 |
|
Like the fellow once said, in song, (and yes, a line I’ve already used in a past editorial) “And you may ask yourself, ‘Well, how did I get here?'”
The word “fake” feels as natural to put together with the word “news” like “peas and carrots” or “Forrest” and “Jenny.”
For the countless number of people whose livelihood it is to deliver the news — be it on-camera, at a microphone, behind a computer, in a control room, or at home (thanks, COVID) — it’s a troubling prospect to have a significant count of people tell you what you do is “fake,” especially when you’ve put so much effort into making sure it’s clear, concise, and accurate.
What is ‘fake’?
According to the dictionary by Merriam-Webster, fake means “not true, real, or genuine”.News means “a report of recent events,” “previously unknown information,” or “something having a specified influence or effect”.
So to make things simple, fake news means a “not true report of recent events”.
That seems like an awful lot of work to go through to produce a news report that’s not even true.
So, why would someone do that, and did this become a thing recently?
Well, first of all, not true reports of recent events are nothing new.
According to Smithsonian magazine, John Adams wrote, “There has been more new error propagated by the press in the last 10 years than in a hundred years before 1798.”
So “fake news” started in 1788? Not quite, but the United States was sure a new nation at the time.
Go back even further further and there are some “gospels” that are far from canonical and should really be avoided.
I guess we’d call these “fake good news”?
Going forward through time, we have Pulitzer vs. Hearst and yellow journalism. Depending upon how you like to debate history, one could say the United States’ involvement in the Spanish-American War was a result of these practices.
In 1926, Fr. Ronald Knox, also known for a Bible translation, broadcasted a live “report” on the BBC of a revolution taking place in London, more than a decade before Mr. Welles brought Martians to New Jersey via the radio.
Needless to say, there was panic, confusion, and a lot of emotional phone calls. Entertainment or satire that looks like news can be dangerous.
Fast-forward to this century and a fair amount of younger people got their news from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report on Comedy Central.
Of course, not all of these productions were claiming to be real news. This is where the real problem comes in.
Why lie?
There are two reasons why news would be “fake” — out of malice or out of negligence. Both of these are bad. One of them accomplishes a bad goal and the other doesn’t accomplish a goal at all. So, which one is worse?
When someone is given the outlet to speak, share information, and reach a lot of people, and they misuse that privilege by misleading and misinforming, I can’t help but ask “Why do you have to be like that?”
The worst thing a media outlet of any kind can do is damage the trust between itself and the public.
If the outlets succeed in building a trust through their bogus words, then that’s a real problem.
They might as well call themselves “Mother Goose” versus “news”.
When I see a truly “fake” report, I want to be “Give-the-benefit-of-the-doubt Kevin” and think someone just didn’t do his or her research or misinterpreted something, but I don’t think that’s always the case.
However we want to define “fake news,” it does exist, today.
No matter the outlet, it’s up to you, us, everybody, to consider the source.
If it’s the outlet’s job to inform, it had better be informing.
If it’s the presenter’s job to influence, then what is coming out is probably being designed and manipulated to do just that.
Of course, some of these outlets aren’t even being truthful with what their goals are in presenting information.
If whomever is trying to get a message out is truly right in what they are speaking, would not the truth be a more effective way of informing, educating, and influencing.
If you can’t get your point across without lying, maybe you’re doing something wrong.
Perhaps there’s another reality at play, here, and that’s denial.
If we hear something we don’t like, is it easy to dismiss it and say, “Oh, that can’t be right.”?
Are we willing to put our entire reputations on the line, disbelieve everything we hear from others we don’t know, and insist we are right about everything?
Now what?
Is the news more fake now than it has ever been? I think every generation says that. Darn kids these days.
I think some people overplay the importance the media has on others’ thoughts, opinions, and practices.
If you were spared the ill effects of the “fake news” you just saw, isn’t it possible more people than you think dismissed it as well?
Our intelligence and free will are pretty stellar things.
People have always tried to communicate and get their points across. That is nothing new.
The fact that they are veiling their deceptive messages under the guise of news is, quite frankly, dishonest and unethical.
Circling back to where we started, even though the methods have changed, this sort of communication has always been around. We can say it’s the “same as it ever was”.