Virtually any social or political discussion with two or more sides in today’s society is seemingly accompanied by the shadow of fake news. The term fake news is certainly not an unfamiliar one — especially since the 2016 Presidential election. A conceptual boogeyman, fake news is purported as lurking beneath fantastical headlines, oppositional and opinion reporting, and as a term is used as a scapegoat to disregard any information one finds to be uncomfortable or inconsistent with preconceived ideas. But while the term “fake news” seems to crop up frequently in conversations about news, politics, science and more, we as a society seem to be far from agreement on what exactly fake news is.
|
The internet, social media and drastic improvements in technology have allowed news and information to be disseminated instantaneously. The polish and curation of information for a traditional news story has given way to up-to-the-second reporting at the scene of a crime, disaster or award show. There is a demand for up-to-the-second information, but it comes at a cost. There has been a restructuring of information hierarchy — the ones who can report the fastest, not the most accurately, are the ones who are most successfully shared. A desire for fast information, paired with a societal taste for the exquisite and ridiculous — presentations previously found in tabloids and similar publications — have led to an increasing uncertainty in the news and information that is being shared. There has been a democratization of information dissemination online — in that anyone can share anything, and that content has a chance to become viral, regardless of whether or not that information is correct, incorrect, or altogether fabricated.
Digital media has allowed society to have constant access to content. However, with the anonymity of the internet, and thousands of articles published every second, it is becoming more difficult to identify what is truthful. Since the 2016 election, the term “fake news” has grown in popularity. As a result of the election, trust in the media hit an all-time low (Laxer et al.). The term has even been politicized and used to target opposing viewpoints. The term fake news is an oxymoron as the news is supposed to be rooted in truth (Brummette et al.). This page will explore fake news and the effects it has had on trust with the media. In the end, we hope to be able to identify who is responsible for fake news: the media or the consumer. |
Findings from interviews |
A theme persistent throughout both interviewed professionals and students — a distinction made based on level of experience and degrees earned — was that definitions of fake news were far from unified. Rather, the definition seemed to be unique to the person interviewed. Immediately this suggests a problem with the popularity of the term. It is used frequently in conversation but can mean significantly different things to each individual who uses it — the lack of a single definition further adding to the confusion of what fake news actually is.
From a social media as well as a rhetorical perspective the weaponization of the term fake news was discussed. The lack of a universal definition allowed competing political spheres to label the opposing side’s arguments and sources as being fake and consequently upholding their own arguments and information as correct. While students and professionals described fake news in a number of ways, including blatantly false information, a tweaking or adjusting of facts, opinion mislabeled as fact, etc., there was common understanding that the term was used to debunk opposing arguments, especially on social media. Journalistically legitimate outlets such as the New York Times, CNN, NPR, Fox News, etc. are labeled as “fake” because their observable biases employ sources and perspectives disagreeable to the opposing side. The term fake news has become an effective scapegoat, applicable to any inconvenient or upsetting news or information, and the majority of those interviewed throughout the duration of this project recognized this, suggesting a two-sidedness on claims of fake news. Fake news is recognized as being applied to completely legitimate information in desperation, yet it continues to have real damages and consequences not only to news organizations but to the channels in which we disseminate information. Discourses in the comments section of Facebook posts or in Twitter threads are recognized as unsolvable arms races against left and right-wing extremist thought that boil down to a fake news dismissal after each sides’ arguments have been exhausted. Social media and the internet are no longer facilitators of debate, but instead a war zone of opposing thought who more often than not refuse to compromise. Our interview with Bridget Grogan, UF Program Coordinator for the College of Journalism and Communications discussed the negative implications of fake news on reporting and debate. She gives the example of immigration argued from both sides, but never discussing the issues the immigrants themselves are running from. News and audiences argue over whether or not immigrants should be permitted, allowed benefits, permitted to work, etc — but discussions in the media rarely circle back to solutions to the immigrants' domestic problems that led them to leave in the first place. |
How we get news |
Our communication channels have changed drastically within the last decade, and the ways and sources from which we get our news are as diverse as the information shared. Teenagers are typically on multiple digital platforms at the same time, a trend coined polymedia (Miller). Children spend about six hours a day interacting with media, and teens spend an average of nine hours with media (Piotrowski et al.). The development and accessibility of the digital sphere has coincided with an increase in smartphone use. In 2011, only 10% of the world had a smartphone, yet in 2018 that number is projected to rise to 37%. The transition from traditional media formats — and by extent traditional forms of reporting — has led to a diversification of the news field, allowing new and upcoming reporters and outlets to compete with long-established publications. This growth however has blurred our understanding of what constitutes ethical reporting with the dawn of shareability, giving preference to opinion and fantastical headlines over the more mundane. In this environment of “share now, read later,” false information has been given an unprecedented opportunity to grow (Valkenburg, et al.).
