Epistemological AF.
(Disclaimer: my argument is largely comprised of personal anecdote and incomplete reasoning. See username.)
Despite all the reasonable backlash to the Spicer/Conway comments, I remain wary of how the term alternative facts is being subsumed into other narratives, especially those of mainstream media outlets surrounding the claimed prevalence of fake news. The extent to which it implies that dominant news outlets have some kind of corner on what is factual via a more refined, reliable, or authoritative epistemology is as disconcerting as the very comments made by Trump's team.
(Like @lukestokes raised in a recent post, I agree that the mechanisms many use for justified belief are not as sound as they could be. However, I do believe a plurality of well-reasoned epistemologies is possible; I don't believe in a singularity of reason or logic any more than I believe that people share perfectly identical experiences. This of course doesn't mean that people with differing epistemologies have nothing to say to each other; it's just a matter of doing the awkward and difficult work of finding the things we agree to be facts.)
Under these specific circumstances, it's easy to write-off the "epistemology" of Conway/Spicer as most of us are accustomed to and take for granted the falsifiability of numbers and the role photographs play in shaping what we consider to be real. (From The Steemit Welcome Guide: "a lot of users will take a picture of themselves holding up a piece of paper that says "Steemit" with the current date, so we know you are a real person."). And also because it's easy to dismiss the rationale of people accustomed to covering their asses in the face of resistance and ridicule, moreso when it's their job to do so on behalf of people of power.
But let's not forget that mainstream media consist of powerful people who too have been covering their asses recently. Despite his initial and ongoing use of the phrase, Donald J. Trump did not instigate the narrative of fake news. A concern for the persuasive power of fake news arose in the wake of an election that delegitimized many influential news outlets (i.e. The New York Times) and the Democratic Party, whose very strategy included bolstering Trump in the press and being in cahoots with those same, soon-to-be-shamed outlets. I personally first heard the term during a post-election discussion that strongly suggested, rather than outright claimed, that pro-Trump/anti-Clinton fake news sites swayed the election in Trump's favor. I find this explanation too convenient, as it rids both the media and politicians of any blame regarding their recent failures.
This is why I'm skeptical of the response to the Spicer/Conway comments, and even the labeling of such a term as alternative facts as "Orwellian." I enthusiastically admit that uncanniness levels are skyrocketing with its resemblance to the rhetorical strategies present in 1984, and I am totally glad that Orwell is cool again. But, frankly, if we find ourselves putting more trust in mainstream outlets and their proclaimed ability to siphon fact from fiction in reaction to something said by Trump or his team, we may be missing the point.
There is a reason Trump was able to quickly co-opt the rhetoric of fake news to his own ends; it was already being used in a similar fashion by and to the advantage of his opponents: the Democratic party and mainstream media. Both usages require us to put our trust in their epistemological reasoning rather than our own. Neither of these authorities, I ascertain, are advocating for us to truly think for ourselves, or for that matter, to be critical of them.
Let us not pass on an opportunity to hold not only our politicians accountable, but the people who report on them as well. Granted, I probably don't need to make a case for exploring indepedent news outlets here, or for using online resources for sharpening our own epistemologies. This is Steemit, afterall!
Will edit for clarity.
Edit: Aw crap. Philsophy. Really? Damn. The blockchain is forever.