2. Taking
into consideration what the author says about dishonesty in communication,
comment on
the role of truth in various spheres of life.
In the public sphere, particularly in politics, truth
is basic of informed decision and the functioning of democracy. The author
notes that the rise of fake news and manipulation via digital platforms is
making it difficult for people to discover what is true and what is false.
Politicians, interest groups, and organizations now have the power to control information
through online media, which influences public opinion and shapes political decision.
The spread of misinformation creates confusion, and when the public cannot
agree on basic facts, it leads to distrust in the political system. This poses
a serious threat to democracy, as citizens rely on accurate information to make
decisions that affect their lives and the governance of their country.
In personal relationships and the social sphere, truth
is equal important. The author citizens how social media mis show reality, as
people prefer to post only the best or most curated aspects of their lives.
This selective sharing leads to a false image of reality, where everyone seems
to have a perfect life. Such images can affect the trust people have in each
other, as it becomes harder to identify real connections and those that are
manipulated or staged for social approval. The constant pressure to present a faked
image online creates a disconnect between people’s true selves and the personas
they project, weakening real-life connections and making it difficult to further
meaningful relationships.
In science and historical research, the search for
truth has always been foundation to advancing knowledge. The author is
concerned that the overwhelming amount of information available on the internet
makes it challenging to separate fact from fiction. In the past, truth in those
fields was established through careful research, evidence. However, with the
rise of digital media, anyone can publish information without consequences, and
this has made it harder for the public to trust what is being presented. The
author’s analogy to Richard III and Tudor propaganda reflects this concern,
suggesting that while history is often distorted by powerful interests, at
least in the past, there were efforts to uncover the truth. Today, however, the
sheer volume of conflicting information makes this task even more difficult,
potentially undermining both scientific progress and our understanding of
history.
In conclusion, the author’s critique of digital communication highlights how the manipulation of truth in various spheres of life—whether in politics, personal relationships, or other topic—has created an environment where it is difficult to distinguish between fact and fiction. This loss of a shared truth threatens the very fabric of society, and unless we begin to address this issue, we may find ourselves living in a world where truth is no longer a guiding principle, but an increasingly distant ideal.