reality but it is quite important to acknowledge this quinine understanding that is actually the Truth: 

The true and truth: The truth is simply what is, the reality itself. We might call this the Truth. And term truth leave for fact corresponding to this reality.

What is then objectivity and can we obtain objective facts? It is hard to call anything 100% objective if we understand that gathering facts is inherently connected with an intention and method standing behind obtaining the facts (data). And even simplest observations can be obscured and have an intention or reason in them (we do something because we wanted to or find or self in a situation doing so because of something).

Also as we have seen with biases (see Module 1) we could see that we can limit biases but it I close to impossible limit them absolutely. We are still and we will be approaching the issue from some point of view, with some prior experience and with some purpose.

As for the term objective we propose to use it in the two following meanings:

• (our perspective) In the sense of transparency. So in the case of the lenses of camera (see the example above) we would as objective perceive that the photographer would with the photo provide transparently the information where, when, in what circumstances, and with what intentions was the photography taken.

• (journalists perspective) Present the issue from multiple viewpoints and presents all sides of an argument. This is the way journalists work. They try to show the perspective of all relevant actors. One problem is that you can newer cover all the viewpoints/arguments but still this is a good way to objectify complicated topic. Second problem is that by perusing this sense of objectivity it (almost inevitably) leads to comparison of not comparable positions (arguments). Because as the journalists try to stay objective by giving space to every side the same way they dismiss to critically examine the augments and evidence provided. So one of the party may (and often does) benefit from better rhetoric that is based on populism/fake-news/disinformation etc [1]. (this is mainly problem of reporters as investigative journalists should go beyond the expressed arguments of the actors involved).

[1] As a good example where these was actually professionally manufactured and fully exploited is the Tabaco and Oil industry with their denials of connection between smoking and cancer and man contribution to climate change. This is very good documented by scientific research and investigative journalist  (see for example BBC podcast well covering these topic: How They Made Us Doubt Everything).