Do the powerful create the facts? | Myriam François, Philip Collins, Aaron Maté, Inaya Folarin Iman

T
The Institute of Art and Ideas Jan 08, 2026

Audio Brief

Show transcript
This episode covers a panel discussion among four journalists debating the complex nature of truth, political promises, and the erosion of institutional trust in today’s polarized landscape. There are three key takeaways from this conversation regarding media literacy and political accountability. First, truth-seeking is inherently political, not just philosophical. The panel suggests that powerful entities, whether governments or corporations, often possess a vested interest in concealing facts to maintain control. Therefore, a foundational skepticism toward authority is a necessary tool for understanding current events. Consumers of news must recognize that while facts themselves may be immutable, the selection and presentation of those facts are always shaped by power dynamics and history. When analyzing a story, it is crucial to ask why a specific fact is being presented at this moment, rather than accepting it as a neutral data point. Second, much of what the public perceives as lying is actually the result of excessive promises. The discussion highlights a mechanism where politicians commit to outcomes they know they cannot deliver, such as drastic reductions in immigration, simply to win support. Distinguishing between a conscious lie and a structural inability to deliver changes how voters should hold leaders accountable. Furthermore, the panel argues that political disputes are often clashes of values rather than facts. A healthy democracy requires the generosity to recognize that an opponent's viewpoint often stems from different moral priorities, not a rejection of reality. Third, the crisis of misinformation is driven by a failure of institutional neutrality. The speakers argue that when organizations claiming to be impartial—such as media outlets or scientific bodies—take politicized stances, they break the contract of impartiality and create a credibility vacuum. This pushes the public toward alternative, often unreliable sources. To combat this, the discussion recommends vetting information through triangulation: identifying the primary source, seeking corroboration from opposing viewpoints, and analyzing the incentives of the person presenting the information. In summary, rebuilding trust requires distinguishing between political spin and genuine error while holding institutions accountable to their promise of neutrality.

Episode Overview

  • This panel discussion features four journalists debating the nature of truth, facts, and lies in the current political landscape, specifically addressing issues like the war in Gaza, immigration, and institutional trust.
  • The conversation moves from a systemic critique of power structures hiding the truth to a nuanced analysis of why politicians make "excessive promises" rather than outright lies, and finally to the collapse of trust in "neutral" institutions.
  • This episode is essential for anyone seeking to improve their media literacy and understand why the public has lost faith in mainstream narratives, offering different frameworks for distinguishing between political spin, genuine error, and calculated disinformation.

Key Concepts

  • The Political Nature of Truth-Seeking: The struggle to find truth is not a philosophical puzzle but a political battle; powerful entities (governments and corporations) have a vested interest in concealing facts to maintain control. Understanding this power dynamic is the first step to uncovering the truth.
  • Values vs. Facts in Democracy: Politics is often less about disputing facts and more about negotiating conflicting values and biases. A healthy democracy requires recognizing that opposing viewpoints often stem from different moral priorities rather than a rejection of reality, and "bias" is an inherent part of political negotiation.
  • The "Excessive Promise" Mechanism: What the public often perceives as "lying" in politics is frequently the result of "excessive promises"—politicians committing to outcomes (like reducing immigration) that they know they cannot deliver but feel compelled to offer to win support. Distinguishing between a conscious lie and an undeliverable promise changes how we hold leaders accountable.
  • Institutional Neutrality and Public Trust: The crisis of misinformation is driven by a failure of institutions. When organizations that claim to be neutral (media, scientific bodies) take politicized stances on contested issues, they create a vacuum of credibility. The public then turns to alternative, often unreliable, sources because the "official" channels have broken the contract of impartiality.

Quotes

  • At 4:05 - "To find out the facts, to find out the truth, it helps to start from the premise that powerful people who run our society have every interest in hiding it from us." - Aaron Maté establishing a foundational skepticism toward authority as a necessary tool for journalism.
  • At 5:25 - "That art of generosity to the opponent... is absolutely the art of democratic conversation. And if we don't have that, then there will be no agreed body of facts." - Philip Collins explaining that without the willingness to understand an opponent's values in good faith, political discourse collapses into noise.
  • At 10:00 - "Institutions that frame themselves as neutral, impartial, objective, were often taking politicized positions." - Inaya Folarin Iman diagnosing the root cause of the current epistemic crisis, where the loss of trust in mainstream media stems from a perceived abandonment of objectivity.

Takeaways

  • Adopt a Framework of Generosity: When encountering political disagreement, pause before accusing the other side of lying. instead, consider if the conflict is actually a clash of values or the result of a politician making an undeliverable promise.
  • Vet Information Through Triangulation: Combat algorithmic siloing by actively seeking out the original source of a claim. Ask three specific questions: What is the primary source? Can it be corroborated by an opposing viewpoint? Who holds this perspective and what is their incentive?
  • Distinguish Between "Facts" and "Positioning": Recognize that while facts may be immutable, the selection and presentation of those facts are always shaped by power and history. When consuming news, analyze why a specific fact is being presented to you at this specific moment, rather than just accepting it as a neutral data point.