Volume 3 | Autumn 2017 DEFENCE STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS The official journal of the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence Overwriting the City: Graffiti, Communication, and Urban Contestation in Athens Putting the Strategy Back into Strategic Communications Japanese Strategic Communication: Its Significance As a Political oolT ‘You Can Count On Us’: When Malian Diplomacy Stratcommed Uncle Sam Strategic Communications, Boko Haram, and Counter-Insurgency Fake News, Fake Wars, Fake Worlds Living Post-Truth Lives … But What Comes After? ‘We Have Met The Enemy And He Is Us’ Defence Strategic Communications | Volume 3 | Autumn 2017 1 ISSN 2500-9478 Defence Strategic Communications Editor-in-Chief Dr. Neville Bolt Managing Editor Linda Curika Editor Anna Reynolds Editorial Board Professor Mervyn Frost Professor Nicholas O’Shaughnessy Professor Žaneta Ozoliņa Professor J. Michael Waller Professor Natascha Zowislo-Grünewald Dr. Emma Louise Briant Dr. Nerijus Maliukevicius Dr. Agu Uudelepp Matt Armstrong Thomas Elkjer Nissen Defence Strategic Communications is an international peer-reviewed journal. The journal is a project of the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence (NATO StratCom COE). It is produced for scholars, policy makers and practitioners around the world. It does not represent the opinions or policies of NATO or the NATO StratCom COE. The views presented in the following articles are those of the authors alone. © All rights reserved by the NATO StratCom COE. These articles may not be copied, reproduced, distributed or publicly displayed without reference to the NATO StratCom COE and the academic journal Defence Strategic Communications. NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence Riga, Kalnciema iela 11b, Latvia LV1048 www.stratcomcoe.org Ph.: 0037167335463 [email protected] Living Post-Truth Lives … But What Comes After? 191 LIVING POST-TRUTH LIVES … BUT WHAT COMES AFTER? A review essay by Kevin Marsh Post-Truth: The New War on Truth and How to Fight Back Matthew D’Ancona. Ebury Publishing, 2017 Post-Truth: How Bullshit Conquered the World James Ball. Biteback Publishing, 2017 Post Truth: Why We Have Reached Peak Bullshit Evan Davis. Hachette UK, 2017 The Retreat of Western Liberalism Edward Luce. Hachette UK, 2017 Keywords: post-truth, Brexit, Trump, spin, fake news, political communication, strategic communication, strategic communications About the author Kevin Marsh FRSA is a former BBC Executive Editor who now teaches and writes on journalism ethics and strategic communications in the UK and internationally. 192 Defence Strategic Communications | Volume 3 | Autumn 2017 On the walls of the Musée Anne-de-Beaujeu in Moulins, a small town in the Auvergne, hangs a striking painting. It’s called La Vérité or, more descriptively, ‘La Vérité sortant du puits armée de son martinet pour châtier l’humanité’—‘Truth emerging from the well armed with her whip to chastise mankind.’ Truth, in the painting, is naked; rendered almost photographically; and if her eyes and mouth, fixed in a barking rebuke, are anything to go by, she is angry. Very angry. The painter was the conservative academist of the Belle Époque, Jean-Léon Gérôme. He and his ‘realist’ contemporaries faced an artistic assault on two fronts; from Impressionists, who disdained the visual ‘truth’ of figurative painting, preferring emotional ‘truth’; and from photography, which by the 1890s captured visual ‘truth’ more precisely than any painter. For Gérôme, though, photography was scientific ‘proof ’ that therewas a tangible ‘truth’, an objective reality out there that he and his like, rather than the impressionists, were able to reproduce: ‘c’est grâce à elle’ he wrote, ‘que la vérité est enfin sortie de son puits’—‘it’s thanks to photography that Truth has finally left her well’. That became an icon for conservative artists and writers of Gérôme’s generation; French politics were chaotic, self-serving, and ineffectual; populism, nationalism, protectionism, clericalism, and anti-Semitism were the dominant ‘isms of the day. It was the time of the Dreyfus affair—an exercise in ‘fake news’ and ‘alternative facts’ if ever there was one—and as the 19th century wheeled over into the 20th, ‘Truth’ was wished out of her well again and again to whip the liars into honesty. Yearning for ‘Truth’—with or without a chastising whip—is one of those cyclical things. It comes at critical moments when we feel we’ve somehow lost the collective ability to distinguish truth from lies, fact from opinion. The year 2016 was one of those critical moments. Its signature events—Leave’s narrow victory in the EU referendum and Donald Trump’s electoral college win in the US—undermined our liberal conventional wisdoms about democracy and political communication. Both winning campaigns were founded on untruths, aggressively promoting divisive world views; both sought to overturn conventional economic or social thinking; both threatened cultural ruptures, or promised them, depending on your point of view. More than anything else, though, both appeared finally to have snapped the overstretched link between democratic politics and anything deserving the name ‘truth’. Together, they made ‘post-truth’ the word of the year and introduced ‘fake news’ and ‘alternative facts’ to a wider audience. Unsurprising, then, that in 2017, the cycle turned and politicians, political communicators, and journalists—especially, ironically, journalists—yearn for La Vérité to whip the offenders back to honesty. Living Post-Truth Lives … But What Comes After? 