The Oxford Dictionaries declared “post-truth” the word of the year after Brexit and the U.S. election led to a surge in the use of the term. Both the Brexit and Trump campaigns were defined by appealing to people’s emotions rather than logic, statistics, or facts. Oxford Dictionaries defines the word as, “Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”

The word has been around since at least 1992, but with all of the political drama in the past year, its use has increased by 2,000 percent. “We first saw the frequency really spike this year in June with buzz over the Brexit vote and again in July when Donald Trump secured the Republican presidential nomination,” said Casper Grathwohl, president of Oxford Dictionaries. He said that use of the word spread as fast and wide as it did thanks to social media, and a growing distrust of facts offered by politicians and media. “Given that usage of the term hasn’t shown any signs of slowing down, I wouldn’t be surprised if ‘post-truth’ becomes one of the defining words of our time,” Grathwohl said.

If you wonder how to use the word it would be something like this.

Made the mistake of reading a #DailyTelegraph today. #PostTruth definitely sums up the misinformation they print as “news”.

— Angry Old EcoWarrior (@qw92p) November 16, 2016

Nevermind #PostTruth we’re living in a #postlogical #postpolitical & #postcritical world governed by too much opinion & not enough analysis

— George Vasey (@GeorgeVasey) November 16, 2016

Obama founded ISIS. George Bush was behind 9/11. Welcome to post-truth politics https://t.co/QYrx76krF0

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) November 1, 2016

The word “post-truth” is strongly associated with politics, and often communicated via social media, where many people get their news. “I think it reflects a trend of how emotion and individual reactions are becoming more and more important. People are restricting their news consumption to sources that don’t claim to be neutral,” said Charlotte Buxton, an editor at Oxford Dictionaries.

Facebook and Google have been in hot water recently for spreading fake news stories. Many people swallow the bait and actually believe them. Notable examples of this include reports that Denzel Washington praised Donald Trump (he didn’t) or that Trump won the popular vote (he didn’t).

Popular words can symbolize the spirit of the time and can be trendy and vanish fast, but some stick around and become part of a modernized language. “When you look back at the dictionary, you get some words that are a spasm of history and they very quickly fall out of use,” linguist Dr. Claire Hardaker told BBC. “Others live on and become part of our language. But it is very unpredictable.”

Other words that made the short list for word of the year include “Brexiteer,” which defines a person who voted for Brexit; “adulting,” which describes the practice of behaving as a responsible adult; and “coulrophobia,” an extreme or irrational fear of clowns and yet another word that would capture the spirit of 2016. The Oxford Dictionaries word of the year last year was a picture for the first time ever–more specifically, it was the emoji used to indicate laughing so hard that you cry. This year, “post-truth” seems to be more reflective of the public mood.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oxford Dictionaries Makes ‘Post-Truth’ the Word of the Year appeared first on Law Street.

One of the most notable themes of Wednesday’s debate was the outward hostility that the candidates expressed toward the moderators and the media in general. We often hear about politicians criticizing the media, but why exactly do they do it and why does it elicit such a positive response?

Before we get into peoples’ perception of the media, I first need to address the fact that existing research has found very little evidence of actual media bias. When I first wrote about the debate, I noted that a review of nearly 59 studies conducted over a long period of time did not find notable evidence of bias in newspapers or news magazines. While some bias could be seen in television news broadcasts, that amount was generally insignificant. It is important to note that general news coverage is different from editorials and commentators’ discussions of news events, which are decidedly more opinionated.

A general explanation for claims of media bias is the widely accepted concept of the “hostile media effect,” which involves people’s perception of media coverage that they disagree with. Particularly when it comes to those with very strong opinions on an issue, people tend to perceive media coverage as biased against them, even when no evidence of bias in the coverage exists. Put simply, people on both sides of the ideological spectrum can perceive the same coverage as biased against them.

The recent trend of distrust among conservatives may also be explained by their notable dissatisfaction with the mainstream media. According to the Pew Research Center’s “Political Polarization & Media Habits” report, conservatives are much more likely to consume and trust conservative media than any other source. People who are mostly and consistently conservative are more likely to watch Fox News than any other source while those on the other end of the spectrum consume news from a wider range of sources. Fox News is generally considered to be a right-leaning network, in its news coverage but particularly when it comes to the network’s commentators. I note this not to make a judgment of many conservatives’ media habits, but to point out the important differences between the sources of information conservative individuals trust in comparison to liberals.

Gallup’s recent trust in the mass media poll indicates that Americans in general have relatively low trust in the media. In fact, the most recent survey shows that only about 40 percent of Americans have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the mass media–a record low. While this is true for most Americans, it is particularly true among Republicans and Independents, as 32 and 33 percent expressed similar levels of trust in the media, respectively. In contrast, 55 percent of Democrats trust the media a great deal or a fair amount. These results also mirror a larger trend in public opinion, as Americans are generally less trusting of many U.S. institutions than in other points in history.

