Look people are crying about post-truth, but tell me something. When two lovers say to each other "I will love you forever" and then they break up after 1 year, is that not post-truth? But what do people say - "eh, that's love". We have built an amazingly hypocritical society where liars don't even perceive themselves as liars anymore, because we're taught that it's normal and expected to lie. — Agustino

I think I'm one of the few people here who's extremely receptive to some of your seemingly reactionary social positions! >:)

I'd maybe disagree with you on this, though. Two people typically say they will love each other until death with the genuine intention to follow it through, I'd imagine, but eventually new circumstances in the relationship change their level of commitment.

It would only be a lie IMO if they knew beforehand they had no intention of upholding that commitment. That's possible in some cases (e.g. a marriage entered into by one party strictly to get the other's money) but I'm not so cynical to think it characterizes most relationships.

That's not a matter of truth, as I understand it, but rather more of undervalued things like constancy and duty and commitment.

I do see and appreciate how you find these myriad things--many cultural rather than overtly political--to be related to the topic at hand. I'll give you that.

That's evidence-less support, and Harvard professors are often wrong. And the mid-20th century was full of lies from politicians and regular people. From top-down, politicians were making lies about communists in our midst that led to the horrendous Mccarthy hearings, there were lies about all the supposed terrible crimes by Blacks and Latinos, lies about the extreme dangers from comic books, and lies told to justify segregation and anti-Gay laws. — Thanatos Sand

I don't think the term "post-truth" refers to falsity. As explained here, "Post-truth politics (also called post-factual politics) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored. Post-truth differs from traditional contesting and falsifying of truth by rendering it of 'secondary' importance." and also "A defining trait of post-truth politics is that campaigners continue to repeat their talking points, even if these are found to be untrue by the media or independent experts."

So whereas traditionally if someone was found to be lying then they might try to claim ignorance or backpedal or something like that, in a post-truth world they would just turn a deaf ear and carry on.

I don't think the term "post-truth" refers to falsity. As explained here, "Post-truth politics (also called post-factual politics) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored.

At least partly, it definitely does. You can't have a phrase like "Post-Truth" without reference to falsity. And what you refer to above has also always happened, including the mid-20th century. If you don't think McCarthyite hysteria and racist paranoia and hatred wasn't fueled by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals were ignored in the mid-20th century and all other periods, you need to read about them some more.

Post-truth differs from traditional contesting and falsifying of truth by rendering it of 'secondary' importance."

No, it doesn't. Things have always happened that way.

I think I'm one of the few people here who's extremely receptive to some of your seemingly reactionary social positions! >:) — Erik

There are quite a few actually, but support for me is not very vocal let's say.

Two people typically say they will love each other until death with the genuine intention to follow it through, I'd imagine, but eventually new circumstances in the relationship change their level of commitment. — Erik

It's good that you added the "I'd imagine" bit :P

That's possible in some cases (e.g. a marriage entered into by one party strictly to get the other's money) but I'm not so cynical to think it characterizes most relationships. — Erik

But I do think it does characterise most relationships. Most relationships are formed on the basis of mutual advantage, or enlightened egoism, and not on the basis of love. They stay together because, for example, they'd feel lonely otherwise. Or they stay together because they need to satisfy their sexual desires and lust. Or they stay together because they're seen better socially speaking if they have a partner. And so forth.

If you remove one of those reasons, they end up divorcing. Why do you think divorce rate is at 50%? How could divorce rate be at 50% if they genuinely loved on another?

I do see and appreciate how you find these myriad things--many cultural rather than overtly political--to be related to the topic at hand. I'll give you that. — Erik

Thank you! I do appreciate your posts too!

Spot on this entire thread IMO. (Y)

Thanks, man. I feel the same about your posts.

A quick glance at the historical records shows that truth and the role that it plays in everything ever thought/believed, spoken, and/or written has been largely misunderstood and/or de-valued. — creativesoul

That's a lot of confused people. Are you sure you're not the tuba player complaining that the band is going the wrong way?

Spot on this entire thread — Erik

I also agree with a lot of what he says. If we could just persuade him to drop the belligerence over trivial stuff...

I think you really believe there is some widespread breakdown in comprehension of the concept of truth.

Strange. I don't see that. Trump was a demagogue, taking advantage of a democracy the way his kind have been known to do for thousands of years. — Mongrel

I see a little of each side.

