Propaganda, fake news, and post-truth have increasingly become common buzzwords in today’s political discourse. However, lying and manipulation are nothing new in the world of politics, nor have they always posed such a direct threat to democracies. Political actors have long delivered “influential speeches,” “offered incentives,” “disrupted decision-making,” and “hidden facts.” Sometimes, these actions are carried out in the name of national security and interest; other times, they serve the purpose of “image-making.” A politician might tarnish an opponent’s image to gain power, or a party might craft narratives to secure its voter base.

Whatever the case, these tactics are designed to purposefully alter citizens’ beliefs, intentions, and behavior. And we know this; in fact, we often expect our politicians to be untruthful. So, why has there suddenly been such public concern about truth in politics? The answer may lie in the complex interplay between social media, rising populism, and the crisis of democracy. Manipulation is a form of power. Therefore, it is no surprise that it has been an integral part of political strategies aimed at gaining or consolidating power.

Manipulation enables leaders to control public narratives and perceptions, mobilize support, and enhance their public image in ways that serve their interests. A notable example is the 1988 Willie Horton ad, aired during the presidential race between George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis. The ad featured Willie Horton, an African American man convicted of murder and granted a furlough under a Massachusetts prison program during Dukakis’s tenure as governor. While on furlough, Horton committed violent crimes. The ad exploited Horton’s case to portray Dukakis as soft on crime and incapable of protecting the American public, while simultaneously playing on racial prejudices.

A more recent example can be found in India’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) campaign during the elections in the State of Jharkhand. The campaign included an ad showing seemingly poor individuals wearing skull caps and hijabs “infiltrating” the house of a visibly Hindu family. Although the ad was later pulled following a complaint from the opposition party to the Election Commission, citing its divisive nature, the message had already left an impression on voters’ minds. Another, more blatant example of truth manipulation occurred during Stalin’s regime in Russia. In a photograph published in 1937, Joseph Stalin was depicted standing alongside several colleagues, including Nikolai Yezhov, the head of the secret police.

Just three years later, a revised version of the same photograph was published, but this time, Yezhov was conspicuously absent. By then, he had fallen out of favor with Stalin and was executed in 1941. This demonstrates how truth manipulation not only helps leaders secure their strategic interests but also allows them to construct narratives that align with their principles and ideologies. By now, it should be evident that manipulation takes many forms. It can be executed overtly, as in Stalin’s case, through propaganda and media control, or through more nuanced methods such as spreading misinformation and disinformation, as well as employing psychological manipulation.

Hitler’s propaganda machine is a notorious example of manipulation through media control. Radios and public speakers were used to disseminate Nazi propaganda, while strict censorship ensured that opposing voices were silenced. Spreading misinformation and disinformation through media remains an effective method of public manipulation to this day. Advances in communication technology and the rise of social media have only made truth manipulation easier and more pervasive. Moreover, it has become increasingly difficult to recognize when one is being manipulated. A carefully placed euphemism, strategic ambiguities, and psychological manipulation are subtle but among the most effective techniques.

They exploit voters’ emotions—fear, anger, and racial or religious prejudice—to shape their perceptions of candidates. For instance, in a public address earlier this year, India’s Prime Minister Modi referred to “those who have more children” as a threat to the nation. Many interpreted this as a veiled reference to Muslims; however, Modi vehemently denied the accusation, stating that the day he resorts to Hindu-Muslim rhetoric, he would become “unworthy of public life.” An earlier example of psychological manipulation is the 1964 Daisy ad, aired during the presidential election between Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater. The ad featured a young girl plucking petals from a daisy, counting each one before the tranquil scene was suddenly interrupted by the countdown to a nuclear explosion. A voiceover then warned that Goldwater’s policies could lead to nuclear war.

The ad was crafted to instill fear and link Goldwater with the threat of global catastrophe. In the modern era, social media manipulation by political actors has escalated into an industrial-scale issue. A 2020 media manipulation survey conducted by the Oxford Internet Institute found that disinformation has become a widespread tactic in political communication, with over 93% of the countries surveyed (76 out of 81) reporting the use of disinformation as part of their political strategies.