193 Matthew D’Ancona in Post-Truth: The New War on Truth and How to Fight Back, for example—a short, sharp cry of anguish and frustration from a journalist of the centre- right, who … … would be betraying my trade if I stood by as its central value – accuracy – was degraded by hucksters and snake-oil salesmen. D’Ancona wishes La Vérité out of her well to confront … … the declining value of truth as society’s reserve currency, and the infectious spread of pernicious relativism disguised as legitimate scepticism. It’s unfortunate that he elides ‘truth’ which, if it’s anything, is a moral value and ‘accuracy’, a mere process. While we can approach ‘truth’ through ‘accuracy’, achieving ‘accuracy’ is no guarantee of ‘truth’—accurately reporting the words of a liar is a long way from ‘truth’. The idea of fighting the ‘post-truthers’ with classical, objective ‘truth’ is seductive—but it’s an epistemological nonsense. As nonsensical as Gérôme’s vision of La Vérité, based as that was on a mistranslation and misunderstanding of the pre-Socratic Thracian atomist Democritus: We are ignorant … … he is reported to have said … … since Truth has been submerged in an abyss, with everything in the grip of opinions and conventions.1 Democritus’ point—as well as Cicero’s in referencing him—was to underline a fundamental and very old idea in epistemology. If objective truth even exists, it’s beyond the reach of our perceptions; our senses are limited, our minds weak, and our lives short; ‘nihil veritati relinqui, deinceps omnia tenebris circumfusa esse’—‘nothing is left for truth and everything, in turn, is wrapped in darkness’. By the end of 2016, that felt less like a maxim of classical philosophy and more like a description of the state in which the political culture of the UK and US found itself. Nothing was ‘true’; ‘fact’ was indistinguishable from ‘opinion’, for every ‘fact’ there was an ‘alternative fact’; falsity flourished; scarcely credible conspiracy theories jostled with genuine inquiry; and mainstream media battled with the ‘bots’ spewing out ‘fake news’. Something had clearly gone wrong—but what? 1 Nothing of Democritus’ writing survives, however Cicero attributes the aphorism to Democritus in Book 1.44 of his study of scepticism, Academica. 194 Defence Strategic Communications | Volume 3 | Autumn 2017 D’Ancona, though a journalist of the centre-right, is no fan of Leave nor of Trump: … the expectations raised on both sides of the Atlantic, he writes, cannot possibly be satisfied. And he disdains the 45th President as a ‘political sociopath’. But, he insists, neither Trump nor Leave is or was the cause of post-truth politics and culture. They’re its consequences, the symptoms of that ‘pernicious relativism’ which is, in turn, the ‘rust on the metal of truth’ that started its corrosive growth on the Rive Gauche, nurtured by ‘the loose-knit school’ of post-modernist thinkers—the ‘Po-Mos’—who… … preferred to understand language and culture as ‘social constructs’ … rather than the abstract ideals of classical philosophy. And if everything is a ‘social construct’ then who is to say what is false? Thus, the election of Donald Trump: … unhindered by care for the truth, accelerated by the force of social media … in its way, the ultimate post-modern moment. It’s a misguided attribution of blame. The Po-Mos he chastises—Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, and Baudrillard—in essence did little other than align a constructivist brand of epistemology as old as philosophy itself with 20th century communication … predicting, incidentally, a time when the quantity of communicable information (and the means of communicating it) would far exceed our capacity to give it meaning. And where the act of communicating was the socialising factor in our lives, not the sharing of meaning. Remind you of anything? D’Ancona partly concedes that the habitués of Les Deux Magots didn’t invent the relativism and socially constructed ‘truth’ he castigates. He mentions Protagoras but could have added Democritus—Gérôme’s inspiration—Plato, or Aristotle. He could even have added the Gospel of John or, from the modern era, the Italian philosopher- scientist Giambattista Vico, who wrote in 1710 that: ‘verum esse ipsum factum’—‘truth is itself a made thing’. Unsurprising, then, that D’Ancona’s fightback comprises counsel and perhaps even rules to ensure we scrutinise one another more skeptically and behave towards each other more honestly: we should all take less on trust and become our own information gatekeepers, ‘scrutinising editors’, for example.