On the one hand, there is overwhelming evidence that institutions are less trusted now than they were several generations ago. A chunk of that is down to Vietnam. But then there's the stuff Chris Hayes writes about in Twilight of the Elites. (Essential reading!)

That doesn't mean people no longer believe in truth, but they're no longer sure where to find it.

Then there's Trump. I remember hearing a bit on NPR where a Trump supporter in coal country said he didn't think Trump would or could actually bring back coal jobs, but it was just nice that he was saying something. Showed that he cared.

Okay, so the "literal" truth of what he said was not even an issue. Trump was in essence "virtue signaling."

And there's similar behaviour around the numbering of floors in Trump Tower. People like the high floor numbers, even though they know they're not "literally" right. Everyone agrees to play along. It's all pretend.

Didn't NIetzsche say (maybe in Genealogy of Morals?), "What if truth is not a value? What then?"

And you can pile onto this the saturation of our culture with media, the loss of distinction between fiction and non-fiction in a gazillion ways, and I think, yeah, there's a real problem here.

Truth had simply taken a walk to some other side. No matter, it is bound to come back given time. Truth does have a propensity to wander.

On the one hand, there is overwhelming evidence that institutions are less trusted now than they were several generations ago. A chunk of that is down to Vietnam. But then there's the stuff Chris Hayes writes about in Twilight of the Elites. (Essential reading!)

That doesn't mean people no longer believe in truth, but they're no longer sure where to find it. — Srap Tasmaner

Right. My understanding is that Watergate was also a factor in the development of suspicion. I'll look out for Twilight of the Elites.. sounds good.

And you can pile onto this the saturation of our culture with media, the loss of distinction between fiction and non-fiction in a gazillion ways, and I think, yeah, there's a real problem here. — Srap Tasmaner

There's an interesting generational factor here. In my generation (X), facades, whether it was the Leave it to Beaver family or James Bond, who sported nice suits and sipped martinis while basically standing as an image of the Cold War, were recast as grotesque images. The grunge naval gazing was meant to suggest that our generation was turning away from those lies to something more real within us.

I continue to struggle to get the newer generation's aesthetic. I find it exhausting. It's like they create hollow spaces and fill them with all sorts of images from the past and the result is a much more refined and complex version. The recent Star Trek reboot movies are typical. They've taken the characters and the setting and rewritten it. There's a depth to it that the original didn't have. That depth is coming from the age of the more simplistic and raw original.

I have to wonder how that complex aesthetic plays out with their approach to politics and the media.

On the one hand, there is overwhelming evidence that institutions are less trusted now than they were several generations ago. A chunk of that is down to Vietnam. But then there's the stuff Chris Hayes writes about in Twilight of the Elites. (Essential reading!)

Trust is not an indicator of Truth. The German people greatly trusted in the lies of their Nazi leaders about the Jews, and White Americans were buying their governments lies about the threat of communists in America and the need for racial segregation, and these were all periods of non-Truth. And the Blacks, Jews--great targets during McCarthyism--and Gays weren't exactly trusting America's government. Also, there is never overwhelming evidence on things as intangible as Trust, and an unqualified, biased newsman like Chris Hayes certainly isn't one who can provide it.

Then there's Trump. I remember hearing a bit on NPR where a Trump supporter in coal country said he didn't think Trump would or could actually bring back coal jobs, but it was just nice that he was saying something. Showed that he cared.

Okay, so the "literal" truth of what he said was not even an issue. Trump was in essence "virtue signaling."

This is something politicians have done before Trump, during Trump, and will continue to do after Trump.

And you can pile onto this the saturation of our culture with media, the loss of distinction between fiction and non-fiction in a gazillion ways, and I think, yeah, there's a real problem here.

With the saturation of media, has also come independent media (Intercept, WikiLeaks, Counterpunch, people with cell phones) able to and committed to exposing Truths--about things like DAPL, racist police brutality, American war crimes--that corporate media has shied away from, purposely avoided, or lied about. So, considering the media we had before was dishonest too--despite the few Murrows--the "saturation" of media has not been the problem.

There's a difference between being a fool who has, or at least feels and believes (even if delusively) that he or she has good intentions, and a devious one who lies cynically and exploitatively merely to serve their own ends and/or advantage.

So, there is a vast difference between the lover who says I will love you forever, and then finds that they had been under the illusions of a romantic dream that did not work out as they expected, and the person who says cunningly "I love you" in order to deceive another into allowing themselves to be exploited.

