Skip to content
1981
image of The post-truth condition: Distrusting experts after postmodernism

Abstract

Fake news is not a unique or stand-alone phenomenon. It is situated in a wider context of a post-truth condition, characterized by a breakdown of clear-cut categorical distinctions such as objective–subjective and fact–value. The naïve calls for returning to the mythical ‘golden standards’ of journalism are not rooted in history. While the contemporary public tends to distrust the press, historical research indicates that this is not unprecedented. A particularly unique feature of our times is the decline in the trust of the educated masses in public experts. In the background of these phenomena one may find postmodern tendencies towards the erosion of scientific and democratic meta-narratives within the circles of the ironic intellectuals, which have recently spilled over into the discourse of the mass-educated general public. Fact-checking or censoring the media by experts is premised upon the faulty assumption that the public trusts both the experts and the media, while neither is the case.

© 2026 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/ejpc_00077_1
2026-02-23
2026-04-10

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barzilai, Sarit and Chinn, Clark A. (2020), ‘A review of educational responses to the “post-truth” condition: Four lenses on “post-truth” problems’, Educational Psychologist, 55:3, pp. 107–19, https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1786388.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Brenan, Megan (2022), ‘Americans’ trust in media remains near record low’, Gallup, 18 October, https://news.gallup.com/poll/403166/americans-trust-media-remains-near-record-low.aspx. Accessed 13 January 2026.
  3. Coady, David (2019), ‘The trouble with “fake news”’, Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 8:10, pp. 40–52.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Ezrahi, Yaron (2012), Imagined Democracies: Necessary Political Fictions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Frankfurt, Harry (2005), On Bullshit, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Gelfert, Axel (2018), ‘Fake news: A definition’, Informal Logic, 38:1, pp. 84–117, https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v38i1.5068.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Gramsci, Antonio (1999), Selections from the Prison Notebooks (trans. Q. Hoare and G. N. Smith), London: ElecBook.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Hicks, Stephen (2004), Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, Temple: Scholarly Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Jasanoff, Sheila and Simmet, Hilton R. (2017), ‘No funeral bells: Public reason in a “post-truth” age’, Social Studies of Science, 47:5, pp. 751–70, https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717731936.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Jones, Jeffrey M. (2021), ‘Democratic, Republican confidence in science diverges’, Gallup, 16 July, https://news.gallup.com/poll/352397/democratic-republican-confidence-science-diverges.aspx. Accessed 13 January 2026.
  11. Kant, Immanuel (1998), Critique of Pure Reason, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Kavanagh, Jenipher and Rich, Michael D. (2018), Truth Decay: An Initial Exploration of the Diminishing Role of Facts and Analysis in American Public Life, Santa Monica, LA: Rand Corporation.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Lazer, David M. J., Baum, Matthew A., Benkler, Yochai, Berinsky, Adam J., Greenhill, Kelly M., Menczer, Filippo, Metzger, Miriam J., Nyhan, Brendan, Pennycook, Gordon, Rothschild, David, Schudson, Michael, Sloman, Steven A., Sunstein, Cass R., Thorson, Emily A., Watts, Duncan J. and Zittrain, Jonathan L. (2018), ‘The science of fake news’, Science, 359:6380, pp. 1094–96, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1898), The Monadology (trans. R. Latta), London: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Lewandowsky, Stephan, Ullrich, K. H. Ecker and John, Cook (2017), ‘Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era’, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, pp. 353–69, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Lyotard, Jean-Francois (1984), The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (trans. G. Bennington and B. Massumi), Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Malebranche, Nicolas (1997), The Search after Truth (trans. T. Lennon and P. Olscamp), Cambridge: Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Mill, John Stuart (2001), On Liberty, Kitchener: Batoche Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Mishra, Aniel K. (1996), ‘Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust’, in R. M. Kramer and T. Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 261–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. OECD (2022), Education at a Glance 2022: OECD Indicators, Paris: OECD Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Pinker, Steven (2018), Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, New York: Penguin Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Pinker, Steven (2021), Rationality: What Is It, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters, New York: Viking Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Popkin, Richard (1979), The History of Scepticism: from Erasmus to Spinoza, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Popper, Karl (1944), Open Society and Its Enemies, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Popper, Karl (1959), The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Rorty, Richard (1979), Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Rorty, Richard (1989), Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Rosen, Frederick (2006), ‘The philosophy of error and liberty of thought: J.S. Mill on logical fallacies’, Informal Logic, 26:2, pp. 121–47, https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v26i2.440.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1979), Emile, Or on Education (trans. A. Bloom), New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Shapin, Steven (1996), The Scientific Revolution, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Sismondo, Sergio (2017), ‘Post-truth?’, Social Studies of Science, 47:1, pp. 3–6, https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717692076.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Stevens, Lance and Dugan, Andrew (2021), ‘World’s trust in science, scientists rises amid pandemic’, Gallup, 29 November, https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/357698/world-trust-science-scientists-rises-amid-pandemic.aspx. Accessed 13 January 2026.
  33. Talanker, Sergei (2022), ‘MacIntyre’s critique of rorty’s liberal Irony’, in S. Maletta, D. Mazzola and D. Simoncelli (eds), Practical Rationality & Human Difference: Perspectives on and Beyond Alasdair Macintyre, Milan: Mimesis International, pp. 247–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Tschannen-Moran, Megan and Wayne, Hoy (2000), ‘A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning and measurement of trust’, Review of Educational Research, 70:4, pp. 547–93, https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070004547.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Voltaire (1918), Candide (trans. H. Wolffe), New York: The Modern Library.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Zhou, Xinyi and Zafarani, Reza (2020), ‘A survey of fake news: Fundamental theories, detection methods, and opportunities’, ACM Computing Surveys, 53:5, pp. 109–49, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1812.00315.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/ejpc_00077_1
Loading
  • Article Type: Article
Keywords: trust ; fact–value dichotomy ; irony ; intellectuals ; disinformation ; fake news

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test