“Fake news” does not exist. The term is an oxymoron. Documents and articles containing misinformation spread through sources such as Facebook or Twitter, usually through social news sites, are not news. News is reporting on events in a factual manner. Sometimes these reportings are conducted in a manner that caters to a specific perspective, and sometimes authors try to present data that is representative of multiple perspectives in an attempt to remain as neutral as possible.
Addressing the environmental issues surrounding “fake news” is necessary for an age lacking the insight of sound journalistic practices. As fewer individuals purchase newspapers, social news sites provide information consumers with an increasing amount of their content diet. Advertorial content in newspapers was used to hire individuals who would go on to produce articles with thorough journalistic practices. Now, as advertisers invest more in online interactions, the lack of integrity, research, and ethics results in an online environment with little real interest in providing accurate coverage of global, national, or local events.
The sensationalism and frequent appeals to party affiliation give “fake news” the potential to proliferate quickly across the web. Writing with the goal of attracting viewers is nothing new in the world of reporting, but writing that blatantly emphasizes sensationalism in order to profit from ad revenue is detrimental to the flow of information. People write these attention-grabbing articles in order to get paid, without considering the impact these articles will have on those who are unable (or unwilling) to dive deeper into a topic or to research source material. At what point does the proliferation of “fake news” adversely impact the ability of individuals to engage in productive debates?
With the rise of and reliance on social news sites and the gradual decline of the influence of reporters, what will our republic come to represent? Elected officials making decisions on behalf of a population duped into voting based on feeling and intuition over factual information? Perhaps this is where we are now. In an interview, Newt Gingrich blatantly refused to accept the statistic that violent crime is down in the U.S., stating that he believed that Americans did not feel as though the violent crime was declining. Rather than base policy off of reality, it appears that politicians such as Gingrich, Trump, and others wish to manipulate emotion to provoke or persuade the population into accepting their policies.
Our leaders at times cannot, or will not, differentiate between fact and fiction. Our elected officials can sometimes possess a motivation to alter the truth, presenting their constituents with a reality that will keep them in office. These individuals have a personal stake in the stories they tell. But what about reporters who are engaged in practicing ethical journalism? Society needs individuals detached from or in opposition to political and social leaders in order to present a larger portion of reality to the population. But if political leaders aren’t incentive to be open and honest, and reporters don’t have the funding, where will consumers get their information?
