This is an introduction to a new section on Journalism that I am developing.
Few people used the phrase Fake News before 2016. Since then it has been consistently in the headlines, and is now seen as one of the greatest threats to Western democracy and free debate.
Fake news is anathema to a journalist.
What is fake news?
Put simply, fake news is a lie. It’s deceptive and deliberate. It refers to events that never occurred, or it uses quotes that were never said. So, a story about Barack Obama supposedly “admitting” that he is a “secret Muslim” is fake news – he never said it. It’s a false quote, it’s made up, and it never happened.
In its purest form, fake news is completely made-up, manipulated to resemble reliable journalism and attract maximum attention and, with it, advertising revenue.
However, the term “fake news” is being more widely, and often wrongly, used to cover all kinds of inaccurate material, some of which is not deliberately faked. Indeed, fake news is rapidly becoming a catch-all term to discredit all kinds of stories, true or false. So, let’s be clear as to what fake news is and what it is not.
- Fake news is intentionally deceptive and contains stories that are inadequately researched and entirely fabricated, usually for political or commercial gain.
- These bogus news stories depend heavily on wildly exaggerated headlines, manipulated pictures and arresting graphics in order to grab attention.
- Fake news is disseminated through a range of channels. Bogus news sites are deliberately created to look like real news sources in an attempt to fool people into believing the story is genuine and legitimate.
- As well as being distributed through unregulated internet-based social media, fake news may also be picked up and unintentionally distributed by the traditional print and broadcasting news media.
- Fake news stories are provably false but have enormous popular appeal.
The fact-checking website PolitiFact has come up with a more colourful definition: “Fake news is made-up stuff, masterfully manipulated to look like credible journalistic reports that are easily spread online to large audiences willing to believe the fictions and spread the word.”
What fake news is not
- Mistakes – a news story unintentionally containing a wrong fact
- Rumour – a report of doubtful truth, for instance, “police investigating rumours of a human trafficking network”
- An article in which the writer expresses their personal opinion with which someone disagrees
- Spin – for instance, providing a favourable slant to a news item to play down a potentially unpopular policy
- Tabloid journalism – sensational crime stories, gossip columns about celebrities or extreme political views
- A misleading headline that has been sensationalised to attract the reader’s attention
Although such journalism may be misleading in one way or another, fake news is distinctly different.
Why fake news is a problem
The rise of fake news
The deliberate fabrication of news stories to fool or entertain is nothing new. What differs today is that most people get their news from social media sites, rather than television or newspapers.
These sites have provided an additional and highly effective platform for spreading fake news and other misinformation. Internet technologies are optimised to encourage widespread sharing. Sharing is easy. Just about anything can go viral.
Social media has left the field open, as never before, to those who are politically motivated or have the financial incentive to peddle fake news, and for people to circulate it.
The rising tide of made-up news has plagued our media in recent years. It relies heavily on sensationalism, half-truths and outright lies, often accompanied by eye-catching pictures which grab the reader’s attention. The more unlikely a story is, the more likely it will grab people’s attention.
There are hundreds of fake news websites out there, from those deliberately posing as real-life newspapers, to government propaganda sites, and even those which tread the line between satire and plain misinformation.
Nonetheless most people using social media do so for personal reasons and may simply enjoy passing on an interesting story, or thought-provoking information, or even indulging in a little gossip.
With the increasing use of social media, people who do not read newspapers, or even watch television, resort to its platforms for their news. These sites present real and fictional stories in such a similar way that it can be difficult to tell the two apart.
The problem is not that fake news exists, but that you and I too often lap it up without a second thought. Some readers believe these stories without troubling to seek out the truth, and so allow the purveyors of fake news to do their thinking for them.
Others, bombarded by loads of information, find it impossible to see everything that comes into their news feed, let alone fact-check every item.
