Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
It's funny.  Laugh. Media Television

Word of the Year - "Truthiness" 254

KingSkippus writes "Stephen Colbert calls it 'truth that comes from the gut, not books.' Merriam-Webster calls it their 2006 Word of the Year. The word, first introduced [Windows media] on 'The Word' segment of The Colbert Report, won by a five-to-one margin. In spite of Colbert's ironic dismissal of dictionaries and other reference books, will Colbert's coined word actually be added to those books? With media outlets like CNN and MSNBC covering it, the idea may very well have truthiness."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Word of the Year - "Truthiness"

Comments Filter:
  • by TriezGamer ( 861238 ) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @03:34AM (#17182354)
    'truth that comes from the gut, not books.' We've already got a word for that -- it's called instinct. And it's often not related to genuine truth at all.
  • Re:True dat (Score:3, Insightful)

    by shawn443 ( 882648 ) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @03:41AM (#17182404)
    And I will second that with a "fo sho".
  • by dagamer34 ( 1012833 ) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @04:13AM (#17182552)
    You see, once you realize that all news is really infotainment, you can just say that Stewart and Colbert are just much better as entertaining us compared to NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc... Oh, and they make us laugh too!
  • by Zadaz ( 950521 ) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @04:50AM (#17182708)
    When I travel out of the US (Which is about 50% of the time) I get a large majority of my news from Stewart, The Onion, and Colbert. Mostly because it's better written and better delivered than the other news sources. If "real" news could write as clearly, intelligently, and insightfully as these sources I might pay attention to it.

    And sadly, I'm still better informed than most of my American colleagues.

    They may not be "Real" news, but it keeps me entertained, informed, and isn't trying to make me hate my life and fear everyone.

    CNN on the other hand (Which seems to be in ever hotel and waiting room on the planet) delivers the news with the same false forthrightness no mater if they're covering a cat up a tree or a massacre of orphans. They attempt to give all news the same mock gravity and seriousness so you'll stay tuned it, and be afraid to turn away. Which in turn makes it all worthless.

    The approach of Stewart and Colbert is that the news is the entertainment, not much more than the Mystery Science Theater of news. Compared to the major outlets which focus on entertainment, and try to cram news into that mold, succeeding at neither entertaining nor informing.
  • by Bishop ( 4500 ) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @05:35AM (#17182876)

    from what I've seen of Colbert, his whole act seems to be a walking strawman.
    That is the whole point isn't it?

  • by misanthrope101 ( 253915 ) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @05:45AM (#17182904)
    Yes, Colbert's entire schtick is to parody O'Reilly. "Truthiness" isn't really a joke. He's passing it as a joke so people will listen, but what he's lampooning actually exists and effects all of us every day. Truthiness has taken the place of truth, not only in the executive branch, but in the mainstream media. Bush, Rumsfeld, or Cheney can screw up their eyes a bit, furrow their brow, give a serious, pensive look into the camera and tell us in an exasperated voice that they're trying to protect America, and that the liberals only want to hurt our nation, and people nod sympathetically, but in reality experts in the CIA, State Department, and Pentagon all said Saddam posed no credible threat, didn't have a WMD stockpile, wasn't poised to attack anyone, wasn't helping Al-Queida, had no known involvement in 9/11, and that invading Iraq would destabilize the region and make terrorism worse, not better.

    Truth places more value on this fact-based, rigorous analysis, conducted by experts in the field, than it does on the gut-feeling of Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld. A loyalty to truth means that you don't give people a free pass because they meant well and are probably decent people when they aren't making decisions that lead to tens of thousands of deaths. Truthiness ignores the fact-based analysis, distrusts the experts, and puts credence in Bush's gut-feeling. This sort of has consequences and stuff. So Colbert is joking, but not really, so faulting him for not being all that funny must be done with the knowledge that he's trying to call our attention to a collective insanity that we need to stop buying into.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10, 2006 @05:50AM (#17182924)
    I wouldn't go that far.

