Source:

Braid, Florangel Rosario. Communication in a post-truth society. Manila Bulletin, 29 September 2017.
Electronic. 15 August 2018. <https://news.mb.com.ph>.

Communication in a post-truth
society
By Florangel Rosario Braid

The word of the year according to Oxford dictionary is “post-truth.” Which characterizes our society
which is facing numerous conflicts, and one that media practitioners must now learn to navigate. In
such an environment, the first victim is the truth.

This was the introduction during the discussion on Freedom of Expression in a Post-Truth Era by the
panel consisting of Ang Peng Hwa, Cherian George, Lars Bestle, Yvonne Chua, and Dasho K. Dorj,
former Bhutan’s Secretary of Information. This was at the recently concluded AMIC Conference on
“Rethinking Asian Communication” where the panelists examined issues of lack of access to adequate
information, mis-information, hate speech on both sides, false and misattributed photos, online smear
campaigns and “disinformation scandals,” such as the 2003 US explanation for its invasion of Iraq, the
climate change deal where the anti-CC created a lot of disinformation, and the “big tobacco” fake
news. There was also Facebook’s banning of posts about the Rohingya refugees from Myanmar at this
time while they are facing ethnic cleansing. We all know about what is happening in our own social
media – engagement of trolls for the purpose of creating hate speech for Facebook and other echo
chambers.

What can be done about all these? Awareness of conflict sensitive information such as stereotypes of
ethnic, gender, and other social and politically sensitive information of state, religious groups, and
ideologies, and how schools and other institutions can help address the concern is suggested. Already,
UNESCO, the Committee to Protect Journalists, International Media Support, among others, are
working on how media may be harnessed to fight extrajudicial killings, as well as ensure safety and
protection of journalists and media workers. Thus, the challenge of re-designing content, platforms,
conflict-mediation and resolution approaches.

All these are related to understanding the structure of power and the political economy, the role of
media oligopoly and political dynasties, as well as learning from advocates of peace who had
effectively used communication to resolve conflict. But the approaches we must now use must depart
from the traditional, linear models, which are more analytic and source oriented. They must be drawn
from our culture, our philosophies, and religions. Again, since much of today’s conflict deals with the
global and regional concerns, we must think multiculturally, through consensus on Asian
commonalities in our culture and religion; and multilaterally, in observing universal laws in the
resolution of international conflict.
All these developments are happening amidst the rapid growth of the new media. Gail Tan, head of
communications of Google Philippines/Thailand provides these statistics: Half of people online are
from Asia (49.75%); more than half of the content is English and using these four platforms: Google
Search using 159 languages, YouTube, 77 languages; Android, 71 languages, and Play, 71 languages.
In 2017, there were 7.6 billion Google users and 3.8 Internet users. This is expected to increase to 8
billion users of Google and 8 billion Internet users by 2020. The present and future shows that we are
not merely heavy users but a highly mobile population.

Two friends and colleagues over the past 45 years – John Lent and international development Ronny
Adhikarya shared these observations: John, a journalist who wrote some of the earlier histories of Asian
Press including that of the Philippines is now a publisher and editor of journals on comic art and Asian
cinema. He notes that “comic books, graphic novels, political cartoons are making much more impact
than our traditional forms of mass media. Cyberology, he notes, has changed the form, concept, and
aesthetics of comic art. With the Internet, comics shifted from the stacking of square and rectangle
panels onto a page, to cinematic shot angles, accompanied by slower pacing. Cartoonists are now
provided more exposure worldwide. Mobile phone comics have become popular especially in Japan
because of the privacy provided.”

Adhikarya noted that most competencies we now need is not in today’s curriculum in communication
education and that we need to re-learn in this “shared” economy, convergence, and new algorithm,
citing examples of Uber, Netflix, as well as sharing of domicile.

Our theories are still analytic and discipline-based rather than holistic, multidisciplinary, and systems-
based – still on the sender-receiver model, which are no longer relevant in a participatory, mobile
society and where social and political structures are being restructured. With threats from terrorism,
ethnic and resource conflict, climate change, violation of international laws, and other “disruptive
incidents”, we need to look forward, revitalize legal frameworks, and work towards commonalities
across cultures.

Future planning of communication must be made within this reality as well as the reality that the
concept that guided traditional media must be re-examined without ignoring their usefulness.

More insights were shared in the other two panels – Communication theories and paradigms and Asian
Philosophies, Religions and Communication, each with four speakers, and 140 other parallel sessions
on gender and children, health communication, media and information literacy, online platforms,
community media, business and marketing, science literacy, culture re-learning communication
education, political communication – involved presentation of academic papers by some 200
outstanding scholars and leaders in Asia, and the participation of other media practitioners, students
and teachers of communication.

The Conference made us realize, more than ever, that the challenge is not merely generating
knowledge, which is what AMIC had done, but also disseminating and utilization of knowledge. Sharing
knowledge at the conference and roundtables is not enough. We need to explore various ways by
which we can bring these concepts on the table, debate on them, and come up with common
frameworks and approaches towards the use of communication in the transformation of our society.