Fake News is not the greatest threat to journalism. Why is it still portrayed as such?
TL;DR — The greatest threat to journalism is most of everything that is currently being denounced as “Fake News” but realistically, only a minor amount actually constitutes what the word “Fake” defines. We mean to say, inaccurate, manipulative or deceptive news, yet it seems somehow easier to hang on to an increasingly globalized concept, that being “Fake News”, as opposed to separating out the various causes and subsequent targets of the content that is damaging to journalism. Both readers and journalists need to take note of this confusing and juvenile behaviour and rectify before the public becomes habitual in their denouncement of poor news as “Fake” even when it is not and before the public give up reading about deceptive news en bloc given its pre-determined association with being “Fake News”.
Ever since I wrote a piece on ‘post-truth’ for the University of Cambridge last May, being specially commended for an “idiosyncratic” response, my interest in writing on such a field has amplified.
I responded to the decision made to integrate the word ‘post-truth’ into the dictionary and now, I shall digress from the inclusion of “Fake News” into both the dictionary and the awarding of the title of “Word of the Year” by Collins.
Fake News, as a subject, is gathering such prominent attention and discussion so much that I ought to consider it as commonly discussed as Brexit, Trump or North Korea as a matter of increasing socio-political importance. I, however, don’t honestly view ‘Fake News’ like that much of a threat, if compared with the rising emittance of factual and necessary information from reporting pre-determined as accurate and finite. I guess one could denote that “biased news” therefore highlighting that my finding here is by no means original and ground-breaking. Not at all.
“Do we really have a problem with ‘fake’ news or news which is inaccurate, cunning or designed to lie?”
This isn’t simply, however, a matter of rising partisan content above impartial and fair-sided commentary. We’re all capable of telling apart one newspaper from another, the allegiances and supporters of one company from another. But what happens when an audience is unaware, unsuspecting and simply falls through the trap?
“When Trump calls out CNN for omitting information in their discussion of political context in his America, that’s inaccurate, unprofessional and hardly expansive. Not fake.”
With Fake News, the content is basic, cheap and poorly constructed. The graphics are meagre, the storylines juvenile with their fully capitalized words and mere paragraph of substance. We’re all capable of dismissing such content, not only the well-educated and media-savvy of the public domain but all-in-all, everyone. How do I know this? My observation of my family en bloc. Their seemingly universal rejection of fake news at its immediate interface. It is obviously disruptive and chaotic how Fake News is ever more accessible and discoverable through the channels of Social Media and desperate gap-filling exercises of news-based apps such as Flipboard and Apple News.
Fake News was a train that was however jumped upon by the President of the United States most famously but also our own PM and leaders from around the world, not only of countries but of industries. They have led the rebranding of Fake News to define the inaccuracy, lying and deception of media outlets and individual reporters worldwide in their stories, agendas and content production. By nature, obviously not fake, given its clear presence in our world. Authentic? Integral? True? That’s the opposite of the rebranded ‘Fake News’. But don’t you comprehend ‘Fake’ as non-existent or absent?
When I read stories of the unfortunate Michael Schumacher, former F1 champion who has not made any public appearance since his grave skiing accident, I am capable of dividing news between being accurate, inaccurate and fake. That his family have chosen not to discuss the progress of Michael, that’s accurate. That Michael has chosen to move to Spain and that they are preparing medical equipment for his arrival, inaccurate. (This was lost in translation, which as a linguist deeply troubles me. Spain said they would be ready, but no mobilization is currently underway) That the Daily Star or some low-level European media outlet has photos or comments from Michael himself, that is fake.
“Inaccurate reporting should be denoted as such.”
Realistically, how many times has ‘Fake News’ been attributed to actual, ‘fake’, news? Do we really have a problem with ‘fake’ news or news which is inaccurate, cunning or designed to lie? When Trump calls out CNN for omitting information in their discussion of the political context in his America, that’s inaccurate, unprofessional and hardly expansive. Not fake. I’m not arguing that companies that lie and deceive people and processes deserve better treatment for their actions as if being denoted ‘inaccurate’ is better than ‘fake’. Not at all.
But we are risking creating a global population that simply yawns at the sight of a story discussing ‘fake news’ or hearing said word, simply because it refers to so much that it simply does not represent. Inaccurate reporting should be denoted as such. Our superior perception of reporting that falls short of being accurate and wholesome will not only ensure it receives the damning and concerning criticism it deserves, but its representation will help the greatest issue facing the industry, maybe ever, resolve its problems by analysing multiple patterns rather than being stuck with the same, monotonous ‘fake news’ expression.
It will secondarily help our population educate themselves. At the age of 18, I’m no raving anybody, liberal, conservative, feminist, social democrat, nope. I’m not ready to conform myself to anything and from a ‘reading the news’ standpoint, I think that advantages me. I read The Guardian on my phone simply because it is the highest quality app I can get, without paying £30 monthly for the Times or whatever the Telegraph costs and its intuitive nature enables me to customize what I receive and updates are instantaneous. I also read from Apple News because I primarily read the news to remain up-to-date on stories that matter to me, and quite frankly, it doesn’t matter where I get those from, so long as I am not scrolling through a portal of advertisements, sensationalist TV-oriented rubbish or ‘inappropriate’ content I have no urge to digress from.