A study by the Digital News Report showed social media is the only news provider growing rapidly even though it is regarded as the least reliable news source (Vasterman). Shareability is the biggest currency in social media, and a major component of creating media hype (Vasterman). For instance, Facebook was created to connect with friends, but it’s now a place where users talk about politics (Kennedy). Kennedy argues that “social media amplifies human intent--both good and bad.” This new tool also lowers the amount we’re willing to tolerate different viewpoints (Laxer). Many users hide, unfollow or even block others that disagree with their political viewpoints. This grants users the ability to choose which digital world to interact with. There is also an abundance of information which can make it difficult to know what to consume and what is real or fake. As social media has grown into a reliable news source, trolls and bots have been created to push alternate agendas. Playing on the assumption that information in a news format is to be trusted, false or misleading content can now be published under the guise of legitimacy. This preys on consumers who may not know to investigate sources, or simply do not care to. Bots have been proven to be some of the ‘people’ who are spreading the most fake news (Laxer et. al.). Moreover, too many people share content without actually reading what it says. Thus, when a post discloses the amount of shares, likes or comments, it doesn’t necessarily equate to that piece of information being accurate (Laxer et. al.). This finding is especially worrisome, as false or misleading news stories that have been inorganically shared and made viral (thus being attached to more like, comments, and seen by more users) have more potential to be taken seriously and continuously shared than their legitimate counterparts that rely on organic sharing. When deciding what news to consume, individuals typically stick with media that aligns with their preexisting political beliefs (Farrell). Farrell notes that if users were to consult multiple sources, false information wouldn’t spread as much. While he argues that the political left is more likely to seek out multiple sources, consuming multiple views still cannot prevent false belief. While people are victims of confirmation bias, they do not “systematically avoid sources of attitude-discrepant information, regardless of how easy that task [has] become” (Feezell). The Internet can facilitate political and social discussion and has the potential to connect diverse opinions and views at a scale before unseen. Even so, when users engage politically online, the ideas are likely to be extreme, educated and male (Feezell). In fact, 47% of Americans get their news from social media, and Facebook is the most popular source (Laxer et. al.). Before the 2016 election, it’s estimated that conservatives saw one piece of fake news out of every three articles they consumed (Lombrozo). When political conversations move online, people can choose to only view or read information that confirms their opinions. Individuals' opinions are also more reliant on community beliefs than factual information (Lombrozo). This can be dangerous, because technology can make everyone a news source, has increased the amount of information available and led to an increase of news organizations (Lombrozo). |
President Trump and fake news |
Digital platforms hold a lot of power. Social media’s popularity is only growing, but it can easily be taken advantage of. This is something that was seen during the 2016 presidential election. In 2016, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated that it was a “pretty crazy idea that fake news could have influenced the poll(s)” (Kennedy). Now, Zuckerberg notes his statements were too dismissive. Social media holds a lot of power, and Facebook is beginning to look at their platform more critically. Platforms are taking more responsibility for their role in disseminating fake news, but is it enough?
In addition, the term fake news has been weaponized and politicized. President Trump has utilized it as a way to counteract statements that may go against him, making the term synonymous with disagreement, not actual false information. When CNN published a poll showing that his approval ratings were historically low, he called it fake and a “suppression poll” (Caralle). The term is becoming a means for each side — the political left and right — to attack each other, debunking opposing claims with the label of fake news. There is danger in this practice, as recognizing and describing an opposing argument or point of view as “false” not only hurts the credibility of the original source of information, but also removes any potential for discussion or compromise — a critical component to democracy and the dissemination of information. This can have dangerous consequences. In October 2018, several letters were sent to the media and political officials containing bombs. President Trump has accused the media of being the culprit of violence. He argues that if content was reported accurately and fairly less violence would be reported (Egan). This blame of the media removes the responsibility of violence from the culprit, and this shift of accountability does little to dissuade future attacks. This is similar to fake news, because calling unflattering content fake simply removes responsibility and directly impacts the credibility of the media. Trust in the media hit an all time low in 2016: only 51% of Democrats and 14% of Republicans had a “fair amount” or a “great deal” of trust in the media (Laxer). Outlets that fail to align with the ideas and opinions of the people with the largest audiences are demonized for their “false” depictions of fact. When sources focus on facts, they are ‘vilified by audiences and competing outlets’ which makes them, through silence, legitimize the false information (Farrell). |
The impact of fake news |
As awareness of fake news grows, proliferators of false information respond in tow; the lines between what news is fake and real are becoming blurred. Fake news is now being disguised as real news for clicks, exposure and money. Fake sources are using realistic interfaces that mimic their journalistically sound counterparts, so it is not immediately clear that a source isn’t truthful. The practice of mimicking a legitimate site is what Google calls ‘tabloid cloaking’ and is a strategy that is successfully misleading social media audiences (Wakabayashi). Fake news has been getting ‘smarter’ with how it presents information, and in turn demands a more critical and comprehensive approach to combat it (Laxer).
