Slashdot Mirror


Word of the Year - "Truthiness"

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."

18 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. Poster needs to look up the definition... by Nrbelex · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ironic that the post here misuses the word...

  2. True dat by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't have any facts to back this up, but this just feels like the right decision.

    --
    Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
  3. Fucking Philistines! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Colbert might be "funny ha ha" but he is NOT a journalist and makes NO serious commentary on politics or society. His words are no more pithier than a Beavis and Butthead skit. IN fact I would have to say that Beavis' "I am the great cornhoilio! I need tee pee for my bunghole! Are you threatening me?" are words far deeper than ANYTHING Colbert has ever said.

    I used to think Colbert was kind of cute in the way that he parodied the lefty view of Republicans. But now that they've taken him to be a serious journalist, I find both he and the liberals completely sad. Thankfully, in another four years, Bush will have proven that he is capable because Iraq will have proven out to be a success, the right will have the Whitehouse for another four years, the Democrats will have lost whatever power they gained in the last elections, and the Ownership Society will have proven out as well ensuring more Republican wins for generations to come. Ideally, I think the time has come to end the two party system and make the Democratic party illegal for the protection of future generations.

    I foresee a day when the Democratic party is finally viewed as it should have always been: equivalent to the Nazi party (they were socialists too) or the Communist party. There was once a time when the Communist party was also just as serious in this great land as the Democrats are. Thankfully, we took care of that in the 50s and we'll do the same to the Democrats today. In the marketplace of ideas of the political arena, the only parties that should be allowed to compete are the ones worthy of serious consideration: Republicans and Libertarians. Maybe the Contitution party as well. The ones that should be eliminated are the ones that claim to want to help the poor or the "underdogs". America has no room for people who won't take it on themselves to work hard and succeed.

    1. Re:Fucking Philistines! by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Funny

      joke -----------> o

                        O
                       \|/
      you ------------> |
                       / \

      Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.

  4. This proves what is already known. by PixieDust · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Colbert, Stewart, and a lot of other charismatic, fun, but still strangely accurate, are taking over media. Sure, it's "Fake News" but the vast majority of their stuff is based on fact, much of it is taken out of context, and anyone with half a brain can take the inaccuracies out, and keep the truthiness.

    The big names in news MSNBC, CNN, FoxNews, they all know it's true, in fact some of them have a sort of obsession with Colbert and Stewart. They are fun. They are reporting many of the same stories, just not doing it like they're having a root canal done at the same time. And they're not afraid to poke fun at everyone, including themselves. It's very refreshing. THAT is why they have this kind of clout. They are respected.

    1. Re:This proves what is already known. by dagamer34 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

    2. Re:This proves what is already known. by Zadaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:This proves what is already known. by Bishop · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    4. Re:This proves what is already known. by misanthrope101 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    5. Re:This proves what is already known. by exley · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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 (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.

  5. Re:Heckuva Job, Brownie by dangitman · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's a perfectly cromulent attitude.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  6. Wait! What about good ol' YouTube? by denmarkw00t · · Score: 5, Informative

    The word, first introduced [Windows media]...

    Try:
    The word, first introduced...

    1. Re:Wait! What about good ol' YouTube? by evilviper · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why? Because Flash is now considered less proprietary than Windows Media?

      Guess which one works in MPlayer, Xine, VLC, ffplay, GStreamer, etc., and which doesn't?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  7. Re:'truth that comes from the gut, not books.' by node+3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  8. Grammar Nazi Alert!!! by Chineseyes · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Fo Sho" lost its appeal circa 2000 with the release of Snoop Dogg's The Last Meal but the term was not universally disposed as a term of affirmation until the release of Jay-Z's The Blueprint circa 2001 due to the popularity of the single Izzo(H.O.V.A) which borrowed heavily from Snoop Dogg's supposed "Crip Colloquialism". In actuality the proper terminology to express agreement with another party would be "Fo Shizzle" which is not "Crip Colloquialism" but a form of expression first invented by an often forgotten Funk band known as Gap Band

    What are they teaching people in school these days? ;-)

    --
    I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended

    --A wise old fart named SC0RN
  9. Re:The demise of English in the US by owlnation · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Mod parent DOWN for ignorance... by Gulthek · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.
  11. Re:Mod parent DOWN for ignorance... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I believe the story uses the word correctly.

    I just do.

    --

    You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!