There's a difference between being a fool who has, or at least feels and believes (even if delusively) that he or she has good intentions, and a devious one who lies cynically and exploitatively merely to serve their own ends and/or advantage.

So, there is a vast difference between the lover who says I will love you forever, and then finds that they had been under the illusions of a romantic dream that did not work out as they expected, and the person who says cunningly "I love you" in order to deceive another into allowing themselves to be exploited. — John

Is the one who has deceived not only the other person but also themselves not infinitely worse off than the one who has merely deceived the other? ;)

What do you mean by "better off"? One is innocent and the other guilty. Which is, of course, not to claim that all self-deception is innocent. ;)

What do you mean by "better off"? — John

The one who deceives only the other person is more self-aware than the other one.

One is innocent and the other guilty. Which is, of course, not to claim that all self-deception is innocent. ;) — John

Is being unaware of something the same as being innocent? :P

The one who deceives only the other person is more self-aware than the other one. — Agustino

What real advantage is self-awareness if it leads one to use it for evil ends?

Is being unaware of something the same as being innocent? — Agustino

Not necessarily, which is already implicit in " not to claim that all self-deception is innocent" since self-deception is possible only insofar as one is (consciously, at least) unaware that one is deceiving oneself, no?

You are not driving towards a conclusion that there is no valid distinction between innocence and ignorance, are you?

What real advantage is self-awareness if it leads one to use it for evil ends? — John

Without self-awareness one doesn't even have the chance of stopping oneself from committing evil. Self-awareness is presupposed in becoming good.

since self-deception is possible only insofar as one is (consciously, at least) unaware that one is deceiving oneself, no? — John

I think it's rather a question of making yourself consciously unaware of something.

You are not driving towards a conclusion that there is no valid distinction between innocence and ignorance, are you? — John

Yes I am, hurry press on the breaks!! >:O

No, actually I wouldn't make such a distinction. Innocence is not even thinking or having the impulse to do something evil - so that's more than just being self-aware, since when you're self-aware you just know what is going on, but you're not innocent if you have vile intentions going on that you either have to suppress or manage, etc.

Without self-awareness one doesn't even have the chance of stopping oneself from committing evil. Self-awareness is presupposed in becoming good. — Agustino

That's true, but self-awareness is also presupposed in doing evil. So, once one crosses the threshold to self-awareness; if one uses that self-awareness for evil purposes, the path to good is all the harder; which means that one would have been better not to cross that threshold.

I think it's rather a question of making yourself consciously unaware of something. — Agustino

I agree that we can "make ourselves unaware of something"; but I don't think either the making or the unawareness can rightly be said to be "conscious". I do hold, though, that insofar as we make ourselves unaware of something; we are no longer innocent of that thing, and become guilty of it instead.

Innocence is not even thinking or having the impulse to do something evil — Agustino

I think we can do things innocently which if done with some kind of knowledge, even if not done intentionally or consciously, and hence done in that sense ignorantly, would be called somewhat "evil". If the act is done with full self-consciousness and awareness of the harm to the other, though, then it becomes, not merely somewhat, but more fully, evil. So, I think there is a spectrum, a range, from good to evil; with no human act being absolutely good or absolutely evil. A similar spectrum operates from innocence, through ignorance, to awareness and knowledge. the more we are aware, the more we know, the more accountable we become.

What's disturbing about the politics, are the kinds of truths that Trump doesn't understand.

The 'Russia Collusion' story - it has now been documented that Trump Jnr and other senior campaign officials met with Russian agents in the hope that they would obtain material damaging to Trump's adversary. This is what 'collusion' means, and it is now beyond doubt that this occurred.

Nevertheless, up until the actual email trail was leaked a couple of weeks ago, both Trumps denied that such a meeting ever took place; in other words, they lied about it. Now that it is impossible to lie about it, they're trying to downplay it, saying that the meeting was 'only' about the issue of adoption of Russian infants. Another lie! Covering up lies with lies. But what is really disturbing, is that the fact of these lies, and the initial fact of actual collusion, are no source of shame for Trump, apparently. According to today's reports:

Because Trump believes he is innocent,... he therefore does not think he is at any legal risk for a coverup. In his mind, they said, there is nothing to conceal.

