Navigating truth in febrile times

Sophy Robinson
5 hours ago
7 min read

By Sophy Robinson

In this article, Sophy examines the challenge of finding truth in an increasingly fragmented and contested information landscape. As traditional sources of authority weaken and new voices proliferate, she explores how individuals can navigate competing narratives and avoid both naïve trust and corrosive cynicism. Her conclusion points towards a more humanist approach to knowledge: one grounded in curiosity, critical thinking, and an acceptance of uncertainty.

Sophy is a former trustee of Humanists UK.

The human situation

As human beings, we strive for some degree of equilibrium – an environment with sufficient food, water, warmth and security; at its most basic, a place where we can sleep and feel safe. When these basic needs feel threatened by prolonged uncertainty, we experience stress and our capacity to thrive is reduced. Yet we now seem to live in a world of constant geopolitical and financial turbulence. In mid-March, following a strike on Diego Garcia, a UK–US military base in the Indian Ocean, reports that Iranian missiles might be capable of reaching the UK were widely broadcast. It is no longer only our energy, food and financial security that feel under threat, but even – at times – our sense of physical safety. In this febrile world, how can we manage our anxiety? And what sources of information can we turn to for truth, in order to make sense of our situation?

The rapid evolution of the information landscape

The news and information landscape has become crowded, contradictory, and even, at times, incendiary. The so-called mainstream media (MSM), once the dominant gatekeeper of news, has been increasingly challenged over the last decade by online platforms such as Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok and others. Younger generations, particularly Generation Z (those born roughly between the mid-1990s and early 2010s), go online for their news, barely grazing the ‘curated’ news produced by the many MSM channels across the world. Instead, they consume information in algorithm-driven streams – often shaped by engagement metrics, rather than a third party’s editorial judgement.

Even the way we search for truth is changing. Conventional search engines may well be superseded by AI-driven systems that generate answers, rather than simply retrieving sources. In Britain, new regulations are likely to force Google to offer a ‘choice screen’ with a clear reference to AI chatbots that include search functionality and competing offerings of a ‘search generative experience’. This raises a profound question: will AI become our principal source of truth, displacing conventional print, TV, and online sources of information? And on what basis will that ‘truth’ be constructed?

At the same time, alternative voices are growing in reach and influence. Podcasting, in particular, has grown exponentially, and figures who present themselves as independent ‘truth-tellers’, such as Joe Rogan, can command audiences on a scale that would have been unimaginable a decade ago. As of early 2026, his official presence across major platforms included 21 million subscribers on YouTube, nearly 16 million listeners on Spotify, and about 35 million people on X and Instagram.

Authority has become decentralised. There is no longer a single, widely accepted hierarchy of information. Instead, we are faced with a multiplicity of voices – each claiming, implicitly or explicitly, to offer a clearer or more honest account of reality.

Problems at the BBC go back a long way

At the same time, trust in established institutions has been eroded. The once much-respected BBC is no longer regarded by all as a bastion of truth. Its response to accusations of bias includes the launch of its fact-checking service, ‘BBC Verify’, in 2023. But as Rod Liddle, former BBC Today programme editor and current Spectator associate editor opined: ‘This mini-marvel was to be dedicated to “radical transparency” and employ 60 journalists trying to find the real truth about what is happening in the world. This rather prompts the question of what the BBC’s 2,000 other journalists spend their time doing. Making up lies? Evading reality? Knitting? And here is the problem with Verify: the whole concept is philosophically flawed. You do not need to be Jacques Derrida to believe that in this complex world of ours it might not be possible for 60 hacks to arrive at incontestable truths on every issue that comes before them.’

The recent controversy over the editing of a Trump speech in BBC programmes such as Panorama and Newsnight has further tarnished the BBC’s credibility. Given my own experience at the BBC, this did not come as a great surprise. In the 1970s and 80s, I worked on factual programmes such as Tomorrow’s World, Horizon and QED, covering science, medicine and technology. Even then, colleagues in news and current affairs had a reputation, in some professional circles, for oversimplification or distortion. I found myself having to reassure contributors that their views would be accurately represented. One eminent London-based medical professor had become so wary of the BBC that he insisted on recording his own interview with me, so that he could compare it with the final broadcast. That level of mistrust, even then, was striking.