    Truthiness is a perfectly cromulent word.
  • by exley ( 221867 ) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @06:06AM (#17182984) Homepage
    I agree that programs like The Daily Show and publications like The Onion are put together by intelligent and well-read people. Hell, they are damn right clever. It takes someone pretty sharp to come up with this [theonion.com] (as one example; let's not forget things such as the September 11th issue or the 2000 election issue, to say nothing of The Daily Show's body of work). And I really do think that a lot of comedians out there are some of the smartest people we've got.

    But this notion of people getting the majority of their news from places like this has got to stop. I know it sounds pretty cool and progressive to dismiss traditional media and show a preference for alternative sources, but it's gotten out of hand. TDS, The Onion, etc... They're jokes first and foremost. I'd bet that the people involved with them would be the first to tell you that. Again, this isn't to detract from their intelligence or the poignance of what they have to say -- but still, the joke comes first. Announcing to the world that this is how we keep ourselves informed is not gonna get us any street cred, and that alone is enough for everyone else to hate us.

    Yeah, the "real" news outlets are far from stellar. But if you follow them you can have just as good of an idea as to what's going on in the world. If you so desire, you can even think about it, check multiple sources, and wade through the bullshit.

  • by node 3 ( 115640 ) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @07:00AM (#17183162)
    "Instinct" isn't a type of truth. It's a feeling (emotion) used in lieu of facts.

    "Truthiness" is truth using emotion in lieu of facts.

    Similar, but not the same word.
  • by RyuuzakiTetsuya ( 195424 ) <taiki@c o x .net> on Sunday December 10, 2006 @07:04AM (#17183174)
    Yes, it may be synonymous with instinct, but the word "instinct" while having quite a bit of gravitas on it's own, doesn't have the same kind of gravitas as say, truthiness.
  • by RyuuzakiTetsuya ( 195424 ) <taiki@c o x .net> on Sunday December 10, 2006 @07:18AM (#17183224)
    republicans and libertarians?

    Jeez, and people thought the political system now had two parties that seemed alike...

    I know you're a troll, but i've already replied, so I'll bite.

    The idea of social safety nets and social programs aren't to encourage lazy people. Quite the opposite in fact. The idea behind a Government program to say, fund higher education through Pell Grants, is to make sure that people aren't stuck working for minimum wage(a great liberal idea).
  • Truthiness == ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Evil Pete ( 73279 ) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @08:29AM (#17183466) Homepage

    Gut instinct. Yeah right.

    What that means is "Truthiness is what agrees with my basic prejudices".

  • by owlnation ( 858981 ) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @10:47AM (#17184112)
    I'm not an American, but I do not agree with your post. Somewhere within your post there is a valid point, but you missed it by focusing your ad hominem attack on the US.

    Firstly, as other posters have said, watch The Colbert Report. It is intelligent and brilliant satire, the purpose of his invented words is satire, and is also valuable and necessary commentary on the manipulation of words by the (often right-wing extremist) media such as Fox News. It is also very funny.

    As to nature of manipulation of words, the biggest culprit is the advertising, promotion and marketing industry. They are closely followed by News Corp (owned by Murdoch - who is Australian, not American.) Please see the documentary "Outfoxed" if you have not done so. Bear mind that Murdoch's claws extend far beyond the US, they also own TV and Newspapers in Australia, South Africa, China, and in the UK (The Sun, The Times, Sky, and recently part of ITV).

    Much of the advertising and promotion industry is international, and UK agencies play a significant part in that - Saatchi and Saatchi as one example.

    Evidence of ad manipulation exists in words such as "free", "diet", "low fat", "extra" and many, many, many more. That's universal and also exists in other languages other than English.

    One of the most beautiful and wonderful things about English is it's ability to be bent and stretched and often broken without losing it's meaning, in fact it often gains depth and poetry from such manipulation.

