This paper interrogates the liberal policy discourse surrounding populism, which is often characterised as a communicative style linked to ‘post-truth’ politics. Analysing grey literature and scholarly sources, the study critiques the liberal policy discourse on post-truth populism, examining how it is framed as a communicative style that threatens scientific truth by exploiting emotional appeals. The research situates this critique within communication theory, arguing that ‘post-truth’ and populism are conceptually intertwined, both premised on a neo-modernist pursuit of positivist truth. The paper challenges the liberal critique’s tendency to essentialise populist audiences as politically illiterate and passive, devoid of agency and critical capacity. Such framing, it contends, risks reinforcing polarisation rather than facilitating meaningful dialogue. By focusing on the limitations of this policy discourse, the paper advocates for a reassessment of the audience’s agency, emphasising the need for a more nuanced understanding of media reception. It concludes that fostering dialogue requires moving beyond a structural critique of media manipulation and recognising the complex and active nature of digital audiences. The study suggests that this shift is essential to address the root causes of distrust in mainstream institutions and to broaden the epistemological scope beyond the constraints of Western modernity, acknowledging the plurality of populisms in the digital age.