Navigating the Labyrinth of “Truth” in a Hyperreal World: A Journalist’s Urgent Call to Action
In an age where the lines between fact and fiction blur with alarming rapidity, Mount Royal University recently hosted an illuminating talk by award-winning investigative journalist and Toronto Star columnist, Justin Ling. His lecture, “Telling the truth in hyperreality: Journalism in a time of lies,” wasn’t just an academic exercise; it was a rallying cry for vigilance and critical thinking in our increasingly digital lives. Ling delved into the shadowy tactics of “bad actors” who weaponize misinformation online, urging everyone to become skeptical truth-seekers. Dr. Brad Clark, an MRU professor specializing in broadcast media and digital journalism, underscored the gravity of these discussions, emphasizing that robust journalism remains the bedrock of a functioning democracy – a truth we often forget in our information-saturated world. The very essence of our societal conventions, he argued, hinges on our ability to engage with and discern reliable information.
Moderated by Dr. Gabriela Perdomo Páez, an assistant professor of journalism at MRU, Ling’s lecture was structured into three compelling parts, beginning with a provocative quote from Mikhail Epstein that likened hyperreality to “Disneyland” – a place where reality itself is consciously crafted as a fantastical landscape. The first section unpacked a chilling reality: how easily a “fairytale can become fact” when we, as consumers, passively ingest information handed to us by powerful oligarchs, manipulative individuals, and giant tech corporations. Ling issued a stark warning about our collective susceptibility to unknowingly sharing, receiving, believing, and perpetuating falsehoods. Dr. Perdomo Páez echoed this sentiment, stressing the imperative to actively scrutinize information rather than letting it wash over us. Ling introduced the concept of “hypernormalization,” suggesting our active and passive consumption of lies has rendered us increasingly accustomed to falsehoods, allowing them to take root and flourish. He painted a sobering picture of “a massive decentralized global effort to craft new realities,” asserting that without a “pretty radical societal shift,” we risk sinking deeper into a collective delusion.
The second part of Ling’s lecture delved into the intricate relationship between trust, truth, and technology, probing fundamental questions: What role does trust play in our acceptance of truth? And why do people cling to beliefs they know to be untrue? Ling challenged the audience to reflect on our inherent inclination to “upload our lives to the internet.” To illustrate the profound impact of technology, he then transported the audience back to the 1940s, a period when academics from diverse fields converged to contemplate the societal implications of an impending technological boom. Their discussions, Ling revealed, were sharply divided. Some optimistically believed technology would simply enhance human capabilities, while others viewed its advent with skepticism, recognizing the inherent power and informational demands of computers. Technology, Ling emphatically stated, is far from neutral, and neither is our engagement with online spaces. He argued that while most of society has embraced an optimistic “mind upgrade” view of technology, we should instead align with those early skeptics who questioned the system’s potential pitfalls. The core difficulty, he concluded, lies in our almost irresistible draw to what appears on our screens. Our thoughts, photos, and beliefs, once private, are now instantly accessible to all, creating a constant performance and expectation of being performed to.
This performance is orchestrated, Ling explained, by algorithms, with Facebook serving as a prime example of a media machine that manipulates content delivery to maximize user engagement. These algorithms constantly tinker with variables, recommending content “all in service of keeping you on the platform longer.” Ling referenced a 2022 study that revealed a disturbing shift in news reporting following the introduction of “emotion-based” voting systems on media platforms. “Neutral headlines declined rapidly,” he noted, while “sad headlines started performing better, started to evoke more fear in our readers… and we really started making them angry.” He warned that “emotion doesn’t just make us more likely to engage, it makes us more likely to believe nonsense.” The proliferation of artificial intelligence, Ling stressed, has only exacerbated this tendency to embrace “nonsense” and “fall into absurdity.” He argued that even brief exposure to relatively simple AI programs can promote “powerful, delusional thinking in quite normal people,” highlighting the unsettling capacity of AI to distort our perceptions of reality.
In the final and most striking section of his lecture, Ling confronted the decision to “centralize truth” on the internet and offered a radical, albeit impractical, solution: “If we want a single solution to our crisis of information, it’s simple. Shut off the world wide web, shut down the social internet.” While acknowledging this isn’t a “practical policy solution,” he passionately advocated for a return to “strong, hard-nosed journalism” with the sole purpose of informing, not entertaining. “Give people the stuff they don’t want. Tell people the things they don’t want to hear. That’s journalism,” he declared. He urged a shift away from online summaries to physical books, promoting in-person forums, lectures, and casual conversations in hallways, lunchrooms, and bars as vital spaces for decentralized knowledge exchange. Ling poignantly concluded that “we’re playing a rigged game. There is no amount of engagement that we can do on a platform that will help the truth win. Because the truth is not supposed to.”
During the Q&A, an audience member, Kelly Hofer, posed a critical question: “Centralized platforms have become the architecture of hyperreality itself. Is there a path where individuals and communities can build their own decentralized tools for communication?” Ling’s concise “Yes” was followed by an acknowledgment of the challenges in getting the public to adopt new platforms. He pointed to Reddit as a potential model, describing it as a system allowing users to create and self-moderate communities, set standards, and, crucially, avoid exploiting conversations for profit. Hofer, drawing from his own experience, emphasized the value of in-person meetings and diversifying news sources as effective strategies for navigating decentralized information spaces. He noted that the messages disseminated by social media companies are often dictated by the companies themselves, rather than reflecting the genuine interests of friends or followers, making him “open to new ones.” Hofer lauded Ling’s lecture as an invaluable opportunity to sate his curiosity and embrace Ling’s call to “download lives from the gamut of online spaces.” Mount Royal University, for its part, aims to continue fostering these vital in-person public forums, recognizing their indispensable role in an era of digital disorientation.