    If you were to go back in time to the 16th Century I'm certain Ye Olde Slashe Dotte would have a culpatory post by M'lord Scumptious listing his bile at the disgraceful disregard for Her Most Noble Majestie's Englishe by that upstart proletarian Mr Shakespeare.

    Seriously if you can understand it, it works. Grammar Nazis, you can all burn forever in Hell. We can blame Dr Samuel Johnson for introducing language fascism, which remains utterly unnecessary to humanity.

    And finally, if you have a chance, do read Bill Bryson's book, "Made in America" for an eye-opening history of how American English is, in fact, more correct in many cases.

    Oh, and PS, if you believe the Americans have no love of language I can only assume you have never read Steinbeck.
  • by Gulthek ( 12570 ) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @11:06AM (#17184278) Homepage Journal
    The GP is talking about this sentence:

    With media outlets like CNN and MSNBC covering it, the idea may very well have truthiness.


    That's not truth from the gut, that's truth from evidence.
  • Actually SWF is as proprietary as PDF--that is to say, it only looks proprietary.
  • by RyuuzakiTetsuya ( 195424 ) <taiki@c o x .net> on Sunday December 10, 2006 @12:34PM (#17184982)
    I sure hope you're joking. But I'll bite.

    The 500 shells we've found are dud, old shells that can't be used to kill anyone, nor were they capable of harming American citizens in any of the US states. They could do skin damage, but nothing on the scale of mass death.

    Further more, WE have connection to terrorist groups in South America, Africa and Asia. It doesn't make it right, but there was no credible link between Saddam and *Al Qaeda.* Who attacked us on September 11th, 2001. Saddam supported terrorists who were operating in and out of Israel. Not America.

    Also, it is not the Iraqis will to hang Saddam. The trial was pre-rigged and you know it. I'm not saying what he did was right, but if you're going to accuse a man of crimes against humanity, do it in the Hague where he at least has a fair trial.

    The fatality rate is something along the lines of thousands a month for both US and Iraqis. Not to mention the number of attacks are being scrubbed before they go out to press. Because of this, in the 3 years we've been in Iraq, we've caused more deaths than Saddam has combined.

    I really DO hope you're joking. No one can be this ignorant to the truth of what's going on in the disaster that is Iraq.
  • Re:bollocks (Score:3, Insightful)

    by An Onerous Coward ( 222037 ) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @01:00PM (#17185196) Homepage
    So, if I started pulling out your hair one follicle at a time, upon which plucking would you go from being 0% bald to 100% bald?
  • by Fantastic Lad ( 198284 ) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @01:34PM (#17185444)
    I'm all for flexibility in language and allowing for natural patterns of evolution. The French embarrass themselves every now and then by trying to disallow such evolution saying that 'Language is a code. It must not be tampered with!'

    --As if French or English, or any language in the world for that matter, sprang into being fully conceived, or worse, that the current state of a given language is by some holy decree, its final, perfect form. That's just Ego and Fear talking.

    But honestly, the word 'Truthiness' is not one I'll ever find myself using in earnest, because it was invented through a sense of irony to make fun of Brain-dead Texans with Too Much Power.

    It's not a word. It's a joke. And a bitter one, at that.

    But if it somehow, (*cough* through ignorance *cough*), it does become a well-used word without any sense of irony attached, then so be it. But honestly, the word doesn't roll off the tongue or really describe something desperate for description enough to affect the public popular lexicon any time soon, IMHO.

    Now, can we talk about something else? This whole non-issue reminds me of the banal stupidity of the whole Political Correctness thing; that is, it's too retarded for words and should be stamped out immediately so that it doesn't piss everybody off and waste enormous amounts of time and energy.


    -FL

  • by Lord Ender ( 156273 ) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @03:01PM (#17186154) Homepage
    You know, in a lot of companies, management thinks from the gut, not from careful analysis. In such places, the word "truthiness" can fit well. It's not exclusively applicable to Texan politicos.

The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood

Working...