Truth Decay: reality vs. perception management

First, define it.  (Tough one, huh?)  In an era of plausible deniability, drone over-kill and high-tech surveillance it is perfectly reasonable to suspect both events and motives. I expected this article might be another to put tin foil hats on the usual suspects but it has a little different approach, and it’s worth reading.

What was ‘reality’ when people were encouraged to “Remember the Maine!”? We still don’t know for sure. But with the sophisticated and highly paid perception management industry busy twisting facts into talking points, we need to keep our critical thinking caps on 24/7. It’s too easy to obscure a nasty black-op with a “conspiracy theory” label.

-cwr

***

By Greg Guma      May 25, 2011          AlterNet   

Truth Decay: Conspiracy Theories and Hoaxes Are Blurring Reality

How about some accountability for the false prophets, gross opportunists, and irresponsible rumor-mongers who threaten society with truth decay?

After his End Times prediction failed last week millionaire radio prophet Harold Camping eventually came up with an excuse.  During his show “Open Forum” in Oakland on May 23, he explained that the world will still end in October. It’s a process and we’re just getting started. That’s a relief. At first I thought millions of people had just wasted days of time and energy fussing over some hairbrained idea.

There are so many theories out there. Obama is a secret Muslim – millions of people believe that, secular humanists want to repress religion, and liberals are plotting to confiscate people’s guns and push a “gay agenda.” At the opposite end of the political spectrum, there’s the assertion that 9/11 was an inside job and all that this entails. No offense meant. I’ve been called a “conspiracy nut” myself, specifically for saying that we should know more about the attack on the Twin Towers. Still, a modern-day Reichstag fire at multiple locations does qualify as a radical conclusion.

I usually resist the urge to challenge the controversial theories of fellow travelers, at least in mixed company. The other night, for example, during a discussion about Al-Qaeda after Osama, a speaker casually asserted that President Roosevelt knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor in advance and let it happen. No one said a word. I considered questioning the notion but let it pass.

Anything’s possible, right? Why be rude? But some theories and predictions are too important. They are widely accepted as indisputable and part of an overall world view, usually linked with an anti-establishment ideology. They have practical consequences for social action, can spark deep divisions, and influence how people see and treat others. In some groups, if you question the conclusions of a prevailing theory you’re either a dupe or a collaborator.

Deep skepticism is often at the root, a good thing in general. After all, so much of what we once believed has turned out to be a lie, or at least a very selective version of reality. But still, shouldn’t there be standards? Also, why do some theories get all the attention while others, perhaps more credible ones, get buried? And can’t we at least call people to account when their claims repeatedly lead down false trails?