Truthiness is so popular that calling attention to it is almost trite. Soooo 2006. But I’ll indulge just this once.

A recent LA Times op-ed comments on the Times of London article about secret Israeli plans to strike Iran if diplomacy fails. Note the word choice:

LAST WEEKEND, the Sunday Times of London reported that Israel is preparing a strike on the Iranian nuclear program at several bases scattered throughout the country. The paper claimed that the attack would be carried out with tactical nuclear “bunker busters” supplied by the United States.

Israel quickly denied the Times’ report. But the story, which may be wrong in its details, has a certain truthiness. Israel is certainly thinking about how to stop Tehran from getting its hands on nukes.

The op-ed then argues that given the possible consequences of an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel, i.e. massive and disproportionate Israeli retaliation, the idea of an Israeli preemptive strike on Iran is not such a bad alternative. Don’t read it – it’s really a bad piece for many reasons and gets screechy at the end. Or if you do read, feel free to shred in comments below.

More importantly, I was confused on whether this is or is not a proper use of the word truthiness.

Definition of truthiness:

The quality of stating concepts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than the facts.

There is much stuff on the web discussing truthiness meanings, uses, cultish spread of, etc, but my understanding is that there is essentially a sense of mocking to the term. Colbert’s character uses, defends and explains truthiness, and it’s satire… we laugh at him and all whom his character represents.

The LA Times op-ed misses the truthiness concept in an attempt to be one of the cool kids with the cool slang. If you say the idea of an Israeli strike on Iran has some truthiness to it, you would be poking at its lack of foundation in real facts, rather than arguing that it’s a good alternative after all.