My friend Alex recently asked a group of people what their source of truth is? What is their go-to when they research an issue where they can stop searching because they're satisfied?
The quiet among a group of highly intelligent people was surprising.
It's a popular meme that we're living in the "post-truth era". On it's face, that's a stretch given philosophers have been arguing for millennia over what truth even is and the very idea of science involves acknowledging that what we know is always evolving and there's room for learning that a previously held conclusion turned out to be wrong, and we have to reframe.
For example, in 1982 scientists Barry Marshall and Robin Warren discovered Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) Infection was the real cause of gastric ulcers, not stress as had been previously believed. Later as NSAID usage became more popularized, overuse of NSAIDs like ibuprofen were also found capable of causing ulcers. But we'll leave that aside for a minute. Marshall and Warren spent until 1985 proving to their findings to the scientific community, going so far as to ingest H. pylori to prove its transmissible, infectious nature. Still, their findings were not quickly adopted by physicians and it wasn't until 2005 that the Marshall and Warren received the Nobel prize. Today, the combination of a Proton Pump Inhibitor and an antibiotic can cure an ulcer with newer evidence that Vitamin C may also be able to fight the bacteria. No longer are gastric ulcers considered a chronic condition or something really indicating of an emotional or psychological problem.
Similarly, there is ongoing research on the link between schizophrenia and autoimmune disorders. Many schizophrenics develop classic autoimmune disorders like lupus and Crohn's - while people with auto-immunes have a higher likelihood of developing schizophrenia. There is evidence that inflammation crossing the brain-blood barrier may worsen or even cause schizophrenic symptoms. While it is far from proven, it's not beyond imagining schizophrenia could be the body turning against itself – just as it does with multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis. What if it's just doing it to a different part of the body, getting a different set of symptoms? And what would that do to our understanding of schizophrenics and mental healthcare? What opportunities could we find to help schizophrenics?
All of this to say, it's fair to say no one knows "the truth". At best we know a set of information that properly arranged makes sense and explains certain phenomena and events. And we have to stay open to the fact that something we don't know – information that wasn't available to us or maybe anyone – could change our conclusions dramatically.
That said, no one can know everything – and even within our daily lives and worlds – we can't track everything, everywhere all the time. Unless you're Michelle Yeoh. In order to understand the world as best as possible, we have to trust others.
For example, I remember reading about the H pylori discovery in a college class. I remember a few years later reading about it in a magazine article too. When writing about it today, I had Google pull up several sources on it – a few scientific journals, Wikipedia and some articles from the National Institutes of Health. The fact that at least four sources seemingly credible sources agreed and matched things I remembered from a college text and a magazine article in the late 1990s suggest to me I can probably believe this information, even though I have no personal access into any of the study data and in my recollection have never talked to anyone about their personal experience being treated for H pylori, nor have I had it myself. But it feels safe to accept this research as fact – or at least as highly-likely fact (because people were wrong about ulcers before).
Somewhere, in order to live life with a ceiling and floor, we have to trust in information from others – both individuals and institutions. Over the past decade or so – but increasingly within the past few years – it seems that often people just don't know what to believe because they don't know who and what to trust. The silence after Alex's question is indicative of not only how far people's trust has been eroded, but perhaps also how careful many are to share what they do believe in for fear of contention or ridicule.
Today, where we read or see information in and of itself can be a mark of tribal affiliation – whether intentional or not. If I share that I learned something from CNN, not only is whatever I have to say is likely to be discarded by some people I may talk to, but I will be branded a liberal. If I learned it from the Wall Street Journal, I may not be believed by a different crowd and instead branded a conservative. Same if I saw it on Facebook or X.
The other day I was talking with a friend who felt it's impossible to know if he can trust the results of any study from any university because the progressive left rooted so deep into so many institutions. I see the point – and that may be true in some subjects. Still, I would like to think that research on pancreatic cancer is not politically resistant. Whatever our politics, we all lose people to cancer and it's always tragic – and cancer cells don't vote last I checked – although I would say there's a cancer on our political system. So, maybe.
To some degree, everything is built on belief. Money is only valuable because we all agree on it. Gold – the commodity investors flee to when they're feeling shaky about markets and monetary policy because it holds "real" value – is just a substance to which we have historically assigned value. It was currency before fiat currency – but its relative rareness and cool, shiny look are all that make it distinct. Had ancient Europeans and Asians could have favored rose quartz and then that's what we would be investing in today. The reason Spain and Portugal became so wealthy in the 15th and 16th Centuries is because the peoples of South and Meso-America didn't see much value in the soft yellow metal they had so much of.