In an ironic example of how fake news gains readership and goes viral, the online fact-checking website Snopes was a target for fake sources’ advertisements. The co-owner and Vice President of Snopes told the New York Times, “Online ad ecosystem(s) [were] complicit in disseminating and profiting off of misinformation.” Google Adwords is an automated system and there is currently no comprehensive or failsafe way monitor whether or not an advertisement is legitimate. Websites like Snopes use advertisements as a means of revenue and are by and large even less concerned with filtering content than Google Adwords as a result of scope and resources. This makes ads another platform for the spread of false information and warrants further investigation and consideration when combating fake news. As discussed above, there is real money to be made in the form of advertisements, and providing false or misleading information to consumers has the potential to glean profits with less efforts than truthful marketing and campaigns (Brummette et al.). Apart from financial benefits, fake news is also used to push a particular political agenda. Sharing false studies about political hot issues can further ingrain individuals into their political opinions. There are even satirical news shows that are gaining popularity. Individuals want to be informed, but do not always take the time to confirm that what they are reading is accurate. This allows individuals who are trying to push extreme viewpoints to be successful. Their extreme viewpoints and fantastical narratives are more marketable and shareable than factual counterparts that may be less dynamic or intriguing (Laxer). |
The implications here are vast and dangerous. In her interview Bridget Grogan, the program coordinator for the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications, states that division on social and political issues “has always been bad.” However, the divide is larger than we have seen before, as topics that once inspired debate and discourse are now met with blatant disagreement and disregard down party lines. Grogan discusses a need to meet issues at their commonality — discussing immigration in terms of where they are running from and why they are running, rather than the implications of what happens when they get here, for example. The practice of finding the “why” at the root of the issue inherently requires consensus, but instead we see polarized issues whose arguments are made impenetrable by the denial that the opposing side is credible, legitimizing the opinions and facts that agree with one’s ideology, and those alone. |
How can we combat fake news? |
As extensive and embedded as fake news is in modern media, the solutions and strategies needed to combats its influence cannot be a single, silver-bullet approach but instead a complex, multifaceted method that has only begun to be explored. Both consumers and producers of media content need to be held accountable, and that accountability needs to encompass purposefully misleading content as well as accidental spreading. Education is a significant component, as audiences should be better equipped to understand the verifiability of sources (Lombrozo). Education falls partially on the school system, but consumers both in and out of the education system should learn to consume media critically. Therefore more public information campaigns from governmental entities, nonprofits and other groups may be a part of the solution (Laxer et al.).
If the media and consumers do their part, the effectiveness of fake news may decrease. A legal solution may also help to dissuade the proliferation of false information. Individuals may pursue defamation suits when published false information directly affects them, but introducing a legal component that allows lawsuits against false information that impacts society on a larger scale has been suggested to further discourage fake news. Currently, the 1996 Communications Decency Act gives immunity to platforms when an individual shares fake news. If this were to be changed, platforms such as Facebook may have more motivation to take action against fake news in fear of financial loss or impact to image (Laxer et. al). |
Recap |
Fake news damages the credibility of individual publications and trust in the media at large. It represents a halt in ideological development, as contradictory or oppositional information is disregarded as “fake,” resulting in ideological cones of silence within individual thought groups. While 64% of adults think fake news is spreading misinformation, it’s not always easy to admit —or even recognize — that we ourselves may be guilty of believing or sharing that content (Brummette et al.). While there are strategies of critical thinking, regulation, better accountability, etc. that we can employ now, larger scale solutions to fake news are still necessary. However, the only way to ensure that fake news is stopped from spreading is to address it at every level from inception to reception — which means every individual, publication and channel are to be held responsible for the content they are sharing, the arguments they are making, and the way they conduct themselves in discussion and debate online or otherwise.
|