Moreover, people tend to select stories that reinforce their cherished beliefs. We thrive on propaganda when it suits our purposes but seethe with indignation when other views run counter to our pet prejudices.
Rigorous fact checking can take time. So, if a story comes from a trusted friend, that might be a good enough reason to believe it, and share it.
As Winston Churchill once said: “A lie gets half way around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”
Traditional media operate on an uneven playing field. While journalists cannot take refuge in anonymity, those who publish fake news are unconstrained by libel laws. If people are inundated with inaccurate and untruthful news stories, how can they fully understand the world around them?
Without critical thought, reliable journalism is perceived as being no better than the fabricated dross. When people fail to distinguish between the two, it becomes easy to descend into a cynical way of thinking that nothing can be relied upon and everything is false, and that’s okay.
Here are ten consequences of fake news:
- … creates confusion as people don’t know who or what to believe
- … erodes trust
- … undermines effective communication
- … news gives rise to widespread mistrust of all news sources, reliable as well as dishonest ones
- … poisons civic dialogue
- … encourages prejudice and divides communities
- … obstructs effective decision making which must be based on reliable facts
- … threatens the cohesion of liberal democracy
- … frustrates government in pursuit of its legitimate objectives
- … undermines human rights
So how do you spot fake news?
The forerunners of fake news
Fake news has its roots in history. Misinformation, lies and deceit have been around since humankind could speak.
Writing fictional stories that play on people’s fears and constructing outlandish conspiracy theories is not new. Nor is it illegal. Governments and powerful individuals have used information as a weapon to quash dissidence and boost their reputation for millennia.
Bending the truth for political or economic gain can be a part of propaganda, and records of its uses stretch back to ancient times. The Romans were doing it before the birth of Christ. Octavian, for instance, famously used a campaign of disinformation to further his victory over Marc Anthony in the final war of the Roman Republic.
Era of mass communication
In the 15th century, a new force was unleashed. The invention of the printing press launched the era of mass communication. The resulting increase in literacy changed European society for ever, giving rise to new opportunities for circulating information, both true and false.
News sources were available aplenty. They ranged from official publications by political and religious authorities, to eyewitness accounts from sailors and merchants who had travelled overseas.
From these sources, there also flowed exaggerated and false news, from spectacular stories of sea monsters and witches to sensationalist propaganda and outright factual errors.
Snippets of news were usually a single paragraph, some made-up or misleading, and some true but compromising. They reached a peak in eighteenth century London as newspapers began to circulate among a broad public. By 1788, London had ten dailies, eight tri-weeklies, and nine weekly newspapers.
Reliable news and information were hard to verify. There was no concept of journalistic ethics or objectivity and readers in search of fact had to be sceptical and ready to question.
By the early 19th century, printing had expanded, and modern newspapers arrived on the scene peddling scoops, exposés and fabricated stories to increase their circulation.
With the growth of the New York penny press in the 1830s, some newspapers looked to advertising to boost their revenue.
Publishers resorted to ever more distortion and exaggeration, sensationalising news to bump up their readership and attract more advertisers.
This practice gave rise to some of the most memorable media hoaxes and widespread fabrication in the history of news reporting.
One outstanding example is The Great Moon Hoax. Published in the New York Sun over several days in the summer of 1835, the series falsely claimed a highly regarded English astronomer had discovered life on the moon through a giant telescope. This “moon life” reportedly included unicorns, two-legged beavers and flying “man-bats” – furry human-like creatures with big wings.
These strange life forms would not have seemed so ridiculous to people unaware of evolutionary theory and living only 24 years before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species (1859).
The story was believed by hundreds of thousands of readers and republished by several other newspapers worldwide before the hoax was realised. The New York Sun’s circulation increased dramatically setting up the newly emerging paper as an instant success.
Sensationalism has always sold well. As newspapers battled for circulation, distortion and falsification became a fast path to profitability. This practice peaked by the late 19th century.