I'm a little young to miss the days of network news, but I do. There was a time when the three major networks produced news the nation as a whole trusted. People's politics was never homogenous, but they did speak about things with the same facts and from the same premise. Similarly, newspapers were ubiquitous around the nation and for the most part, they kept their politics on the Editorial pages and tried to keep the news as factual and unbiased as possible. There was an inherent sense that bringing honest news – or at least politically unbiased news – was integral for social stability.
Communications technology has given us tremendous power and shaken us to the core. Broadcast media began to expand and multiple with cable television which expanded further with high-speed broadband and streaming. We've gone from three broadcast news networks to four plus CNN to 72 different 24-hour news channels in the US today. How is there room for so many? We've gone from news to infotainment. Everyone is free to choose the "news" source that fits their outlook and given viewership (or what used to be called ratings) is the goal, giving people what validates and outrages them is the surest way to attract and maintain viewers.
If we didn't know this well enough already, social media algorithms have proven the point. Algorithms designed to maximize engagement found – all on their own – that posts which foment anger and rage – whether true or not – are most effective at increasing social media engagement.
We have traded sitting around the family television listening to the calm, sober tones of Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, Peter Jennings and Dan Rather for staring at our devices, streaming individualized experiences that draw us into rage. We are increasing tribalism in a post-industrial society. That's scary.
When I was a student journalist at The Daily of the University of Washington, our publisher – Oren Campbell – drilled into us the responsibility of reporting news and regular quoted from the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. Oren – a longtime newspaper man – had no direct control over the paper's content because at least at that time The Daily was the largest student-run paper in the country – meaning the final word rested with the student Editor-in-Chief, not with professional staff. Oren had only one practical lever over the paper's content – he could allow for more or fewer pages as he wished. Nothing said "no confidence" like an eight-page edition (20-24 was more typical).
Every morning Oren delivered the "marked copy" to a hopper on the News Editor's desk. At the beginning of every day, Oren took a red pen to a copy of the freshly printed newspaper. He pointed out everything from missing punctuation and spelling errors to compromised quality and ethics violations. Some editors sought Oren's approval, others would grumble about how Oren didn't "get it" on certain topics. I respected Oren and the responsibility he was trying to impart. Media mattered, the narrative we crafted and in which people believed mattered and falsities and humiliations were injuries upon all. On my second edition as Editor-in-Chief, Oren marked the rare and hallowed words, "This Paper Sparkles." Nothing galvanized the student staff more. From that point on, all we wanted was another "This Paper Sparkles" and because it was a great team that year, we got a few over the course off my two-quarter term. A group of us even had a self-inking stamp made to try to make it easier for Oren to leave us a "This Paper Sparkles" but I don't think it influenced him.
I could be wrong – I hope I'm wrong – but it seems impossible to imagine a group of 110 college students working their asses off to create broadly-interesting content that adhered to SPJ ethics and Oren's journalistic standards. Instead, people focus on telling THEIR truth or maybe A truth – not THE truth or the closest facsimile to it we can get. Our inner worlds have come to overpower facts and balanced examination. We are more willing to take the facts we like and leave the rest. We pick teams and stick with them rather than question whether life is really a competitive sport.
As Alex said to that same group of people, social media is giving everyone a bullhorn and telling them to use it. It makes us all think that what we have to say is important (myself included as I write this blog post). Equally, as my friend Barrett insightfully pointed out, we are more likely to decide information is true if we get it from someone we know, like and trust. Whether or not that person is right. Social media is more adept at spreading misinformation and skewed information than anything close to accurate. What it is good for is understanding other people's "truths" and perspectives – as they choose to curate and share them.
There was a time when Americans felt more like they were all rowing in the same boat and there were disagreements over which direction to head. Now it feels like we're questioning whether it's a boat or a submarine – whether we shouldn't all just use rafts – maybe we should get a cruise ship - or an ark?
Somewhere there has to be a place where we all begin to trust something again. Institutions are not perfect, but without them we have chaos. Even in the best of news organizations with the most balance and the highest ethics, people make mistakes – but that doesn't invalidate the whole thing, particularly if the organization adheres to the SPJ Code of Ethics and publishes corrections in a manner equally prominent to the mistake. Maybe looking at university studies with some skepticism – especially in the soft sciences and humanities – makes sense, but maybe we can trust the hard science? Maybe it's not whether what we watch, read or listen to reflects us as much as it helps us get an earnest understanding of our world?
For them to work, we must always question institutions – that's healthy – but we want to bend, not break them. Breaking institutions is a dangerous game because they are always replaced by another which may or may not be any better. The Stalinist Soviet Union was no improvement to Tsarist Russia, Mao Zedong was a more despotic ruler than any Chinese emperor – and while the French Revolution was in 1789, France went through four monarchies and a reign of terror before reaching sustained democracy in 1870.
I hope that someday, we all get back to wanting our paper to sparkle.
