2016 is the year of “post-truth,” according to the Oxford Dictionaries

If the Oxford Dictionaries’ word of the year is meant to encapsulate an entire year in language and culture, 2016’s is particularly — and, let’s be real, fittingly — bleak.

In a press release, the dictionary announced that the most representative word for this year is “post-truth,” which the dictionary defines as follows:

post-truth: Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.

Yeah, sounds about right.

It’s true that the concept of “post-truth” has been around for far longer than just this year. The Oxford Dictionaries’ press release credits the term to Serbian-American playwright Steve Tesich, who used it despairingly in a 1992 essay in the Nation. Merriam-Webster even crowned a version of the term as its own word of the year in 2006, which went to Stephen Colbert’s “truthiness” (or "the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true”).

But president of Oxford Dictionaries Casper Grathwohl — a name so perfect for the president of Oxford Dictionaries that I’d understand if you thought I made it up — credited the year’s whiplash-inducing political climate for helping “post-truth” beat out finalists like “alt-right” and “woke.”

Oxford English Dictionary

Grathwohl said that “post-truth” is the most relevant it’s ever been in 2016, “fueled by the rise of social media as a news source and a growing distrust of facts offered up by the establishment.”

Grathwohl’s statement even explicitly referenced the victories of Brexit and Donald Trump — who just won the election after a steady campaign of half-truths and flat-out lies — as factors in the dictionary’s decision.

Needless to say, the idea that “post-truth” could not just exemplify this year but — in Grathwohl’s words — be “one of the defining words of our time” is a frightening one.

And if you needed further proof that 2016 has been a particularly intense harbinger of chaos, look no further than the Oxford Dictionaries’ word of the year for 2015, which was the “face laughing with tears” emoji.

LOL.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via