Who decides what is true

1. Who defines the word "truth" — lexicographers and dictionaries

For everyday language, professional lexicographers compile usages and provide definitions people rely on: Cambridge and Collins define truth as "the real facts about a situation" and "the quality of being true, genuine, actual, or factual," while Merriam‑Webster describes it as "the body of real things, events, and facts" ^{[3] [4] [1]}. Those reference works do not "decide reality" so much as record how communities use the term and what counts as truth within ordinary discourse ^{[3] [1]}.

2. Who settles truth in courts and official inquiries — legal institutions

When disputes require enforceable answers, courts, tribunals and official inquiries perform fact‑finding: they assess evidence, hear witnesses and issue judgments that carry legal force. That institutional authority is different from lexical definition; the UN frames a procedural claim — a "right to the truth" — that requires states to investigate and provide information about serious violations, which is an example of law and state institutions asserting responsibility for establishing facts after abuses ^[2].

3. Who claims moral or spiritual truth — religious actors and movements

Religious communities and leaders assert truths grounded in doctrine or scripture; devotional content and conferences often frame truth as a moral or revealed reality ^{[5] [6]}. Those claims have persuasive power within communities but compete with secular, legal and empirical authorities for broader public acceptance ^{[5] [6]}. Available sources do not offer a single resolution for when theological truth overrides other kinds of truth.

4. Who enforces collective truth in public life — states, media and social institutions

States, media organizations and civil society all play roles in what the public accepts as true. Media and fact‑checking probe power and claim to "speak truth to power" ^[7], while governments and institutions can produce official narratives backed by investigations or policy. The UN’s emphasis on the state's duty to investigate human‑rights violations highlights how public institutions are expected to produce authoritative factual accounts in specific contexts ^{[2] [7]}.

5. Competing truths and why disagreement persists

Different actors use distinct standards: dictionaries summarize usage ^{[3] [1]}, courts use legal evidence, scientists use reproducible methods (not directly covered in these sources), and religious or political actors appeal to doctrine or ideology ^{[5] [7]}. When these standards conflict, societies face competing claims rather than a single arbiter; the provided materials show multiple institutional claimants rather than one final decision‑maker ^{[3] [1] [2]}.

6. Individual truth — "speaking your truth" and subjective claims

Contemporary culture often recognizes personal or subjective truth — phrases like "speak your truth" appear in commentary and religious reflections — but dictionary entries emphasize objective facts as the traditional meaning of truth ^{[4] [1] [7]}. The sources show tension between subjective self‑narratives and public standards for factual truth ^{[4] [7]}.

7. What to watch for: power, process and remedies

Different claims to truth carry different powers: lexicographers offer clarity; courts and UN mechanisms can require investigations and reparations ^{[1] [2]}; religious forums shape moral conviction ^[5]. When seeking "who decides," examine who has investigative or enforcement powers (courts, states, UN bodies) versus who provides definitions or moral framing (dictionaries, faith leaders, media) ^{[3] [1] [2]}.

Limitations and gaps: these sources emphasize definitions and institutional roles (dictionaries, UN, religious websites, commentary) but do not provide detailed coverage of scientific epistemology, journalistic standards, or the sociology of knowledge; those areas are "not found in current reporting" among the provided results and would be necessary for a fuller account.