How the Covid crisis further eroded trust

For me, however, the final nail in the coffin for the MSM as a source of truth came during the Covid crisis. Western media outlets seemed to speak with one voice about the threat that Covid posed to everyone, and the need to lock down at home. I grew increasingly frustrated that my former employer – once the source of respected programmes about science and medicine – did not produce well-researched and balanced analysis of key issues such as:

the spread of the virus
its IFR (Infection Fatality Rate: an important measure of the danger posed to different segments of the population)
its differential impact across populations, including the influence of underlying health conditions and factors such as obesity, and the role of severe immune overreactions (‘cytokine storms’) in the most serious cases
the effectiveness of lockdown strategies, social distancing and masking
alternative approaches, including those proposed in the UK/US Great Barrington Declaration – an initiative advocating more targeted protection rather than widespread lockdowns – and the policies adopted in Sweden
the possible origins of the virus

Dissenting voices

It was also surprising to see top scientific journals (such as The Lancet and Nature) supporting what was widely presented as the mainstream narrative, while respected epidemiologists, including Sunetra Gupta and Jay Bhattacharya, who questioned aspects of that approach, were marginalised in mainstream coverage, even as their views gained traction in alternative media outlets. During the spring and summer of 2020, dissenting voices did gradually emerge, escaping the stranglehold of government messaging. These included:

UnHerd, an online current affairs and opinion platform featuring long-form articles and the UnHerd TV channel
Planet Normal, a Daily Telegraph podcast hosted by economist Liam Halligan and journalist Alison Pearson and supplied with information by ‘George’ – a pseudonymous NHS senior medical insider whose data often contradicted government data being fed to the MSM
YouTube updates by Dr John Campbell, a British nurse educator whose channel grew to over 3 million subscribers and more than 750 million cumulative views by March 2024
Spiked, an online magazine edited by Brendan O’Neill, along with his podcast

These outlets included analysis and interviews with experts across three broad categories: questioning the science/data that was being presented; criticising governments from a policy and civil liberty perspective; and raising concerns about vaccine effectiveness, safety and policy.

By engaging with a range of alternative sources and perspectives, I discovered a way of navigating that frustrating phase of our lives. I wasn’t worried about catching Covid, but I was afraid of the UK government’s authoritarian and fear-mongering approach to managing the pandemic. The long-term consequences of this – societal, financial and emotional – are still playing out.

Since the pandemic, the media landscape has continued to change and fragment, with an ever-growing number of competing sources and narratives. News from the ongoing wars in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran, and their wider consequences, now competes for our attention within this crowded environment.

‘Single-sourcing’

But who do we trust to tell us the truth? Is it still a good strategy to turn to one news provider – a national TV broadcaster such as the BBC, CNN or Fox News? Or a so-called reputable print outlet such as The Times, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist or Time magazine? Should we allow ourselves to be fed ‘curated’ information, in which a provider selects topics, shapes the narrative, and decides what to include? I know people who ‘single source’ their news diet and, for example, proudly tell me that they only read The Guardian, or only watch BBC news. Yet younger generations rarely consume news from any conventional sources, relying only on their chosen social media channels. This approach, shaped by algorithms which respond to clicks, can drive them into ‘information silos’.

The responsible approach

In a world which competes for and monetises our attention, we cannot afford to be lazy. It’s a sad reflection of today’s values that outrage and high-stakes controversy attract and hold our attention. As consumers of information, we need to be aware not only of what we are being told, and by whom, but also how and why it is being presented. Curiosity and critical thinking are no longer optional – they are essential

I’ve now come round to the view that I would rather receive my information from sources who I know have a slant, a take, on the topic they are addressing. That means drawing on a range of different perspectives, knowing in what way they may be biased or distorted. This reduces my dependence on a supposedly impartial collator or editor, and I can piece together a more nuanced understanding.

What I arrive at is not ‘truth’ in any absolute sense, but something closer to ‘sense-making’: an ongoing, dynamic process of interpretation that evolves as new information becomes available. For the record, this is what that process looks like for me:

I read or graze the online forms of The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian, and The Financial Times.
I listen to BBC radio news in the car, usually when stuck in a traffic jam.
I subscribe to publications such as UnHerd and The Spectator, reading long-form articles and following their broadcasts. I attend discussions organised by them both, as well as the Academy of Ideas and Intelligence Squared.
My podcast listening spans a wide spectrum from the UK and USA: Sam Harris’s Making Sense, The Brendan O’Neill Show, The Winston Marshall Show, Conversations with Coleman, The Rest is History, Triggernometry, Honestly – and occasionally, with some scepticism, Joe Rogan’s high-profile interviews.
And, of course, I am an avid reader of Humanistically Speaking.

In an age of global uncertainty, perhaps the most important shift we can make is not technological but psychological. We must move away from the expectation of certainty, and towards an acceptance of ambiguity. Truth, if it exists in any fixed and final form, is rarely accessible to us in its entirety. But through curiosity, scepticism, and a willingness to engage with multiple perspectives, we can come closer to understanding the world as it is – rather than as it is presented to us. In febrile times such as these, that may be the most realistic – and the most human – goal.