On Topic: Truth or consequences is more than a city in New Mexico

You don't trust Clinton. You don't trust Trump. But do your employees trust you?

You say that's not a fair question? Let's talk about this for a couple minutes.

It's in the first season of the HBO series 'The Newsroom' in which Will McAvoy, the anchor of a fictional cable news channel and played by Jeff Daniels, contends that 'fair and balanced' really is a lazy excuse for news organizations to ignore facts — gravity exists, climate change is real not 'bad science,' the current president was born in this country — instead of following those facts where they lead, regardless of ideology, and then holding people accountable for what they say and do.

It most certainly also was a jab by series creator Aaron Sorkin at Fox News, which uses that phrase as a tagline.

That episode was first aired back in 2012. So I was intrigued to see the Economist magazine — in the 'leader' article to its Sept. 10 cover story on what it deemed 'post-truth politics' — also blame modern journalism for 'fairness' in reporting that unintentionally or otherwise 'creates phony balance at the expense of truth.'

In other words, if, say, 2,000 students turn out to protest their university's financial investments in a questionable foreign government, some journalists will make an effort to find one student who agrees with the investments, then give both sides, literally, equal time. Even though the news is that 2,000 people turned out in one place to express an opinion.

The Economist's thrust is that we've moved into an era in which truth — facts based on evidence — has been overwhelmed, like parts of NewBo as the Cedar River tops its banks, and has been replaced by giving people what we think they want, statements that 'feel true.'

It's no wonder editorial cartoons have proliferated that employ the already clichéd image of politicians as Pinocchio with an ever-growing nose.

But what's that you say? Politicians always lie, and they always have, we just hear about it faster these days? More so than ever with today's social media, you may add, a falsehood — as Mark Twain and others before and after him have said — can dash around the world while truth still is pulling on its shoes.

And this is without us even opening that can of stewed tomatoes about the difference between facts and truth. (Before the 15th century or so, facts would have us believe the world was flat. The truth, it came to be discovered, was something else entirely.)

But I wonder how all this assumed distrust spreads to how we feel about other, nonelected leaders. That is, do you trust your boss, Do your employees trust you?

And should they?

Steven Covey, in his 2006 book 'The Speed of Trust: The One Thing That Changes Everything,' says trust is, well, everything. Having your workers believe they can place their faith in your intentions is the strongest motivator.

It's the best thing for when times are good, and you want everyone to row in the same direction, as well as when times are bad.

'In a high-trust relationship,' Covey writes, 'you can say the wrong thing, and people will still get your meaning. In a low-trust relationship, you can be very measured, even precise, and they'll still misinterpret you.'

While we can't do much about whether people believe what they hear from elected officials, we certainly should aim to get our supervisors, co-workers and employees to trust what intend.

We do that by sharing the truth. And the facts.

Michael Chevy Castranova is Business editor of The Gazette.