In the crowded Republican primary campaign, where candidates need to appeal more to the conservative base of primary voters than the general public, criticism of the mainstream media is particularly resonant. This trend could also be compounded by the conservative media’s general disdain for the mainstream media. An example of that is Ted Cruz’ post-debate interview with Fox News commentator Sean Hannity. In the interview, Cruz reiterated his claim of bias in the mainstream media and Hannity strongly agreed with his characterization. They both emphasized the hostile environment that the CNBC moderators created and noted how that reflects the media’s treatment of conservatives in general. Finally, Cruz called for a debate that would be moderated by outspoken conservatives like Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin.

One question that has not yet been answered is exactly why Americans, particularly conservatives, dislike the mainstream media. Is it because of repeated attacks from politicians, which happen on both sides of the aisle, or are the politicians merely reflecting public sentiment? That question may be impossible to answer, but it’s pretty clear that both the public and elected officials are playing off of each others’ distrust in the news media. As the distrust grows continues, the trend may not bode well for the press’ ability to hold elected leaders accountable.

Read More: Comedy or Cable: Where do Americans Get Their News?

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Do Politicians Attack the Media? appeared first on Law Street.

If you watched CNBC’s Republican Debate last night, you probably noticed the candidates’ general disdain for the media. It started off early and persisted throughout the night, as the candidates criticized the moderators’ questions and the mainstream media’s coverage of the campaign so far.

The first candidate to criticize the media was Marco Rubio. When moderator Carl Quintanilla asked him about an editorial in the Sun-Sentinal that called for Rubio’s resignation due to his attendance record at Senate votes during the campaign, Rubio responded saying, “I read that editorial today with a great amusement. It’s actually evidence of the bias that exists in the American media today.”

Rubio went on to criticize the editorial and the double standard that he believes people have been using to evaluate him. He noted that several past presidential candidates actually had worse attendance records while campaigning, yet the Sun-Sentinel endorsed them. He expanded his criticism to argue that the mainstream media is generally inhospitable to the modern conservative movement.

While Rubio has a point when it comes to peoples’ criticism of his voting record, it is extremely important to note that the article that he referenced as an example of media bias was an editorial, which typically contain opinions from the editorial board and are not the same as a general news article. In fact, there is very little evidence of partisan media bias in news coverage. As the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog pointed out on Twitter, a meta-analysis of media bias in presidential elections found virtually no evidence of partisan bias, particularly in newspapers and news magazines. While the media does have its biases, they generally do not fall along partisan or political lines, rather they are often a product of the economic constraints faced by news organizations.

Arguably the most notable example of a candidate attacking the media came from Ted Cruz, who went on a rant against the moderators and election coverage more generally. He said:

The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media…

This is not a cage match. And, you look at the questions — ‘Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?’ ‘Ben Carson, can you do math?’ ‘John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?’ ‘Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign?’ ‘Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?’ How about talking about the substantive issues the people care about?

Most of the criticism focused on the moderators and what critics argued were hostile questions. Cruz’s point captured the sentiment behind that criticism; he claimed that the debate focused more on personal disagreements and politics than substance.

In fairness to the moderators, Cruz made that comment in response to a question on his opposition to the recent Congressional compromise, which led Congress to raise the debt ceiling. By most standards, the debt ceiling is a substantive issue, and it is particularly relevant for Cruz as it allowed him to get at his tendency to use important votes–like the 2013 budget vote that led to a government shutdown–to talk about his agenda. Now, to Cruz’ credit, and regardless of how you feel about his positions, he did try to touch on important issues during Wednesday’s debate. His comments focused on his plan for a 10 percent flat tax, addressing the national debt, criticizing of the Federal Reserve, and a brief call to reinstate the gold standard. But regardless of his attempts to focus on real issues, the one quote that everyone seems to be focusing on his call-out of the moderators.

The media criticism wasn’t confined to Rubio and Cruz, though they did their fair share to bring it into the spotlight. Other candidates, notably Donald Trump and Chris Christie, spoke out against the moderators’ questions at several points during the debate. Afterward, the Republican National Committee (RNC) also expressed its displeasure with CNBC. Reince Priebus, the RNC Chairman, said that the network “should be ashamed of how this debate was handled.” He tweeted his criticism saying:

I will fight to ensure future debates allow for a more robust exchange. #GOPDebate

— Reince Priebus (@Reince) October 29, 2015

In spite of the moderators, I’m proud of our team for standing up against the improper and unprofessional display put on by CNBC. — Reince Priebus (@Reince) October 29, 2015

In a review of the debate’s transcript, Bloomberg noted that in contrast to September’s debate, the candidates were more willing to criticize the moderators than each other. The analysis also found that there was a total of 14 points during which the candidates attacked the “mainstream” media. In response to the rush of criticism, CNBC’s Vice President of Communications, Brian Steel, issued a brief but direct statement. He said, “People who want to be president of the United States should be able to answer tough questions.” Although many agree with the candidates and the RNC, not everyone has criticized the moderators’ performance. While both sides have their points, it’s also important to ask why exactly the candidates are so vocal in their opposition to the mainstream media. 

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Debate: Candidates Agree on One Thing, They Don’t Like the Media appeared first on Law Street.