But then, this was quoted in the context of Trump interfering with Jnr's prepared statement about the 'Russia meeting'. So more confusion - even though there's nothing to hide, Trump acts like he is trying to hide something. I suppose there is no telling the truth to those who deceive themselves.

There are so many big issues that Trump clearly doesn't grasp. And he doesn't have any idea that these are things he doesn't know. It's like when he promises to 'fix the healthcare system', and then the GOP tries (and fails) to pass a bill which will in effect abolish healthcare for tens of millions of people. Trump himself doesn't understand what they're trying to do, or what his position on it is. He simply waves his arms around, and says 'Obamacare is a disaster', without any understanding of what it means. Even his assistants acknowledge that he doesn't understand healthcare.

That's where 'post truth' originated. And still, 80% of 'republicans' think Trump is doing great. They, like him, can't distinguish fact from fiction, or truth from wishful thinking.

The 'Russia Collusion' story - it has now been documented that Trump Jnr and other senior campaign officials met with Russian agents in the hope that they would obtain material damaging to Trump's adversary. This is what 'collusion' means, and it is now beyond doubt that this occurred.

Actually, this was intention to collude since no information was exchanged. In fact, the only info we know that harmed Clinton was the info that showed how the DNC rigged the primary against Sanders for Clinton. That is what collusion means, not Donny Jr's pathetic failed attempt.

Nevertheless, up until the actual email trail was leaked a couple of weeks ago, both Trumps denied that such a meeting ever took place; in other words, they lied about it. Now that it is impossible to lie about it, they're trying to downplay it, saying that the meeting was 'only' about the issue of adoption of Russian infants. Another lie! Covering up lies with lies. But what is really disturbing, is that the fact of these lies, and the initial fact of actual collusion, are no source of shame for Trump, apparently. According to today's reports:

Again, lying is not collusion, nor is lying about a meeting where no actual collusion took place. There are many things disturbing about Donald Trump; this one is low on the list.

But then, this was quoted in the context of Trump interfering with Jnr's prepared statement about the 'Russia meeting'. So more confusion - even though there's nothing to hide, Trump acts like he is trying to hide something. I suppose there is no telling the truth to those who deceive themselves.

Looking like one is hiding something is not the same as hiding something, and looking like someone is hiding something does not mean what Trump is hiding is colluding to fix the election, something intelligent services, and everybody else, have failed to provide evidence of.

There are so many big issues that Trump clearly doesn't grasp. And he doesn't have any idea that these are things he doesn't know. It's like when he promises to 'fix the healthcare system', and then the GOP tries (and fails) to pass a bill which will in effect abolish healthcare for tens of millions of people. Trump himself doesn't understand what they're trying to do, or what his position on it is. He simply waves his arms around, and says 'Obamacare is a disaster', without any understanding of what it means. Even his assistants acknowledge that he doesn't understand healthcare.

I agree with most of this, but Obamacare was a disaster. It left 24 million uninsured, was too expensive, and was left far too much in the hands of the Insurance companies. Obama had the vote for Single Payer, but he gave into the insurance companies. That being said, Obamacare was still better than what Trump and the GOP propose, which is pretty much nothing.

That's where 'post truth' originated. And still, 80% of 'republicans' think Trump is doing great. They, like him, can't distinguish fact from fiction, or truth from wishful thinking.

No, Post-Truth falsely originated, since our government and politicians have always lied to us for their benefit. Trump may be more banal and unwieldly at it. But Bush, Obama, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon et al were all liars, as have been most of our congressmen and national media. To think otherwise is naivete.

The American government is a republic with democratic traditions. Read:The Noble Lie. Trust in elected officials is imperative to the success of such a nation.

That said... the arguments from many hereabouts go roughly like this...

We're not in a post-truth world. Rather, it's always been that way(insert your choice of assertions/objections/reasons). We've always been in such a world, and it doesn't make much sense to call it 'post' truth.

It doesn't follow from the fact that many and/or most politicians misrepresent their own thought/belief that truth doesn't matter or that we live in a 'non-truth world'. If everyone lied, truth would still be operative in this world. Without truth there can be no such thing as a lie.

If one doesn't understand that, they do not understand the role that truth plays in all thought/belief. A collective misunderstanding results in a nation of people not knowing the difference between lying, making a true statement, and/or stating a falsehood. In a nation that has a majority of it's people who place absolute trust - unshakable certainty - in the truthfulness of demonstrable falsehoods, you'll find an inherently compromised collective mindset.

