Stop calling it all 'fake news'
Today, an op-ed in the Washington Post called President Trump “media illiterate”. The piece discusses how specific tweets from Trump reflect a lack of understanding about the timing and release of a news story. His tweets include that all-too-familiar, catch-all term “fake news”. Trouble is, the story Trump was tweeting about wasn’t fake news. You can read the full story and decide for yourself here, but my main point is the growing problem with the term ‘fake news’ and its use to define several completely different concepts.
These terms do not have the same meaning:
Fake news
Fake facts
Misleading news
Advocacy journalism
Propaganda
Even the term “news” is increasingly used as if its one term, when sometimes it’s really a blog post or personal social media post, or YouTube content, or satire, opinion, or… ok, I could go on and on.
This conflagration of terminology is a problem. Unintentional confusing communication belittles the message. Intentional confusing communication is irresponsible and deceitful. A news story containing unintentionally incorrect information is sloppy, maybe even incompetent, but not “fake”, nor deceitful. A news story containing intentionally incorrect information is dangerous. It is especially dangerous if the news outlet positions itself as a trusted source for truthful information. And don’t tell me that’s why I need to check multiple sources. My responsibility to seek multiple sources for information does not release any news outlet from its responsibility for the impact of its words.
Yesterday (actually, almost any day), I was scrolling through my Facebook feed and came across a link to an article a friend had posted. The article was about a recent protest in Philadelphia. I’m interested, so I clicked through. But as I read the article I couldn’t help but wonder, “Is this story true?” The website in which the article appeared sounded legit, but it wasn't a news outlet with which I was familiar. If I’d had the time, I could have used a search engine to try and find other articles about the topic, or search for different viewpoints. But I didn’t have the time, so I left the page and continued scrolling through Facebook. I just opted out. I didn’t decide to believe the source. But, nor did I decide that the spreading of a potentially untrue story deserved attention and perhaps a notation to my circle of social media friends that they should beware of that source too.
There’s been a lot of talk about the proliferation of fake news throughout the US presidential election and since the election, and it seems the solution most often discussed is that the reader, me, needs to take the time to figure out if the news I’m consuming is correct. Does that advice work? As a person actively involved in the field of media literacy at every level (see below)
I have a strong interest in the topic. If I’m not willing to take the time, it seems unlikely that a busy person with other interests will.
This is a dual responsibility. Mine and the media outlets. Inextricably connected. I have a responsibility to evaluate the sources from which I consume news and information.
The news outlet has a responsibility to…what?
To not mislead? To not write fake news? To share only fact-checked stories?
And while I’m holding media outlets to this high standard, what about me?
I mean it’s one thing for me to agree to a responsibility to evaluate sources; it’s another for me to agree to believe the stories I read from those sources even when I don’t like the information in the story.
Has news and information entered a new sphere where there is no “truth” and no “facts”? It may have taken thirty-three additional years, but this is starting to feel like George Orwell’s 1984. We are deep in double-speak, my friends.
Of course fake news isn’t a new phenomenon. People have been misled by lies in the media for centuries. Advocates of a particular point-of-view have been trying to push their agenda in the press since the earliest days of the printing press. Democrats create targeted messages as well as Republicans; liberals as well as conservatives. Propaganda has been used to push countries into war and push individuals to change their beliefs. This kind of one-sided messaging taps into our emotions. Authors use these tactics because emotional messages are more memorable. They create resonance for us by aligning with our values and beliefs, or by instigating anger and conflict. Either way, the message is powerful. Maybe even irresistible. But, as others have noted, this moment in time feels different.
The ability an individual to spread news and information using media, and not just a professional reporter, is new.
The power of social media to spread the message instantly is unprecedented.
The convenience of having the technology to share these messages in our pocket is unique.
The tightening of budgets within traditional news outlets, leading to smaller reporting staffs and minimal focus on stories requiring long-term time investments.
Since this mis-messaging seems capable of successfully swaying a person’s opinion, it is unlikely to stop. In fact, people that craft messages (including everyone from PR execs to you and me) are getting better and better at understanding the psychological way in which these messages infiltrate our psyche through implicit bias and confirmation bias, both methods in which our own thinking can push us to believe un-truths. The tactics are improving, as must our own evaluation skills and the adherence to transparent fact-checking from the media outlets.
Despite my earlier admission to being an occasional slacker when it comes to source-checking, I do try to make this a consistent behavior. Most times, it adds just a few minutes to my news consumption and almost always yields a clarity about the topic or issue. If you’re ready to hold yourself accountable a bit more, check out the list of sources below providing hints for evaluating fake news. Resist getting overwhelmed. Select one action and do that consistently. Then tell everyone else you’re doing it.
I believe our best shot at getting the media outlets to embrace their responsibility is for those companies to know that WE are improving our ability to see through the lies or mis-directions.
It starts with us.
Resources:
Factcheck.org
TED-ex blog, TED.com
Washington Post
Fake or real: how to self check the news and get the facts
NPR.org
Huffington Post
**
Media literacy & me?
Associate Professor, Temple University, School of Media and Communication
Director, Center for Media and Information Literacy at Temple University
Host, TV series Media Inside Out
Steering committee, North American chapter of the Global Alliance for Partnerships on Media and Information Literacy
Member, Global Alliance for Partnerships on Media and Information Literacy
Global chair for UNESCO university partnerships (UNITWIN) for media and information literacy and intercultural dialogue
Co-editor, Yearbook on Media and Information Literacy and Intercultural Dialogue 2013-2016