“I think education would benefit from exposing the greater threat that manipulated and inaccurate news provides”
I’ve trained myself as a reader to take something I have read as potential, which I ought to revise from other outlets, maybe 4–6 so that I have some fair representation of the field and whether I feel I can believe Source A, etc. I also need to prove my reading of statistics and figures myself. I’ll spend that extra minute going through Wikipedia or reading that article from 2006, just to avoid that humiliation in conversation. That’s me. I truly believe that any one of us can read whatever we want as long as we are diligent and capable of dispelling suspicious content or backing up loud claims. If we are capable of such behaviour, Fake News is no shred of an issue and inaccurate reporting can be identified and sent back to the drawing board (hopefully for good).
“I’m not ready to conform myself to anything and from a ‘reading the news’ standpoint I think that advantages me.”
It’s important to understand that manipulated reporting is multi-faceted. It might not even be inaccurate, but its emittance of detail prevents the reader from making a decision that would engineer a mindset that the media outlet is perhaps designed to counteract. Say, for example, an article I read on the 6 men arrested on suspicion of sexual assault in Sweden, perhaps some years ago now. The story was extremely blunt and organized as if to illustrate that the story was normal and perhaps dealt with, already. I won’t name the media outlet as to ensure you are focused on the content, not the publisher (as we all still like to identify bias from a particular company, not the author) but essentially, all of those men had recently entered the country from Africa, were refugees and all claimed that their behaviours were justified by their upbringing. This omitted detail is perhaps designed to prevent the reader from believing that the background of men is oriented towards such behaviour by nature and lead the reader to think that Sweden would better from more closed immigration policy. This detail, had it been included, would have perhaps, in some of our minds, prompted the belief that a re-think to Sweden’s integration policy would be necessary and that men from the local area where this incident occurred can be absolved from prejudice and blame that they conspired or led to this having taken place. Not fake news. Manipulated, deceptive? Of course.
“I’m not arguing that companies that lie and deceive people & processes deserve better treatment for their actions, as if being denoted ‘inaccurate’ is better than ‘fake’.”
The same goes with figures and statistics such as the £350 million that the UK pays towards the EU every week. That topic there, I’m sure you’ve heard before. A typical example of how readers might have benefited from additional reading, even to amplify their trust in the statement or provoke a change in perception entirely. By my own understanding, we do indeed send an approximate figure to the EU weekly, of around £350m. This mere statement fails to quantify the £60–70m that we receive as a ‘rebate’ or return payment, across our infrastructure and cities in the country. Take Cornwall, who may not have necessarily received this money without EU interference, who have benefited from the rebate. This leaves £200m+ that is however redistributed across countries that we share membership with. Unsatisfactory to some, even the many that voted to Leave. Many media outlets failed to take this extended explanation into account, on both sides. Side 1, being their complete dismissal of the figure and payment in its totality. Side 2, is their complete acceptance of the figure and payment in its totality and reluctance to debate its deeper meaning.
“I truly believe that any one of us can read whatever we want as long as we are diligant and capable of dispelling suspicious content or backing up loud claims.”
In 3 places I have been schooled I can relate to many incidents that detail teachers and members of staff enforcing their personal newspaper of choice or political leaning of choice on the pupils they are designed to subjectively teach. I have not so pleasant memories of the tangents teachers went on in their search for winning over 30 innocent pupils that will eventually, perhaps only a month later, be calling newspapers and politicians they had out of the class context never heard nor read of, ‘fake’, ‘rubbish’ or more obscene vocabulary that really shocked me and continues to resonate with me today as I write this.
I believe that education has a mild impact on our preferences in politics as young people but the wider influence that stems from prominent people in the public facade, ever-increasingly politicized companies that ought really to preserve their original role, is worrying for me, an individual that can occasionally count on their hand the number of individuals who they are able to discuss a certain topic or person with, without fear of immediate dismissal or one-sided viewpoint which prevents my ongoing in discourse. I think education would benefit from exposing the greater threat that manipulated and inaccurate news provides, as opposed to a contained and exploited ‘Fake News’ pandemic.
“Pluralism is, given our ability to handle with care, a beautifully constructive idea.”
I think that starts with our capacity as young people and humans to listen to someone else with the idea that they may know something we might not, that something we might not necessarily always read or used to learn might teach one something new and that pluralism is, given our ability to handle with care, a beautifully constructive idea. Well, I’m currently reading a book on National Populism written in 2016 by Roger Eatwell & Matthew J.Goodwin, two academics across the political education spectrum in the UK. The ability to step back and appreciate the other side of your designated typical argument can be eye-opening.
Lewis Wells is a Student Affiliate at the Chartered Institute of Linguists.
I’d love to hear from you.
You can write to me, as a Senior Editor for the Portsmouth Point, at lewis.wells19@pgs.org.uk.
