1.7 Post-truth influence as the new propaganda

Scholars, activists, and certain policymakers are advocating for transformative actions to confront the existential dangers facing living species. However, the advantaged will forcefully organize against learning from past mistakes and adapting rules to better fit ecological systems (Agrawal & Ribot, 1999; Ostrom, 2007). Industrial sectors and influential elites whose economic interests are at risk from these changes are crafting post-truth narratives to slow or block progress, creating an environment in which scientifically grounded information is overshadowed by campaigns that sow doubt and skepticism. Misinformation undermines efforts to implement policies aimed at achieving transformative goals, while the deliberate distortion, discrediting, or disregard of scientific evidence poses a serious threat to societal well-being. These misleading narratives, often spread through social media, are further amplified by prominent figures, influencing public policies. Contemporary examples of this post-truth phenomenon include the deliberate undermining of COVID-19 prevention measures and attempts to derail efforts addressing the environmental polycrisis—both of which have the potential to disrupt established economic systems and existing power structures (Brousselle, 2024, 2025).

Post-truth is not a singular phenomenon but rather a complex set of tactics aimed at influencing and manipulating public opinion, often driven by powerful economic and political interests. These tactics typically target ideas or initiatives that have the potential to drive transformative change (Brousselle, 2024, 2025).

The concept of ‘post-truth’ represents a more advanced and widespread form of propaganda (Poulakidakos et al., 2018). While disinformation and opinion manipulation are not new—propaganda has been around for centuries (Arendt, 2012/1967; Bernays, 1928; Chomsky, 2002)—the advent of social media has amplified these methods to unprecedented levels. As a result, new forms of opinion manipulation are emerging that are more sophisticated than ever before (Brousselle, 2024).

Post-truth tactics manifest through a variety of influence and manipulation strategies, operating across multiple levels and channels. These strategies are effective because they are deployed in a coordinated manner, working together in ways that amplify their impact. As such, these tactics should not be examined in isolation, as doing so would fail to capture the full extent of their implementation and potential consequences (Brousselle, 2024).

Post-truth strategies don’t aim at directly opposing scientific evidence, but rather at raising controversy and doubt, creating polarization and undermining scientific consensus, all of which impede implementing transformative policies. Tactics are often insidious and are implemented in parallel, with social media, with its engagement-focused algorithms, amplifying divergent and polarizing views (Brousselle, 2024). The doubt created about truth is not the result of single effort, but rather the combination of coordinated efforts. Tactics observed include (a) blurring of the divide between  “facts, opinions and interpretations” (Brahms, 2020, pp. 2, mentioning Arendt), (b) direct attacks on science credibility by funding pseudo-research institutes or promising researchers compromising their independence and credibility, (c) polarization of opinion by supporting anti-governmental groups (for example, the Freedom Convoy in Canada) or supporting populist movements (Marquardt & Lederer, 2022; Marquardt et al., 2022), (d) creation of strategic alliances with specific groups (some Indigenous leaders and communities, for example) to increase the legitimacy of industrial groups and thus reduce their vulnerability to divestment campaigns by meeting Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) sustainability investment criteria (CAPP, 2021), (e) recruitment of influential spokespersons to convey their messages (Bernays, 1928), (f) increased legitimacy of threatened industrial groups though involvement in visible but non-transformative action, (g) involvement of activists and researchers in visible but shallow activities as a way to divert their efforts from more transformative action (Brousselle, 2024; Lamb et al., 2020).

Post-truth tactics seek to counterbalance initiatives that would potentially have a transformative potential in our societies, diverting our attention from prioritizing actions urgently needed to preserve human and other living species’ health and well-being. These tactics are successful because they are taking place on fertile ground. First, the multiple layers of critical threats reduce our capacity to respond effectively, which reinforces the tendency to ignore these realities and thus stifles transformative action (Gifford, 2011; McIntyre, 2018). Second, our societies are effectively maintaining systems of exclusion that further alienate vulnerable groups and people. Persisting social injustices nurture the politics of discontent as well as populist movements. We have observed a global movement of distrust in public institutions (Fischer, 2021; House, 2020), which preventive measures implemented during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have only exacerbated. We have also observed groups rallying against elites and governments (for example, Q-Anon and the Freedom Convoy) that are destabilizing governments and encouraging politicians to adopt more “moderate” positions than the bold action a socio-ecological transition requires. (as cited in Brousselle, 2025, p. 97)

 

Evaluators undoubtedly have varied experiences of post-truth. Those working directly on topics that potentially affect powerful economic interests may be confronted with post-truth tactics more directly. Furthermore, evaluators may not necessarily have the same level of agency to shape their own work, particularly if they work as consultants or within government. However, whatever the topic or their evaluations or their professional status, all evaluators may work in contexts where people’s systems of beliefs are influenced by post-truth content. How can evaluators practice in a world that is so fragmented, polarized, and where science is contested? In the following, we will explore potential pathways evaluators can adopt to resist post-truth tactics and disinformation.

Fighting back against post-truth strategies and tactics will involve that evaluators realize “that they are not dealing with an orthodox scientific debate based on sound data and evidence, but a well-funded sophisticated science denialist campaign based on ideological and corporate interests” (Gorski & Yamey, 2021). The evaluator will not be able to counteract disinformation and opinion manipulation strategies by presenting better facts, better information, or through implementing better deliberative processes (Fischer, 2021; House, 2020). (as cited in Brousselle, 2024, p. 542)

In highly polarized environments, collaborative and participatory methods are often ineffective. House and Howe’s Deliberative Democratic Evaluation has been suggested as a way forward in political contexts (Contandriopoulos & Brousselle, 2012; House & Howe, 1999). However, post-truth contexts present distinct challenges. For instance, the foundational assumption that there are shared grounds for democratic debate may no longer hold true. Reflecting on Deliberative Democratic Evaluation, which he championed throughout his career, House acknowledges that such processes are “not potent enough” (House, 2020, p. 33) to address the complexities of the current post-truth era.