Even the New York Herald, one of the most widely-read and respected newspapers in the 19th century, got in on the game. A cover story in 1874 claimed animals had escaped from their cages in the Central Park Zoo and were rampaging around New York City killing several people.
The article prompted widespread panic throughout the city. Police were mobilised, schools were closed, and men rushed into the streets with guns to hunt for free-roaming beasts.
By the end of the 19th century, the media had discovered its growing power to manipulate public opinion by sensationalising stories and exciting public emotion for the simple purpose of increasing circulation. This practice became known as “yellow journalism.
This practice peaked in the mid-1890s characterising the sensationalist journalism that arose in the circulation war between Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World and William Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal.
The whole point of yellow journalism was to produce exciting, sensational stories, even if the truth had to be stretched or a story had to be made up. These stories would boost sales, crucial in this period when newspapers and magazines were battling fiercely for readership.
The two proprietors raised their circulation by producing a new kind of newspaper – papers that appealed to the mass-market. They used large headlines with lots of pictures and illustrations and articles that had scant regard for the truth.
Critics accused both papers of exaggerating the news and falsifying information in pursuit of profit, even though they did serious reporting as well.
Because Hearst controlled so much of the market for newspapers, he could practically dictate what the country would think the next day.
Some historians accuse Hearst and Pulitzer of trying to instigate the American war against Spain in 1898 because they believed war would boost the sale of their newspapers. When one of his freelance artists confidently predicted there would be no war, Hearst famously replied, “You furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war.”
The role of the newspaper industry in this war foreshadowed the increasing importance of the media in shaping public opinion with regard to future wars, not least the First and Second World Wars.
Ironically, in later life, Pulitzer redeemed himself by setting up the much-coveted Pulitzer Prize which continues to make annual awards for journalistic excellence.
The return of quality journalism
Inevitably, the appetite for sensationalism began to wane and publishers started to turn their hand at rebuilding public trust.
In 1896, for instance, the ailing New York Times came under new ownership and refocused its efforts on objective journalism and business news.
Other publications followed suit and there followed several decades when readers could buy a newspaper in the expectation of the news actually being accurate and true.
Newspapers reached their peak of importance during the First World War, partly because wartime issues were so urgent and newsworthy.
Following the First Great War, the US economy boomed on the back of mass production techniques and growing efficiency, while the UK faced a period of depression, deflation and economic stagnation, which lead to high unemployment and widespread poverty.
As a result, journalism in Britain began to undergo a similar metamorphosis – but under very different economic circumstances from America’s yellow journalism. This lead to the birth of tabloid journalism.
Free gifts and other inducements
During the 1920s and 1930s, money was scarce, newspaper sales were badly affected and competition for circulation was fierce. The British economy was further hit by the sharp global economic downturn in 1930-31.
And so, publishers were forced to seek alternative ways of maintaining their readership. One ruse was to introduce incentives. The Chronicle had already offered readers who registered with it insurance compensation for the effects of Zeppelin air raids in 1916.
By 1924 most of the London dailies had begun offering bargain insurance inducements. The Mail paid out more than £1 million by 1928 and the Express was not far behind.
Soon new subscribers were being rewarded with a wide range of other free gifts. But this practice backfired.
People started to play the system. They remained registered readers for as long as it took to qualify for these gifts – before shifting their allegiances to a rival newspaper and more free offers.
As a result, a kind of trade war broke out within the newspaper industry, and soon the inducements became of greater significance than quality news.
Stepping up the struggle for readers, the Chronicle, Mail and Express offered a joint edition of Dickens at well below cost price. The Herald responded by offering encyclopaedias, which the Express matched.
Tempting bargains and free gifts were not enough The news content began to change too as news that would entertain as well as inform. Many readers became more accepting of inaccuracies in the news. Soon reliable journalism descended into excessive sensationalism. Bribes were more successful in building up readership than the quality of news.
New article on Tabloid Journalism is in progress