Courage, Cowardice and the Repositioning of the Truth

Courage isn’t always grand. It isn’t just the domain of those standing in front of tanks or whistleblowing against corruption. More often, courage is found in the quiet refusal to reposition the truth. It’s in the writer who won’t bow to a shifting narrative, the employee who speaks up in a meeting, the citizen who doesn’t let misinformation slide. It’s in the willingness to stand firm, even when the cost is discomfort, alienation or outright danger.

Cowardice, by contrast, is more insidious. It disguises itself as pragmatism, diplomacy, even wisdom. It says: Why make trouble? Why risk your standing? Why not soften the edges of the truth so it fits more neatly into the prevailing mood? And so, with a well-practised sleight of hand, the truth is repositioned - twisted, diluted or conveniently omitted. The coward doesn’t always lie outright. They just let falsehood settle, undisturbed.

We see this at play in politics, in media, in workplaces and in the small moments of daily life. When power shapes the narrative, the truth often becomes a casualty. It’s rewritten to serve, to obscure, to excuse. The courageous resist this, knowing that once the truth is repositioned too far, it stops being truth at all.

And yet, there is another, more dangerous element to this - the amplification of repositioned truth through controlled channels. I listened to a podcast today, one that says it is about public relations but instead rang out like a relic from another century.

I was stunned by their unquestioning acceptance of DEI rollbacks as simply a reflection of the zeitgeist - as if this shift was an organic, democratic response to the supposed will of the majority. It’s not. This is not the outcome of mass public demand. It is the manufactured positioning of two extreme authoritarians - one a politician, the other a technocrat - along with their network of backers who stand to gain from dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

This is where language becomes dangerous. The claim that DEI is being rolled back because the majority are ‘rejecting woke’ is not a statement of fact. It is an engineered narrative, created by those who have a vested interest in maintaining power structures that exclude and exploit. It is a top-down campaign masquerading as bottom-up sentiment. The majority of people are not clamouring to undo social progress. They still care about one another. They still want to do work that benefits society. They still believe people should receive support payments, that people should have medicine, that no child should be used as a political prop by a president's desk while others, less fortunate, are left to starve.

But when this manipulated rhetoric is repeated, unchallenged, through controlled media channels, it creates the illusion of inevitability. It suggests that the rollback is happening because this is what people want, rather than because the wealthiest and most powerful have decided that fairness and inclusion are inconvenient to their interests - or at the very least, a distraction from their actual intent. And as this rhetoric takes hold, as it seeps into corporate decisions and policy rollbacks, we see the cowardice of convenience in action. The quiet retreat of companies, of institutions, of individuals who once claimed to stand for something but who now find it more expedient to sunset their previously held beliefs. The companies that distance themselves from diversity, equity and inclusion policies not because they must but because they fear the wrath of those who loudly oppose them. The governments that refuse to sign global agreements, not because they disagree with their principles but because isolation suits their narrative. The organisations that strip away commitments, one pixel at a time, until progress is erased, leaving only a void where humanity used to be.

This is what’s happening. Not just in the way policy is shifting but in the way language itself is being wielded as a tool of control.

And then we hear the argument that those who stand against this are the ones breaking the law.

We’ve seen it in the claims that judges who rule against Musk, against Trump, against those attempting to consolidate unchecked power, are somehow undermining democracy. That their rulings are not interpretations of the law but obstructions. That they, by upholding constitutional principles, are the ones who need to be stopped. This is classic authoritarian manoeuvring - painting accountability as sabotage, positioning legal oversight as unlawful interference.

It is the same pattern across the board. The slow dismantling of truth, the repositioning of language, the erosion of resistance through exhaustion and fear.

So where does that leave us?

Some might say it’s too late to counter this. That the far right has embedded itself too deeply in the structures of what were once leading democracies, that controlled media and economic pressures have made resistance impossible. That the world has lost its ability to push back against the forces reshaping it in their image.

But history tells us otherwise.

It tells us that those who attempt to rewrite truth to serve their own ends always overreach. That tyranny never sustains itself without challenge. That the louder the falsehood, the more essential the voices that refuse to let it go unchallenged.

And that’s where the battle lies. Not in some grand, distant revolution but in the everyday moments where we choose to either accept the repositioning of truth or reject it outright.

As public relations and communications professionals, the greatest capability we have is courage. The courage to speak out on behalf of our stakeholders and communities of interest. The courage to advocate for employees and ensure organisations act with integrity. The courage to push back against the corporate and governmental decisions that strip away responsibility under the guise of necessity.

This is not a fashionable take on what our profession should be. But if public relations is to survive into the next century as something more than a mouthpiece for those who seek to reposition reality, then this is what we must do. And in this Ethics Month, we should be supported in that - not just with statements from professional associations but with direction, action and solidarity.

The world is shifting. We see it in the US and UK refusing to sign global AI agreements. In the Pope directly confronting the US administration on the distortion of Catholic doctrine. In global institutions beginning, however hesitantly, to question their alignment with nations that no longer stand for the principles they once claimed to uphold.

And this leads to the inevitable question. If those who would twist truth into propaganda are so determined to isolate themselves from reality, is it now time to let them?

If the world were to ‘consciously uncouple’ from the US - not in anger, not in retaliation but in quiet refusal to accept its distortions - what then? If those countries and their citizens who still hold onto the idea of human progress, of truth, of fairness, were to step back and leave the US, China and Russia to their authoritarian ambitions, what would happen?

It may be a gargantuan task. But it isn’t impossible. The economic and political ties are deeply embedded. But that doesn’t mean smaller refusals can’t take place. That subtle shifts and new partnerships can’t inch forward, quietly, meaningfully while the peacocks parade their shallow intent.

Because in the end, it is those small refusals that matter. It is the moment when a company executive says, ‘No, we are not scrapping our DEI commitments’. It is the moment when a journalist refuses to bow to an approved narrative and persists with the tough question. It is the moment when an individual, an employee, a citizen, says, ‘That’s not true’ and does not let the lie stand.

This is where we act. Not in sweeping empty gestures but in the daily, stubborn insistence that the truth will not be repositioned. That language will not be warped to serve the powerful. That cowardice will not be mistaken for wisdom and that human decency, in all its flawed and complicated glory, will not be erased.

If history has shown us anything, it is that those who think they can rewrite reality to suit their ambitions always, always fail in the end.