This is the era of ‘post-truth,’ where objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief. Political speech is not only indifferent to the truth but also unwilling to engage with opposing perspectives. As a society, we have collectively outsourced our ability to discern truth and encased ourselves in self-affirming media bubbles. There is no shared reality in which we can coexist and form opinions. In this context, modern political manipulation does not seek to persuade; instead, it sows confusion, stifles discussion, and halts debate. Politicians are not striving for rational arguments based on facts but are focused on ‘hijacking’ attention.

This is a defining feature of both Donald Trump’s and Boris Johnson’s political careers. In 2016, The Washington Post fact-checker blog analyzed Trump’s statements and rated 70% of them with its highest falsehood rating—four Pinocchios. The remaining 30% weren’t entirely truthful either; they contained just enough truth to avoid the worst rating. Examples of this pattern include his exaggerated claims about his inauguration crowd size and Kellyanne Conway’s infamous false reference to the “Bowling Green massacre.” Similarly, Boris Johnson built much of his political identity on distortion, especially during his tenure as Brussels correspondent for The Telegraph in the 1990s. His infamous stories about absurd EU bureaucratic demands—such as regulations on square strawberries or smaller condoms—shaped public perception and contributed to the rise of populist Euroscepticism.

Russia offers another compelling example, where Vladimir Putin’s “political technologies” focus on fostering a climate of distrust in all political information. The strategy aims to convince people that everyone is lying, turning the battle into one of crafting the most convincing lies and projecting the most appealing persona. In India, similar tactics can be observed. After the Supreme Court declared the Electoral Bond scheme unconstitutional—exposing massive, opaque donations to the ruling BJP—Prime Minister Modi insisted the scheme had increased transparency, even as government lawyers had argued the opposite in court. The COVID-19 pandemic further revealed this distortion, with the government maintaining an official death toll far lower than what experts believed to be accurate, thus perpetuating a narrative of control and competence.

In each case, these political figures use distortion not just as a tool of persuasion but as a method to manipulate public perception, creating confusion and eroding trust in established truths. Drawing on Hannah Arendt, I argue that factual truth is essential to pluralistic politics. Facts serve as a shared reference point for diverse opinions, each shaped by different interests and passions. To deny facts is to dismantle the very foundation that enables democratic dialogue. This crisis of truth can be traced to broader shifts in the interconnected realms of media, economics, and politics—particularly the decline in public trust in mass media and the erosion of a shared reality based on common facts.

With technologies like AI-driven deepfakes, skepticism has only increased. There is also a growing trend of rejecting scientific consensus, evident in climate change denial and vaccine hesitancy. Today, it is easy for individuals to follow certain news outlets that provide narratives aligning with their beliefs. Social media algorithms further reinforce this by curating content that supports these views, creating an illusion of widespread consensus. This dynamic has led to greater fragmentation and polarization of the public sphere.

Countering such complex manipulation of truth requires a deliberate and systematic approach. Currently, there is no legal regulatory body or even a set of common principles to combat disinformation at the international level. Regulating social media platforms and enforcing objective fact-checking mechanisms are critical to rebuilding trust in the media. Organizations like the Content Authenticity Initiative, which helps verify the authenticity of digital images, play an essential role in this effort. However, the mere presence of such organizations and frameworks is not enough. We must also promote media and civic literacy from an early age to empower individuals to critically engage with the information they encounter.

Many countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, have been considering raising the minimum age for social media access and regulating smartphone use in schools to protect children from unregulated misinformation. Such measures, however, are not long-term solutions. Instead, children must be taught to build a healthy relationship with the digital world. We need to learn how to be critical users rather than passive consumers of social media. Media literacy plays a crucial role in achieving this. It empowers users by placing agency back in their hands while simultaneously promoting transparency and accountability.

The relationship between truth and politics has always been a tenuous one. Whether framed as propaganda or influence, untruths have long been a part of political strategy. In recent years, however, the scale and scope of this phenomenon have expanded exponentially, leaving societies struggling to keep up. Newer technologies are being exploited while the average citizen in a democracy remains uninformed and unprepared. Post-truth is deeply intertwined with the rise of populism and the crisis of democracy. Countering post-truth political manipulation requires creating space for rational debate and discussion grounded in a shared reality. Ultimately, the fight for truth in politics is not merely about protecting facts; it is about safeguarding the very foundation of democratic dialogue and ensuring that future generations are equipped to navigate the complexities of a rapidly changing world.