Those people wouldn't know a post-truth world if they lived in one.

It is quite simply not the case that every politician throughout American history has been the same with regard to lying, and the reasons for doing so. There were(and still are) people who realize the crucial role that trust and truth play in the success and sustainability of a nation like the US. Some of those people were once in government, some of those people still are, and the effects/affects of their input helped craft legislation that once assured the success of the majority. If that were not the case, anti-trust laws would not have ever existed.

I think a lot of folks here have turned this into an analysis of the President of the United States. The OP explained he didn't mean to focus on that, but rather on this "post-truth" world some are experiencing.

If I falsified documentation on my job, I would be in danger of losing my job and my license (permanently). Honesty is taken very seriously where I work. On a larger scale honesty is important because hospital fraud will likely result in withdrawal of Medicare funding. No hospital in America can survive without Medicare.

So how is it where you live? Is there tolerance of fraud?

↪ssu How about Finland? Is honesty important in the Finnish society? — Mongrel

A late answer, Mongrel

Yes. Finns generally see themselves as honest people and there is a lot of trust even in strangers thanks to the high level of social cohesion in the country. There isn't much corruption either, hence fraud and lying isn't institutionalized in the society. Yet I wouldn't assume real differences in the amount of lies we tell compared to other people, I think lying is a human trait which doesn't actually vary so much in the end.

Politicians and political life is somewhat similar, yet it isn't as vociferous and hostile as in the US as here administrations have to be coalition governments. In a small country with small circles American style mudslinging and lying like Trump (sorry for the US president example again) would simply ostracize the politician (or party) that he or she couldn't work with other parties in government. Also the political landscape isn't so polarized.

I think the categories and the manner of lying in politics is quite universal. at least in Western countries. The style can be different.

We're not in a post-truth world. Rather, it's always been that way(insert your choice of assertions/objections/reasons). We've always been in such a world, and it doesn't make much sense to call it 'post' truth. — creativesoul

You have a point in that this isn't anything new.

There were(and still are) people who realize the crucial role that trust and truth play in the success and sustainability of a nation like the US. Some of those people were once in government, some of those people still are, and the effects/affects of their input helped craft legislation that once assured the success of the majority. If that were not the case, anti-trust laws would not have ever existed. — creativesoul

Yet other nations aren't built on the same foundations. The Russian Empire, especially in it's last form as being the Soviet Union, didn't cherish something like the truth and everybody knew it. And hence in the end there wasn't nobody that believed in it.

Yet a lot in our "post-truth" times comes also from disinformation and the new ways that propaganda has developed from the old ways of the 19th and 20th Centuries when there were Limited number of media outlets and ways to get information. First thing is to get people to be distrustful of what you earlier could trust, basically argument of "mainstream media being fake news". Then have them believe the "alternate media", which has the "real facts" hidden otherwise from the masses.

I wrote:

A quick glance at the historical records shows that truth and the role that it plays in everything ever thought/believed, spoken, and/or written has been largely misunderstood and/or de-valued.

You replied:

That's a lot of confused people. Are you sure you're not the tuba player complaining that the band is going the wrong way?

I take it that you're not interested in continuing this conversation?

There are 3 major schools of thought regarding truth. There are countless ways to use the term in everyday common parlance. The record clearly shows exactly what I said. It's not about me. It's about language use. More precisely, it's about what thought/belief consists in/of.

I'd be more than happy for you to show me where I go wrong while following the rules of valid argumentation.

Yeah, I'm sure that how thought/belief formation initially happens isn't determined by us.

Anyway...

Michael sharpened the focus earlier by virtue of pointing out that the notion of a 'post-truth' world includes certain types of behaviour that amount to willfully ignoring facts in lieu of maintaining ones narrative that would otherwise have to be amended according to them...

It doesn't follow from the fact that many and/or most politicians misrepresent their own thought/belief that truth doesn't matter or that we live in a 'non-truth world'. If everyone lied, truth would still be operative in this world. Without truth there can be no such thing as a lie.

Ok, I agree with this. A more apt description would be a "Rare-Truth" world.

If one doesn't understand that, they do not understand the role that truth plays in all thought/belief. A collective misunderstanding results in a nation of people not knowing the difference between lying, making a true statement, and/or stating a falsehood. In a nation that has a majority of it's people who place absolute trust - unshakable certainty - in the truthfulness of demonstrable falsehoods, you'll find an inherently compromised collective mindset.

Such is the "Rare-Truth" world we have always inhabited.

Those people wouldn't know a post-truth world if they lived in one.

Which is good, since there never has been a "post-Truth" world since we never even had a "mostly-Truth" world.

It is quite simply not the case that every politician throughout American history has been the same with regard to lying, and the reasons for doing so. There were(and still are) people who realize the crucial role that trust and truth play in the success and sustainability of a nation like the US. Some of those people were once in government, some of those people still are, and the effects/affects of their input helped craft legislation that once assured the success of the majority. If that were not the case, anti-trust laws would not have ever existed.

This is true, and a Bernie Sanders, a politician of integrity and true compassion for all Americans shows this. But most politicians on both sides of the aisle have been lying, deceitful scum or lying deceitful semi-scum and I include Nixon, the Bushes, Reagan and Trump in the former and Obama and the Clintons in the latter.

Yet a lot in our "post-truth" times comes also from disinformation and the new ways that propaganda has developed from the old ways of the 19th and 20th Centuries when there were Limited number of media outlets and ways to get information.

There has always been deceitful dishonest government propaganda and controlling of information, and our recent president and this recent period hasn't made that worse. As I've said earlier, we actually have independent media like Intercept, Counterpunch, WikiLeaks and citizens with cell phones we never had before.

First thing is to get people to be distrustful of what you earlier could trust, basically argument of "mainstream media being fake news". Then have them believe the "alternate media", which has the "real facts" hidden otherwise from the masses.

People should be distrustful of mainstream media which has disseminated fake news. They are owned by corporate conglomerated well invested in corporate interests. This is why they spread lies about WMDs and backed the awful Iraq war for almost its entirety. Its' why they spread lies about Bernie Sanders' followers throwing chairs at conventions. Its why they spread incessant anti-Assad propaganda to back a bloody Syria war that has seen the rise of ISIS and Al-Qaeda at CIA training. It's why they didn't cover the story of the DNC rigging the Democratic primary because Time Warner and Jeffrey Bezos backed Hillary Clinton. Mainstream media threw away our trust long ago.

And the alternate media is the one who broke these stories. WikiLeaks reported US Army war crimes during the civil war. And it was with the help of Glenn Greenwald of the alternate media, Intercept, who helped the whistleblower Snowden. WikiLeaks also broke the story of the DNC corruptly colluding with the Clinton campaign to rig the Democratic election, and even give Hillary the debate questions beforehand. What a shock, mainstream media had completely ignored this. So, yes, mainstream media has hidden many of the real facts from the masses and its shameful.

I sit here laughing...

There seems to be little disagreement about what the problems are. The disagreement, mostly anyway, is about what to call the world. As if that matters much...

Names are arbitrary. Call it what you will as long as it is properly described, and/or taken account of. In fact, leave the name out altogether.

Look at what led to where we are... the current level of distrust... what's considered the norm...

Telling the truth...

On your view, what is the criterion which when satisfied counts as telling the truth?

There's another aspect to consider here...

It has not always been the case that publicly elected officials say things that are known to be false, despite that being pointed out. Continue the narrative...

If enough people say "X", and they say "X" enough, then some people will start believing "X".

Now, if "X" is false, and can be shown as such, what kind of mindset would it take for a listener to continue believing "X" despite their being shown that it's false?

What if circumstances change and "X" becomes true?

What if "X" cannot be shown to be false, but it is misleading none-the-less... very misleading?

What if "X" is held to be the case, but those holding "X" have no knowledge of how "X" has become the case?

Now, we could peruse history looking for situations when those in power were knowingly and deliberately claiming that "X" was true, while knowing it was not, and actively doing everything in their power to make so...

Let "X" be "Obamacare is in a death spiral", or... "Obamacare is a disaster", or "Obamacare will implode"...

Telling the truth...

On your view, what is the criterion which when satisfied counts as telling the truth?

I would say there is the ethical level, which is telling the truth is when one tells what one believes to be true. So, even if Dave stole the cookie, but Mark thinks Jack did, Mark saying Jack stole it is "telling the truth" on an ethical level.

In the strict real/metaphysical level. Telling the truth would have to be actually telling the truth, saying Dave stole the cookie. I think while we would like everyone to be able to do the latter, I think a functional definition of "telling the truth" would be the former. In other words, I wouldn't call Mark in that situation a "liar."